Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”; and, “This is the place of repose”— but they would not listen.
- Isaiah 28:11-12
Speaking in tongues is the least understood, least talked about, and, according to Paul, the least important spiritual gift. And yet, entire doctrines are established around it. Its importance is greatly magnified, and we start an unhealthy habit of majoring on the minors. God is telling us quite simply that he is the resting place, but so frequently we don’t listen and dwell on insignificant doctrines to include/exclude ourselves and our neighbors from salvation.
Paul gives us all of the information we need to understand what speaking in tongues means, and the Old Testament gives us an example of it being used. In this post, we’re going to look at what speaking in tongues really looks like, what the sign of tongues is for, and how we can steer back our focus to the simple, powerful message of Christ: he is the resting place.
Are we sure this happens in the Old Testament?
Many commentators will answer this question with a resounding no, and the reason cited it that speaking in tongues only appears after Pentecost. And this would be a convincing argument if all of the spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit only occurred after Pentecost as well. But that’s not true.
To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.
– 1 Corinthians 12:8-10
Before Pentecost, in the Old Testament, how did Isaiah prophesy? How did Samson destroy the Philistine temple? How did Abraham have faith in God? How did Solomon have such divine wisdom? These feats all come from an indwelling spirit that has been with us since the beginning:
By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;
His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.– Job 26:13
Therefore, speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift that Pentecost didn’t invent. Paul is able to list all of the gifts because he understands what the Holy Spirit has done in the Old Testament.
What does speaking in tongues look like?
What do you imagine when you think about speaking in tongues? Most likely you think about ecstatic utterances, unintelligible words, or the speaking of a heavenly language.
The thing is, there is no mention of a heavenly language in the Bible, no scripture that shows this being used through the Holy Spirit. When we see the word tongues used in the New Testament, the original Greek word is γλῶσσα, transliterated as glossa, it has two meanings depending on the very simple context of either anatomy or language:
1) The tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
2) The language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.
– Strong’s Concordance, reference #1100
Wherever you see the word tongues in the New Testament, it means either the physical tongue, or a human, natural language. This is the word the original authors of the Bible chose to use. Therefore, at Pentecost, the apostles spoke human languages:
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language?”
– Acts 2:4-8
Jesus, who exemplifies all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, doesn’t use ecstatic utterances or a heavenly language ever. But he speaks in foreign languages:
We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
Then I asked, “Who are you, Lord?”
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”
– Acts 26:14-15
Do you really think we can do more than what Jesus did? More than the apostles? More than what the Holy Spirit provides?
Is speaking in tongues a sign of salvation?
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.
– 1 Corinthians 14:22
We always want more signs that we’re saved! Everyone wants a sign. Everyone wants something tangible to prove they’re saved. Everyone wants a sign that God is real, that Jesus is God, and that their baptism worked. Jesus was so sick of this sentiment:
“Evil and unfaithful people look for a miraculous sign. But the only sign they will be given is that of Jonah.”
Then he left them standing there and went away.
– Matthew 16:4
The only sign we’re given for our salvation is the sign of Jonah, the sign of a transformed life. Is a broken, sinful life, transformed in Christ and renewed in righteousness not enough for us? Speaking in tongues is a sign for unbelievers, not a sign for believers to validate themselves.
Is speaking in tongues okay without interpretation?
Does speaking in tongues without anyone to interpret build up the church?
Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me.
So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
– 1 Corinthians 14:9-12
The Old Testament shows us a real-world example of speaking in another language, in a way that builds up the church through both the tongues and the interpreter:
Then all the king’s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or tell the king what it meant. So King Belshazzar became even more terrified and his face grew more pale. His nobles were baffled.
– Daniel 5:8-9
You did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways. Therefore he sent the hand that wrote the inscription.
This is the inscription that was written:
MENE, MENE, TEKEL, PARSIN
Here is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Tekel: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
– Daniel 5:24-28
Here, God himself uses tongues! And Daniel interprets. Imagine if God wrote those words and Daniel never interpreted them. It would have been meaningless. Even still, God wasn’t using a secret, heavenly language. He used Aramaic, which the king couldn’t understand, to allow his prophet an audience to speak.
So many of us believe that speaking in tongues without anyone understanding is from God. Paul says otherwise:
For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.
– 1 Corinthians 14:13-14
When you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?
You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.
– 1 Corinthians 14:16-17
Should we actively seek to speak in tongues?
