What it Means to Let the Spirit Move

Singing about the Holy Spirit, and letting the Holy Spirit move, are not necessarily the same thing - sometimes they are two different things. Sometimes the Holy Spirit wants to move - but instead of letting Him move, we keep singing about letting Him move. We can sing a song, "Welcome Holy Spirit". But singing that He is welcome does not mean we are welcoming Him.

A meeting leader can say, "You are welcome in this place, Holy Spirit." But saying that He is welcome does not mean He is welcome.

Welcoming Him means to deliberately give Him time in the service to do what He wants.

Sometimes that involves stopping what we're already doing - because sometimes two things can't happen as well together.

It's hard to sing or talk, and drink a glass of water at the same time! Similarly, singing can get in the way of receiving from the Holy Spirit.

Praying and interceding can get in the way too. If we want to pray but the Holy Spirit wants to do something else in the meeting, then our praying can be a hindrance. Speaking in tongues, doing warfare, dancing, giving announcements or news, and preaching can all get in the way of what the Holy Spirit wants to do. Sometimes those things are exactly what the Holy Spirit wants us to do - but at other times He wants to do something different.

Sometimes the Holy Spirit will interrupt what we are doing and do what He wants anyway. When He does, we can be aware of it and can flow with Him rather than carry on with what we were doing and obstruct Him.

At other times, the Holy Spirit will wait for us to let Him move. Letting the Holy Spirit move is something we can do on purpose. When we make room for the Holy Spirit to do what He wants to do in our meetings, on purpose - it shows we are practically welcoming Him. When we deliberately give Him time to move, it shows we have a desire and are acting our faith that He will move. Then He will move.

So we can help or hinder the move of the Spirit in our meetings.

Sense what He wants to do at any given point in the meeting, and when you sense it, flow with it 100%. Encourage the congregation to flow with it. If the musicians keep playing, make sure they are helping the congregation to flow with Him. If the congregation is meant to be receiving from the Spirit or manifesting the Spirit in other ways, then if the band is encouraging the congregation to sing instead, it can be a hindrance.

That's the reason we sometimes see a greater manifestation of the Spirit when the music stops. It shows the music wasn't functioning as a 'ministry of helps'. It was dominating the proceedings of the meeting, rather than assisting the will of the Spirit.

How to Encourage Yourself

"David encouraged himself..."

There are ways to encourage ourself!

How did David do so? "David encouraged himself IN THE LORD HIS GOD."

We can encourage ourself too - in the Lord.

Now the Lord is that Spirit. We can get in the Lord by getting in the Spirit. One way we can get in the Spirit is by praying in the Spirit - and one way we can pray in the Spirit is by praying with our spirit in other tongues. When we pray with other tongues, our spirit prays as the Spirit gives utterance.

Therefore praying with tongues is one way we can encourage ourself in the Lord. You can encourage yourself by praying in tongues!

Tongues and Interpretation Expressed Publicly

I remember one time at church here on the Gold Coast, before the Pastor began his sermon, he instead addressed the church in another tongue. Another brother then interpreted, saying, "Come and be healed - physically and emotionally," says the Lord.

Without any further adieu, the Pastor promptly invited all those in need of healing to come forward for prayer. We had a move of the Spirit! One demon even came out, with quite some commotion. All this before the sermon had even started.

Needs were met, and the congregation was all the more eager to hear what the Pastor had to say after that.

It was a good example of how the public use of the gifts of tongues and the interpretation of tongues can open-up the way for other expressions of the Spirit - and greater blessings - in our meetings.

TONGUES AND INTERPRETATION

I CORINTHIANS 12:28
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly
teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, DIVERSITIES OF TONGUES.

Notice that each of the gifts listed in the above scripture are public ministries.

In this Bible Study I want to draw our attention to the last ministry gift in the list: the public ministry of tongues and interpretation.

There is a public ministry of tongues and interpretation. It's not just for private use only.

As a public ministry in the church, diversities of tongues was considered by Paul to be important enough to list it along with the roles in the church of apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, then gifts of healings (evangelists), helps (deacons), and governments (pastors/elders/bishops).

Like the other offices listed above, God “hath set [or appointed] some [some members] in the church” to function publicly using the gifts of tongues and interpretation.


Tongues as a Distinct Public Function

Notice that throughout I Corinthians 12-14, Paul is primarily dealing with tongues as it is used in a distinct public ministry, rather than discussing how the individual believer can or cannot use tongues in his private prayer-life for his own personal edification.

Each of the nine gifts of the Holy Spirit listed in I Corinthians 12:7-10 are dealt with as manifestations of the Spirit during public church gatherings.

Paul’s whole discussion about the gifts is in the context of what takes place “when the whole church be come together into one place” (14:23). So he's not talking about what we do when we're by ourselves. He's talking about a church service.

So when our opening text continues on to say, “do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?” (verse 29), this is not to imply that some believers will never be able to speak with tongues ever at all.

