The gift of tongues.

[Ernest T. Bass]

I'd probably agree with you if it weren't for God giving me the privilege of seeing the Holy Spirit descend on a group of worshipers, and the instant the Holy Spirit reached the top of their heads they started speaking in tongues in unison. Not loud, dramatic tongues that demanded interpretation, but each with their eyes closed speaking to themselves and God the gift of tongues they had. The substance of that language probably being praise and adoration of God as was spoken on the Day of Pentecost ("...we hear them declaring the wonders of God..." Acts 2:11 NIV1984).

I do not know what they were doing, but they were not speaking in miraculous tongues as the apostles did at Pentecost, Acts 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omy24KC3LzU&feature=related

In the above YouTube link, could someone point out exactly what miraculous thing is taking place? Nothing miraculous, nothing remotely occurring as to the real miraculous tongues the apostles had on Pentecost in Acts 2.

 

[Classik]

I do not know what they were doing, but they were not speaking in miraculous tongues as the apostles did at Pentecost, Acts 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omy24KC3LzU&feature=related

In the above YouTube link, could someone point out exactly what miraculous thing is taking place? Nothing miraculous, nothing remotely occurring as to the real miraculous tongues the apostles had on Pentecost in Acts 2.

A member of that 'church' or 'whatever', I think, would understand better.

Who are these people? What are they doing? The video doesn't tell us.


What is the Real Miraculous Tongues spoken by the apostles like? I don't think we know what it sounded like.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

A member of that 'church' or 'whatever', I think, would understand better.

Who are these people? What are they doing? The video doesn't tell us.


What is the Real Miraculous Tongues spoken by the apostles like? I don't think we know what it sounded like.

In the YouTube video, they are not doing anything miraculous and from all I have seen and heard, that video is representational of all those that claim to speak in tongues, they are simply giving some kind of indeciphrable, estatic utterances.


Yet for the apostles:

Acts 2:6 "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

Acts 2:7 "And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? "

Acts 2:8 "And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

Acts 2:11 "Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

There were about 15 dialects (verses 9-11) spoken among the crowd that gathered in Acts 2 and each man heard the apostles speak in his own earthly language they were born into. It would be as if I could instantaneously speak and understand Chinese having never studied that language and know nothing at all about it. I would then be able to speak the gospel to those who spoke Chinese. There is nothing comparable as to what took place in Acts 2 with the apostles and what takes place in that YouTube video. It would be as if I typed to you "mk9%kert i#5$mfd dm)3@nv" what good is that in communicating the gospel?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I do not know what they were doing, but they were not speaking in miraculous tongues as the apostles did at Pentecost, Acts 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omy24KC3LzU&feature=related

In the above YouTube link, could someone point out exactly what miraculous thing is taking place? Nothing miraculous, nothing remotely occurring as to the real miraculous tongues the apostles had on Pentecost in Acts 2.

They're speaking in tongues. What is it you do not understand? (Besides what they are speaking between them and God in a private prayer session).

I immediately thought of Hanna's passionate and fervent plea to God when she went to the Temple to pray for a son. There are lots of Christians who wish they had a passionate relationship with God like this in prayer.

"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16 KJV)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There were about 15 dialects (verses 9-11) spoken among the crowd that gathered in Acts 2 and each man heard the apostles speak in his own earthly language they were born into. It would be as if I could instantaneously speak and understand Chinese having never studied that language and know nothing at all about it. I would then be able to speak the gospel to those who spoke Chinese. There is nothing comparable as to what took place in Acts 2 with the apostles and what takes place in that YouTube video. It would be as if I typed to you "mk9%kert i#5$mfd dm)3@nv" what good is that in communicating the gospel?

Right, that is why Paul says tongues spoken in an open meeting (not privately) should be interpreted.

Why does Paul even have to give this instruction if, as you say, true tongues is already an understandable language not needing interpretation? Why is the gift of interpretation even one of the gifts if all tongues is an already understandable language?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

They're speaking in tongues. What is it you do not understand? (Besides what they are speaking between them and God in a private prayer session).

I immediately thought of Hanna's passionate and fervent plea to God when she went to the Temple to pray for a son. There are lots of Christians who wish they had a passionate relationship with God like this in prayer.

"The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." (James 5:16 KJV)

They are not speaking in tongues as the apostles. Nothing miraculous is taking place in that video.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Right, that is why Paul says tongues spoken in an open meeting (not privately) should be interpreted.

