1 Corinthians 12-14 - Tongues and Interpretation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eoghan

Puritan Board Senior
I would be interested in the thoughts of others on precisely what the message of tongues was. From Acts 2 and Acts 10 it would seem to be general declarations about God. (Likewise with Saul prophesying in 1 Samuel) The emphasis in Corinthians seems to be on a need to interpret, suggesting that while in control of the language or dialect, the speaker was not conscious of it's content. I am interested because it suggests a type of prophesy which is more exhortation than exposition. The reason I am probing this distinction is because women were allowed to prophesy but not to teach. In order for this to be a manageable rule of the church there must have been a clear distinction between teaching and prophesying in this context.
 
I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.
 
I would be interested in the thoughts of others on precisely what the message of tongues was. From Acts 2 and Acts 10 it would seem to be general declarations about God. (Likewise with Saul prophesying in 1 Samuel) The emphasis in Corinthians seems to be on a need to interpret, suggesting that while in control of the language or dialect, the speaker was not conscious of it's content. I am interested because it suggests a type of prophesy which is more exhortation than exposition. The reason I am probing this distinction is because women were allowed to prophesy but not to teach. In order for this to be a manageable rule of the church there must have been a clear distinction between teaching and prophesying in this context.

The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
In the I Cor. 12 context, speaking in an unknown tongue and interpretation of an unknown tongue were companion gifts, used for corporate worship, as special revelation of God, the canon of Scripture not yet having been completed.

To speak in a tongue not known to the hearers would be of little value without an interpretation. cf I Cor. 14:13-14.

(Which is one of the reasons that these two gifts, as part of corporate worship are fulfilled in the completed canon).
 
Last edited:
I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.

Leslie, Phillip had four daughters with the gift of prophecy. He was one of the original seven deacons.

Because scripture does not contradict itself, I would guess they may have been like Anna in the temple, who spoke to people about Jesus:

There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.e She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

There is no reason to think any of the women spoke during the weekly gathering when the apostles taught. I would assume the four daughters spoke powerfully by the Holy Spirit to many people about Jesus the redeemer, just like Anna, but we don't really know.

By the way, scripture is clear that tongues and prophecy are different gifts. The OP suggestion of tongues as a type of prophecy I don't think fits with scripture.
 
The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Hodge is quite clear that the speaker had no knowledge of what he was saying, it was a foreign language to him as much as his audience. His mind was inactive in the composition of the sentences as it were.

[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 14:14[/BIBLE]

I notice that while the spirit is being exercised there is no hint of edification of the unlearned language speaker (tongues).
 
I wasn't aware that women were allowed to prophesy. On what basis do you conclude that? Pardon my ignorance.

In addition to Joel 2:28 and Acts 21:9, there is also 1 Cor. 11:5 which presumes that women were prophesying in the NT assemblies.
 
The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.

Actually v.14 of that chapter "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" suggests that the tongues speaker does not know the meaning of what he is saying.

VV. 21 and 22 do however establish the point that biblical tongues were known languages not glossolalia. If any tries to reject this on the basis of 1 Cor. 13:1's "If I speak in the tongue of men and angels . . . " one merely replies that Paul may be engaging in "trumping" the Corinthians tongues speaking with a hypothetical possibility.
 
The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.

Actually v.14 of that chapter "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" suggests that the tongues speaker does not know the meaning of what he is saying.

O.Palmer Robertson points out that the "spirit" in Scripture includes the rational faculty. E.g. Mark 2:6-8. In context the Apostle is saying that the individual truly prays because he has understanding of what he is saying in his own spirit, but his own understanding does not bear fruit in those around him, the hearers, because they don't have a clue as to what he is saying.

This ties in with the Apostle's overall argument that edification depends on understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
The individual speaker of unknown languages did understand what they were saying. This is made clear in I Corinthians 14:16-18, where if someone gives thanks in an unknown language, he is edified but his hearers aren't. The Apostle's argument from the beginning of chapter 14 is that there is no edification by speaking gifts without understanding. The gift of translation was necessary to confirm the prophetic message in the unknown language in an inspired, infallible and prophetic way. The fact that tongue-speakers in the first century understood what they were saying is enough to show that modern tongue-speaking is a counterfeit miracle, as modern tongue-speakers claim that their edification is irrational, without understanding.

Actually v.14 of that chapter "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" suggests that the tongues speaker does not know the meaning of what he is saying.

O.Palmer Robertson points out that the "spirit" in Scripture includes the rational faculty. E.g. Mark 2:6-8. In context the Apostle is saying that the individual truly prays because he has understanding of what he is saying in his own spirit, but his own understanding does not bear fruit in those around him, the hearers, because they don't have a clue as to what he is saying.

This ties in with the Apostle's overall argument that edification depends on understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Edification depends on the understanding of the hearer. The hearer's understanding does not necessarily imply the speaker's understanding. Tongues phenomena occur in non-Christian contexts as well as Christian. In both contexts the speaker might speak a known language and make sense to a native speaker, but he does not understand what he is saying except in a general way (he is probably aware of the subject from the context). In Acts 2 the passage is consitent with this phenomenon; the apostles did not necessarily understand the words and sentences they were uttering, though they were obviously gospel messages.