(All believers today who are baptized with the Holy Spirit may pray with tongues, just as in every account in Bible days. Praying in tongues is personally edifying, and can't be encouraged enough.)

Rather, in verse 29, Paul is simply explaining that in public church-life, all of us will not need to have the same ministry function.

To some it will be given by the Spirit to address the church with tongues and interpretation during public gatherings.

Now let’s consider another verse which also deals specifically with tongues as a public ministry in the church.

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 above advice (limiting the number of speakers to two, or at the most three, and then only when an interpreter is present) clearly is specific to the use of tongues as a ministry to the church – otherwise we make it inconsistent with occurrences within the Book of Acts.

For example, have you ever wondered why Peter never insisted that only two, or at the most three, be allowed to speak with tongues, at Cornelius’ household? and why he never insisted that they keep silence unless someone interpreted?

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word”, and he “heard them speak with tongues and magnify God” (Acts 10:44,46).

We know this was no small gathering, because it says that Peter went in to the house, “and found MANY that were come together” (verse 27).

What's more, they even interrupted Peter's sermon while they spoke in tongues, for we are told that, “WHILE PETER YET SPAKE these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word” (verse 44)!

We see the same thing at Ephesus. Paul didn’t insist on any such protocol or guidelines either. After baptizing certain disciples, we are told, “when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve” (Acts 19:6,7).

Clearly then, it is scriptural to have meetings like that - where the Holy Spirit falls and many speak with tongues at the same time, or everyone prophesies, or sees visions, or are filled with joy - even if no interpreter is present.

We've seen meetings where all of this has happened – meetings just like the Pentecostal outpouring in Acts chapter two!

(If it’s been a while since you were in that type of meeting, you could plan such a meeting. Make it happen - like Smith Wigglesworth who said: “If the Holy Ghost doesn't move, I move the Holy Ghost”).

When Paul gave his advice to the Corinthians, he was addressing a different scenario. He was offering guidelines concerning the specific ministry of addressing a congregation in tongues.

By the time Paul wrote this, the Corinthian church had been established long enough for a variety of public ministries to become recognized among them. So it had now become necessary for Paul to address the manner in which some of these gifts should be expressed.

When it came to the public use of tongues, Paul’s advice to the members was: There's not a lot of point for all of you to stand up and hold the floor, drawing everyone’s attention to yourself, to address the congregation with an unknown tongue, since no one understands you. Better to just have two or three of you speak, then let the interpreter speak as well, after you’ve each had your say in turn.

The guiding principle of all public ministry to the church, which Paul urged them to keep in mind was, “Let all things be done unto edifying” (14:26).

It’s obvious to anyone that a person needn’t bother holding the floor to address an entire congregation in an unknown tongue – unless someone interprets. It simply wouldn’t be edifying.

However, it’s an entirely different situation if the Holy Spirit is being poured out and everyone begins speaking with tongues, like they did in Cornelius’ house, and at Ephesus, and in Acts chapter two. In such cases, no-one is holding the floor as such; everyone is being filled with the Spirit; and in fact everyone is edified – even without an interpreter.

We can have meetings like that today. It isn’t unscriptural for a congregation to sing or pray together in tongues, because when done in unison, it isn’t obtrusive. Actually this is still decent and orderly.

But when tongues is used for the purpose of addressing a congregation, it is only natural then that someone should interpret, if we are to apply the advice, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (I Cor.14:40). So it is evident that Paul was talking about circumstances where tongues were being used very specifically in a public ministry function.

Some people have not understood this and have therefore mistakenly felt that it isn't Scriptural to have meetings where the Holy Spirit gets poured-out on everyone at the same time.




Making Room for the Gift

I have been witness to the powerful effect that the gift of tongues and interpretation can have in the church and in the community, when it’s given its rightful place alongside the other offices in the church.

In one meeting, the Holy Spirit impressed upon a pastor that before he gave his sermon, he was to speak with tongues, and then a certain brother would interpret.

So he proceeded to speak with tongues, and then stepped down off the stage and handed the microphone to the brother to give the interpretation.

“Come and be healed. Be healed physically and emotionally...says the Lord,” he said.

That was a fairly simple message, but what the Pastor did next allowed God to manifest His power in a way that completely changed the course of the meeting and allowed the people's needs to be met that day.

Without any further ado, the Pastor led the congregation to respond to the message, by inviting anyone forward who needed to receive healing.

The power of the Holy Spirit manifested with many healings, and one person was delivered from an evil spirit. That was before he even preached. But needless to say, everybody was eager to hear what he had to preach on after that!
It was the public ministry of tongues and interpretation, coupled with the way the Pastor made room for the congregation to respond, that opened-up the way for God to do what He wanted to do in that meeting – things which hadn’t otherwise been planned.

In another church where I was a guest, when I stood to the pulpit to preach—instead I began to speak with tongues. It went on and on, and I wondered when it was ever going to stop. Finally the interpretation began to flow—and I just continued preaching along the same theme as the interpretation. As a result, several were touched by the Holy Spirit with tears, repentance and reconciliation, and some were filled with the Holy Spirit and with joy.