Why does Paul even have to give this instruction if, as you say, true tongues is already an understandable language not needing interpretation? Why is the gift of interpretation even one of the gifts if all tongues is an already understandable language?

Paul was speaking of the same type of known, earthly tongues like the apostles spoke in Acts 2. The Corinthians had been abusing the gifts some of them possessed. It would be as if I had the gift to speak in Chinese but I was speaking to a crowd that could only understand Spanish. Then I would need an interpreter to translate Chinese to Spanish or else be quiet if there's no interpreter. I would be, as Paul put it, a barbarian speaking (without an interpreter) a language to people that do not understand it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Paul was speaking of the same type of known, earthly tongues like the apostles spoke in Acts 2. The Corinthians had been abusing the gifts some of them possessed. It would be as if I had the gift to speak in Chinese but I was speaking to a crowd that could only understand Spanish. Then I would need an interpreter to translate Chinese to Spanish or else be quiet if there's no interpreter. I would be, as Paul put it, a barbarian speaking (without an interpreter) a language to people that do not understand it.

Okay.

How do you know if the language being spoken in the video was a known language of the world or not for it to be validated as real tongues or not? Don't you think that because it is foreign to you that you can not possibly know, let alone insist, that they don't have the legitimate gift of tongues because it's not a real language? How do you know it's not a real language?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Okay.

How do you know if the language being spoken in the video was a known language of the world or not for it to be validated as real tongues or not? Don't you think that because it is foreign to you that you can not possibly know, let alone insist, that they don't have the legitimate gift of tongues because it's not a real language? How do you know it's not a real language?

If it was a known earthly language, which one was it?

I am going by my personal experience that I have had with the Pentecostal/charismatic types and what they say to me is that they speak in "unknown" tongues, that is, as they explained to me, tongues unknown to man, unearthly languages. (Even though the word "unknown" was added by the KJV translators and was completely not needed and unnecessary.)

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...tongues unknown to man, unearthly languages. (Even though the word "unknown" was added by the KJV translators and was completely not needed and unnecessary.)

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." (1 Corinthians 13:1 NASB)

I'm guessing angels probably don't speak in any one of our known human languages. There apparently really is a language spoken in heaven that is not spoken here on earth. It's a gift to both, speak that language, and interpret it for the edification and comfort of others.

And it seems that what is declared in that unknown language of the angels is the praise and wonder and awe of God. Wow! What an awesome gift. But still not the greatest gift as Kidron points out.

 

[handy]

Thank you all for your reply.

One thing now seems to be true. Since the original question remains: what shall I do to receive the gift of tongues? Should the leader lay hands on you and pray? Do you need a communion? Etc

I noticed some speak in tongues after they were baptised and PRAYED for.

I have noticed some get that gift after communion.

I have noticed some speak after the pastor prayed for them.

I could have added this in my original post.
It seems we can get it when we seriously need it - and no matter the activity or program going on .

If you desire the prayer language, ask for it. Pray for it. If you want someone to lay hands upon you as you pray, go ahead. It's a good gift and frankly, I don't know of anyone who has ever asked for this gift that didn't receive. I don't have it because I don't ask for it and I don't ask for it because I tend to shy away from anything that would become a spiritual sign... this is just me, and partly because I do have a tendency to seek a "sign" in an ungodly way. Signs are not for believers... they are to help establish the authority of the gospel for those who hear the gospel. So, it's not at all proper or godly for me to seek out any kind of sign, and I cannot, in my own head, separate tongues from a sign. So, I don't seek after it.

I do believe wholeheartedly that if a person needs to hear the gospel and I were the one available to share it... picture a situation perhaps as in an airplane that might not be making it to the destination... no matter what language the hearer spoke, if the Lord was willing for that person to hear the gospel from me, I would speak that language perfectly for that purpose. I'm more than willing to be used by God in such a way and that is the purpose for the gift of tongues.

But, as for the prayer language, Classik, if you desire it, ask God for it.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." (1 Corinthians 13:1 NASB)

I'm guessing angels probably don't speak in any one of our known human languages. There apparently really is a language spoken in heaven that is not spoken here on earth. It's a gift to both, speak that language, and interpret it for the edification and comfort of others.