Paul, who could speak many different languages, says this:
I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.
– 1 Corinthians 14:18-19
And he further continues to place far more importance on apostles, prophets, and teachers in the church, than in the spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages:
And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts.
– 1 Corinthians 12:38-41
What should we focus on?
This is the great issue I mentioned at the beginning of this post: majoring on the minors. Paul uses Isaiah to explain why tongues are a sign strictly for unbelievers, and how it’s childish to think that it’s an ecstatic utterance of a made-up, meaningless language that no one can interpret:
Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. In the Law it is written:
“With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.
– 1 Corinthians 14:20-22
The law quoted is from Isaiah, who faced a similar issue. Isaiah shared the message of God, and the response of Ephraim and Judah was childish. “Who is he trying to teach?” They mock. “To children weaned from their milk?” Isaiah writes:
Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people, to whom he said, “This is the resting place, let the weary rest”; and, “This is the place of repose”— but they would not listen.
So then, the word of the Lord to them will become: Do this, do that, a rule for this, a rule for that; a little here, a little there— so that as they go they will fall backward; they will be injured and snared and captured.”
– Isaiah 28:11-13
God has but one simple message for us today on the topic of tongues: This is the resting place, let the weary rest. But so many of us see God’s word and see “Do this, do that” or “follow all these rules” and they become snared and captured. They focus on the tongues, they focus on the signs, and it distracts from the entire purpose of Christ’s message. After death when we face judgement, God won’t ask if we ever spoke in tongues. The thief on the cross didn’t speak in tongues. Instead, when we die, God will say this:
Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.”
– Matthew 25:34-36
Dave Aldon 
Great exposition, thank you! and God Bless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thank you for to giving me more understanding concerning the gift of tongues. I remember I asked to young lady did she understand the gift of tone. She said that she never heard of the gift of Tongue. I see that churches do not even understand the gifts of tongues. I thank you for to enlighten me with that progressive revelation concerning the Old testament where the apostle Paul was getting the information from. Do you have more information concerning the gifts of tongues concerning what you was written today. Thank you
LikeLike
I love the article. It was well written in the manner of providing various supporting scriptures to create a balanced conclusion, in which the Disciple of Christ is to focus on the LORD (Hebrews 12:3, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). However, I couldn’t help but realise you left out an elephant in the room in terms of support scriptures which I think if a ‘tongues’ speaking Christian was to read this article, will use to disregard everything you have said. That is, 1 Corinthians 14:2-4, especially verses 2 and 4. I wonder why you didn’t tackle that in your article?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for reading, I’m glad you enjoyed it. Your question is really good! I think any discussion that goes over other areas that might have been missed is always welcome, because it’s hard to tackle everything all at once.
Specifically for the passage you referenced, Paul is revealing the contrast between prophecy and tongues with regards to their audience. The Corinthian church was over-emphasizing tongues, and under-emphasizing prophecy at the time. I think this is a very common problem today, making this letter highly relevant.
The verses include “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God,” and “In the spirit he speaks mysteries.” Scripture itself contains mysteries, that doesn’t mean it’s a hidden language. Jesus tells us:
“Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” – Matthew 13:11
This is why I believe Paul said speaking in tongues would mean also speaking mysteries. The audience of tongues are unbelievers, who Jesus said the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have not been given to.
As for speaking to God and not man, our audience, when the Holy Spirit enables us to miraculously speak in other languages, is God. That is very true. We see this again at Pentecost:
“We hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” – Acts 2:11
“For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” – Acts 10:46
The disciples were praising God. They were speaking to God. The people in the audience could understand them in their own languages, which edifies the Church. In contrast, the audience of prophecy is people, where we speak the truth from God to others, through the Holy Spirit.
I believe the answer to your question reveals more of the intricacies of spiritual gifts that have clearly caused the original Churches to stumble. And I hope I’ve kept that underlying message clearer in the original post. Using tongues as a means to prove your salvation, or to make a show in the Church, as Paul laid out, is meaningless. If someone seeks tongues so dearly, they should be asking themselves why they are not seeking prophecy more, and fulfilling the great commission to people outside the Church. The verses continue in showing the greater power of prophecy:
“But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.”
Thank you for your question!