Afterwards one of the elders of the church told me, “This is exactly what we needed.” God knows what a church needs—and sometimes it’s different to the sermon-structure we have in mind.

On that occasion, again it was the gift of tongues and interpretation that inspired the sermon which God wanted to be spoken in the meeting.

Smith Wigglesworth often interjected his sermons with tongues, then he’d interpret them, pouring forth heavenly revelation to the congregation.

Once during another series of meetings, I witnessed how speaking with tongues can begin to reach even the outside community.

When I stood to preach this particular Sunday morning, the anointing was so heavy that I couldn’t preach. Instead, I preached in tongues, and God used someone else to interpret. All over the building there were tears of repentance, people being reconciled, and people getting filled with the Spirit and speaking with tongues, without anybody even laying hands on them.

During that series of meetings, one person claimed he heard about a dozen young people speaking Indonesian; an overseas visitor claimed she heard a remote Chinese dialect; and another person heard his own Maranaw dialect, as people spoke in tongues. This was a sign and a wonder to them.

Many became so filled that they spoke in tongues non-stop for days afterwards. One such girl was still speaking with tongues when she got to school on Monday. “Why haven’t you ever told me you can speak Chinese?” her teacher scolded her. So she asked God for her own language back, so she could explain to the class. Then she was able to preach to them, and the whole class fell to the floor under the power of God. She prophesied to each of them. Demons came out of many. Students got up off the floor asking with tears, “What have we got to do to be saved?”

This continued for days so that classes couldn’t continue. The Principal called her parents to the school, asking them to sign an affidavit that they would forbid their daughter to preach the Gospel anymore at school or else risk seeing her expelled. But the more their daughter tried to keep order, the more her fellow students thronged her classroom seeking prayer. Even a TV news camera crew turned-up wanting to interview her. But she didn’t want to attract any more attention to herself.

So she thought of a way she could see the work of God continue, without attracting any more attention - she could lay her hands on her friends, imparting the anointing to them, so they could be used to spread the work of the Spirit. Everywhere her friends went, they now carried the same anointing, and the work of the Holy Spirit spread to other schools and universities. I visited one lecture hall where the whole contingent was flat on their backs under the power of God. Many began coming to the church.

Notice that it was the phenomenon of speaking with other tongues that sparked this move of God in the community. Paul said, “Tongues are a sign…to them that believe not”. (I’ve always wondered how tongues will ever become a sign to unbelievers, if we never let unbelievers hear them!)


How Tongues Can Open Up a Meeting

The seemingly insignificant gift of tongues can actually have great effect in a church and community, if we let it.

To begin with, we need to admit that we need this public office of tongues in our meetings, and we ought to earnestly desire it.

Then we need to be practical about giving tongues its place, either during worship, or during the Word, or at some point in the meeting.

Then so much more can be gained or lost, depending on how widely we respond to it.

Sometimes instead of just moving-on with the program after an interpretation or prophecy has been given, the meeting leader could consider whether the word is meant to shape the rest of the meeting - and if so, allow time for the congregation to respond and to see the Holy Spirit move.

In this way, the interpretation of tongues can have the effect of being much more than simply a word during a meeting. It can open up the whole meeting, or even start a whole work of God in the community, as the testimonies above illustrate.

Altar calls, instead of being relegated to the end of a meeting, can happen anytime - and often, the altar-call is just the beginning of other things that God wants to do in a meeting.

For example, I've observed that after people pick themselves up off the floor and return to their seats after an altar call, quite often two people will remain under the power of God.

Shortly, they will stand, and one of them will begin to speak in tongues while the other interprets. Then they may begin laying hands on the congregation, usually with a message of repentance and of the need to preach the Gospel because of the soon return of the Lord. All of this after the altar-call was finished. If we’d assumed that the altar call was the end of the meeting, all that extra blessing would have been missed.

In another use of diversities of tongues, brother Hagin would sometimes speak in tongues while his wife would interpret – as a means of giving “counseling” to someone who had come for help.

Interpreting tongues can also be useful in one’s private prayer-life and study-life, as a means of obtaining guidance and revelation from the Lord, or simply to assist with our prayers.


Who May Have This Ministry?

“I would that ye all spake with tongues” (I Cor.14:5), said Paul. Although the public ministry of speaking with tongues may be part-and-parcel of the office of the prophet, it is not limited to prophets. Anyone in the church who desires to may speak with tongues.


Conclusion

When we become practical about giving the Holy Spirit room to do whatever He wants, whenever He wants, through whomever He wants—then we will witness the full place and power that He has ordained for this gift in the church.

Tongues - Was it Always a Known Language?

Some people assert that Biblical speaking in tongues was always a language known to someone in the audience. The adjective unknown tongue, they point-out, is not in the original text.

