CONVERSATIONS WITH A CHARISMATIC - SPEAKING NOT TO MEN, BUT TO GOD

HOME

WRITINGS

ORGANIZATIONS

Q & A

NEWSLETTER

FAQS

CONTACT

ABOUT

BELIEFS

LINKS

ARCHIVE

FREE BIBLE

STORE

CONVERSATIONS WITH A CHARISMATIC

Speaking Not To Men, But To God

The Charismatic Challenge

Monday, October 1

I have read, with great interest, your exposes on Oral Roberts and Marilyn Hickey; in fact, I was in agreement with everything you were saying until you made the statement that speaking in tongues was only ever about speaking in KNOWN foreign languages.

That may have been the case when the disciples were preaching/teaching people from different lands in Acts 2, but would appear not to be the case when referred to in 1st Corinthians 14v5 & 6 where Paul refers to "speaking in tongues" NOT "speaking in other languages", and in v2, where he refers to "speaking not to men, but to God".

In fact, throughout chapter 14, it appears obvious that Paul is indeed referring to praying in a special language, gifted to the individual by the Holy Spirit.

I have experienced the gift of tongues myself; I use it only for private prayer and find it edifying and uplifting, as it lifts me to another "level", as it where, when trying to communicate my innermost thoughts, fears, frustrations, etc. to my Heavenly Father.

In the same chapter, there is provision made for using tongues publicly, providing someone (or more than one) can bring an interpretation to its use.

Elsewhere, the Scripture speaks of the Holy Spirit interceding on our behalf with "groanings which cannot be uttered" (Rom 8v26), which would seem to indicate a communion with God that a mere mother tongue cannot approach.
I'd welcome your views.

On Doctrine Reply

Welcome to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your visit and message on the Contact page.

Tongues is mentioned in the New Testament in only three books:

1. Mark 16:17 - which is a part of verses 9-20 that are not original to the book of Mark, but are a later interpolation or addition, which was an attempt to complete the book of Mark since the original ending has been lost. One of the biggest problems in verses 9-20, is the fact that the passage presents biblical ideas but changes those ideas into something other than what is said in other Scripture. Out of that passage comes the unique claim that there will be "new" tongues, which does not have any confirmation in any other Scriptural passage. Outside of the reality that Mark 16:9-20 is not Scripture, the claim in verse 16 invalidates its use as being authoritative since it is not validated in any of Scripture.

2. Acts 2, 10, 19 - where the narrative cannot be denied in relation to the expression of tongues being known, existing human languages.

3. 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 14 - The current Charismatic claims, in relation to tongues, have a singular foundation in the book of 1 Corinthians, simply because Acts is a historical narrative that does not conform to the current expression of tongues, so it is not used as a foundation, and Mark 16:17 is not Scripture.

Somewhere between the first appearance of tongues in the book of Acts, where the expression was known, existing human languages, and the book of 1 Corinthians, Charismatics must make the claim that somehow the gift was changed, and it became something different than what it was originally or something was added that was different from the original gifts, in which case there are two gifts and two different meanings and expressions of "tongues" that have two or more different purposes, even thought the "gifts" retain the same name designation. The reality is, that the claim is now that the gift of tongues is a spiritual language and not an ability to speak an existing human language not previously learned by the speaker, which is certainly a convenience, because the current expression of tongues does not manifest itself in the ability to speak in that manner, so the claim must be made that tongues now has a different definition.

I am not sure why you differentiate the expression of languages in Acts from the same expression in 1 Corinthians. The same term for language, glossa, is used in both Acts and 1 Corinthians, without differentiation of meaning. Since the term means known, existing human language as defined in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6, it means the same in 1 Corinthians. If it is claimed that the terms used for tongues or language mean one thing in Acts and another in 1 Corinthians, then that is a claim of another definition for the term glossa not supported in the Greek language.

In Acts 2:6, 8, the Greek term dialektos is used in relation to those who heard the message preached in their own language and is the description of what they heard from their perspective, ". . . because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language," 2:6, "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?"; 2:8. The term dialektos refers to much more than just the generic version of a particular language, because the meaning of the term infers the specific vernacular or dialect version of the language spoken by the individual that was unique to their particular home location. That would include not only the various differences in intonations and pronunciation of words but also the unique idiomatic expressions that would be unique to their particular location.