LikeLike
1 Corinthians 14 and verse 4
In 1 Corinthians 14:4a, it is said that the “one who speaks in a γλώσσῃ/glṓssē (language/tongue) edifies himself (ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομε/heauton oikodomei).” The word οἰκοδομέω/oikodomeó (BDAG, s.v. §3), in a metaphorical sense, means “building up,” “strengthening,” “benefiting” (cf. 1 Cor 14:17). He is getting “built up/strengthened” in the process of his speaking, before even the translation occurs, and pursuant to that, once they understand, the hearers get the same benefit of being “built up/strengthened” (1 Cor 14:5c). Therefore, it’s hard to argue that the speaker doesn’t understand what he is saying when he gets the “benefit” of being “built up” and “strengthened” before the translation even takes place. The translation is not for the speaker’s “benefit”—he’s already received the “benefit.” In the context of 1 Corinthians 14 then, why do some insist that it’s a language not understood by the speaker, when the text seems to be clear that it’s rather a language not understood by the hearers?
Speaking one’s mother tongue (i.e., a language foreign to the listeners) can edify the speaker. Gill (1746–1748, col 14:4; so also Clarke, 1967:1117 and Lightfoot, 1859:258ff) on 1 Corinthians 14:4 suggested that it may be “the Hebrew language.” Gill (1746–1748, col 14:4) commentates on the phrase “edifieth himself” (1 Cor 14:4) that “his heart may be warmed, his affections raised, his devotion kept up, and he be in a very spiritual and comfortable frame, knowing and understanding what he himself says.” Barnes (1949:260–261) assumes a foreign language(s) and on “edifieth himself” remarks that, “His own holy affections might be excited by the truths which he would deliver.” Pursuant to that, an ability to speak and translate various languages would be of considerable benefit to a multi-lingual church.
In contrasting the verse two λαλῶν γλώσσῃ (lalōn glōssē) and the verse three προφητεύων (prophēteuōn), the outcome is that in the verse two instance there is self-edification (cf. 1 Cor 14:4a) and in the verse three situation there is group edification (cf. 1 Cor 14:4b). The only difference in input is intelligibility leading to understanding (cf. 1 Cor 14:2 with no understanding versus 1 Cor 14:3 the resultant edification, exhortation and consolation). Interpreted γλώσσῃ (i.e., intelligibility) gives the same result of edification based on understanding (cf. 1 Cor 14:5). The converse scenario in 1 Cor 14:6 establishes the same principle—intelligibility to understanding to edification. In the equation, the edification can only come if there’s intelligibility and the consequent understanding of what was said.
In Corinth, if there is the unintelligibility of a minority Greek dialect (or Hebrew), not understood by the congregants (whose majority language may be the Doric dialect as explained extensively in previous chapter 3.5 of my book), then there can be no edification. In short form, if there is no understanding of what the person is saying, edification is obstructed.
The context of 1 Corinthians 14:2 indicates that ἀκούω/akouo means what is heard and intelligible and therefore understood (Gardner, 2018:591). The speaker comprehending what he speaks is borne out by the illustration of 1 Corinthians 14:9 (“intelligible speech”) and the hypothetical summary of 1 Corinthians 14:17 (“giving thanks well”). How do you know that you’re “giving thanks well” (καλῶς εὐχαριστεῖς/kalōs eucharisteis) unless you understand what you’re saying?
From a reverse engineering perspective, because of the tight interconnected sequence outlined above, the end result of “edifies himself” (1 Cor 14:4) means that the speaker’s “understanding was effectual” and what the speaker said was at least intelligible to himself (Masters & Whitcomb, 1982:50–51). (In the previous exegetical analysis of 1 Corinthians 14:2b in my book, the exceptions to the “no one understands” clause of that verse two were explained.)
Packer (1985:208-209) asserts that: “It is hard to believe that in verse 4 Paul can mean that the glossolalists who do not know what they are saying will edify themselves, when in verse 5 he denies that the listening church can be edified unless it knows what they are saying. But if in verse 4 Paul has in view tongues speakers who understand their tongues, today’s Charismatics cannot regard his words as giving them any encouragement, for they confessedly do not understand their own glossalalia.”
Keener (2005:113) wiggles in here that this λαλῶν γλώσσῃ/lalōn glōssē (speaking in languages) can be done privately, which is in contradiction of this chapter being Paul’s advice for the conduct of the gathered assembly. Similarly, Fee (2014:729) appears to let his Pentecostal bias intrude and states that Paul indicates “tongues have value for the individual, meaning in private, personal prayer” and cites 1 Corinthians 14:14–15 and 18–19, setting aside the scholarly consensus, and his own general view, that this chapter 14 is the Apostle Paul’s advice for the conduct of the gathered assembly. This “private, personal prayer” notion accords with Fee’s own confession (1976:122) that “in general the Pentecostal’s experience has preceded their hermeneutics. In a sense, the Pentecostal tends to exegete his or her experience.”