Some also assert that the exclusive purpose of tongues was to serve as a sign to Jews from all around the world that the Gospel was also for the Gentiles whose languages they were allegedly now hearing being supernaturally spoken. There is not a single incident in the Bible, they claim, where speaking in tongues ever occurred without a Jew being present.

But Paul wrote that he that speakerh in a tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God, for no man understands him. Evidently then, it often happened even in the early Church that no-one in the audience understood a tongue that was being spoken.

If the gift of tongues was intended exclusively as a sign to Jews that the Gospel was also for the Gentiles, one would think that the Holy Spirit would make sure that He always and only gave speakers of tongues utterance in tongues that happened to be already known by Jews in the audience. But instead Paul implied that it often happened that no-one in the audience understood the tongues that were being spoken.

One of the gifts of the Spirit is the interpretation of tongues. If the tongues that were being given were always tongues that were already known by Jews in the audience, and if the exclusive purpose of speaking in tongues was to serve as a sign to those Jews, then one would think that there would never be any need for the supernatural gift of interpreting tongues. The fact that the supernatural gift of interpreting tongues was needed is evidence that very often no-one present - not even Jews from abroad - understood the tongues that were being spoken.

Paul also said that if no interpreter was present, the speaker of a tongue could pray that he could interpret, or else refrain from speaking publicly in the tongue and instead speak to himself and to God. Most of the members of the Corinthian church to whom Paul gave these instructions were Gentiles. Seeing it was possible that these Gentiles speak in tongues to themselves and to God without anyone listening, it means it wasn't necessary for Jews to always be present before speaking in tongues could serve a valid purpose.

The instructions which Paul gave concerning the public use of tongues, interpreting, and private use of tongues meant that there was a valid use for tongues even when no-one was present who might be able to understand the tongue.

Even in the event that the speaker of a tongue gave the interpretion of the tongue (because no other interpreter was present), as Paul suggested - even then, it couldn't serve as a convincing sign to Jews, since no-one present could attest to the accuracy or otherwise of the interpretation.

Paul mentioned a scenario where potentially everyone in a meeting could be speaking in tongues, and warned that if this action was to be taken, and an unbeliever walked in, the unbeliever would think they were mad because no-one was understanding. If the Holy Spirit gave tongues only to serve as a sign to unbelieving Jews, then this scenario wouldn't have been possible, and Paul's advice would have been uneccessary. It wouldn't have been possible for them to speak in tongues before an unbeliever had walked in. The Holy Spirit would have given them utterance to speak only when Jews were already in the meeting.

Or if He did give them the ability to speak even though a Jew was not present, then when the unbelieving Jew did eventually happen to walk in on the meeting, instead of thinking they were mad because no-one understood, he should have heard a language known to himself. But this isn't what was happening - instead, it was potentially happening that unbelievers including Jews were not understanding the tongues they were hearing - or else Paul's instructions were superfluous.

Paul said that if no-one understands a tongue and no interpreter is present, the speaker could speak to himself and to God. That shows a valid private use for tongues even when it's not understood and even when it's not serving as a direct sign to Jews.

Evidently then it was the exception rather than the rule that Jews sometimes understood a tongue that was being spoken. Most of the time they did not understand it, which is why Paul's instructions (concerning interpreting, or speaking instead to oneself) were needed.

But as for the sign aspect to tongues - if Jews needed that sign then, do Jews no longer need that sign? Of course they still do. The value of tongues as a sign hasn't ceased.

As for instructions on how to begin speaking with tongues, the Bible says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. So the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. But the Bible also says, "I will speak with my spirit". So our own will to begin speaking is involved too.

The Holy Spirit who gives the utterance, and our own will to co-operate with the Holy Spirit by faith, combine to enable us to speak with a tongue. That explains the process of how a person begins to speak in tongues.

Cessationism and Textual Criticism

MARK 16:17-18

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Many cessationists claim that Mark 16:9-20 does not exist in the oldest and "best" manuscripts, but was spuriously inserted into more recent, and therefore less reliable, manuscripts. This claim is then used as their basis for asserting that tongues ceased when the last of the Twelve Apostles died, or when the canon of New Testament Scripture was finalized.

But if tongues indeed ceased when the last of the Twelve Apostles died, and if it had been taught by the Apostles that this was to happen, and if it was commonly understood by the time the spurious "newer" manuscripts were being written that tongues had now already ceased - then what motive could have existed for anyone to include such a spurious insertion?

There wouldn't have been any benefit from inserting a reference to "tongues" in any new manuscript where no references to tongues existed in any older, original, "better" manuscript - if tongues had already ceased by then.

So could this mean that tongues had not ceased by the time the "newer" manuscripts containing Mark 16:9-20 were written? that the very oldest manuscripts must have included Mark 16:9-20? and that the manuscripts containing Mark 16:9-20 may not have been newer manuscripts after all?

In any case, the truths about tongues contained in Mark 16:9-20 can be established elsewhere in the New Testament without even relying on the confirmation provided by Mark 16:9-20. So the contrived controversy about this passage can't prove anything against the truth that tongues are still for today.

