The Gift of Tongues: A Known language or Unintelligible Utterances?
Posted by Lev/Christopher on November 4, 2008 at 11:06am in Tongues
by Alan Conner
INTRODUCTION
The
charismatic movement has sparked many controversies within the church
today. Their proponents have claimed that they have witnessed a revival
of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of tongues.
Many have objected to this claim based on texts of Scripture which they
believe argue that the so-called sign gifts were temporary in nature.
The purpose of this
paper is not to engage in the debate of whether or not the miraculous
gifts of the Spirit were in fact temporary or permanent. Rather, it is
my goal to put forth some of the evidence concerning the actual nature
of the language used in the gift of tongues. The tongues spoken within
the charismatic movement today have been carefully examined by
linguistic scholars and found not to be a real human language at all
but rather unintelligible utterances (see Appendix below). But is there
any solid evidence in the Bible for the gift of tongues utilizing
unintelligible speech?
We are exhorted by the apostle John to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God"
(1 Jn. 4:1). Taking heed to the apostle's words, this paper is an
attempt to determine the true nature of the language used in the gift
of tongues. It will be argued in this paper that the biblical gift of
tongues was, in fact, a known human language, though unknown to the
speaker. If this view is found to be accurate, then it presents a great
obstacle to those who believe that the tongues spoken today are indeed
the biblical gift of tongues.
THE CONTENT OF THIS STUDY
This paper will begin
with the account of Pentecost in the book of Acts and then progress
through the major passages in the NT that discuss speaking in tongues,
or the gift of tongues. We shall pay close attention to the actual
nature of the speech that is associated with speaking in tongues to
determine whether or not it was a known human language or something
else.
I. GLOSSOLALIA IN THE BOOK OF ACTS
A. The Tongues at Pentecost
Most scholars agree that
the tongues spoken at Pentecost in Acts 2 refer to human languages
which were unknown to the speaker. The evidence is indeed overwhelming
for this view:
1) The meaning of "other tongues" in Acts 2:4. The expression in Acts 2:4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues ", is best understood as a reference to human languages.
a) The word "other" (heterais
) refers to another of a different kind, meaning that these tongues
were different than their native tongue. Note also that when heteros ("other") is combined with glossa ("tongues") into the compound word heteroglossos
, it is used only once in the NT (1 Cor. 14:21) where it occurs in a
quotation from Isa. 28:11 and refers clearly to a human language,
Assyrian, which was unknown to Israel.
b) The word "tongues" best refers to foreign languages for the following reason:
1) Acts 2:6 states that
the multitude who heard the tongues being spoken were bewildered,
"because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language ." Thus, this verse clearly states that the disciples were speaking the various languages of those who were gathered. This was not a miracle of hearing but of speaking.
Also, consider that
these men who were listening were from many different countries (15
countries are listed in vv. 9-11) and yet they clearly heard the
disciples "speaking of the mighty deeds of God" (v. 11). Here again we
find a clear reference that the miracle at Pentecost was that the
disciples were speaking in the people's native "tongues" and telling of
the mighty deeds of God. Again, the evidence argues strongly that what
occurred was a miracle of speaking and not of hearing.
2) The word for "language" (dialektos
) in Acts 2:6, 8 refers clearly to human languages but is also used
interchangeably with the word "tongues" (Acts 2:11) indicating that
they are synonymous terms in this context. Note the expression "our own
tongues" in v. 11 which certainly refers to their native languages.
Thus, the "tongues" of Acts 2:4 and 2:11 are the same as the
"languages" of Acts 2:6 and 8, and all refer to human languages.
3) To hold that the
"tongues" in Acts 2:4 was some kind of ecstatic speech would contradict
its usage in Acts 2:11 where it clearly refers to human languages.
2) The meaning of "utterance" in Acts 2:4. In Acts 2:4, the phrase, "as the Spirit was giving them utterance ", also supports that their "tongues" were human languages because the word "utterance" (apophthengomai
) is only used 3 times in the NT (all by Luke in Acts 2:4, 14; 26:25)
and clearly refers to communicating human language in the other two
passages:
Acts 2:14 - Peter "raised his voice and declared to them, "Men of Judea, . . . " Clearly here we have Peter speaking to his kindred in their own language.
