THE GIFT OF TONGUES - Let Us Reason

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author attempts to explain tongues, and we are happy that he refers to and quotes a lot of Scripture. 

Though he fails to make his case, and sometimes contradicts himself and/or the Scriptures, he is remarkably thorough in his attempt. This is refreshing considering the superficial analyses generally offered by cessationists.

The reader may wish to review our topical cessationism series, as well as everything we have written about cessationism.

-----------------

First of all I’m not a cessationist, (Though his explanations are definitely cessationist.)

I believe that many of the spiritual gifts are still operating today. (The author will never tell us which ones.)

But neither am I an extremist, we have need to be balanced, (Actually, we need to be biblical.)

especially when participating in the supernatural. There is a great divide on this issue. On one hand you have those who see the extremes and disbelieve all of it because of the abuses. On the other hand you have those who make the spiritual gifts a measurement of proof that one is spiritual. (Most charismatics are generally very careful to point out that the spiritual gifts are not a measure of maturity.)

The fact is, some of the most unspiritual acting people and teachings comes from those claiming to be Pentecostals who are under the influence of the Spirit. (An argument from contemporary expressions, which has nothing to do with the biblical case.)

The baptism of the Spirit came first to those in the upper room where tongues of fire appeared along with the gift. If one insists that tongues must be the sign proving the Spirit is received, (Though many charismatics believe this, we don't. 

Pentecostals and charismatics do look to Tongues as an authentication of being baptized with the Holy Spirit, but we don't find such evidence in the Bible. The distinction between being filled with the Spirit and being baptized by the Spirit is discussed here.

The Tongues of Acts are not the gift of tongues. 1 Corinthians is where we derive our doctrine of tongues as a gift operating in the gathering of the saints. And here there is no mention of a second experience that was evidenced by tongues. Nowhere in 1 Corinthians is the pouring out of the Holy Spirit connected with tongues. There is simply nothing.

The distribution of the gifts is a work of the Holy Spirit. Not all Christians must speak in Tongues. The charismatic "baptism of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in Tongues" is deemed a faulty understanding. Again we refer the reader to our presentation regarding the baptism of the Holy Spirit.)

then they need to include “tongues of fire” as a continuing event as well. (Why? In every instance in Acts where someone spoke in tongues, no tongues of fire manifested. The author is wrong.)

Since the first time tongues was given to multiple saints at the same time the fire (shekinah glory ) was seen over their heads.

When we see the tongues first being used, it was at Pentecost. The apostles had already spoken in tongues in the upper room. Acts 2:4 and then Peter proceeded to explain what had occurred. The miracle of tongues was that those who spoke them did not know the language but those who heard understood them in their own language vs.8,11. There was no interpreter. So tongues were a known languages but unknown to those who spoke it. They spoke in languages of their day, not ancient ones, not an unknown one.

This is the only biblical example we have of what was spoken as a tongue. (No, Acts does not record what was spoken. We only find that things were spoken in other languages. The only hint as to what was spoken is Ac. 2:11:

" ...we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”)

(...)

It is not the gift of translation (There is no gift of translation. It is the gift of interpretation.)

(...)

1 Cor.14 are the instructions used to correct the Corinthian church from their misuse of this gift. It is just as pertinent today as it was then. Tongues are a gift in Greek Charisma meaning grace gift. If it is of grace it cannot be earned so we cannot demand it or even seek it (1Co. 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.)

because everything of grace is freely given, God distributes his gifts as he wills, (1 Cor.12:11) He chooses who will have a certain gift, He decides which he sees to be best for us. We as individuals are never encouraged to pursue a specific gift. (1Co. 14:1 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.)

As an assembly we are to pursue the best gifts (The author previously wrote: If it is of grace it cannot be earned so we cannot demand it or even seek it. So which is it, sir?)

which from Paul's view are to build up the body. (1 Cor.12:31) Paul is just as concerned over the motivation to exercise the gift correctly (in love) as the gift itself.

