The following is an ongoing discussion, slightly edited, with a viewer of my video-testimony entitled: "You Can Speak With Tongues Whenever You Want To".
VIEWER:
You quoted a small portion of 1 Cor. 14 and failed to take the rest into consideration. Verses 27-28 state, "If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But IF THERE IS NO ONE TO INTERPRET, LET EACH OF YOU KEEP SILENT in the church and speak to himself and to God." If you go around speaking in tongues whenever you want then you violate the command to have an interpreter present
Also, verse 22 of 1 Cor. 14 states that "...tongues are a sign not for the believer but for unbelievers..."
Speaking in tongues -- assuming that it still legitimately happens (which I don't believe it still does)-- doesn't help you communicate better with God. There is no part of speaking in tongues that allows you to talk to God better. The whole purpose is for nonbelievers to see the miracle of you suddenly speaking a foreign language. So with no nonbelievers around it is pointless
JOHN:
Thanks for commenting on my video about "You can speak with tongues whenever you want to".
Yes, Paul instructed the Corinthians that it served no purpose for individuals to hold the floor, address the congregation in a tongue, with no-one understanding.
He said the speaker himself was edified by it, but no-one else was.
He told them that if no interpreter is present, he should either pray to interpret themself, or else refrain from addressing the church in tongues, and instead speak to himself and to God.
Notice that - he could speak to himself and to God.
So there is a valid use of speaking with tongues even when a person is by himself. Even when he himself doesn't understand what he is saying.
Paul himself said that he spoke in tongues more than them all, but not in the church. He did so when he was by himself.
And tongues were not always languages known to people in the audience. If it was otherwise, there would have been no need for the supernatural gift of interpreting tongues. And it would never have happened that no man understood a tongue. And in that case, Paul's instructions to the Corinthians should never have been necessary.
But notice that it was possible - in fact, common - that tongues were not always understood by anyone present. And yet, in such cases, Paul never said that the tongue itself was wrong. He only said that there wasn't much point in addressing the congregation in an unknown tongue, expecting the congregation's attention, if no-one understands.
In such cases, Paul conceded that the person speaking is nevertheless edified himself; and he admitted that a person who gives thanks in tongues even though no-one understands, nonetheless gives thanks well. He admitted that speaking in the tongue could still be useful, if the person chose rather to speak it to himself and to God rather than publicly.
So my video was talking about speaking in tongues not to address a congregation, but to speak in tongues privately to God. I was pointing-out, that we have the prerogative to pray in tongues privately whenever we wish. We don't have to wait until the Holy Spirit takes full control of us. He never does that. He gives the utterance, but He does so in response to a choice of our will to pray in tongues rather than with our understanding. That's what my video is about.
VIEWER:
Thank you for your kind response! I do, however, have a few comments/questions to pose concerning some of the things you mentioned.
The first thing I have a question about is when you said that if there are no interpreters and you can't interpret, then you should either not speak in tongues in front of the body or you should "...speak to himself and to God...." Now just to make sure I read through chapter 14 quite a few times and found that part nowhere in there. The only thing that even resembled that from what I could tell was when Paul said when he prays he will pray with mind AND spirit, and sing with his mind and spirit, etc. For the record, I don't believe "spirit" here is referring to the Holy Spirit singing through us in tongues. Rather, I believe it is referring to the fact that when we worship it should be in "spirit and in truth," in such a way that we understand what we're saying but also mean it in our hearts. Anyway, back to the issue, it seems that you imply or assume from this passage that one has authority to speak in tongues outside of the public assembly, yet I see nothing in the passage that authorizes that. This also brings back up the question, "If tongues are a sign for the Unbeliever, then what good or purpose is there in using them in private?" That would be violating the purpose for which tongues are given, right? It is also worth mentioning that when one speaks in tongues, they don't know what they're saying, "for if I pray in a tongue, my Spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful (v. 14)." So what good would it be to pray on your own when you don't know what you're saying, because Paul says we should pray with our spirit and our minds? It also seems that you are assuming when Paul "could speak to God" outside of worship that he spoke it in tongues. There doesn't appear to be any indication of that from what I have seen.