Speaking WithTongues Without Interpretation

It's okay to speak with tongues in public without interpreting it, in many circumstances.

For example, during times of congregational singing, there's no harm done if you sing in tongues in a manner that doesn't attract any attention away from the proceedings of the meeting.

Or during a prayer-meeting, there's no harm done if you pray with tongues to yourself and to God in a manner that doesn't distract attention from the proceedings of the meeting.

Or if you're in a meeting where everyone has agreed together to sing or pray in unison with tongues - that's fine if you are all doing it - even when there is no interpretation.

Or when you're hanging-out informally with friends, there's no harm done if you say something with tongues, so long as you don't expect everyone else to drop whatever they're doing and listen to you - so long as you're not interrupting the overall flow of the occassion. It's okay!

Sometimes, to speak with tongues, is the overall flow of the occassion. It's okay to speak with tongues without an interpreter during a special outpouring of the Holy Spirit - and it doesn't have to be limited to two or three speakers either.

In Acts chapter two, 120 people spoke with tongues all at once. Later, at Ephesus, twelve people were baptized in water and were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with tongues and prophesied - and there is no record that anyone interpreted the tongues.

In those cases, it wasn't distracting to the proceedings of the meeting, nor did it attract undue attention to the speaker of tongues - it was an outpouring of the Holy Spirit - everyone was speaking with tongues at the same time - no individual was holding the floor demanding undivided attention while he spoke - and there was no interpretation, as far as we know.

Those are totally different scenarios to what Paul was addressing at Corinth. In I Corinthians chapter 14, Paul was talking about a scenario where individual after individual was standing up in a congregation, holding the floor, demanding the entire congregation's undivided attention, and rattling-off ten thousand words in an unknown tongue, without interpretation. The only thing it was achieving was that it showed the congregation that the speaker was able to speak witb tongues - but it didn't benefit anyone else. Obviously if the church persisted in doing that, visitors would rightly think they were mad.

But there are many other circumstances in which it isn't unreasonable to speak with tongues without an interpreter - and it's okay because it doesn't demand anyone else's attention - it doesn't distract attention away from any other proceedings that are going on at that time and place. That's totally fine. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of scenario Paul was addressing!

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all," said Paul.

More on this topic here

Must Tongues Always Be a Tongue of Men?

Jesus said believers will speak in "new" tongues - not just "other" tongues.

Paul implied the possibility that believers could speak in "the tongues of men and of angels".

Paul mentioned the gift of "divers kinds" of tongues.

A tongue was to be "interpreted" - not "judged" as in the case of prophecy.

If a tongue was always a tongue of man, you would think the Holy Spirit would usually give believers utterance in a tongue that was known, rather than unknown, by visitors in the congregation. But instead it was often the case that tongues were unknown by anyone in a congregation and therefore needed interpretation.

If a tongue was always a tongue of man, you wouldn't think the supernatural gift of "the interpretation of tongues" would be needed by the church. If that were the case, it would have been more of a sign to unbelievers if instead of placing the gift of the interpretation of tongues in the church, that a natural-speaker of the tongue would be required and sought who could in turn verify and interpret the tongue.

But instead, God elected to place in the church the supernatural gift of the interpretation of tongues - probably because very often no natural-speakers of the tongues would be available.

Interpreting a tongue through the gift of the Spirit requires the services of an already-convinced believer, to interpret a tongue which neither he nor anyone else present - believer or unbeliever - can understand, to give an interpretation which no-one - believer or unbeliever - can really verify was an accurate translation or not. Yet this is the way God planned it.

Thoughts on I Corinthians 13 - Have Tongues Ceased?

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Evidently the potential was there that a believer could speak with the tongues of men and of angels, just as the potential was there that a believer could prophecy, have faith, bestow all his goods to feed the poor, or give his body to be burned.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

The time to which Paul referred here could not have been the time when Apostolic literature was canonized because knowledge didn't vanish away with that event - rather, it was grouped-together into the New Testament.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When knowledge is no longer imperfect. When prophesying is no longer needed.

This can't refer to the time when the apostolic writings were canonized - because that event brought no extra knowledge - it merely canonized existing knowledge.

If that event constituted "that which is perfect" then prophesying should have ceased - but the New Testament indicates the existence of prophecy right up until the time of the end (Revelation "thou must prophesy..."; also the two witnesses).

11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

The canonization of New Testament literature did not cause Paul to see face to face, nor any believer to see face to face. Nor did it cause Paul nor any believer to know even as also He was known.

13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Faith is still here. Hope is still here. Charity is still here. Therefore that which is perfect has not come yet. Therefore neither have tongues ceased.

"That which is perfect" refers to the Coming of the Lord, or to being in the presence of the Lord.

Thoughts on I Corinthians 14

1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

If the sole purpose for which the gift of tongues was given was so that unbelieving foreigners could hear their own language and become convinced, then it could never have happened that "no man understandeth him".

