Tongues

Some Reformed Covenant theologians seem inconsistent in their treatment of terms such as 'Jerusalem'. 

One said tongues was a sign specifically for Jews". Yet the same person insists on an exclusively spiritual meaning for Jews in the Bible.

So when he says tongues are a sign for Jews, Jews in what sense? True Jews? Could a true Jew be an unbeliever? Have true Jews ceased?

Joel's prophecy about spiritual gifts referenced mount Zion and Jerusalem. Spiritual Jerusalem? Did spiritual Jerusalem cease?

Did promises concerning Jews and Jerusalem not continue to the Gentile Church?

There was a use for tongues beyond being a sign for unbelieving Jews. 

I Corinthians 14

Verse 2

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God..."

aka prayer

"...for no man understandeth him..."

Meaning, Tongues were not always understood by the audience.

And legitimately so, for 

"...howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries". 

Personal edification was one purpose:

"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..." (Verse 4)

Verse 5

"I would that ye all spake with tongues..."

Not impossible! It happened in Jerusalem, Cornelius' household and at Ephesus.

"...greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying."

So tongues + interpretation was = to prophecy, and it was for the church's edification. 

A Gentile church!

Verse 6

"Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?"

That means tongues was not always understood by the audience, and didn't serve to introduce new doctrine.

Verse 12

"...seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church..." (a Gentile church, mind you)

How?

...verse 13

"Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret."

So tongues + interpretation edified the church.

Verse 14

"For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."

Praying in tongues.

The speaker does not understand his own tongue.

Verse 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."

He contrasts understanding (mind) with spirit (using tongues).

He could pray, speak or sing either with his spirit (a tongue) or with his understood language at will - but he had to decide with the benefit of others in mind.

Verse 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?"

Bless in tongues. Give thanks in tongues. Pray in tongues. Speak in tongues. Sing in tongues. 

Each were possible to do in tongues - but not publicly beneficial to the audience unless interpreted.

Verse 17 

"For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified."

Nothing wrong with thanking in tongues itself - just not helpful to others unless interpreted.

The validity of it is shown in

Verse 18 

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:"

When he was by himself.

Verse 19 

"Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Public ministry and private use of tongues (valid) contrasted.

Also shows tongues wasn't used to introduce doctrine.

Verse 22 

"Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Except it be interpreted. In which case it edified the church.

Verse 23 

"If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?"

Because tongues wasn't always understood, not even by unbelievers.

Verse 24 "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not..." it makes a big impact even on an unbeliever (verse 25) even though prophecy was said to be for believers. 

Not that the tongues were false, for

Verse 27 

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue (at church), let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret."

Verse 28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

Valid to speak to oneself (for edifying) and to God (pray) in tongues.

Also shows that tongues wasn't always understood and wasn't only for unbelieving Jews but for Gentile churches too.

Verse 29 

"Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge."

Judged against what? Against apostolic doctrine.

Prophecy didn't introduce apostolic doctrine - it had to be judged by it.

Verse 31 

"For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted".

Learn through prophecy, yes - yet prophecies had to be assessed for their compliance with apostolic doctrine.

Verse 32 

"And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

Meant they had to be responsible to express gifts helpfully, no matter how valid the gift was.

Verse 39

"Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues."

Paul's issue was not with the validity of the tongues nor with other valid uses of tongues, but only that their public gatherings be helpful to all.