There is no such thing as an unknown tongue. (1Co. 14:2 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.

"Mysteries" is mustérion, a mystery or secret doctrine. "No one" is "no one." No one understands, so these mysteries cannot be a human language.)

The word, unknown, appears in italics indicating it is an addition to the text to try and explain something that the translators thought it said. If it is a tongue it has to be known since the word means language and languages are for communication. (1Co. 14:2 ...Indeed, no-one understands him...)

Our example is the fact that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were the languages of men. They understood what they were saying in their own language. (Acts 2:5) (Which is why the gift of interpretation is absent.)

They are not some ecstatic utterance that no one knows. God is a God of revelation and communication to man to reveal himself. 1 Cor. 12 states this gift of languages as “kinds of tongues” vs.10 and diversities of tongues” vs.28. The word is glossa in Greek means a language used by a particular people that distinguished it from other ones. The word for “kind” and “diversities” in Greek is yenos which means a race, stock, family, nationality. (Why would Paul write different kinds of tongues, and not different tongues? The Greek reads, allō de prophēteia allō de diakriseis pneumatōn heterō genē glōssōn allō de hermēneia glōssōn, which is, "and to another, prophecy, and to another, distinguishing spirits, and to another, different kinds of a language, and to another, interpretation of a language..." 

Notice the presence of the word heterō ("different kinds"), appearing uniquely for tongues. Paul modifies the word tongues with "different kinds." He essentially says, "a variety of a variety of language." This is not redundant. Paul intentionally characterizes tongues as being not only a variety of languages, but a variety of variety.

We believe that this was because there must be tongues that "no one" understands.)

All this points to it being the language of man. (1Co. 14:2 ...Indeed, no-one understands him...)

1 Cor. 14:1-5 Paul uses the Greek word glossa meaning tongue; Luke uses this word and further defines it as being a dialektos (Acts 1:19; 2:6,8; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), a word which in every case refers to the language of a nation or a region (cf. Arndt, p. 184).

In 1 Cor.12:10 Paul mentions the word glossa and then talks about the interpretation of languages. The word for language in Greek is hermeneuo which means translation, (No. We can look at Strong's for ourselves. hermēneía – an interpretation, giving the gist of a message rather than a strict translation; an equivalent meaning, rather than a "word-for-word" rendering.)

which shows it is not several syllables repeated fast but to give understanding. Paul quotes in 1 Cor.14:21 and the prophecy of Isa.28:11. With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people.” God is saying he will speak to the people of Israel through the tongue of the Assyrian proving that this is a language. (Let's look at the passage:

Is. 28:10-11 For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; [Hebrew: sav lasav sav lasav kav lakav kav lakav (possibly meaningless sounds; perhaps a mimicking of the prophet’s words); also in verse 13] a little here, a little there.” 11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people...

This is not a known language! And Paul appeals to this Scripture and these nonsense words to document tongues.)

God does not give a gift which would be unknown to the one using it and to others hearing it. (1Co. 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.)

It would do no good at all since God's word is for communication. (Thus the gift of interpretation!)

Heb.1:1 tells us “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son.” Would God who has given us such a revelation of himself by His Word, now give us something unknown to be used by his people? (Thus the gift of interpretation!)

1 Cor. 12:10 “...To another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues.” Which is the ability to speak various languages that one does not know.

Paul argues according to the following in 1 Corinthians 14:1-19: (v.2) One who speaks in a tongue does not speaks to man but to God. (v.4-5) Paul demonstrates the inferiority of tongues, and demonstrates that tongues do not edify the body but themselves, unless interpreted. (v.6) Paul says they are useless to others; that even if he spoke in a tongue it would profit no one, as it is better to have a revelation or teaching. (vs.7-8) Paul demonstrates that by itself, the gift of tongues is unintelligible to the listener so it only benefits those who understand. (v.9) Paul outlines the purpose of tongues and prophecy. (vs.10-11)Paul details the procedure for the exercise of tongues and other such gifts of the Spirit. So if they are to allow the gift it is to be done a certain way, (v.12) toward others not for the self .