A tongue was not invalidated just because no man understood it. In such cases he who spoke in an unknown tongue was nevertheless regarded as genuinely speaking to God.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

There was still a purpose and a benefit even when a tongue was unknown - but the benefit was personal, not public.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Speaking in tongues was something that any believer could potentially do, or else Paul wouldn't have desired it for all of them.

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?

7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

Paul's issue was not with their zeal, nor with the genuineness of their gifts - but merely with the most profitable manner of expressing the gifts.

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

There was nothing invalid with the tongues being spoken - only that there was a greater corporate benefit to be had by interpreting the tongues.

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

Tongues were able to be used for prayer, not only for a public sign.

Praying in an unknown tongue exercised one's spirit, rather than one's mind. (Man is spirit, soul and body - Thessalonians).

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.

Paul said, "I will" - that was an act of volition - he could speak in tongues at will.

The choice was the speaker's whether or not he exercised his spirit or his understanding in prayer.

Speaking in tongues was able to be employed not only as a sign - but also for all the purposes for which singing could be employed.

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?

To "bless" was another purpose for which speaking in tongues could be employed. The uses of speaking in tongues were not limited to it's purpose as a sign.

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

Speaking, praying, singing or blessing were all activities that could be done validly in tongues even when the tongue was unknown.

"...verily thou givest thanks well..." meant that performing such activities in an unknwon tongue was regarded as good, acceptable and perfect as a personal activity, despite being unbeneficial to the public if performed in public.

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

Not only in public, but also privately. There was a private use for speaking, praying, singing or blessing in tongues - the purpose of tongues was not limited to being a public sign only.

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.

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

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.

How could tongues ever be a sign to unbelievers if unbelievers were shielded from hearing tongues? It was okay to let unbelievers hear tongues.

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?

"...the whole church...come together into one place..." That does not describe merely a mid-week meeting, or a once-in-a-year camp-meeting - it described the main, regular gathering of the church. There was a place for the regular manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit during the principal gathering of the local church!

"...will they not say that ye are mad?" Evidently the tongues were often unknown, or else if all spake with tongues and unbelievers came in, they wouldn't say they were mad, but instead, they would all hear their own language and be amazed, like what happened on the Day of Pentecost.

Obviously it was not often the case even in the early church that unbelievers heard tongue-speakers in their own languages, like what happened on the Day of Pentecost. It was more common that tongues were unknown and that interpretation was required.

It would have been mad for everyone in a gathering to think any benefit could have been derived through addressing the whole gathering in unknown tongues. If a group carried-on doing that, of course visitors could rightly have questioned their mental health. Nevertheless Paul never denied the validity of the tongues per se - only the manner in which the gift was being expressed.

24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

There was nothing wrong with the tongues - only that the objective should be corporate edification, not personal edification - unless it was spoken privately.

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.

It seems that tongues were more often than not unknown - because here Paul seems to assume that an interpreter would usually be required. If the purpose of tongues was always so that foreign unbelieving visitors could hear their own language, then there would never have been a need for the supernatural gift of "the interpretation of tongues" (I Cor.12: ).

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

The tongue was no less valid despite no-one understanding it - or else Paul would not have encouraged the speaker of such tongues to continue speaking to himself and to God.

Speaking to yourself and to God in tongues was a valid use of speaking in tongues. The usefulness of tongues was not limited to being a public sign.

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

Notice that while a prophecy could be judged, a tongue could be interpreted but not judged, demonstrating that the tongue was indeed unknown.

30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

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

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

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

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

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Do You Have a Problem With Tongues?

I totally sympathize with the importance of waiting until we feel right in our faith and conscience about any spiritual practice - such as speaking in tongues - before proceeding. God is gentle, not abusive. He cares more for our conscience than the issue of tongues. So I hope this is nothing but helpful.

If it was the case that the purpose for speaking in tongues was exclusively so that foreigners in a meeting could hear their own language, then there would never have been a case where, “…no man understandeth him...” (I Cor. 14:2); no-one should ever have needed to “…pray that he may interpret” (verse 13); the gift of the “interpretation of tongues” should never have been needed in the church (I Cor. 12:10); and the circumstances which I Cor.14 was written to address could never even have existed.

Tongues were more-often-that-not unknown it seems - for Paul seemed to imply that the need for tongues to be interpreted in the church would be usual (I Cor. 14:27).

Despite tongues often being unknown, Paul conceded that a believer who had spoken in an [unknown] tongue (I Cor.14:2, 18), or prayed in the tongue (verses 2 & 14), or sang in the tongue (verse 15) or blessed in the tongue (verse 16) had nevertheless done so validly (verse 17).

Seeing tongues were usually unknown, a believer’s better options therefore were to: either pray that he may interpret (verse 13), or else speak privately to himself and to God (verse 28) - the former benefiting the church, due to having been made understandable (verse 5); the latter benefiting himself, despite not being understandable (verse 4).