Acts 26:25 - Paul reasons with Festus saying, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. This is another clear example of this word used for human language.
Thus, the other uses of
this word by Luke in Acts refer to human language and this gives
support for the same meaning in Acts 2:4. This evidence helps to
confirm that the "utterance" that the Spirit was giving to the
disciples in Acts 2:4 was in the form of a human language and not in
ecstatic, unintelligible speech .
3) The word glossa ("tongues") refers to human languages. We are now in a better position to evaluate the meaning of the word glossa
translated "tongues" in its plural form in Acts 2:4, 11. All lexicons
affirm that one of the common uses for this word is to refer to human
languages (cf. Phil. 2:11; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6;
17:15; see also heteroglossos in 1 Cor. 14:21). There should be no doubt that the use of glossa
in Acts 2:4 and 11 also refer to human languages. The context (see
above) supports that the disciples were speaking in languages which
were unknown to them personally, but which were the native tongues of
many of the visitors gathered at the time of Pentecost.
Thus, the evidence supports the conclusion that the tongues at Pentecost were not ecstatic speech but known human languages.
B. The Tongues in Acts after Pentecost
The argument is made by
some charismatics that once one leaves the unusual circumstances of
Pentecost, we actually see a different kind of tongues being
manifested, i.e., an ecstatic speech of unintelligible sounds which is
unrelated to any human language. They refer to this gift of tongues as
being a miraculous language which is used in heaven between God and the
angels, or as the language of the Spirit which man may attain in prayer
as he is seized by the Spirit and caught up into heaven. This, many
believe, is the kind of tongues found in the remainder of Acts and in 1
Corinthians 12-14.
As we begin to examine
this view, we will start with an evaluation of the other notable
occurrences of tongues in the book of Acts.
1) Acts 10 - the house of Cornelius.
The second clear instance of speaking in tongues occurs with Cornelius
and his household in Acts 10:44-48. As Peter was preaching, the gift of
the Holy Spirit was poured out upon Cornelius and his household. Then,
Peter and the Jewish believers "were hearing them speaking with tongues
and exalting God" (v. 46).
Is there any evidence
that these tongues were of a different kind or nature than what
occurred at Pentecost in Acts 2? Were they speaking in a foreign
language, or were they speaking in a jibberish? The evidence argues for
continuity with Acts 2, not discontinuity:
a) Luke uses the same terminology here that he used in Acts 2. In acts 10:46 it states that they were "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais
)which is the same expression used in Acts 2:4, 11. If Cornelius and
his family were speaking in a different kind of tongue, say a
jibberish, there is no indication from Luke that this was the case. He
gives no hints or clues that something is different or unusual compared
to what happened at Pentecost.
b) Both Luke and Peter acknowledge a continuity between what happened at Pentecost and what is happening with Cornelius.
(1) Luke says in Acts 10:45 that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also
." Luke says, in effect, that the same gift that came in Acts 2 came in
Acts 10, that what happened at Jerusalem during Pentecost also happened
at Caesarea in the house of Cornelius. There is no indication that the
gift of the Holy Spirit which was being manifested through the speaking
in tongues was any different here than in Acts 2.
(2) Peter also agrees.
In v. 47 he says, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be
baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did , can
he?" Peter believed that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit in the very
same way that they did at Pentecost. This expression is designed to
draw the closest parallel between Peter's experience at Pentecost and
what happened to Cornelius.
This continuity of
experience between Pentecost and Cornelius is confirmed by Peter a
second time when he returned to Jerusalem and explained to the
circumcised believers what happened to Cornelius (Acts 11:4-17). In his
defense, Peter asserts,
"And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning . . . If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I stand in God's way?" (vv. 15, 17).
