The following is part of a reply I sent to a YouTube viewer who claimed that tongues, to be valid, must always be a tongue that is known to someone in the audience or a tongue that we know for sure is known by a people-group somewhere in the world.
My reply explains that we don't always need to know whether or not our tongue happens to be known by a particular people-group somewhere in the world in order to regard our tongue as valid.
"I would just like to say first of all that it is typically anti-Pentecostals - and not Pentecostals themselves - who make an issue out of the subject of tongues. A lot of critics of the Pentecostal movement claim that Pentecostals emphasize tongues too much. But I've belonged to a Pentecostal church for 30 years and never heard a single sermon about speaking in tongues. On the other hand I know of non-Pentecostal churches that have preached about tongues [against tongues] several times! Our church focuses, as it should, on Jesus Christ, His Word, living a holy life, walking in love, soul-winnin, worldwide missions and the poor - like any evangelical church.
I would also like to say that anti-Pentecostals who think Pentecostals believe tongues is necessary for salvation are miscomprehending Pentecostal beliefs. Pentecostal churches do not believe that speaking in tongues is necessary for salvation. They only believe that speaking in tongues can edify a believer.
Although of course I would love for you to experience the edification that comes by speaking in tongues, the basis for my fellowship with you has nothing to do with whether or not you speak in tongues - our fellowship is based on the blood of Jesus Christ cleansing us from all sin.
Therefore when I come across a person has has issues with speaking in tongues, I think little of it - I'm happy to allow them to do their own journey with God on that topic, preferring rather to fellowship with him along the lines of our mutual faith in Jesus.
But seeing you are desirous of making an issue out of it, I am willing to spend a little time responding to you. I hope anything I say can be helpful to you.
The first thing I would like to say is that whatever we believe, it must be based on Scripture. I think a system of thought is quite weak if the only way we can prove it from the Bible is by claiming that we can improve on the translation of a particular Greek word done by the 47 scholars who translated the King James Bible.
I'm not saying there is never any merit in looking at the breadth of meaning to some Greek words - I'm only saying that our beliefs ought to be able to be substantiated by direct Scriptures and by more obvious case-studies in the Bible, rather than by an argument over the meaning of a Greek word. Let's use all of those approaches, but don't rely on a dispute over a translation alone.
I think the choice made by the KJV scholars to translate the Greek word in I Cor.13:1 as "though" already carries the meaning of "if" anyway. That seems obvious when we come to verse three, where Paul said, "...and though I give my body to be burned..." We know Paul hadn't given his body to be burned - so he obviously meant "if".
So it isn't necessary to argue over the translation of the Greek word in order to see that Paul meant, "...IF I give my body to be burned..." That meaning is made obvious by the Scripture itself without needing to dispute with the KJV's 47 scholars!
So then, the word "though" already carries the meaning of "if". But notice that means that all of the items Paul proceeds to describe are distinct possibilities. Not that Paul had personally experienced all of them (because as I pointed-out above, we know Paul hadn't given his body to be burned yet) but it does mean that the potential was there to do all of those things.
A believer CAN give his body to be burned, although not every believer has this forced upon him by his persecutors; a believer CAN bestow all his goods to feed the poor, although not every believer is in circumstances where this is called-for; a believer CAN exercize such a level of faith that he can remove mountains, although not everyone has this gift; a believer CAN have prophecy, but not every believer has the gift of prophecy; and a believer CAN speak with the tongues of men and of angels, potentially - although not all believers have done so.
Paul wouldn't have said "though" [or, "if"] if the thing was NEVER a possibility or if it could never have applied to any of his readers. Therefore speaking with tongues of men and of angels was a possibility - just as it was a possibility that some believers may have to give their body to be burned (and many during the Middle Ages did have to give their bodies to be burned). Paul didn't say that speaking with tongues of men and of angels was an impossibility.
Consider this: when Paul addressed the situation in the church in Corinth, notice that although Paul advised the church-members to stop their practice of addressing the congregation in tongues without interpreting, that Paul never questioned the validity of the tongues that had been spoken. Paul's only concern was that the gift of tongues wasn't being expressed sensibly. But in Paul's mind there was nothing illegitimate about the tongues themselves.
This is borne-out by the fact that Paul said that if there was no interpreter present, the tongue-speaker should instead speak his tongues to God or to himself rather than address the church in tongues. The validity of the person's tongues was not disputed - only the manner in which it was being expressed was in question.
That shows that a believer's tongues can be valid even if it is not a language that happens to be known by anyone present at the time. Perhaps the believer shouldn't address the church, in such instances, unless an interpreter is present - but it doesn't mean his tongues weren't real.
Many anti-Pentecostals today miss that point. They mistakenly believe that in order to be valid, a tongue must always happen to be the language of someone in the audience. But at Corinth, believers were speaking validly in tongues yet no-one in the congregation was understanding them. In such instances there is still a valid use for tongues - and that is to speak to God and to himself. Tongues does not always have to be a language that is known to anyone present.
Paul said the same thing about his own tongues. He said he spoke with tongues more than them all [to God, and to himself privately], yet in the church he would rather not speak 10,000 words that no-one understood. Notice that tongues does not always happen to be in a language that is known to anyone present. That doesn't make the tongue invalid. It just means that the person should speak it to God and to himself rather than address the church in that tongue.
Obviously it didn't always happen that everyone in the audience was always enabled to understand a tongue, like what happened in Acts 2. Very often, no-one understood a tongue. If that wasn't the case, there would never have been a need for the gift of the interpretation of tongues. And if that wasn't the case, Paul would never have needed to tell the Corinthians to sometimes speak their tongue privately instead of publicly. Tongues were very often not understood by anyone present. Paul called it an unknown tongue.
In Biblical cases where an unknown tongue was being spoken, the Bible does not say that the tongue was always a known tongue somewhere else in the world. It could have been - or it might not have been. Jesus did mention new tongues; and Paul did mention tongues of angels; and he also mentioned tongues of men. The Bible mentions diverse tongues.
Acts 2 didn't set a precedent for the way tongues was always to happen throughout the rest of the Bible. In the Bible, in the early church, it didn't always happen the same way it happened in Acts 2. Very often it happened that no-one in the audience were enabled to understand it.
I've seen it happen the way it happened in Acts 2. It was a sign and a wonder and people were made believers as a result. But even in the Bible, tongues were not always meant to be a sign to unbelievers. In cases where the tongue is unknown, Paul said to continue speaking it to God and to yourself. In such cases the tongue is still valid and purposeful. And in such cases the Bible did not say that the tongue was always a tongue of man.
There is a valid use for unknown tongues even though we may not be able to say whether it is a tongue of men or of angels or a new tongue. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself and he talks mysteries to God."
No comments:
Post a Comment