But either way, the tongue itself was valid despite being unknown. Functionally therefore it didn’t matter that the tongues were often unknown. Speaking in tongues fulfilled a purpose even despite being unknown.

After all, Jesus had foretold that believers would “speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17); Paul mentioned the gift of “[divers] kinds of tongues” (I Cor.12:10); and Paul even seemed to imply the potential for a believer to “speak with the tongues of men and of angels” (I Cor. 13:1).

Paul said that faith, hope, love, prophecies, tongues, and imperfect knowledge would remain until "that which is perfect has come". Could this really have happened sometime between the second century (when Iranaeus said tongues were still being spoken) and the fourth century (by which time Augustine was claiming that tongues had ceased)?

Well Paul had said, "...then shall I know [perfectly] even as I am known". Paul was no longer alive by the second century - so how could it have come to pass then that Paul would know perfectly at the time when that which is perfect would come? But Paul will be present in the resurrection!

Does anyone today have perfect knowledge? Has prophecy failed? Is faith no longer required? Is hope already fulfilled? Then "that which is perfect" has not come yet. Tongues hasn't ceased either.

(Besides, we don't know that there weren't ANY who spoke in tongues during Augustine's time. There may have been some, whom Augustine didn't now about.

But even if there were none who spoke in tongues, that doesn't necessarily become a basis for doctrine. The doctrine of justification by faith wasn't being taught widely during the Middle Ages either, but that didn't mean God had removed it permanently - God later restored the doctrine of justification, as He did the practice of speaking with tongues.

Scripture is the only basis for doctrine - not history, not post-Apostolic authors. If we claim that Paul's instructions about tongues in I Cor.14 are no longer relevant to the presentday church, then as much we may say we oppose dispensationalism, we are actually believing in two different dispensations for the church.

And if we in the present-day church are in a different dispensation to the early church, then the Bible should say, "The church is built [not only on] the foundation of the apostles and prophets...[but also on the foundation of the church-fathers]". - if it is the case that it is the conclusions of the church-fathers and not the instructions of Paul to the Corinthians in chapter fourteen that speak directly to the present-day church. In which case, the church-fathers should have foundational authority over the present-day church to interpret and apply the writings of the Epistles, and to instruct the present-day church - if tongues has ceased). Which is erroneous. There is only one church - one dispensation of the church - and the writings of the Apostles retain their authority and relevance during the entire church age. Therefore faith, hope, love, prophecies and tongues remain, while we are still growing in knowledge, awaiting for that which is perfect to come.

Those are my lay-person's thoughts. I could also speak about my own experiences with tongues. But this will suffice for now. Hope it helps.

And like I said at the beginning, it's everyone's peace of conscience that God cares about above all.

Love and blessings to you.

Must Tongues Always be Known Tongues?

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."

What Defines a Meeting as "Decently and In Order" (I Cor.14:40)?

Many believers have been hindered from embracing Holy Spirit meetings (such as the meeting viewable here) because they've been taught that it is "confusion" and that it is not "decently and in order".

But what is really meant by "confusion" and "decently and in order" (I Cor. 14:33,40)? I think these may be two of the most commonly misunderstood verses in the Epistles. Yes, God is not the author of confusion; and all things must be done decently and in order - but how should we define "confusion" and "decently and in order"? The Bible's definition might not be the same as ours.

For example, remember in Acts chapter two, how the Holy Spirit enabled 120 people to speak with tongues out loud all at the same time - it caused a whole multitude to feel confounded and to think they must have been drunk. If that happens in a church service today, should we define it as "confusion" and not "decently and in order"?

In Acts 10:44-48 the Holy Spirit fell on a congregation, interrupting Peter's sermon while he was still preaching - and the whole congregation began to speak with tongues out loud - and there is no mention that there was any interpretation. If this happens today during a sermon in our church, should we decry it as "confusion" and not "decently and in order"?

At Ephesus the Holy Ghost came upon about twelve people and they spoke with tongues and prophesied (Acts 19:6,7). When we hear of the same thing happening today - of twelve or more people speaking with tongues in a meeting at the same time and prophesying - should we label it as "confusion" and not "decently and in order"?

In each of the above situations there were many people speaking with tongues publicly without an interpreter; and it even caused people to feel confounded and to think they were drunk, and yet notice - the Apostles were okay with it.

So, what did Paul mean when he said to "let all things be done decently and in order"? Obviously, Paul could not have been against a scenario where 120 people might speak with tongues out loud all at the same time; and he could not have been against a scenario where a sermon might be interrupted when an entire congregation suddenly begins to speak witb tongues out loud; and he could not have been against a scenario where about twelve people might speak with tongues and prophesy out loud publicly - or else he would have been contradicting the Scriptures and the work of the Holy Spirit.

