Speaking in tongues was always a real language. (’Tongues' means languages.)
The Bible mentions new tongues; an unknown tongue; divers kinds of tongues; and tongues of angels.
The speaker didn't understand the language. He or she spoke as the Spirit gave utterance.
Sometimes it happened that the audience heard their own language.
Other times it happened that no-one in the audience heard their own language.
In cases where an audience was addressed in an unknown tongue and no-one heard their own language, only the speaker benefited spiritually, unless of course it was interpreted.
The gift of the interpretation of tongues was placed in the Church for such occasions. It was a spiritual gift - not a learned ability.
If no-one in an audience heard his known language, or if no-one present in an audience had the gift of interpretation, the speaker had two options:
One, he could pray that he could interpret what he had just spoken. (Similarly to how the unknown tongue was translated as a result of prayer, in the Book of Daniel. The interpretation was revealed, it was not a learned mental ability); or
Two, the speaker could refrain from addressing the congregation in the unknown tongue and instead speak it to himself and to God.
Paul told one congregation that he himself spoke in tongues more than all of them - in private prayer.
But in public, Paul preferred to speak in a known language, so his audience could benefit and not only his own spirit benefit.
Paul advised that two or three speeches in tongues would be enough for a regular public gathering, with one interpreting.
But in other situations it was fine for a dozen, or even ten times that number, to all speak with tongues at once (such as at Ephesus, in Cornelius' household, and in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost). On those occasions many - more than two or three - spoke with tongues at once. Even interrupting Peter's sermon on one occasion!
That wasn't disorderly because none of them were holding the floor addressing a congregation per se - it was a general outpouring where everyone present was being filled with the Spirit at the same time. No individual was being obtrusive or disruptive to the proceedings.
Whereas during regular church services, it wouldn't be beneficial if everyone took turns to stand up, hold the floor, and address the whole congregation in a language which no-one understood, expecting the audience's undivided attention. That's common sense which even an uninitiated person ought to have known. Common courtesy.
Speaking with tongues could be done at will. The decision whether to pray with one's understanding or with one's spirit (that is, in a tongue) was the responsibility of the speaker.
Paul expected the Corinthians to steward the gift sensibly. He never said their tongues weren't real - in fact he said they were - he just expected them to think of what benefits the gathering.
A speaker could even decide whether to sing with tongues or with his understood language. But he was responsible to decide with the good of others in mind.
A person could bless and give thanks in tongues - but no-one could intelligibly say Amen to his prayer, despite how truly and spiritually he had given thanks. So he had to decide sensibly when to pray in tongues and when to pray with his understanding.
Tongues was never the source of New Testament doctrine. It was a sign that followed those who heard and had believed the doctrine.
No part of the New Testament is a transcript of tongues and interpretation - signs confirmed the Word, they didn't write the word.
God spoke to unbelieving Jews through the sign of tongues (on the Day of Pentecost) - but the same thing was to occur among Gentiles and for Gentiles, and did occur, with regularity (such as at Ephesus, and in Corinth).
The outpouring of the Spirit, and signs, was to be for all flesh, near and far, right up until the Day of the Lord.
Then we shall see face to face. Then we shall know even as we are known.
There is no sense in which the later canonisation of the New Testament marked the occasion when Paul finally began to perfectly know as he himself was known.
But Paul - and all of us - will know perfectly - face to face - as we are known - when the Lord comes.
The Pentecostal/charismatic understanding of spiritual gifts is the same as the Apostolic understanding of it.
Apostolic truth is unchanged no matter whether many or few understand and receive it.
God's Word doesn't change - but our understanding of it can grow.
There are documents of believers receiving spiritual gifts throughout church history, even tongues, even long before the 1900s.
In the early 1900s multitudes began receiving the gifts - and the number still grows.
Many of them are people with a good understanding of the grammar used in New Testament passages such as Mk 16; I Cor.12-14 and in the Book of Acts.
Many were highly educated professors. Many were leaders in Denominations including Reformed. Many intelligent and sincere Bible scholars.
And successful missionaries. The impact on the spread of Christianity has been significant.
Some tangents broke off from it (such as Oneness, and such as the wrong belief that a person must speak in tongues in order to be saved). Just as some wrong understandings had to be addressed even in the days of the Apostles. But those were not the mainstream Pentecostal belief. Just as some Presbyterian churches might make decisions which don't reflect mainstream Presbyterianism (decisions such as one American Presbyterian group's decision to endorse gay marriage).
Arguing with the Pentecostal understanding of tongues therefore needs to involve logic and grammar - not merely emotive attacks and character denigration.