Taylor (2014:325) makes the appropriate point that the Apostle Paul “insists that intelligibility is essential to edification when so expressed (14:13–17), which raises doubts about incomprehensible private tongues as a means of self-edification. If intelligibility is essential to edification corporately (14:6–19), why would unintelligibility be acceptable privately if Paul is conceding that the one who speaks in tongues edifies himself in a positive sense? In other words, if uninterpreted tongues cannot edify the church, then how can tongues edify the individual privately apart from comprehension?”
Dr. Maurice Vellacott https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott
LikeLike
Tempted to disregard whole article. I don’t have all the answers for speaking in Tongues but once in my home I had a pentacost experience but speaking syllables I didn’t understand uncontrollably. Doesn’t line up with your thinking but it truly happened. Which doesn’t line up with your thinking 🤔
LikeLike
I certainly don’t doubt any personal experiences you’ve had. Were you alone when this happened? If so, consider what scripture says about these things:
“For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” – 1 Corinthians 14:13-14
“When you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer, say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified.” – 1 Corinthians 14:16-17
I do my best to reference as much scripture as I can so that I’m not coming to conclusions contrary to the Bible. However, that doesn’t mean I do it perfectly, and would like to understand more about if you’re disagreeing with Paul’s writing for example, or my referencing of Paul.
LikeLike
As with Dave Aldon, I cannot make a definitive judgement on whatever experience you’ve had. However, Ricky, we shouldn’t let our experience interpret Scripture. That’s letting “the tail wag the dog” or “getting the cart before the horse,” as they say. The novel and modern innovation of “tongues/languages” of the last 145 years, does not appear to be what was going on in the Pauline-founded Corinthian church of the first century AD.
Ricky, witch doctors have spoken in “tongues.” Mormons have spoken in “tongues” and have it in their LDS doctrinal statement. Unbelieving university students have been taught to speak in “tongues.” Christians, under peer pressure, have been coached to speak in “tongues.” There is such a thing as “free vocalization” which anybody can do and improve at and is therapeutic for some people. My point is that, without doubt, we know that not all supposed “tongues” are of God.
Besides, the Greek term “glossa” (singular) or “glossai” (plural) in the Bible refers to the physical organ of speech or “language/languages” and is understood that way in all other places in the accepted canonical writings of the New Testament (e.g. Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, 17:15), leaving aside the disputed Corinthians references for the moment.
None of the other New Testament authors nor does the Apostle Paul, in all his other subsequent epistles mention this problem of untranslated languages. In that cosmopolitan, multilingual city of Corinth, the problem arose because of pompous, egotistical new believers inconsiderately speaking their incomprehensible Greek dialect or publicly reading the Older Testament Scripture out of the Hebrew scrolls WITHOUT TRANSLATION. Fellow believers were not edified and built up in the new-found faith and that was the Apostle Paul’s crucial concern. In 1 Corinthians 14:18-19, Paul said he spoke in more languages than any other Corinthian believer and maybe more than all of them put together (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, Greek and several Greek dialects), yet he would rather speak 5 words, with his mind, in order to instruct, rather than 10,000 words in a language, that was not understood by the assembled believers. The following church history does not attest to the modern, innovation of Pentecostal/Charismatic “tongues” that surfaced at Azusa in 1906.
Comprehensive linguistic, cultural, historical, contextual, exegetical and translational research weighs against the view that the “tongues” were “heavenly languages,” as claimed by Pentecostals/Charismatics. Primary sources indicate that this novel trend was started about 145 years ago by German, higher-critical scholars and seized upon after the 1906-1915 Los Angeles Azusa Street Revival’s supposed supernaturally endowed earthly languages proved to be a mirage, whereupon a redefinition to “heavenly/angelic, non-earthly languages” occurred. This book soundly establishes the credibility of an ancient third view regarding “tongues”—that they were non-supernatural, learned, earthly languages. This is arguably the earliest view of New Testament tongues/languages.Ricky, 1 Corinthians chapter 14 was Paul’s instruction for the new Corinthian believers in their public gatherings. It was not regarding personal devotions in your home or some private setting. Ricky, your experience may or may not be of God, but whatever it is, it is not likely what occurred in the Pauline-founded cosmopolitan, multilingual Corinthian church of the first century AD.