So, what was happening at Corinth that Paul sought to correct? Well, the text explains it in Paul's own words. The Corinthians were thinking that having different gifts meant they had different spirits (I Cor.12:1-11); and that different gifts made them spiritually different from one another (vv 12-14); and that having different gifts made them better than one another (vv 15-31). Consequently, they had become unloving, impatient, envious, proud, self-promoting, badly behaved, irritable, annoyed with each other, irrationally behaved and unnecessarily noisy in their expressions of their spiritual gifts without considering the need to edify one another during their gatherings (I Cor.13).

So doctrinally, there was some "confusion" which Paul needed to correct: he needed to remind them that despite having differing spiritual gifts, there is still only one Lord, one faith, one baptism; and as far as their attitudes and motives go, Paul needed to remind them not to be childish and immature, but to consider what is appropriate behaviour to the circumstances, and to think of one another's benefit instead of one's own, and to have some common sense.

Also, Paul was discussing the function of the congregation during regular church-services, not about extraordinary occassions when from time-to-time the Holy Spirit gets poured out in a special way. Meetings like Acts 2, Acts 10 and Acts 19 didn't happen everytime the disciples gathered together - it happened that way when a congregation was first baptized with the Holy Spirit and then also from time-to-time again in the future (Acts 13:52) - but not necessarily every meeting.

But what was happening at Corinth is that too many individuals, with wrong motives, were wanting to stand up and hold the floor, one after the other, Sunday after Sunday, and address the the congregation, expecting the attention of the whole congregation, and speaking with an unknown tongue, when no-one could understand them. Of course that was pointless, which any sensible person, even an unbeliever, should know.

But that didn't mean there weren't situations in which it was entirely appropriate that everyone spoke with tongues publicly without an interpreter - even in the Bible. In Acts 2, 10 and 19, the people weren't seeking attention, they weren't addressing the congregation - they were speaking to God.

Here is an illustration about different things being appropriate in different situations. Imagine 65,718 people in a football stadium during the World Cup. Everyone shouts at the same time. Everyone carries on a conversation with his friends sitting beside him. Everyone in the stadium has his own culture and language - and it's okay that everyone is talking and shouting his own language and it isn't necessary that everyone understands everything that everyone else in the stadium is saying. However, it would be pointless if, one-by-one, individuals wanted to stand up, hold the microphone, address the whole stadium in his own language, and expect everyone to listen even though many in the crowd wouldn't understand. That wouldn't be appropriate to the circumstances - it would be childish and immature. And if people persisted in doing so, you'd question their mental health.

That is the type of occurrence Paul was correcting. He wasn't saying there can't be times when the Holy Spirit gets poured out on a congregation in a special way when everyone might begin to speak with tongues out loud at the same time without the need for an interpreter and to prophesy (otherwise, Paul would have been contradicting his own meeting at Ephesus in Acts 19). What Paul was talking about, rather, was regular, every Sunday meetings, where individuals were behaving in a non-sensical way which even unbelievers would think was useless.

When Paul said unbelievers would think they were mad, it wasn't because of the fact of speaking with tongues - Paul said tongues are a sign to unbelievers. There are circumstances in which any sensible person knows - even unbelievers - that it's quite okay for many people to be speaking in different languages at the same time - such as spectators in a stadium during an international football match, or believers during group-prayer or during an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. That doesn't mean a group of people are mad.

What anyone will think is crazy, however, is if grown adults are standing up, holding the floor, going on and on in a different language, expecting people's attention, even though no-one understands them - and thinking that's beneficial. Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that's pointless.

But when a whole church gets filled with the Spirit for the first time and all begin to speak with tongues - no individual is expecting the congregation to give him their undivided attention; no-one is addressing the congregation. They are all speaking to God, as in Acts 2, 10 & 19. That's entirely Scriptural and okay - and it's not what Paul was addressing.

The linked video was not one of the church's regular Sunday morning services. It was a season of special revival in that church. Many were getting filled with the Spirit for the first time. The church did not experience this type of outpouring every Sunday. It was an extraordinary season, like Acts 2, 10 and 19. In the video, no-one was using the gift of tongues in the manner which Paul was correcting in I Corinthians. Rather, they were speaking with tongues in a way that was consistent with Acts 2, 10 & 19. They were speaking not to the congregation, but to God. Yes, it caused some people to feel "confounded" and others to wonder whether they might be drunk. But those people ended-up hearing the Gospel and getting saved!

So it's important to compare Scripture with Scripture, and gain a balanced understanding of what really defines a meeting as "decently and in order". Every sensible person knows it doesn't serve any purpose if one-by-one individuals stand up and address a congregation in languages which no-one understands; but it's also entirely okay, Scriptural, beneficial and positively impacting even upon unbelievers if everyone speaks with tongues out loud at the same time without an interpreter and prophesies when the Holy Spirit is being poured out. It draws people to God. Since "tongues are a sign to unbelievers" it follows that we needn't shield unbelievers from ever hearing tongues.

Those are my thoughts about I Cor.14:33,40.

"Forbid not to speak with tongues," said Paul.

Does this liberate you?

More on this topic here