The Bible mentions new tongues; an unknown tongue; divers kinds of tongues; and tongues of angels.
The speaker didn't understand the language. He or she spoke as the Spirit gave utterance.
Sometimes it happened that the audience heard their own language.
Other times it happened that no-one in the audience heard their own language.
In cases where an audience was addressed in an unknown tongue and no-one heard their own language, only the speaker benefited spiritually, unless of course it was interpreted.
The gift of the interpretation of tongues was placed in the Church for such occasions. It was a spiritual gift - not a learned ability.
If no-one in an audience heard his known language, or if no-one present in an audience had the gift of interpretation, the speaker had two options:
One, he could pray that he could interpret what he had just spoken. (Similarly to how the unknown tongue was translated as a result of prayer, in the Book of Daniel. The interpretation was revealed, it was not a learned mental ability); or
Two, the speaker could refrain from addressing the congregation in the unknown tongue and instead speak it to himself and to God.
Paul told one congregation that he himself spoke in tongues more than all of them - in private prayer.
But in public, Paul preferred to speak in a known language, so his audience could benefit and not only his own spirit benefit.
Paul advised that two or three speeches in tongues would be enough for a regular public gathering, with one interpreting.
But in other situations it was fine for a dozen, or even ten times that number, to all speak with tongues at once (such as at Ephesus, in Cornelius' household, and in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost). On those occasions many - more than two or three - spoke with tongues at once. Even interrupting Peter's sermon on one occasion!
That wasn't disorderly because none of them were holding the floor addressing a congregation per se - it was a general outpouring where everyone present was being filled with the Spirit at the same time. No individual was being obtrusive or disruptive to the proceedings.
Whereas during regular church services, it wouldn't be beneficial if everyone took turns to stand up, hold the floor, and address the whole congregation in a language which no-one understood, expecting the audience's undivided attention. That's common sense which even an uninitiated person ought to have known. Common courtesy.
Speaking with tongues could be done at will. The decision whether to pray with one's understanding or with one's spirit (that is, in a tongue) was the responsibility of the speaker.
Paul expected the Corinthians to steward the gift sensibly. He never said their tongues weren't real - in fact he said they were - he just expected them to think of what benefits the gathering.
A speaker could even decide whether to sing with tongues or with his understood language. But he was responsible to decide with the good of others in mind.
A person could bless and give thanks in tongues - but no-one could intelligibly say Amen to his prayer, despite how truly and spiritually he had given thanks. So he had to decide sensibly when to pray in tongues and when to pray with his understanding.
Tongues was never the source of New Testament doctrine. It was a sign that followed those who heard and had believed the doctrine.
No part of the New Testament is a transcript of tongues and interpretation - signs confirmed the Word, they didn't write the word.
God spoke to unbelieving Jews through the sign of tongues (on the Day of Pentecost) - but the same thing was to occur among Gentiles and for Gentiles, and did occur, with regularity (such as at Ephesus, and in Corinth).
The outpouring of the Spirit, and signs, was to be for all flesh, near and far, right up until the Day of the Lord.
Then we shall see face to face. Then we shall know even as we are known.
There is no sense in which the later canonisation of the New Testament marked the occasion when Paul finally began to perfectly know as he himself was known.
But Paul - and all of us - will know perfectly - face to face - as we are known - when the Lord comes.
The Pentecostal/charismatic understanding of spiritual gifts is the same as the Apostolic understanding of it.
Apostolic truth is unchanged no matter whether many or few understand and receive it.
God's Word doesn't change - but our understanding of it can grow.
There are documents of believers receiving spiritual gifts throughout church history, even tongues, even long before the 1900s.
In the early 1900s multitudes began receiving the gifts - and the number still grows.
Many of them are people with a good understanding of the grammar used in New Testament passages such as Mk 16; I Cor.12-14 and in the Book of Acts.
Many were highly educated professors. Many were leaders in Denominations including Reformed. Many intelligent and sincere Bible scholars.
And successful missionaries. The impact on the spread of Christianity has been significant.
Some tangents broke off from it (such as Oneness, and such as the wrong belief that a person must speak in tongues in order to be saved). Just as some wrong understandings had to be addressed even in the days of the Apostles. But those were not the mainstream Pentecostal belief. Just as some Presbyterian churches might make decisions which don't reflect mainstream Presbyterianism (decisions such as one American Presbyterian group's decision to endorse gay marriage).
Arguing with the Pentecostal understanding of tongues therefore needs to involve logic and grammar - not merely emotive attacks and character denigration.
No comments:
Post a Comment