Is no interpreter the end of the world?

[Hidden In Him]

In general, I agree with the apostle Paul's teaching that interpretation of tongues should be provided for unbeliever's sake, "lest they think we are mad," as he put it. But I just made a curious observation this morning. They thought the disciples were drunk on the day of Pentecost as well, and there is no mention of interpreters being present there, yet the world did not come to an end.

My point is this: While I do believe the teaching of the apostle Paul should be abided by, I think using it as an excuse not to speak in tongues at all is taking things too far. If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation than that they not go forth at all just for the sake of abiding by a rule for the sake of appearances. If this rule had been enforced strictly at the dawn of the church age, the events that took place on the Day of Pentecost might never have happened.

Any thoughts?

 

[hawkman]

In general, I agree with the apostle Paul's teaching that interpretation of tongues should be provided for unbeliever's sake, "lest they think we are mad," as he put it. But I just made a curious observation this morning. They thought the disciples were drunk on the day of Pentecost as well, and there is no mention of interpreters being present there, yet the world did not come to an end.

My point is this: While I do believe the teaching of the apostle Paul should be abided by, I think using it as an excuse not to speak in tongues at all is taking things too far. If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation than that they not go forth at all just for the sake of abiding by a rule for the sake of appearances. If this rule had been enforced strictly at the dawn of the church age, the events that took place on the Day of Pentecost might never have happened.

Any thoughts?

At the initial outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost interpreters were not needed because all the tongues being spoken were the native languages (tongue) of the people hearing the tongues .
Acts2

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The reason Paul had so much to say about the Gift of Tongues being used in the church was the confusion factor if ALL were speaking in tongues at the same time without interpretation offered . Tongues do go forth without interpretation when you are by yourself and pray in tongues .

 

[eddif]

In general, I agree with the apostle Paul's teaching that interpretation of tongues should be provided for unbeliever's sake, "lest they think we are mad," as he put it. But I just made a curious observation this morning. They thought the disciples were drunk on the day of Pentecost as well, and there is no mention of interpreters being present there, yet the world did not come to an end.

My point is this: While I do believe the teaching of the apostle Paul should be abided by, I think using it as an excuse not to speak in tongues at all is taking things too far. If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation than that they not go forth at all just for the sake of abiding by a rule for the sake of appearances. If this rule had been enforced strictly at the dawn of the church age, the events that took place on the Day of Pentecost might never have happened.

Any thoughts?

I don’t think there is any problem agreeing with Paul.

If no one is present to interpret, just pray to God.

1Corinthians 14:28 kjv
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

In ourselves we think in our language. The prayer language can continue in internal tongues to ourselves and God. It does not have to be heard by others.

1 Corinthians 14:13 kjv
13. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

When the Holy Spirit decides the prayer language can have the interpretation follow. It can. As an interpreter the language and interpretation flow at basically the same time. After knowing being in the spirit, you can prophesy (as the spirit wills). In our case English is the language we can use in most of our churches. Get out of the spirit and you find the carnal man trying to prophesy. It is not our carnal mind that gives prophecy. Elihu thought he had the spirit of prophecy. Wrong. We as a carnal person do not have the ability. Prophets of old spoke without fully understanding. The HolySpirit is in charge.

Paul was told not to go to Jerusalem by local prophets. The prophets had half God and half carnal bad theology. We seek after the higher gifts. We will not be perfect till the last trump.

As a redneck I still struggle with the right word.
Prophecy - prophesy there is a difference.

The high priest gave a prophecy about the death of Jesus, and he sure was not a prophet.

We have a long way to go.

Others judge and respond.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[eddif]

At the initial outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost interpreters were not needed because all the tongues being spoken were the native languages (tongue) of the people hearing the tongues .
Acts2

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The reason Paul had so much to say about the Gift of Tongues being used in the church was the confusion factor if ALL were speaking in tongues at the same time without interpretation offered . Tongues do go forth without interpretation when you are by yourself and pray in tongues .

You done good.
eddif

 

[eddif]

Pagans utter chirps and mutter. That is a sign to them.

Prophecy is a sign to believers.

Getting into a persons hidden thoughts let’s them know it is God in the speaker.