Peter, again, argues
that what happened at Pentecost to the circumcised believers also
happened to uncircumcised Cornelius in exactly the same way. The Holy
Spirit fell upon them both in the same way, "just as He did upon us at
the beginning" (v. 15). Peter also states that God gave them the "same
gift as He gave to us also" (v. 17). How did Peter know that they
received the same gift as he did at Pentecost? Peter must have in view
not just the gift of the Holy Spirit but also the Spirit's
manifestation of His presence through speaking in tongues, otherwise
what tangible evidence was there for Peter's confident assertion that
God gave to Cornelius the same gift? Since the Holy Spirit is
Himself invisible, the gift of the Holy Spirit can only be known
through the way in which He manifests Himself. Since speaking in
tongues were being manifested, this must have been the way in which
Peter knew that the Gentiles had received the same gift as he had
received. Thus, the "same gift" to which Peter refers must include a
reference, not only to the Spirit Himself, but also to their speaking
in the same kind of tongues which were manifested at Pentecost; namely,
foreign languages.
All of this supports the
view that the speaking in tongues in Acts 10 correlates exactly with
what happened at Pentecost. There is no indication given by Luke or
Peter that what was experienced by Cornelius was anything other than
what occurred at Pentecost. If the manifestation of tongues at
Pentecost consisted in speaking a foreign language, then the same must
have occurred with Cornelius for there is no evidence of anything new
taking place. Therefore, the description of the experience of Cornelius
argues strongly for continuity with the same gift of tongues given at
Pentecost.
c) Apparently the
language of the tongues being spoken was understood by some of the
Jewish believers for they recognized that Cornelius and his family were
exalting God (v. 46). This would argue against a jibberish unless of
course the gift of interpretation was being utilized, but again, there
is no indication that this was the case. Although this is a lesser
argument, it may also contribute to the case for continuity between
Acts 2 and 10.
2) Acts 19 - the Ephesian disciples.
These disciples received
the Holy Spirit as Paul laid his hands on them and they began speaking
with tongues and prophesying (v. 6). As Luke records this event, he
uses the same language that he used to describe tongues at Pentecost.
There is no indication that the tongues here were different in nature
than those which were manifested earlier.
In summary, the evidence
found in the book of Acts argues that the gift of tongues at Pentecost
and elsewhere was a known human language, not unintelligible ecstatic
speech.
II. GLOSSOLALIA IN 1 CORINTHIANS
We now are drawn to the
critical battleground of 1 Corinthians. Whoever wins the battle here,
wins the war! The issue is whether or not Paul in 1 Corinthians is
presenting a different kind of "tongues", a "gift of tongues", which is
distinct from the tongues in Acts, or are they the same in nature.
To begin with, there
should be a principle established to determine the shape of the playing
field. The point I want to make is that the field is not absolutely
level. By this I mean that since we already have clear support that the
tongues in Acts are human languages (thus called xenoglossia ),
we should assume that the tongues mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians
are of the same nature. In other words, the burden of proof lies with
those who believe that there are two different kinds of tongues. They
must present clear and convincing evidence if they want to give support
for the modern-day tongues phenomena which uses a form of jibberish,
which is not a human language at all, but rather unintelligible sounds
which are without interconnection or meaning .
Further support for this
assumption that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are the same as in Acts is
that Luke wrote Acts (A.D. 62) about 7+ years after Paul wrote 1
Corinthians (A.D. 55). As a traveling companion of Paul, Luke would
have been intimately aware of the kind of tongues being spoken at
Corinth through the reports given him by Paul and others, as well as,
by reading Paul's letter to the Corinthian church. This is important
because we know that Luke used the very same terms (glossa and laleo
) to describe the tongues of foreign languages in Acts as did Paul when
he described the tongues used at Corinth. If Luke knew that the two
manifestations of tongues were different in nature, it seems odd that
he chose to use the very same terminology that Paul used without giving
any indication at all that there was a difference.