Dr. Maurice Vellacott https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott
LikeLike
Paul is also addressing things done in a messy manner, he concludes:
1 Cor 14:39-40 39 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 Cor. 14 and verse 39
“Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues” (NASV and similarly other English versions). In respect to the translation “do not forbid to speak in tongues” (τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις), Isbell (1975:19) points out several problems which such a translation doesn’t solve, the first being “that the Greek text does not contain a simple, uninterrupted phrase such as lalein glṓssais [λαλεῖν γλώσσαις].” Instead, there is a complete grammatical unit, specifically μὴ κωλύετε (mē kōlyete), which appears between the two words λαλεῖν (lalein)and γλώσσαις (glṓssais) which are normally spoken and written closely together (Isbell, 1975: 19). Consequently, a normally simple phrase, λαλεῖν γλώσσαις (lalein glṓssais) has the entire phrase τὸ λαλεῖν μὴ κωλύετε γλώσσαις broken in the middle by a negative particle and an imperative (μὴ κωλύετε/mē kōlyete).
Secondly, there is the meaning of the Greek verb κωλύω. The verb κωλύω (kólyó) is not always translated “forbid” in the New Testament. Acts 11:17 provides a clear example of another meaning which the word can convey. The Apostle Peter says there, “If God therefore gave to them [the Gentiles] the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could κωλῦσαι/kōlysai God?” Peter certainly was not capable of “forbidding” God to offer salvation to the Gentiles, but he could have seemingly “hindered” or “impeded” God’s intent by refusal to cooperate (Isbell, 1975: 19). Since κωλύω (kólyó) does not always mean “forbid,” it is fair to challenge whether that’s the intent in 1 Corinthians 14:39.
Arguing for the substantival quality of τὸ λαλεῖν/to lalein, based on the nominal quality of the articular infinitive τὸ λαλεῖν/lalein and given the fact that λαλεῖν elsewhere in the chapter (1 Cor 14:3, 19) alludes to προφητεύων/prophēteuōn, Isbell (1975: 19) contends that it is not incongruous to argue that τὸ λαλεῖν/to lalein in verse 39 refers, not to γλώσσαις/glṓssais (languages/tongues), but to προφητεύειν/prophēteuein (prophesy). A resulting translation would be: “So, my brothers, desire earnestly to prophesy and to speak, don’t hinder/impede [prophecy] with languages (γλώσσαις/glṓssais).” I would understand this to say that, the Apostle Paul, in summary, was making clear that his preceding injunctions were not meant as a carte blanche, with complete freedom to act as one wanted, in respect to γλώσσαις (languages/tongues). In the Corinthian assembly meetings, the inordinate use of “languages” and the consequent required translation should not take up so much time that it would dominate the meetings and get in the way of the straightforward prophetic word.
We have no clear indication that the Apostle Paul nor anyone at Corinth was trying to forbid γλώσσαις/glṓssais (languages), so this is a more fitting conclusion to what Paul had argued throughout this entire chapter (Isbell, 1975: 19). Calvin (1573:368) would agree, when on 1 Corinthians 14:5, he asserted “that we must not be so taken up with the use of languages, as to treat with neglect prophecy, which ought to have the first place.” On 1 Corinthians 12:31, Calvin (1573:349) says the fault prevailed among them “that they aimed at show, rather than usefulness. Hence prophecy was neglected, while languages sounded forth among them, with great show, indeed, but with little profit.” This supports the view of 1 Corinthian 14:39 that untranslated “languages” were getting in the way of prophecy, and the idea of “hindering,” therefore reading the verse as “So, my brothers, desire earnestly to prophesy and to speak, don’t hinder/impede [prophecy] with languages (γλώσσαις/glṓssais).”
In His Service, Dr. Maurice Vellacott https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott
LikeLike
Am bless by this topic “tongue” my question. Why in 1 Corinthians 14:28 do that mean we speak not tongue at church or what does mean? Let me know please because many Christians stop speaking in tongues for that reason saying, ‘ if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God’. That wrong understanding is in Christians mind for they are not use the gift of Holy Spirit (tongue). And some of them who still speaking in tongues stop speaking it in church, only at personally prayer or at home. I wish you answering me!