1 Corinthians 14:25 kjv
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.

And a worship service needs several witnesses in several ways.

eddif

 

[Hidden In Him]

At the initial outpouring of Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost interpreters were not needed because all the tongues being spoken were the native languages (tongue) of the people hearing the tongues .

I was anticipating this answer, Hawkman, and sorry about the late response. You see, while each one was certainly understanding the utterances going forth in his own native language, they were obviously not understanding all who were speaking in all the other languages going forth at the same time, unless of course they were multilingual freaks who spoke like twelve-plus languages fluently and then some, Lol. Get my point? This is precisely why Paul had to assure everyone they were not drunk. If everyone there was understanding everything being said, there would have been no need to reassure them they weren't tipsy.

The reason Paul had so much to say about the Gift of Tongues being used in the church was the confusion factor if ALL were speaking in tongues at the same time without interpretation offered

Well, but now the case I'm presenting essentially says the opposite. I think it's what was happening at Pentecost.

 

[Hidden In Him]

If no one is present to interpret, just pray to God...

In ourselves we think in our language. The prayer language can continue in internal tongues to ourselves and God. It does not have to be heard by others.

Ok, let me present a scenario then, because I've had this happen in real life. Suppose you are at a service and it is a congregation of maybe 50 people and you know everyone there, and everyone is Charismatic because it's a Charismatic church. And then in the middle of corporate prayer with the worship going, the Spirit of God speaks to you about something and reveals wisdom or knowledge in a time of need, and you start glorifying God. And before you even realize it, you are glorifying Him in tongues, and finding it difficult to keep your voice down - as the scriptures says, "even the rocks cry out."

Is it the end of the world if you end up speaking in tongues in such a service without an interpreter? Everyone there understands, and it would be very natural in an environment where many are already caught up in the Spirit, with many worshipping and many others praying, and every one of them lost in God.

 

[eddif]

Ok, let me present a scenario then, because I've had this happen in real life. Suppose you are at a service and it is a congregation of maybe 50 people and you know everyone there, and everyone is Charismatic because it's a Charismatic church. And then in the middle of corporate prayer with the worship going, the Spirit of God speaks to you about something and reveals wisdom or knowledge in a time of need, and you start glorifying God. And before you even realize it, you are glorifying Him in tongues, and finding it difficult to keep your voice down - as the scriptures says, "even the rocks cry out."

Is it the end of the world if you end up speaking in tongues in such a service without an interpreter? Everyone there understands, and it would be very natural in an environment where many are already caught up in the Spirit, with many worshipping and many others praying, and every one of them lost in God.

It is not the end of the world. It may be the beginning of your higher education.

1 Corinthians 14:26 kjv
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.
The tradition in Charismatic circles is to start interacting among believers.

Tradition not scripture.

I bumped post. I am in edit. I will be back.

eddit

 

[eddif]

It is not the end of the world. It may be the beginning of your higher education.

1 Corinthians 14:26 kjv
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.
The tradition in Charismatic circles is to start interacting among believers.

Tradition not scripture.

I bumped post. I am in edit. I will be back.

eddit

1 Corinthians 14:27 kjv
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.


This is the brakes to stop non edifying tongues. If a short few words are not interpreted. Stop. Go into silent mode. There is no one to interpret. Forget it. Talk to yourself and God. If no one answers it may be your time to hear in your language or to shut it down.

Tradition can speak louder than scripture. We are not into tradition.

1 Corinthians 14:28 kjv
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

More control
1 Corinthians 14:29 kjv
29. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

No long term one after another marathon.

Here I agree with you. The edification is often for a visitor or unlearned person. It is not to play with spiritual gifts.

There was a period of times when I went to a lot of (Meetings). I learned a lot. Much is about what not to do. Teaching may be more my area. Sometimes I can get into a persons thoughts. If a couple of words do not work, I need to stop.

Like right now. I got a question from you. I have answered. Judgement from others should come. If I am wrong let others speak.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Hidden In Him]

1 Corinthians 14:28 kjv
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

More control
1 Corinthians 14:29 kjv
29. Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

I think the principle difference between my scenario and Pentecost and the one Paul was discussing is that the first two occurred spontaneously and unexpectedly. Paul was talking about the formal part of a typical service when prophetic utterance would go forth, and the congregation would/should be anticipating operation in tongues, and do so in keeping with proper order during a service.

