Speaking in Tongues

---

[11:11, 7/23/2021] Gideon Pelser: It all started with the patriarch Abraham. He had a son called Isaac, who in turn had a son called Jacob. Jacob wrestled with God (Gen. 32:22-31) and after this encounter, his name was changed to Israel (vs 28). Thus the Israelites were descendants of Jacob. On the other hand a Jew was originally a citizen of Judah, one of the tribes of Israel (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12). The term however later took on a wider meaning to include all 12 tribes (Ezra 6:14-17), and thus all persons of the Hebrew race in whatever country they lived (Acts 2:10). [11:12, 7/23/2021] Gideon Pelser: Speaking in Tongues The nature and relevance of tongues in the life of the contemporary believer has been a hot topic for more than a century. Some Christians interpret tongues as the initial evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit, while others believe it has ceased. Tongues in Acts • Acts 2: The Holy Spirit endows the speakers to be able to speak other intelligible languages in order to spread the gospel message to those from distant lands. The phrases “every man heard them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6), “how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:8), and “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11), all support this idea. The list of languages in verses 9-11 also reinforces this. Thus the gift of tongues, facilitates mission, reversing what had taken place at Babel when languages drove people apart (Gen. 11). • Acts 10: Paul goes to Caesarea in response to a vision. At a meeting in Cornelius’ home, he heard persons from that household speak in tongues. He responded by saying that those Gentiles “have received the Holy Ghost just as we have” (vs 47), indicating that the manifestation was the same as that which they experienced on the day of Pentecost, as experienced in Acts 2 (cf. Acts 11:15). That is, people heard the message in their own language. Caesarea was a cosmopolitan area where many different groups of people lived, and the gift of tongues was given to bridge that communication barrier. • Acts 19: This story plays out in Ephesus, another multi-cultural setting, and a centre for outreach and evangelism. o The form of the Greek word in vs 6 for ‘spoke’ indicates that those who received the gift, received it not as a single event, but for continuous usage – identical to the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 10. o The Greek word for ‘tongues’ is the usual term also used in Acts 2 and 10 to report the manifestation of the gift on those occasions. Thus Luke wanted his readers to understand that the gift to the believers in Jerusalem (Acts 2), Caesarea (Acts 10) and Ephesus (Acts 19) was the same, viz., that of miraculously speaking in foreign languages. If the manifestation in Acts 19 was different he would have detailed it, seeing that he took such care of recording accurate accounts (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2). o The purpose of the Holy Spirit giving the gift of tongues was to evangelise the city, and beyond. o Tongues is here linked to prophesy (Acts 19:7), the ability to have a word of revelation from the Holy Spirit that enabled them to proclaim the gospel with power and conviction. Note in Acts 2 that Peter connects tongues and prophecy when he quotes from Joel 2 (a chapter that speaks of prophecy and does not mention tongues). Tongues in 1 Corinthians • Paul is addresses several concerns with the Corinthian congregation. Among those concerns was that they abused the gift of tongues to elevate themselves in society rather than to serve others with their gift. Paul is actually rebuking them for their incorrect application of the gift. He started out in 1 Cor. 12 by teaching that the variety of gifts are to be used to serve others, not self (1 Cor. 12:7). He then shows that the different gifts all have the same origin; the Holy Spirit, who decides who receives which gift (v 8-11). Paul then continues to shows how the various gifts should be used to serve the body of believers or the church. He is working towards addressing the issue of tongues in Corinth, but he first wants to show the importance of love as the motivating factor for ministering to others, which is why 1 Cor. 13 separates the teaching on gifts in chapter 12 from the teaching on tongues in chapter 14. • 1 Cor. 13:1: It is claimed that speaking in tongues is the ‘speech of angels in which the secrets of the heavenly world are revealed’. But the clause, ‘if I could speak in the tongues of angels…’, is a hypothetical one. This deals with something that is not a reality. Paul is in essence saying: If I had totality of speech, and could speak all languages (both human and even angelic), and lacked love, it would mean nothing.” The clear supposition is that Paul does not speak in the tongue of angels. Paul is trying to show the ineffectiveness of gifts without love. Paul uses hyperbole in this whole section (13:1-3): Paul never “fathomed all mysteries and all knowledge”, nor “moved mountains”, nor “gave all his possessions to the poor”, nor “surrendered his body to the flames” – but uses these hyperboles to show that even though a person had the gift to its highest manifestation, without love it would mean nothing. 1 Corinthians 14 • The word prophecy in Greek means, to divine, to foretell events, or simply to speak under inspiration. In the context of tongues, the last definition is most suited. Speaking in tongues would also constitute speaking under inspiration and therefore be closely related to prophecy as we have already seen in our consideration of Acts 2 and 19. • The assumption some Christian groups make is that 1 Cor. 14:2 teaches that no one, not even the speaker, understands the language spoken. The speaker babbles mysteries to God that he, and no one else understands. It is best not to consider this verse in isolation but rather to consider verses 2-4 together. Verse 3 makes it clear that the speaker is edified by the tongue spoken. If the tongue is not understood by the speaker, how can it edify him/her? And if the speaker is edified by the unintelligible tongue, why could that same unintelligible language not serve as edification to others? • The tongues in 1 Cor 14 is not ecstatic, but deals with the misuse of known languages. Languages were used that were not understood by the local church (even though the speakers could speak the local language) in order to elevate their status as great orators in the Corinthian society • Tongues and prophecy are the same thing, just the one cannot be understood, while the other can. • Vs 13: “Anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says”. E.g. If a Frenchman goes to Russia, and stands up in a church meeting to speak, no one will understand him, but he can pray and ask God to be able to translate (the word interpret in Greek really means translate) French in Russian. • The purpose of language is to convey meaning. It seems reasonable to interpret verse 2 as the speaker understanding what he/she is saying, but