LikeLike
1 Corinthians 14 and verse 28
Dear Stephen, this verse is not support for γλῶσσαι (glṓssai) as “the language of prayer and praise, directed toward God alone, . . . in the setting of personal prayer and devotion” which a believer uses to edify herself/himself as Fee holds (2014:728). Such an interpretation doesn’t harmonize with the rest of 1 Corinthians 14. It can’t be a private prayer language if it is to be translated (1 Corinthians 14:13–17), although glossolalic proponents try to get around this by saying that it only needs to be translated in a congregational setting. It can’t be a private prayer language if uninterpreted γλῶσσαι (glṓssai) stands “for a sign . . . to unbelievers” (1 Corinthians 14:22). It would appear not to be a private prayer language when the New Testament is clear that the Spirit’s manifestations (φανέρωσις/phanerōsis) are for the corporate benefit (συμφέρον/sympheron), not for self-edification (1 Corinthians 12:7). The Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12:11 and 12:28–29, is unequivocal that all do not speak in languages (γλῶσσαι/glṓssai). How could γλῶσσαι/glṓssai be for every believer’s private self-edification when the expected answer to Paul’s questions (1 Cor 12:30) is that not all believers speak in “languages.”
Ciampa and Rosner (2010:Kindle Location 16451) concede that “the whole passage [1 Corinthians 14] is about what should take place during the church meeting.”
In 1 Corinthians 14:28: “Speaking ‘to oneself’ is a “dative of advantage” (Greek ἑαυτῷ, see Blass et al., 1961:101, §188 (2)). The “dative of advantage” simply means that it is in the individual’s best interest to “speak to himself and to God” in the assembly when there is no one there to translate for him. Paul doesn’t mention doing this at home but only that the speaker must keep silent in the church; and in his thoughts speak to himself and to God right there (Taylor, 2014:382).
On the phrase “But if there is no interpreter” (1 Cor 14:28), Clarke (1967:1119) writes: “If there be none present who can give the proper sense of this Hebrew reading and speaking, then let him keep silence, and not occupy the time of the Church, by speaking in a language which only himself can understand.” The person who is hoping to speak should know in advance if there is anyone in attendance who knows the language he intends to speak plus the majority language of the assembly well enough to translate for him (Blackwelder, 1971:67). If not, he stays seated and “commune[s] with himself, and with God” (Barnes, 1949:272).
Stephen, if you just read the word “languages” (proper translation for the underlying Greek term “glossai”) in every place in 1 Corinthians 14 where the translators have erroneously hung on to the word “tongues,” everything would be much clearer for you. You’d see it for what it was, a cosmopolitan, multilingual church congregation, where there needed to be the respectful translation of any language which was not understood by most of the congregation. The largely English-speaking evangelical church where I’m a member follows this pattern, where we have many dear friends and visitors whose first language is Mandarin, so in the Scripture reading Sunday morning, we have the Mandarin up on the overhead screen, and also Mandarin overhead when baptismal candidates share their testimony, plus live Mandarin translation of the Pastor’s message of the previous week in a separate service.
Back in the 1611 when the King James Version was first translated, “tongues” meant “languages” not some mystical, esoteric, extraterrestrial experience. In fact, the King James translators in their preface said that they diligently did the translation out of the “original tongues.” They were obviously referring to translating out of the Hebrew and some verses of Aramaic for the Old Testament and translating out of the Greek for the New Testament. The archaic language of the King James Version has created significant misunderstanding around this Greek term “glossai.” In my home city, if you asked a new acquaintance what “tongues” he spoke, he’d at first be puzzled by your question. When he finally realized that you were actually asking him what languages he speaks, he’d tell you English, Mandarin, Cantonese or whatever “languages” he was conversant in. In the English of the King James era, tongues” meant “languages” and that’s how we should translate it today. It would have saved a whole lot of confusion if the modern translator had updated their language as they do with most every other word.
Stephen, depending how good your English is, you may want to purchase my recently released Wipf and Stock book titled “The Earliest View of New Testament Tongues: Understood as Non-Supernatural, Learned Earthly Languages.” It would be quite helpful in response to a number of the questions raised in this good blog of brother Dave Aldon. I asked for Amazon to make the Kindle version available as a Christmas Season Special at their lowest allowable price, which is $2.99 USD ($4.19 CAD).
In His Service, Dr. Maurice Vellacott https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott
LikeLike
https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott
LikeLike