Certainly both would be under the ultimate control of the believer, but I think I might have done something even more "whacky" if I hadn't let the Spirit of God give praise through me at the time. I might have bucked and run and started doing laps around the church shouting "Glory!" at the top of my lungs, and what would have onlookers thought then?

"Note to self: Look out for Mr. Strange Fire over there. He appears to be losing it." 2

I have no idea what the disciples at Pentecost might have done had they attempted to keep containment simply because there were no interpreters present, but I think the power of God would have just been too much to contain even if they had tried.

 

[Tenchi]

In general, I agree with the apostle Paul's teaching that interpretation of tongues should be provided for unbeliever's sake, "lest they think we are mad," as he put it. But I just made a curious observation this morning. They thought the disciples were drunk on the day of Pentecost as well, and there is no mention of interpreters being present there, yet the world did not come to an end.

Mockers said that the first born-again children of God were drunk. Not all who heard Peter and his brethren preaching in the street thought they were inebriated. This was, at least in part, because they didn't hear incoherent babbling but the Gospel spoken to them in their own native tongues!

My point is this: While I do believe the teaching of the apostle Paul should be abided by, I think using it as an excuse not to speak in tongues at all is taking things too far.

Okay. But the account in Acts 2 doesn't provide any grounds for this conclusion, as far as I can see.

If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation than that they not go forth at all just for the sake of abiding by a rule for the sake of appearances.

1 Corinthians 14:18-19 (NASB)
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all;
19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

If this rule had been enforced strictly at the dawn of the church age, the events that took place on the Day of Pentecost might never have happened.

Not so. See above.

 

[Tenchi]

I was anticipating this answer, Hawkman, and sorry about the late response. You see, while each one was certainly understanding the utterances going forth in his own native language, they were obviously not understanding all who were speaking in all the other languages going forth at the same time, unless of course they were multilingual freaks who spoke like twelve-plus languages fluently and then some, Lol. Get my point? This is precisely why Paul had to assure everyone they were not drunk. If everyone there was understanding everything being said, there would have been no need to reassure them they weren't tipsy.

It didn't matter if they could not understand all the languages in which the Gospel was being preached; what mattered was that they heard the Gospel in their own native tongue, which they did. And that Gospel would have been the same Good News regardless of the language in which it was communicated. Though the Good News communicated to them was indecipherable to them in a foreign tongue, it was plain and clear in their own. What does it matter, then, that they could not understand the Gospel spoken in other languages? They could do so perfectly well in their own and so the chaos and confusion of truly incoherent "spirit" babbling that nobody - not even the tongues speaker - understands was not actually occurring in Acts 2.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Mockers said that the first born-again children of God were drunk. Not all who heard Peter and his brethren preaching in the street thought they were inebriated. This was, at least in part, because they didn't hear incoherent babbling but the Gospel spoken to them in their own native tongues!

Yes, only again, since there were no interpreters, unless they were multilingual they only understood those speaking in their own language, not the others, which would have made this a violation of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians, if taken in its strictest sense. Utterances were being given without interpretation.

My point is I see people post with that same kind of strictness today, and I think without realizing it they might have mocked the disciples themselves, or at least condemned what they were doing as unBiblical, and not according to the order Paul ordained.

 

[Free]

In general, I agree with the apostle Paul's teaching that interpretation of tongues should be provided for unbeliever's sake, "lest they think we are mad," as he put it. But I just made a curious observation this morning. They thought the disciples were drunk on the day of Pentecost as well, and there is no mention of interpreters being present there, yet the world did not come to an end.

My point is this: While I do believe the teaching of the apostle Paul should be abided by, I think using it as an excuse not to speak in tongues at all is taking things too far. If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation than that they not go forth at all just for the sake of abiding by a rule for the sake of appearances. If this rule had been enforced strictly at the dawn of the church age, the events that took place on the Day of Pentecost might never have happened.

Any thoughts?