In Acts, the terms glossa and dialektos are used interchangeably, ". . . we each hear them in our own language . . ." - dialektos, Acts 2:8, and ". . . we hear them in our own tongues . . ," - glossa, Acts 2:11.

In 1 Corinthians, the Greek term glossa is also used and its meaning is not any different than that found and presented in Acts.

Terms used in Acts and 1 Corinthians in relation to the meaning of "tongues":
Acts 2:3 - glossa - "tongues as of fire"
Acts 2:4 - glossa - "speak with other tongues"
Acts 2:6 - dialektos - "speak in his own language"
Acts 2:8 - dialektos - "each hear them in our own language"
Acts 2:11 - glossa - "we hear them in our own tongues"
Acts 10:46 - glossa - "For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."
Acts 19:6 - glossa - "and they spoke with tongues and prophesied"
Acts 21:40 - dialektos - "he spoke to them in the Hebrew language"
Acts 22:2 - dialektos - "he spoke to them in the Hebrew language"
Acts 26:14 - dialektos - "I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language"

1 Corinthians 12:10 - glossa - "to another various kinds of tongues"
1 Corinthians 12:28 - glossa - "various kinds of tongues"
1 Corinthians 12:30 - glossa - "All do not speak with tongues"
1 Corinthians 13:1 - glossa - "speak with the tongues"
1 Corinthians 13:8 - glossa - "if there are tongues"
1 Corinthians 14:2 - glossa - "For one who speaks in a tongue"
1 Corinthians 14:4 - glossa - "One who speaks in a tongue"
1 Corinthians 14:5 - glossa - "I wish that you all spoke in tongues"
1 Corinthians 14:5 - glossa - "than one who speaks in tongues"
1 Corinthians 14:6 - glossa - "if I come to you speaking in tongues"
1 Corinthians 14:9 - glossa - "unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear"
1 Corinthians 14:13 - glossa - "one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret"
1 Corinthians 14:14 - glossa - "For if I pray in a tongue"
1 Corinthians 14:18 - glossa - "I speak in tongues more than you all"
1 Corinthians 14:19 - glossa - "rather than ten thousand words in a tongue"
1 Corinthians 14:21 - "heteroglossos" (other tongues - a foreigner) - "By men of strange tongues"
From Isaiah 28:11 - "lashown" - (literally the tongue in the mouth)
1 Corinthians 14:22 - glossa - "So then tongues are for a sign"
1 Corinthians 14:23 - glossa - "church assemble together and all speak in tongues"
1 Corinthians 14:26 - glossa - "has a tongue and an interpretation"
1 Corinthians 14:27 - glossa - "If anyone speaks in a tongue"
1 Corinthians 14:39 - glossa - "and do not forbid to speak in tongues"

In Acts and 1 Corinthians, tongues is defined as known human languages and was used in two ways:
1. The ability to communicate with persons who spoke a foreign language and the miraculous nature of the action confirming that the message was from God, Acts 2:5-12
2. Edification of persons who spoke a foreign language and by means of an interpreter, the edification of the church congregation in concert, 1 Corinthians 14:5, 13-19.

However, the current definition of tongues has taken a radical turn away from the original definition and the original purpose for which the gift was used. Today, tongues is said to be a singularly particular spiritual language that is unique to each individual and is a prayer language by which communication is made to God, through which the Holy Spirit speaks the needs of the Christian according to the perfect will of God. Why the Holy Spirit would require the use of human utterance to express prayer to God is quite inexplicable and has no explanation in the Scripture. The Holy Spirit is part of the godhead in which communication between the members is instantaneous without the use of a human mediator of language. Nowhere in Scripture is tongues defined as the holy Spirit speaking to God through the physical utterance of an individual in relation to a specially granted spiritual language.

The use of Romans 8:26 does not support the use of tongues at all, but denies that the spoken word can be used, "groanings too deep for words." or "groanings which cannot be uttered." If the groanings cannot be uttered, then how are they uttered using the gift of tongues if the "spiritual language" is a spoken language? How is it that a verse that denies the use of spoken words in relation to the unspoken groanings is used to support the gift of what must be said to be "spoken groanings" as a result of a spoken spiritual language that is also said to be used by the Holy Spirit to communicate to God? The attempt to connect Romans 8:26 with the gift of tongues is not acceptable biblical interpretation.