In 1 Cor.13:1-3 Paul says “Though I speak with… we find the expression “the tongues of men and angels.” This appears inside the bigger theme of love. Paul is saying, “If I had the ability to speak all the languages on earth and in heaven and didn't have LOVE I'd be a noisy gong.” (This isn't what Paul wrote. Ean tais glōssais tōn anthrōpōn lalō kai tōn angelōn... [If in the tongues of men I speak and angels...] There is nothing about wishing he had the "ability.")

Tongues of men are known languages (as in Acts 2). (No, Acts 2 tongues didn't require interpretation, but 1 Corinthians tongues did.)

Paul is making a contrast of ability and motive. He doesn’t expect the Corinthians to speak in angelic languages any more than they would burn their bodies. (Let's actually quote the passage:

1Co. 13:1-3 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

The author tries to connect everything Paul writes here to something a Christian ought to do, but Paul isn't making that point. There are many things people might do, some of them severe, but these aren't prescriptions, they're descriptions. People actually might do these things, and because it's possible, it's pointed out to be unprofitable without love.)

It is a figure of speech in using something no one knew about. Does anyone speak in an angelic language? (This is actually the point. Tongues of angels are not human languages. Paul heard these languages:

2Co. 12:3 And I know that this man — whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows — 4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Angelic languages are real. They are not human languages. Therefore it is possible to speak in tongues in non-human languages.)

What would be the purpose in that? (Has the author forgotten all the verses he's referenced? Tongues are only profitable if they are interpreted.)

He’s showing the need to have the spoken word understood. (No, he's showing that tongues should be interpreted in order to be profitable for the congregation. 1Co. 14:16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?)

Even when angels came to earth they communicated to men in man's own languages. (??? Why would an angel speak to a man in a language he did not understand?)

We do not find any mention of “angel talk” elsewhere in the Bible? (2Co. 12:3, Re. 4:8, Re. 4:11, Re. 5:2, Re. 5:5, Re. 5:9, etc. We would suggest that John heard the angelic languages in Revelation, made understandable to him so as to have him know what was being spoken.) 

Having said this, it is apparent there is an angelic language as angels do communicate and probably do so in a superior way. (The author offers a partial concession.)

So if a person had the ability to speak in an angelic language there would be no way to prove this as it is not a known language among men. (Indeed. This is why there's the gift of interpretation.)

Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor.14:10 that it is the language of men. (Let's quote the verse:

1Co. 14:10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.

We can clearly see that Paul is talking about human languages [...in the world...]. Paul is drawing a comparison to the lack of understandability of tongues by giving the example of human languages that are not understandable if foreign to the hearer. 

Therefore, tongues are not understandable to the hearer because they need interpretation, a supernatural gift of the Spirit. This is not a natural ability to understand and translate a language.)

There is the possibility Paul is referring to what he later explains in 2 Cor. 12:4. When he was “caught up to Paradise, and heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter.” This pure language of the angels in heaven may be what he had in mind. The language which he had been permitted to hear, and man is unable to speak. (Unless one has the gift of tongues...)

The New Testament gift of tongues is said to be a sign for unbelievers (1 Cor.14:22). This is how it functioned at Pentecost, as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. (No, it functioned as a sign to the apostles that the gentiles could also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit:

Ac. 10:45-47 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”)

The purpose of the languages spoken to the crowd was for ministry to others (1 Cor.12:1-30; 1 Pet. 4:10), it was not for the benefit of the speaker as it is being used today. (This is false:

1Co. 14:4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

1Co. 14:39 Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

And by the way, edifying one's self is not forbidden.)

Tongues is the most inferior yet one of the most noticeable of gifts in the church. In 1 Cor. 12 it is last on the list but it also is to be carefully used. Paul said to prophecy was a greater gift 1 Cor.14: 5. That if there is any gift to be yearned after it would be to prophecy. (sic) (Again we ask, how would we do this in light of the author's earlier statement: If it is of grace it cannot be earned so we cannot demand it or even seek it.)