others may not understand the language spoken, and are therefore not edified. The use of the term tongue in 1 Cor. 14 would then convey the idea that the audience does not understand the meaning of the words spoken because the language is foreign to them. Vs 2 can be outlined as follows: o “For he who speaks in a tongue [a known human language, but unknown to the hearer] does not speak to men but to God [since the hearer does not understand the language. God, who understands all languages, however does], for no one understands him [because he is speaking a language unknown to the hearers]; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries [i.e. through the power and enablement of the Holy Spirit (remember tongues is a spiritual gift given by the Spirit), he shares the mysteries of the gospel (cf. Rom 16:25, Eph 1:9, Col 1:27, 2:2)] o Note that the word ‘unknown’ in 1 Cor. 14:2 in the King James Version is supplied and not in the original. • Prophecy on the other hand, serves to edify, exhort and comfort the hearer and can only do so if the audience understands the meaning of the words spoken. It follows then that, in contrast to the term tongues in chapter 14 which refers to a foreign language which is not understood, prophecy refers to an inspired message which is understood and therefore can edify, exhort, and comfort the hearers. • This idea resonates with verse 5 which puts prophecy above tongues because of its value for edification. Remember that 1 Cor. 12-14 forms a unit and chapter 12 established that the spiritual gifts are not meant to be used for oneself but is meant for the “common good” (12:7); therefore tongues, if used for the sake of edifying self, is misapplying the gift. Verse 5 however allows for tongues in a congregational setting as long as the tongue or language is interpreted. The term “interpret” in Greek means to explain thoroughly, or to translate. This means that a language not understood by the congregation should be translated for the sake of the edification of the audience. • If tongues were indeed a prayer or devotional language meant for speaking mysteries to God one would have to ask yourself what purpose would it have if the speaker does not even understand the meaning, and why, if this were the purpose, should that type of communication need to be interpreted for the whole congregation? • Prophecy, because it is understood, is greater than tongues which may be inspired but not understood. The emphasis is intelligibility, and Paul will continue to focus on this aspect from here on forward. • Paul’s teaching in verse 6 continues with the emphasis on being intelligible to others. Again tongues, if not understood by the audience, is of no value until it becomes revelation, knowledge, prophecy or doctrine – which by definition has to be understood to be that. To drive his point home, Paul uses a metaphor of musical instruments in verse 7 and 8. If the sound does not make sense, there is no message in it. In ancient times a trumpet would sound if a city was under attack or if a fire broke out in the city and the tune played on it would convey the nature of the danger. Here Paul makes clear that the sound of the trumpet, if it is not clear in its message, would be of no use. It is this principle he applies to tongues in verse 9, stating that if the message of the tongues is not intelligible, the tongues would be worthless and the speaker would be speaking in the air. • Verse 10 to 12 drives this point home by saying all languages has meaning, but if the meaning is not understood, there can be no message conveyed, and Paul urges that we should seek to be understood in the congregation for the sake of the edification of those present. • Vss 13-17 is most often used to support the view that tongues are meant as a private devotional prayer language. We should however consider if the context shows the tongues to be used in private or in public. The evidence from verses 16 and 17 makes it clear that the person praying is not alone, it is in a corporate setting. Verses 14-15 can be paraphrased as follows: o 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays [i.e. my inner being connected with God, under the influence of the Spirit], but my understanding is unfruitful [because it is not understood by my hearers] 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding [I will ensure that people understand what I am saying]. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.” • Vs 17: Amen: Means they understand and are in agreement. Amen cannot be said when there is no understanding of the language. • Paul is not opposed to tongues due to its missionary value, but he is opposed to tongues being used in a congregational setup without interpretation. • Vs 21 states that the gift of tongues is not a sign to believers but to non-believers. Imagine how powerful an impression to an unbeliever to hear someone fluently speaking his/her language, or other languages. It surely would draw attention to the content of the message. Prophesying however benefits the believer since its key purpose is to build up the church. • To regulate what the misuse of tongues in 1 Cor. 14 Paul puts certain measures in place: o Speaking in tongues should be practised one by one and consecutively, not simultaneously (vs 27) o If there is no interpreter, the speaker should remain silent (vs 28). E.g. if someone speaks French, and has a word from God, he would ask if there was an interpreter in the audience who could translate from French to the predominant language of the audience. If there was no such person, he would sit down and speak directly to God, who understands French. • Note that no single ancient manuscript uses tongues to mean ecstatic language Conclusion • The Bible consistently interprets tongues within the context of known human languages • It is a spiritual gift, and this therefore means: o Not everyone receives the same gift, and thus not everyone will receive the gift of tongues. The Holy Spirit determines to whom it will be given (1 Cor. 12:27-30) o It is not for personal edification (for the person’s own benefit), but has an outward, missionary purpose (like all other spiritual gifts). It was intended to empower people to spread the gospel without the hinderances of human language. • Tongues should be practised in love • The situation in 1 Cor. 14 is a misuse of tongues, which Paul tried to correct in that chapter. Some have suggested that tongues are meant to protect our prayers from Satan’s ears (Romans 8:26). But this text clearly shows that: • The groanings cannot be uttered • The groanings are of the Holy Spirit, not the believer A few final points: 1. God is not a God of confusion. Matt 6:7 warns against “babbling.” 2. Psychologists and linguists say that there is no language pattern in the modern tongues. 3. Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit but did not speak in tongues (babbling) or teach that the Spirit would lead us to babbling. Instead He said the Spirit key roles are to glorify Jesus (John 16:14), and lead people into truth (John 16:13) and obedience (Eze. 36:27).