What is the gift of speaking in tongues? - Gotquestions.org

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------

Gotquestions is supposed to be a provider of Bible explanation. It represents itself as a sober, unbiased source of truth. But in fact it has a definite doctrinal tilt toward Reformed/Calvinist and cessationist. 

For the serious Bible student, Gotquestions is not a trustworthy source.

We see that quite clearly in Gotquestions' explanation of tongues. They make absolutely no effort to explore the charismatic doctrinal viewpoint at all.

We are therefore happy to assume that role and explain the other side.

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

The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:1–4. The apostles shared the gospel with the crowds, speaking to them in their own languages. The crowds were amazed: “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (Acts 2:11). The Greek word translated “tongues” literally means “languages.” (No, the Greek word glóssa has several meanings:

• The physical organ: Luke 16:24 So he called to him, "Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire."

• Something that looks like a tongue or an extension like a tongue: Acts 2:3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them.

• The vehicle by which one can speak: Luke 1:64 Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue was loosed, and he began to speak, praising God.

• The supernatural manifestation: Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

• The spiritual gift: 1 Cor. 12:7-8, 10 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8 To one there is given through the Spirit... 10 speaking in different kinds of tongues...

Strong's provides us with this information about the spiritual gift: 

...this, as appears from 1 Corinthians 14:7ff, is the gift of men who, rapt in an ecstasy and no longer quite masters of their own reason and consciousness, pour forth their glowing spiritual emotions in strange utterances, rugged, dark, disconnected, quite unfitted to instruct or to influence the minds of others...

Gotquestions isn't interested in actually explaining tongues. It intends to explain its doctrinal perspective.)

Therefore, the gift of tongues (Gotquestions inexplicably concludes that Pentecost was the gift of tongues, but there is no mention in Acts 2 that these tongues were the spiritual gift.

In fact, there is no mention at all in Acts of tongues being a gift. Rather, in every case of tongues in Acts they were a sign that the Holy Spirit had been poured out. Our opinion is that the tongues of Acts is different from the spiritual gift described by Paul in 1 Corinthians. We discuss this in depth here.)

is speaking in a language the speaker has never learned in order to minister to someone who does speak that language. In 1 Corinthians 12—14, Paul discusses miraculous gifts, saying, “Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?” (1 Corinthians 14:6). According to the apostle Paul, and in agreement with the tongues described in Acts, speaking in tongues is valuable to the one hearing God’s message in his or her own language, but it is useless to everyone else unless it is interpreted/translated. (This is incorrect. Interpretation is different than translation. Strong's says "interpretation" in this verse is the Greek word herméneia, an interpretation, giving the gist of a message rather than a strict translation; an equivalent meaning, rather than a "word-for-word" rendering. 

However, "translate" is a completely different Greek word, metherméneuó, which is, I translate (from one language into another).

We are beginning to see Gotquestions' bias.)

A person with the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30) could understand what a tongues-speaker was saying even though he did not know the language being spoken. The tongues interpreter would then communicate the message of the tongues speaker to everyone else, so all could understand. “For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say” (1 Corinthians 14:13). (Why would there need to be the gift of interpretation if tongues was solely "speaking in a language the speaker has never learned in order to minister to someone who does speak that language," which is Gotquestions' definition? In this view the tongue is specifically being provided because there is someone present who speaks that language. In such a case there would be no need for an interpreter.

Or maybe the tongues needs to be reinterpreted back to the language of the attendees who are not foreigners? We do see that if a person speaks the tongue, they could obtain the ability to speak the message in their own language as well:

1Co. 14:13 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.

So the tongues speaker would speak a human language he doesn't know to a foreigner who is present, and then speak the interpretation so that everyone else would know what he told the foreigner. So why would the Spirit give a person the ability to speak or translate a human language being spoken by someone else who is supernaturally speaking a human language?

Further, if tongues is a human language spoken for the benefit of a foreigner, then why did Paul write: 

1Co. 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

This would mean that someone is present that doesn't understand the tongue being spoken, but the reaction is to think the tongues is craziness. However, the purpose of the tongue is to preach to foreigners, which doesn't seem to be crazy at all.

So, none of this makes sense if tongues is only real human languages.)

Paul’s personal comment regarding tongues that were not interpreted emphasizes the importance of clear communication: “In the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:19).

Is the gift of tongues for today? First Corinthians 13:8 mentions the gift of tongues ceasing, although it connects the ceasing with the arrival of the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10. (We discuss the "perfect" here.)

Some point to a difference in the tense of the Greek verbs referring to prophecy and knowledge “ceasing” and that of tongues “being ceased” as evidence for tongues ceasing before the arrival of the “perfect.” While that is a possible interpretation, it is not explicitly clear from the text. Some also point to passages such as Isaiah 28:11 and Joel 2:28–29 as evidence that speaking in tongues was a sign of God’s oncoming judgment. First Corinthians 14:22 says tongues is a “sign to unbelievers.” Using this verse, cessationists argue that the gift of tongues was a warning to the Jews that God was going to judge Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ as Messiah. Therefore, when God did in fact judge Israel (with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70), the gift of tongues no longer served its intended purpose. (Gotquestions omits the primary purpose of the spiritual gift of tongues, edification: 

1 Cor. 14:17 You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

Tongues as a judgment is an interesting topic to explore, but it is a side issue.)

This view is also possible, but the gift’s cessation is not required by the fulfillment its primary purpose. Scripture does not conclusively assert that the gift of speaking in tongues has ceased.

At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1 Corinthians 14:10). (Let's quote:

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

Paul did not write this to make tongues human languages, he wrote it to 

• require the interpretation of tongues [1 Cor. 14:5]
• contrast tongues with prophecy [1 Cor. 14:6]
• ensure edification. [1 Cor. 14:17]

Clearly Paul understood tongues to be an expression no one would understand: 

1 Cor. 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.

Tongues are "mysteries." This is not human language, because "no-one understands him..." No one means no one. Tongues, therefore, cannot only be human language. We would assert that both tongues and interpretation are a supernatural "manifestation of the Spirit"[1 Cor. 12:7], that is, a supernatural ability and not just an amplification of an existing human ability.)

It would be for the purpose of communicating God’s Word with a person of another language (Acts 2:6–12). It would be exercised in the church in agreement with God’s instructions: “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God” (1 Corinthians 14:27–28). It would also be practiced with decorum: “God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

God gave certain people the gift of speaking in tongues to enable them to communicate with others who spoke another language. In that way, the church could more easily cross cultural boundaries, and the foundation of the church was laid (see Ephesians 2:20). We believe that the gift of tongues has ceased and is no longer a regular feature of life in the church. (Hmmm. Apparently we no longer need to cross cultural boundaries?)

At the same time, we acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is and always has been sovereign in the distribution of His gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11).