Why? Because it builds up the church. Paul says “not all speak in tongues.” If one is seeking tongues for their own spiritual gift or the evidence of being saved they may be seeking a gift that God does not want them to have as they may become open to a counterfeit experience. It is quite easy to mimic others who use this gift out loud regularly. If tongue’s (sic) are a sign for the unbeliever, for those in the world, as Paul clearly lays out, then how can they be used as a test of salvation or spirituality (such as the baptism of the Holy Spirit) for those inside the Church? (We agree with the author here.)

The Bible never credits this meaning to this gift as this has become a Pentecostal tradition that needs reform. And the way it is used today as a test of one's spirituality is the last thing Paul meant when he taught about this. For to use this in this manner is not to have love which he said ones gift is useless without.

Jesus never spoke in a tongue (The author cannot know this. Nor is such a statement relevant. The Holy Spirit had yet to be poured out, so there were no spiritual gifts.)

and He only mentioned it once. John the Baptist who was filled with the spirit from his mother's womb (Lk.1:15) (This is Jesus talking about tongues?)

Scripture never indicates he spoke in another tongue either. (Again, irrelevant. Scripture also does not say that Barnabas, Agabus, or James spoke in tongues.)

While John's ministry was before Pentecost, he by example shows one can be filled with the Spirit and not have this spritual (sic) gift. (This is an odd argument. Why would Scripture record that anyone spoke in tongues? The author acknowledges that Pentecost had not happened, so there would be no gift of tongues.)

What about praying in tongues? All believers have the same equal access to God, by His Spirit. All believers are helped by the Spirit in prayer The only tongues that is another kind of language we find in Scripture apart from human language (The author concedes again...)

is that of the Holy Spirit-- described in Romans 8:26, when He communicates our needs to the Father- it is with internal groaning's (sic) that are inaudible, and cannot be uttered (spoken). Romans 8:26-27. (Sigh. Let's quote the verse:

Ro. 8:26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

This verse does not say the groanings are inaudible.)

The Holy Spirit helps us with our daily problems and in our praying. For we don't even know what we should pray for, nor how to pray as we should; but the Holy Spirit prays for us with such feeling that it cannot be expressed in words. And the Father who knows all hearts knows, of course, what the Spirit is saying as he pleads for us in harmony with God's own will.” It means he is alongside us facing us, making plain what we cannot express in our heart. This does not mean he takes us over to speak another language. While this should not rule out praying in another language it still needs to follow the scriptural rules for use. (The author grants and takes away tongues...)

In 1 Cor.12:22-23 Paul tells us the weaker members of the body are necessary and even those with less honor we should esteem giving greater honor to them. This implies those who are less gifted are to be made equal because they are necessary to the health of the church. (No, it expressly states that they are the weaker or unpresentable parts, but they have spiritual gifts as well:

1Co. 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.)

Just as Paul's (sic) previously explained that the members are human body parts, some of which seem insignificant or non useful, yet they are there for a reason, they are necessary. It seems more often than not, the weaker member is given a greater gift so that God will receive the glory. (Waiiit. The author just wrote, This implies those who are less gifted are to be made equal... Which is it, sir? Are they less gifted or given a greater gift?)

Right in between both the listing of the gifts in Chpt.12 and the use of them in chapter 14 is chpt.13, which is about the motivation of the gifts and in everything we do, Love. Love is not puffed up. Certainly to look down on people who do not exercise your gift or tongues is not love. Those who speak in tongues do not practice a superior communication with God. Paul even states if we have all the gifts but not love we are nothing, we are like a loud sounding instrument making only noise. Something to really think about before one takes their spiritual position of salvation based on a gift. I heard my pastor once say, “ Gifts are not toys to play with but tools to build with.” How true; if they are not building up the body by the knowledge of Christ what exactly are they doing ?

(...)