I'm just going to pause right here and say that I'm not trying to come across harsh, I know that the way I word things can sound that way sometimes. I'm just trying to have good, healthy discussion about the topic (:
You went on to say, "Paul himself said that he spoke in tongues more than them all, but not in the church. He did so when he was by himself." Again, this seems like another assumption, but in verses 18 and 19 Paul said nothing about speaking when he was by himself. All he said was that in the church it would better to speak 5 words normally than to speak a mouthful in a foreign language that nobody understands-- again he is emphasizing edification through an interpreter.
Okay, now a highly debatable issue, but I'm going to mention it anyway. You said, "And tongues were not always languages known to people in the audience. If it was otherwise, there would have been no need for the supernatural gift of interpreting tongues." Assume that I start speaking Chinese to a church that has both Chinese and White members. The Chinese members will perfectly understand what I'm saying while the white members won't. I say this to mention that if the tongues spoken were actual earthly languages, then there still would have been a need for interpretation because there would be people who didn't understand-- especially since many congregations had members of different races.
You may respond, "well then someone who already knew the language being spoken could interpret and there would be no need for the gift of interpretation." However, there were many languages that could have been spoken that most people would not understand. Also, don't you think that if tongues really are unknown languages, then why on earth would people in the first century have believed the interpretations that were given? They simply would have thought the interpreter was lying or crazy, because there would have been nobody able to speak the language that could verify that it is indeed an earthly language, and that these men spoke it through the power of the Holy Spirit.
You went on to say, "And it would never have happened that no man understood a tongue." I will point out that there were men who understood these tongues. Look in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost: when the apostles started speaking in tongues there were Jews present from many different nations, and each of them heard their own native language being spoken. Now the Spirit didn't fall on these Jews-- these are the same Jews that Peter preaches a message of repentance to shortly after-- so we know that these Jews don't have the gift of interpretation yet. So, essentially the apostles are speaking multiple earthly languages and these people hear all of them and are able to understand their native language being spoken. This is why they are so amazed, because the apostles couldn't possibly know all of their native languages, yet they were speaking them. So yes, there were people who could understand specific tongues whenever it was spoken in their native language, and this is a good thing because it only verifies the fact that when someone spoke in tongues it was actually a miracle of God rather than someone babbling on with the approval of an interpreter who could be lying about his interpretation. No there is no indication that the speaker could control what language he spoke in, so often there may have been times where a language was spoken and absolutely nobody understood. But, being an earthly language, most would probably recognize it even if they didn't understand it. This is why tongues are for the nonbeliever. It is evidence that God is working. Otherwise there is no need for them. Paul already emphasized the importance of comprehending what you are saying, so if you comprehend your prayers there is no need for tongues UNLESS you are using them as a sign of God's power to nonbelievers.
"He admitted that speaking in the tongue could still be useful, if the person chose rather to speak it to himself and to God rather than publicly." -- This was similar to something you said earlier, as well. Again, I see no indication anywhere in Ch. 14 where Paul said this.
I would again just like to emphasize that I'm not trying to sound harsh, but I do think it is good to discuss matters in a healthy manner like this. Again, thank you for your response!
JOHN:
I CORINTHIANS 14:28
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence
in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God
In the above Scripture, Paul allowed a person the option of speaking in tongues privately to God.
I CORINTHIANS 14:14-17 [With my comments inserted in brackets]:
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth,
but my understanding is unfruitful.
[Praying in tongues exercises my spirit, but my mind doesn't benefit]
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will
pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit,
and I will sing with the understanding also.
[I have two different ways of praying or singing available to me: praying or singing with my spirit (i.e., in tongues, as in verse 14) and praying with my understanding (i.e., in my known language).]