And it seems that what is declared in that unknown language of the angels is the praise and wonder and awe of God. Wow! What an awesome gift. But still not the greatest gift as Kidron points out.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/671-what-are-the-tongues-of-angels-in-1-corinthians-13-1


What Are the “Tongues of Angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

By Wayne Jackson

“In one of your web site articles, Can Christians Speak in Tongues Today?, you stated that when Christians of the early church spoke in ‘tongues,’ they only spoke in foreign languages that were native to certain nationalities. You suggested that the ‘tongue speaking’ of the Pentecostal movement, in which certain ‘sounds’ of no known language are spoken, is not in harmony with the Bible. I attend a Pentecostal church, and though I’ve never spoken in tongues, I am told that Paul’s statement about the ‘tongues of angels’ (1 Cor. 13:1) implies a heavenly language, distinct from the languages of men. Would you comment on this?”

With all due respect, Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1) affords no evidence for the so-called “Pentecostal experience,” in which the uttering a series of rapidly-spoken, indiscernible syllables is alleged to reflect a “heavenly” tongue of an inexplicable variety. The following lines of evidence discredit the Pentecostal theory.

Tongues: Intelligible Language

In an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.

In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.

Unintelligible Tongues Are Unloving

In chapter 14 of the first Corinthian letter, one of Paul’s major points of emphasis is this. If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message, such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.

This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in a tongue, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message.

The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.

But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing here suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case.

Angels Always Spoke Understandably

There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds. As one scholar astutely observed:

With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are less the words of ecstasy than theirs (Sadler, 217).
​

Angel’s Tongues: Hyperbole

Paul’s appeal to “angels” in 13:1 is a form of hyperbole (an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake) that is designed to accentuate his argument.
Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).
​

The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.

So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.

When all the data is considered, there is no basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the notion that there is a heavenly, ecstatic “glossolalia” that some saints are able to access, whereby they speak to God alone.




Sources/Footnotes

• M. F. Sadler. 1906. The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. George Bell and Sons: London, England.

 

[Elijah674]

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/671-what-are-the-tongues-of-angels-in-1-corinthians-13-1


What Are the “Tongues of Angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

By Wayne Jackson

“In one of your web site articles, Can Christians Speak in Tongues Today?, you stated that when Christians of the early church spoke in ‘tongues,’ they only spoke in foreign languages that were native to certain nationalities. You suggested that the ‘tongue speaking’ of the Pentecostal movement, in which certain ‘sounds’ of no known language are spoken, is not in harmony with the Bible. I attend a Pentecostal church, and though I’ve never spoken in tongues, I am told that Paul’s statement about the ‘tongues of angels’ (1 Cor. 13:1) implies a heavenly language, distinct from the languages of men. Would you comment on this?”

With all due respect, Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1) affords no evidence for the so-called “Pentecostal experience,” in which the uttering a series of rapidly-spoken, indiscernible syllables is alleged to reflect a “heavenly” tongue of an inexplicable variety. The following lines of evidence discredit the Pentecostal theory.

Tongues: Intelligible Language

In an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.

In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.

Unintelligible Tongues Are Unloving

In chapter 14 of the first Corinthian letter, one of Paul’s major points of emphasis is this. If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message, such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.

This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in a tongue, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message.

The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.

But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing here suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case.

Angels Always Spoke Understandably

There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds. As one scholar astutely observed:

With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are less the words of ecstasy than theirs (Sadler, 217).
​

Angel’s Tongues: Hyperbole

Paul’s appeal to “angels” in 13:1 is a form of hyperbole (an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake) that is designed to accentuate his argument.
Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).
​

The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.

So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.

When all the data is considered, there is no basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the notion that there is a heavenly, ecstatic “glossolalia” that some saints are able to access, whereby they speak to God alone.






Sources/Footnotes

• M. F. Sadler. 1906. The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. George Bell and Sons: London, England.

I agree that, that creates some confussion there then as I read the tabulations of God's plan not being one of such?? In Gen. 10's last verse & chapter 11's first it states..

Gen. 11:1 & then back one verse.

[32] These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Gen.11

[1] And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

I personally do not think that the Godhead created mankind in Their image speaking different than the created angels + Heb.'s other world'S.

And God even spoke directly to these ones up to the Mount Sinai. It just seem's foreign for me to even think otherwise, as some teach. And I am very familiar with the Acts verses & Cor. verses. And do believe in the gift of languages to undue the tower of Babbling!;)

 

[Stan53]

How does one get the gift of tongues??? Is it just like they got it on the day of Pentecost - and spoke in tongues???
It doesn't seem there is a procedure for receiving such a gift, is there???