In addition to this,
Paul probably knew the nature of the tongues at Pentecost and was aware
that they were speaking in the known languages of the foreign visitors
that were present in Jerusalem. If the tongues at Corinth were
different in nature than those in Jerusalem, why did he not indicate
so? Why did he clearly use terms that refer to known languages (see
Acts) when he described the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians? (See 1
Cor. 14:21-22 and discussion below.) If there is a lack of any clear
evidence that the tongues at Corinth differed from the tongues in Acts,
then it is a compelling argument for their equality based upon the
similar terminology used by both Paul and Luke.
With this in mind, let's
examine the passages dealing with the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians
and evaluate their contribution to the debate as to whether or not
these tongues were a known human language, or the unintelligible
ecstatic speech of an heavenly language.
A. Tongues in 1 Cor. 12
1) The specific
references to the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians describes it as a
gift of "various kinds of tongues" - 1 Cor. 12:10 (cf. v. 28).
2) "to another the
interpretation of tongues" - 1 Cor. 12:10, 30. The word
"interpretation" is a key word in determining the nature of the
biblical gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians. In order for the gift of
tongues to edify others, it must be interpreted by those who have the
gift of "the interpretation of tongues". This spiritual gift gives us
an important key to unlock the meaning of the gift of tongues. Consider
the following:
a) The word
"interpretation" is only found twice in the NT and both are used for
the gift of "the interpretation of tongues" in 1 Cor. 12:10 and 14:26.
Also see the similar form for "interpreter" in 1 Cor. 14:28.
b) The verbal form " to interpret" diermhneuw (diermeneuo ) is also used for this gift in 1 Cor. 12:30; 14:5, 13, 27.
A key to understanding
the nature of the gift of tongues lies in the meaning of this word "to
interpret". The NT evidence presents a clear and consistent meaning for
this verb and its other similar forms; namely, that it always refers to
interpreting a human language. For example, in the two other passages
where this same verb occurs outside the references to the gift of
interpretation, it clearly refers to the interpretation of a human
language. In Lk. 24:47, it refers to the exposition of the OT Scripture
and in Acts 9:36 it refers to the translation of Aramaic into Greek.
Also, the root form of this verb is the word ermhneuw (hermeneuo
) and it is also consistently used in the NT of interpreting one human
language into another (see John. 1:38, 42; 9:7; Heb. 7:2).
If tongues, therefore,
require interpretation, then they must be a cognitive language. They
must communicate intelligible meanings if an interpretation is
necessary for understanding. Thus, whether the words "interpretation"
or "interpret" refer to an exposition or a translation, this word group
refers to making clear what is said in a known human language. This
evidence supports the view that the gift of the "interpretation of
tongues" refers to the supernatural ability to translate an unknown
human language into the language of those listening. If tongues are a
form of gibberish, or unintelligible ecstatic speech, then the need for
a formal "interpretation" would be unnecessary. A non-language cannot
be "interpreted" in the way this word is used in the NT.
One may also argue that
the gift of tongues are the "tongues of angels" in 1 Cor. 13:1 which
need interpretation since they are a real heavenly language. This
option will be discussed next.
In conclusion, the gift
of the interpretation of tongues does not support tongues as
unintelligible ecstatic speech, but rather as a known human language.
B. The "tongues of angels" in 1 Cor. 13:1
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, . . ."
Some have taught that
this reference to the "tongues of angels" refers to a language spoken
by angels, but is unknown to man, and explains the kind of tongues
found today. Is this likely? Consider the following:
1) The evidence is not
clear that angels have a separate language different from human
languages. In support of there being no difference between the tongues
of men and of angels, other than a qualitative difference where the
angelic tongue is characterized as more exalted, heavenly, and
spiritual, the following evidence is offered.
First, one must
admit that the Bible gives no support for an angelic language that is
different than that for the human race. Every time an angel speaks in
the Bible, whether to God or to men, it is always in a human language.
There is no firm support in the Bible for angels speaking in any other
kind of language that is uniquely their own.
Second, the Bible
at times records the words of one language which is different from the
language used in the writing of that particular document, and then
follows it with a translation (cf. Mt. 1:23; Mk. 5:41; 15:22, 34; Jn.