I think it begs the question to assume that what tongues were at Pentecost and in the Corinthian church are the same as what occurs now. Clearly the tongues at Pentecost were known languages, hence no need of someone with the gift of interpretation; the people around understood what was being said. In 1 Corinthians, it may be a little less clear, although I'm not sure if there is reason to believe they weren't also known languages.

Also, I think it would be better if "tongues" didn't get said at all if there is no interpretation. That is one of the points Paul makes, in 1 Cor 14:19.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Clearly the tongues at Pentecost were known languages, hence no need of someone with the gift of interpretation; the people around understood what was being said. In 1 Corinthians, it may be a little less clear, although I'm not sure if there is reason to believe they weren't also known languages.

Personally, I think the tongues Paul was talking about here were unintelligible to those they were directed to, for he said that if the congregation prophesied instead, the visitors would have come under conviction and confessed that God was indeed among them. The words would "reveal the secrets of his heart."

23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

 

[Tenchi]

Yes, only again, since there were no interpreters, unless they were multilingual they only understood those speaking in their own language, not the others, which would have made this a violation of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians, if taken in its strictest sense.

It seems you're conflating the message with the means of its communication. There wasn't an absence of all understanding of what was spoken, only an understanding in a language not one's own. The message, then, did not require interpretation; for all heard it equally clearly in their mother tongue. What was not understood was the foreign languages, the various language forms in which the message was carried. There was, then, no need of interpreters, for all heard the message clearly in the form in which they could best understand it.

The Acts 2 account, then, isn't really relevant to Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth.

 

[Free]

Personally, I think the tongues Paul was talking about here were unintelligible to those they were directed to, for he said that if the congregation prophesied instead, the visitors would have come under conviction and confessed that God was indeed among them. The words would "reveal the secrets of his heart."

23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

But that could also apply to known languages. That passage highlights the problem with the Pentecostal practice of having the entire congregation speak in their "personal prayer language" at the same time. It goes completely against what Paul says here and also in verse 27, where he says, "If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret" (ESV).

Also, verse 28 applies to your previous statement that "If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation":

1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (ESV)

Paul explicitly says not to do that.

 

[Hidden In Him]

There wasn't an absence of all understanding of what was spoken, only an understanding in a language not one's own.

This much we're agreed on, yes.

 

[Hidden In Him]

But that could also apply to known languages.

That's correct.

Also, verse 28 applies to your previous statement that "If we had to make the choice between the two, it would be better if tongues went forth without interpretation":

1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (ESV)

Paul explicitly says not to do that.

Ok, but this makes for a bit of a predicament. I'm arguing that there might occasionally be circumstances where strict adherence to the rules would A. be hard to do, and B. actually be detrimental to the body of Christ in some way.

There are currently very few interpreters because, IMO anyway, it is a greater gift than tongues, and harder to come by. Now granted, my standards are actually very high, and I personally believe the church should currently be operating in far greater manifestations than anything the early church even came close to. But given where we are at the moment, should we cease to operate in one of the few gifts still in operation because there are few interpreters?

Just something I was mulling over. In the end, yes, I suppose the gifts should cease altogether if need be if they will not be operated in properly, though thankfully I believe the days are coming when the full list of operations in the gifts will no longer be a rarity anymore.

Until then, maybe continued strict adherence to the rules will motivate a weak and superficial church to devote herself to the kind of prayer and fasting necessary to get us out of the current lethargy. I once read that it will not be until the church of the Lord Jesus Christ is humiliated before her enemies and found supernaturally powerless that she will finally wake up.

I was just having a moment of pity, I suppose, Lol, but not to worry. They don't last long with me.

Thanks for the intelligent responses. More fun mulling it over with others of strong mind than just doing it all myself.

 

[eddif]

I think the principle difference between my scenario and Pentecost and the one Paul was discussing is that the first two occurred spontaneously and unexpectedly.

Let me try:
Why would I say try. Pentecost had about 400 years of preparation. Nothing IMHO was spontaneous about Pentecost.

So before I start and mess it all up. Which two are spontaneous? And I might ask is any gathering really totally spontaneous? If the secrets of mens hearts are revealed there is a background revealed. Do rules sort of establish order and sort of remove spontaneity? And I have not even gotten to unexpected thoughts.

This is a lot of stress beyond a rednecks ability.

eddif