There is a very interesting use of the words tongue in the singular, 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27 and tongues in the plural, 14:6, 18, 22, 23, 29. There is a difference in how he apostle Paul applies the meanings, beginning with verse 2 and the use of speaking in a tongue in relation to God. The apostle Paul's use of tongue in the singular indicates the false gift, or speaking in an ecstatic utterance, in which it is an expression toward "a god" and not "the God" who is the true God. The apostle Paul uses the singular to indicate ecstatic utterances because false speech cannot be plural since it is all false and gibberish. If it is false ecstatic utterance, then it can only be expressed toward "a god" or the god of the pagan world from which the false speech originated.

The apostle Paul builds on the aspect of the false gift in verse 13, indicating that its use is accomplished without understanding, "but my understanding is unfruitful," which is a condemnation of the use of such an expression.

The apostle Paul says that the person (the speaker) should pray that he (the speaker) should interpret, which is not the pattern to be followed in relation to the true gift of tongues, 1 Corinthians 15:27, simply because there would be no one else who would have the gift to interpret a false expression, therefore the burden to interpret would fall to the speaker. However, his statements would have no independent verification apart from his own claims, therefore according to 1 Corinthians 14:27-28 since there is no independent translator, the person is to remain silent.

In addition, the current expression of tongues is also a mystical language, which, even though the speaker does not know the meaning of what is being said and does not receive a communication back from God, it is still claimed that the use of the language brings a person closer to God, which is not explained in the Scripture. However, it is also used as a public language, expressed in group meetings without a translator and without understanding on the part of the speaker or the hearer as well. In many assemblies, the entire congregation speaks in tongues at the same time in which it would be impossible to understand what any individual person was saying even if a person could understand the language, and many times the leader, pastor or evangelist speaks in tongues in public (especially on television or in the public meeting) without the use of an interpreter. The apostle Paul addressed directly the idea that tongues could exist in a vacuum of non-understanding, "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," 14:19.

The current expression of tongues in the church today is a virtual duplication of what was happening in the Corinthian church which required the intervention on the part of the apostle Paul and was the reason why he criticized the manner and reason for which the gift was being used and was being counterfeited, since it was being abused.

The book of Acts and the apostle Paul define the nature of tongues and the criteria for use is specified:
1. The use of tongues is a sign to unbelievers that God is communicating through the speaker, and then it is the means by which the gospel message is communicated to those who speak another language, 1 Corinthians 14:22.

2. It is a language that can be used for edification, not necessarily for the speaker's benefit, but for the church in general but only if there is a translator present, 1 Corinthians 14:26.

3. The gift can be used in the assembly, but only three persons can participate, there must be a translator present for each language being spoken and the individuals must speak in succession, not all at one time, 1 Corinthians 14:27-28.

4. Disorder or confusion in the assembly, as a result of the expression of tongues as in a corporate manner, indicates that God is not the originator of the expression and it must cease, 1 Corinthians 14:33.

5. Women are not to speak in tongues in the assembly because they are to be silent during the church service, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35..

6. Not all Christians have the gift of tongues, therefore it is not proper to claim that it is a gift that must be sought after by every Christian or that every Christian should speak in tongues, 1 Corinthians 12:10, 30.

Your evaluation of speaking in a tongue in relation to your use is based on your subjective feelings which you experience while engaging in the activity, that are not the biblical standard by which it should be evaluated. Tongues was never used or defined as a means to lift a person to another level, whatever that level may be defined to be by the speaker. Experience is not the validation of truth, because if it was, those expressions of ecstatic language found in other religious systems would be confirmed as true communication to God, when they are in fact directed to false gods.

END OF "CONVERSATIONS WITH A CHARISMATIC"
The Apostles And The Gift Of Tongues - To Whom Did They Speak?

TOP OF PAGE

GO TO HOME PAGE

GO TO ORGANIZATIONS MASTER LIST

GO TO WRITINGS MASTER PAGE