1:38, 41, 42; Jn. 9:7; Acts 4:36; 9:36; 13:8 ), but this never occurs
when angels are speaking in the Bible. There is no indication that
their words, even those spoken in heaven (cf. Isa. 6:3; Rev. 5:11-12,
etc.), are coming to us via a translation.
Third, since
there are other areas that both angels and men share in common, why not
also their language? If angelic measurements are the same as human
measurements (cf. Rev. 21:17), then does this not suggest that an
angelic "cubit" is also a human "cubit", which implies a common
language with which to express such measurements?
However, the fact
remains that Paul is making some kind of distinction between the
tongues of men and of angels. Whether the distinction refers to an
altogether different kind of language spoken by angels or that angelic
speech is different because of its exalted nature is still open to
debate.
2) One view of this
passage is that Paul is speaking hypothetically when he says, "If I
speak with the tongues of men and of angels". The hypothetical aspect
is attached to speaking in the tongues of angels since Paul definitely
did speak in the tongues of men (Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, etc.). This
view, then, could (not must) allow for a belief in a different kind of
angelic tongue and this would, at least, be consistent with Jewish
tradition. Assuming this view to be correct, it would also argue that
Paul (and the Corinthians as well) did not actually speak in the
tongues of angels because he is only speaking hypothetically of this.
Furthermore, it would clearly indicate that Paul only spoke in the
"tongues of men" and that all of his speech must be understood to be in
this category. If this is the case, then his gift of tongues must also
have been in the category of the tongues of men, or known human
languages. There is support for this view.
First, there are
other hypothetical phrases in 1 Cor. 3:1-4 which make this option a
strong possibility. Compare "If I speak with the tongues of men and of
angels" with "if I know all mysteries and have all knowledge"; and "if
I have all faith so as to remove mountains"; and "if I give all my
possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned"
(vv. 2-3). It is clear that there are several hypothetical statements
in this section. All five assertions are stated hypothetically in vv.
1-3 (they are all third class conditional phrases). Obviously, Paul did
not have all knowledge (v. 9), and did not give his body to be burned,
and did not have all faith or know all mysteries, etc. Paul did not
literally have or do any of these things. They are hypothetical
statements to show the superiority of love over all gifts, sacrifices,
and abilities. Thus, it argues that when Paul said, "If I speak with
the tongues of men and of angels" (v. 1) that he was speaking
hypothetically, just as he was speaking hypothetically in vv. 2-3.
Thus, the context argues
against the likelihood that Paul actually did speak in both the
languages of men and angels. That he spoke in the languages of men is
obviously assumed to be true (his gift of tongues would fit in this
category), but he did not speak in both the languages of men and
angels, this is stated as hypothetical.
Second, this
hypothetical view of speaking in the tongues of angels would basically
render them inapplicable to the modern expression of the gift of
tongues. After all, if Paul is referring to the tongues of angels as a
language so lofty and glorious and beyond his ability to use, then it
is unlikely that it would be the norm for the Corinthian believers.
Thus, we are left with the only option of trying to explain the gift of
tongues within the category of the "tongues of men".
Lenski also argues that
Paul has angelic languages in view but they are quite beyond the
experience of Paul and the Corinthians. Paul spoke in the languages of
men, but not in the languages of angels. When he was caught up to
Paradise (2 Cor. 12:4), he heard "inexpressible words, which a man is
not permitted to speak." Could these have been the "tongues of angels"
as they speak in heaven, and different from human languages? If so, one
thing is certain. They were of such a sacred character that it was not
permitted for them to be spoken by man. This would seem to decrease, if
not eliminate entirely, the possibility that the gift of tongues
utilizes or is equal to the tongues of angels.
What Paul may be saying
in 1 Cor. 13:1 is that even if he was able to speak in the highest
degree and possessed the languages of all beings, both terrestrial and
celestial (even though this was impermissible), even so, without love
he would be as a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. Thus, the superiority
of love over all supernatural gifts is established.