Acts 2:4 is the first instance and the promised Comforter/Advocate that Jesus said the Father would send, as shown in John 15:26. This isn't the last time this happens in Acts. It also occurs in Acts 4:31, to a lot of the same people that had been there in Acts 2:4. These two depictions show the Holy Spirit infilling people who were prayerfully seeking God. All these people spoke in tongues.
The next depiction is shown in Acts 8:17, to believers in Samaria. In this instance, Peter & John prayed for them to receive the Holy Spirit, and laid hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit, which they did. They then spoke in tongues.
The next occurance was when Paul received the Holy Spirit, as depicted in Acts 9:17-18, by the laying on of hands of Ananias. The next instance is Acts 10:44-46, when Peter spoke to the Gentiles for the first time. In this case, they receievd the Holy Spirit while they were listening to Peter preach. This also happened in Acts 13:52 on it's own, and Acts 19:6 when Paul laid hands on some believers.

As you can see from scripture, there is a few different scenarios where people recieve the Holy Spirit. He is NOT limited to a particular procedure. He looks for hungry hearts, longing after Jesus.

Paul talk about gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 12 and 14, so those scriptures are important to take ahold of.

Also, can a person who is not yet born again speak in tongues?

Not in the tongues the Holy Spirit causes. That requires Christ as Saviour.

 

[Stan53]

No one can speak in miraculous tongues today for those tongues were designed for a certain time and purpose which they fulfilled and are therefore not needed today.

That is wrong. Jesus didn't put a time limit on the Holy Spirit, nor did Paul, or Peter or John. This dispensational view is man-made and NOT reflected in ANY scripture.

Jesus said in Mark 16:17; And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.
Not miraculous tongues, NEW tongues. The greek word for new here is the adjective kainos, which is interpreted as;

1) new

a) as respects form

1) recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn
​

b) as respects substance

1) of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of
​

​

I have spoken in tongues in my prayer language for over 40 years now. I have spoken in tongues as a prophecy with interpretation just as long.

Paul says specifically in 1 Cor 14:39; Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

 

[Stan53]

I do not know what they were doing, but they were not speaking in miraculous tongues as the apostles did at Pentecost, Acts 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omy24KC3LzU&feature=related

In the above YouTube link, could someone point out exactly what miraculous thing is taking place? Nothing miraculous, nothing remotely occurring as to the real miraculous tongues the apostles had on Pentecost in Acts 2.

As you were not at the event in Acts 2:4, and I fear, have never had the in-filling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues, how would you possibly know of what you speak? The following is an example of Paul's instruction on order in the church when using the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. The actual speaking in tongues and interpretation comes from OFF camera at about the 3 minute mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=uzgA5hpT6CQ&NR=1

​

You call this 'miraculous', the Bible doesn't. Jesus called it receiving the Comforter/Advocate, as He predicted in John 14:26 and has continually happened from that time to now and will until Christ's return.

 

[Webb]

Hi Stan53--In response to your post 35, you quote from Mark 16 as a prooftext for speaking in tongues today. In our recent debate on baptism you said the validity of Mark 16 was questionable. Now you use it as a prooftext. Someone once said "consistency, thou art a rare jewel."

 

[handy]

I agree that, that creates some confussion there then as I read the tabulations of God's plan not being one of such?? In Gen. 10's last verse & chapter 11's first it states..

Gen. 11:1 & then back one verse.

[32] These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Gen.11

[1] And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

I personally do not think that the Godhead created mankind in Their image speaking different than the created angels + Heb.'s other world'S.

And God even spoke directly to these ones up to the Mount Sinai. It just seem's foreign for me to even think otherwise, as some teach. And I am very familiar with the Acts verses & Cor. verses. And do believe in the gift of languages to undue the tower of Babbling!;)

You know, I've always thought that Adam through Noah spoke the same language as is heard in heaven. And, I do believe that the prayer language is that same language. Speculative of course, but logical when one thinks about it.

 

[handy]

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/671-what-are-the-tongues-of-angels-in-1-corinthians-13-1


What Are the “Tongues of Angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1?

By Wayne Jackson

“In one of your web site articles, Can Christians Speak in Tongues Today?, you stated that when Christians of the early church spoke in ‘tongues,’ they only spoke in foreign languages that were native to certain nationalities. You suggested that the ‘tongue speaking’ of the Pentecostal movement, in which certain ‘sounds’ of no known language are spoken, is not in harmony with the Bible. I attend a Pentecostal church, and though I’ve never spoken in tongues, I am told that Paul’s statement about the ‘tongues of angels’ (1 Cor. 13:1) implies a heavenly language, distinct from the languages of men. Would you comment on this?”