["I will" is mentioned four times, indicating that it was the Corinthians' own responsibility to choose the most appropriate way in which to pray or sing, in any given circumstance.]
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall
he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen
at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what
thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not
edified.
[If you give thanks with your spirit (i.e., in tongues) although your giving of thanks is none-the-less valid, your guest can't benefit because he doesn't understand what you're saying.]
VIEWER:
Just a few comments:
In verse 28 it appears that you are making an assumption in saying that Paul is telling us to speak in tongues privately. Based on the context, it could be referring to either tongues or speaking as we normally do.
As far as verses 14-17, you make a good point in your statement here, one that I have not thought of before for those verses. Your view seems to fit the context better. I will definitely look more into this and the greek behind the text.
JOHN:
I CORINTHIANS 14:27,28
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
The context for verse 28 is set by verse 27. The topic is SPEAKING IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE, not speaking in one's own known tongue.
It is precisely because the topic is an unknown tongue (rather than an understood tongue) that Paul proceeded to give his advice: an interpreter is needed; and if no interpreter is present, the speaker should refrain from speaking publicly.
If the topic was instead SPEAKING IN AN UNDERSTOOD TONGUE, then no interpreter should be needed; neither should it be necessary for the speaker to remain silent in the event that no interpreter is present; and neither should it have been necessary for Paul to advise the speaker to restrict himself thereafter to speaking to himself and to God rather than to the congregation.
If it was speaking in an understood tongue that Paul had in mind, it shouldn't have been necessary for the speaker to thereafter speak exclusively to himself and to God rather than to the congregation, for the congregation would have understood him. And Paul's advice therefore would be utterly irrelevant.
Therefore, both the CONTEXT and the CONTENT of verse 28 demand the meaning that Paul allowed a man to speak with tongues to himself and to God. Speaking in tongues to oneself and to God was Scriptural.
VIEWER:
Good point, John. Again I will continue to look at this; however, this particular discussion isn't extremely relevant, seeing as how I still am of the opinion that tongues are not able to be spoken today (biblically, anyway). For this discussion to be relevant we would have to establish that tongues:
1) Are still relevant today. Obviously you believe you speak in them by the power of the Holy Spirit, so you are of the opinion that they very much are still relevant today. However, based on what I read about miracles and signs from the Bible, accompanied by 1 Cor. 13, I am of the opinion that tongues are no longer given.
and
2) Are utterings rather than actual earthly languages. We talked about this already, but I don't remember if you answered me as far as my opinion on the Day of Pentecost. Anyone can -- if they so chose -- babble on in nonexistant tongues and say they are speaking the word of God (and it is easy to convince oneself that this is the work of God if that's what you've been told your whole life). I'm not trying to be offensive, but from my view I think you could see how it one could convince themself that they are speaking in tongues, perhaps. Regardless of your experiences, you should at least ackowledge the fact that it is possible for someone to truly believe that God is working when He actually is not working in the way they thought. I am not saying that "I am right, you are wrong," I am simply showing you my line of thinking.
So before our discussion on 1 Cor. 14 can become relevant, we must first establish that tongues can legitimately be spoken -- correctly -- today.
JOHN:
1) The simplest reason why tongues are still relevant, is because the Bible does not say that they have ceased.
2) Tongues are always languages - and the Bible mentions different kinds, for example:
a "tongue" (I Cor.14:26);
"tongues" (Acts 10:46; 19:6; I Cor.12:30; 13:8;14:5,6,18,22,23,39);
"tongues of men" (I Cor.13:1);
"tongues of angels" (I Cor.13:1);
"new tongues" (Mark 16:17);
"divers [kinds] of tongues" (I Cor. 12:10);
"diversities of tongues" (I Cor.12:28);
"other tongues" (Acts 2:4; I Cor.14:21);
an "[unknown] tongue" (I Cor.14:2,4,13,14,19,27).
No comments:
Post a Comment