3) Another argument
against the view that the gift of tongues at Corinth were in fact the
tongues of angels is this: if the gift of tongues at Corinth was the
"tongues of angels" whereas the gift of tongues at Pentecost was the
"tongues of men", then the gift at Corinth would have been raised above
the gift in its original form at Pentecost. This might seem unusual due
to the unique outpouring and powerful manifestation of the Spirit at
Pentecost and its place in Scripture as the launching point of the New
Covenant gift of the Spirit. Even throughout Acts, no other outpouring
of the Spirit equals what occurred at Pentecost. Why should Corinth
have a more exalted and heavenly manifestation of spiritual gifts than
is recorded elsewhere?
In conclusion, the
evidence for the gift of tongues at Corinth being the "tongues of
angels", and thus an unintelligible, ecstatic speech, lacks convincing
support from this passage.
C. Tongues in 1 Cor. 14
This crucial chapter
will now be examined to see if there is any solid support for the gift
of tongues being a form of unintelligible, ecstatic utterances (or
gibberish) as opposed to a human language.
1) Some have thought
that v. 2 is nonsensical if the tongues are thought of as a real
language because it says that "one who speaks in a tongue does not
speak to men, but to God, for no one understands, but in his spirit he
speaks mysteries." They argue that if tongues were human languages then
Paul could not say that one who speaks in a tongues "does not speak to
men," or that "no one understands". Thus, they argue that Paul must be
identifying the gift of tongues with the tongues of angels and not men.
However, as D. A. Carson points out, all of these verses make sense if
one remembers that the tongues-speaker does not know what he is saying
unless there is an interpretation, which Paul presupposes when he
exhorts the speaker to pray for the gift of interpretation in v. 13.
This all makes perfectly good sense if they were speaking in a foreign
language which no one present knew unless it was interpreted. The
categorical sounding statements "does not speak to men," and "for no
one understands," actually means that no one present at the meeting
understood the language of the one speaking in tongues if it was not
interpreted. Thus, the support for ecstatic language is not convincing.
2) The use of
"mysteries" with tongues in v. 2 does not support that they were
ecstatic speech of unintelligible utterances. Consider the following:
First, in 1 Cor.
13:2 mysteries are associated with the cognitive knowledge that comes
from prophecy and not to any form of unintelligible speech, so the
communication of "mysteries" does not require ecstatic speech. Also,
Paul clearly taught and revealed mysteries to the Corinthians and
others in the Greek language (see 1 Cor. 15:51-52 and Rom. 16:25-26;
Col. 1:25-27; Eph. 3:4-7). "Mysteries" in the NT commonly means truth
about God, once hidden, but now revealed. It does not refer to ecstatic
speech in the NT.
It is helpful to keep in
mind that the reason why these tongues are unintelligible to men is not
because they are ecstatic speech, but because there is no interpreter
present. This is the assumption behind Paul exhorting the one speaking
in a tongue to pray for the ability to interpret (v. 13). Also, one
must remember that the normal church meeting at Corinth would not have
the numerous linguistic backgrounds as were present at Pentecost. Thus,
the likelihood of a tongue being unknown would be great.
Second, another
way to take the mysteries in 1 Cor. 14:2 is simply to make them refer
to the fact that when there is no interpretation of a tongue, the
message becomes a mystery to those who are listening. They cannot
understand it because it is in a language that they do not know. The
phrase, "but in his spirit he speaks mysteries," means he either speaks
mysteries to himself, assuming he is not able to interpret, or he
speaks mysteries to those present. This latter view seems preferable
because Paul has already stated earlier in v. 2 that the primary focus
is on the impact of uninterpreted tongues on others, "does not speak to
men, but to God; for no one understands." In other words, tongues are
only understood by God if they are not interpreted because others do
not understand what is being said. The uninterpreted tongues become
mysteries to those who do not understand them. Thus, there is no
requirement that the mention of "mysteries" must indicate the existence
of ecstatic speech.