With all due respect, Paul’s reference to the “tongues … of angels” (1 Cor. 13:1) affords no evidence for the so-called “Pentecostal experience,” in which the uttering a series of rapidly-spoken, indiscernible syllables is alleged to reflect a “heavenly” tongue of an inexplicable variety. The following lines of evidence discredit the Pentecostal theory.

Tongues: Intelligible Language

In an effort to exhort the Corinthian Christians toward a greater level of concern for one another in their use of “spiritual gifts,” Paul wrote this admonition. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become a sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).

If it can be established that the term “tongues,” when employed with reference to men, has to do with intelligent communication (and such can be demonstrated: see the article referenced above), then it must be conceded that the word “tongues,” when used of angels, similarly signifies an understandable language.

In order for the “Pentecostal” view to be valid, there would have to be some compelling contextual evidence to indicate that the term “tongues” is used in two different senses in this passage, and there simply is none.

Unintelligible Tongues Are Unloving

In chapter 14 of the first Corinthian letter, one of Paul’s major points of emphasis is this. If one employs his gift of tongues before an audience that cannot understand the language spoken, and no interpreter is present to translate the message, such would be a violation of God’s will. In fact, it would be an act of vanity, and not a demonstration of love for the listener.

This is the precise point of 13:1 as well. To speak in a tongue, when no one can understand the words, is an act void of love. Such would be nothing more than a sound (an irritating noise); it would not be an instructive message.

The implication behind the argument is this. If the gift were exercised properly, i.e., in conjunction with an interpreter, the audience could understand the instruction, and such would evince the speaker’s love.

But the identical point is made whether the allusion is to “the tongues of men” or to the “tongues of angels.” Even the tongues of angels, if it were possible to exercise such in an appropriate way, could be understood. There is nothing here suggesting a “gibberish” sort of utterance; just the opposite is the case.

Angels Always Spoke Understandably

There are numerous Bible examples of angels speaking to men. In not a single instance do they communicate in anything except in languages that are perfectly understandable — a communication that the recipient can process readily. There is not one shred of biblical evidence to suggest that angels speak in disjointed, incomprehensible sounds. As one scholar astutely observed:

With respect to the words of angels which are recorded in the Scriptures, nothing can be plainer, more direct, and, we may say, more unimpassioned. They seem to say with the utmost conceivable plainness what they have been commissioned to say, and nothing more. No words are less the words of ecstasy than theirs (Sadler, 217).
​

Angel’s Tongues: Hyperbole

Paul’s appeal to “angels” in 13:1 is a form of hyperbole (an exaggeration for emphasis’ sake) that is designed to accentuate his argument.
Consider a similar use of this figurative expression in the apostle’s letter to the Galatians. He wrote:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8; emphasis added).
​

The apostle is not suggesting that an angel actually is likely to proclaim a different gospel; the point is one of emphasis. Even if an angel were to preach a different gospel, there would be no validity in it, and he would fall victim to divine wrath.

So similarly, in 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul is not indicating that some Christians speak an “angelic” (ecstatic) language. Rather, he is merely saying that even if one could ascend to a new height, and communicate on the level of angels, if he did not exercise love by speaking in an understandable fashion, he still would be nothing but a distracting noise. The apostle’s argument does not hint of a mysterious, unintelligible utterance; in fact, it reflects just the opposite.

When all the data is considered, there is no basis in 1 Corinthians 13:1 for the notion that there is a heavenly, ecstatic “glossolalia” that some saints are able to access, whereby they speak to God alone.




Sources/Footnotes

• M. F. Sadler. 1906. The First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. George Bell and Sons: London, England.

I disagree with some of Jackson's conclusions. He seems very close to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We need to keep in mind that Paul did say that speaking in tongues edifies oneself and that if there is an interpretation that the message in tongues should indeed be shared.

Here is Paul's bottom line, which should be our own as well (emphasis mine):

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner. 1 Corinthians 14:39-40

 

[Stan53]

Hi Stan53--In response to your post 35, you quote from Mark 16 as a prooftext for speaking in tongues today. In our recent debate on baptism you said the validity of Mark 16 was questionable. Now you use it as a prooftext. Someone once said "consistency, thou art a rare jewel."

Hi Webb,

No not a prooftext. Just an indication of what Jesus said, but you are right, it is in question as to whether it was added at a later date. The fact is there is NO other place in Jesus' words, where this is used. Sorry I disappoint you Webb. Are you miffed that I wouldn't pursue that debate?