3) Some have argued that the use of the root lal- (lal-
), "to speak" with speaking in tongues (see v. 2, etc.) supports
ecstatic utterance" because it is sometimes used for incoherent speech
like animal sounds and the sounds of musical instruments. Gundry,
however, contends that this argument is weak for the following reasons:
1) The root lal- did not ordinarily mean incoherent speech in
Hellenistic times; 2) Not only does Paul use this root to describe
tongues but also the word legw (lego ) in 14:16 and lego does not have incoherent speech as one of its connotations; 3) Paul also uses the lal-
root in 14:19 of speaking "with the mind", which is in contrast with
uninterpreted tongues, and in v. 29 in connection with prophesy, and in
v. 34 of the speech of women, all of which clearly refer to
intelligible speech and not to ecstatic utterance; 4) The root lal-
probably is preferred by Paul due to its occurrence in Isa. 28:11f.
which he quotes in 14:21. Since it clearly refers to a known human
language there, we should assume this usage in the context of 1
Corinthians.
4) Does the illustration
in vv. 10-11 argue in favor of or against tongues as a known language?
Some have argued that the illustration of a "great many kinds of
languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning" in v. 10 argues
against tongues as a known language for this would then confuse the
illustration with the thing being illustrated. They argue that there
must be a difference between the illustration and that which is being
illustrated, thus, biblical tongues must be different in nature than
human languages. This view is unconvincing. First, the gift of
tongues can still be a foreign language and fit with the illustration
quite well. Paul's illustration in vv. 10-11 uses foreign languages as
they occur naturally in the world. If, for example, an Egyptian who
speaks only his language meets a Greek who only speaks his, they will
be barbarians or foreigners to each other for they do not understand
each other's language. This natural situation which would occur between
men of different languages is designed by Paul to illustrate what would
occur in the meeting of the church if a man who supernaturally has the
gift of tongues speaks out in another foreign language that is not
interpreted to the church. The result would be the same as the Egyptian
meeting the Greek, neither would understand the other. Thus, Paul's
illustration is similar in nature, but different. Paul's illustration
refers to a normal use of foreign languages in the world where the
Corinthian situation is a supernatural use of them in the church. The
illustration does not set forth a difference between a real foreign
language and the supposed ecstatic language of tongues, but rather it
shows that the normal use of foreign languages produces the same result
as the gift of tongues if neither is interpreted.
5) Do vv. 14-16 support
that tongues are ecstatic speech, or the tongues of angels? Since
praying in a tongue is equivalent to praying with the spirit and not
with the mind, does this support that tongues are not a foreign
language but rather ecstatic speech (vv. 14-16)? Several observation
should be made in forming an answer to these questions. First,
the word "spirit" should be understood as the human spirit and not the
Holy Spirit since it would be inappropriate to refer to the Holy Spirit
as "my Spirit", using the personal pronoun (v. 14). One should
certainly not quarrel that it is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to
enable one to speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:7-11), but this is not the
emphasis in this context. Paul has in mind the spirit of the one
praying in a tongue. Second, when Paul says that one who prays
in a tongue prays with his spirit, he is not implying that the one
praying must be using a language of the spirit which is different than
a known cognitive language. Paul's point seems to be that if one prays
in a tongue which is not interpreted, his spirit is involved in
receiving the reception of the gracious effects of the Spirit, and in
making the vocalizations, but the mind is unfruitful because it does
not understand what is being said. This idea fits well with tongues
being a known language. Ecstatic speech is not required here. The point
that Paul is making is that when one prays or sings with the spirit and
the mind is unfruitful due to a lack of interpretation, the effect is
that those who are listening do not know what is being said (v. 16).
Paul is not attempting to define the nature of tongues as a spiritual
language that is different from a cognitive language. Instead, he is
emphatically arguing for the importance of interpreting tongues so the
mind can be stimulated with truth and thus be edified. Without
understanding, there is no "Amen" or edification (vv. 16-17). Paul
would rather speak "five words with my mind, that I may instruct others
also, rather than ten thousand words in an [uninterpreted] tongue" (v.
19). There is nothing here that requires that the speaking or singing
with the spirit in tongues must be ecstatic speech rather than a
foreign language.
6) How does the quotation of Isa. 28:11f. in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 affect this de
Reply by Lev/Christopher on November 4, 2008 at 11:06am
|