An analagous phenomenon might occur with demonization, where the person speaks in a voice not his/her own and not according to his/her volition. Yet what comes out is a known language.

An interesting book on this phenomenon is They Speak in Other Tongues. While the conclusions of the book are faulty, some of the factual background of the glossolalia is presented in an objective manner. The author (forget his name) was a journalist who set out to objectively describe the phenomenon. I hope the moderators don't negate this suggestion. Presumably the board members are mature enough to read the book with discretion and not to buy into the movement.
 
We cannot be edified by a discourse in a language we don't understand, whether it is the person speaking or the hearer who does not understand.

This is a basic reformational principle, which explains e.g. why our services aren't in Latin, and why our Bibles are in English, rather than Hebrew and Greek.

It is unwarranted and unwise to be taking analogies from demonisation in order to understand a gift of God rather than trying to understand what the Scriptures say about this gift.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
VV. 21 and 22 do however establish the point that biblical tongues were known languages not glossolalia.

But not known language to the hearers, that's why there needed to be interpretation with it. The context here is public (corporate worship). One of the Apostle's main points is that it is not beneficial to have only speaking in an unknown tongue, without an interpretation. Else, how would the special revelation coming outside of Scripture, which is what was at stake, be of benefit. Viz a viz, prophecy (preaching the revealed Word) was of great value because it could be understood. Cf v. 2-5.
 
O.Palmer Robertson points out that the "spirit" in Scripture includes the rational faculty. E.g. Mark 2:6-8. In context the Apostle is saying that the individual truly prays because he has understanding of what he is saying in his own spirit, but his own understanding does not bear fruit in those around him, the hearers, because they don't have a clue as to what he is saying.

This ties in with the Apostle's overall argument that edification depends on understanding.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I think this may go too far in accommodating unnecessarily the Charismatic understanding, that praying in tongues at home builds them up. They do not know exactly what they are saying and so must pray for interpretation which is the gift to understand what they are saying. I think on this point the understanding of Charles Fox Parham that it removed the need for missionaries to learn languages was both correct in theory - that the original tongues were genuine languages but wrong in the sense that they were sign gifts to Israel, not really evangelism. That modern tongues (replicated amongst muslims, hindus and mormons) were not real languages apparently was discovered by missionaries in the field.
 
That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?
 
The man that speak in tongue doesn't know what he is saying nor the others (1 Co 14, 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.) ; his gift comes from the Lord. I won't add much of what is discussed here apart the fact that Paul call for order in relation to that gift in 1Co 14, 7-12 ; the peoples that have that gift have to be quiet, to speak for themselves.

I have many stories that glorify God in relation to that gift. For example, one day a french jew that was against the church came to a church because he was "dating" a woman from that church. When he was there, a woman from that church began to speak in tongue in hebrew ! The message was obviously for him and he convert. And there are some others times where the tongue speaking was interpreted for the benefit of all. It's not the most important gift but it's a kind one if he is used for the benefit of all or for the person who have it as long as the person speak quietly, for herself.
 
The man that speak in tongue doesn't know what he is saying nor the others (1 Co 14, 2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.) ; his gift comes from the Lord. I won't add much of what is discussed here apart the fact that Paul call for order in relation to that gift in 1Co 14, 7-12 ; the peoples that have that gift have to be quiet, to speak for themselves.

I have many stories that glorify God in relation to that gift. For example, one day a french jew that was against the church came to a church because he was "dating" a woman from that church. When he was there, a woman from that church began to speak in tongue in hebrew ! The message was obviously for him and he convert. And there are some others times where the tongue speaking was interpreted for the benefit of all. It's not the most important gift but it's a kind one if he is used for the benefit of all or for the person who have it as long as the person speak quietly, for herself.

I think it's more profitable to first study what the Word of God says on tongues, rather than mix that study with anecdotes which may or may not be true, Timobe ;)

Whether or not the anecdotes are true, garbled or false, may depend upon what we learn from God's Word by which we judge them.

I think it is plain from Scripture that real tongues-speakers understood what they themselves were saying. Is it likely that the Apostle Peter would preach a sermon on Pentecost after having given a prophecy thst he himself did not understand? Would that be good preparation for addressing an audience or congregation? "I've just addressed you in words of which I have no understanding, and still have no understanding, but now I will continue to address you with that my ignorance of the meaning of the prophecy I gave to you hanging over the rest of what I say."

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
To "interpret" one language into another is to translate it. John 1:41.

The "tongues" of the NT were certainly real languages. "Unknown tongues" were languages unknown to the speaker or hearer. 1 Cor. 14:11.

1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

Going back to the OP, taking 1 Cor. 11-14 as an unit, the apostle addresses the women praying and prophesying uncovered. In chap. 11 his comments are concerned with the head-covering aspect, and in chap. 14, when he comes to address prophesying, he then addresses their prophesying and forbids the women to speak. This indicates that prophecy was forbidden to women in the assembly as equally as teaching men was forbidden in 1 Tim. 2.
 
I've always found this to be a confusing topic. One the one hand, it seems plain that the tongue speaking of Pentecost was purposeful and intelligible to specific foreign hearers receiving the Gospel message through the tongue speakers. On the other hand we have Paul saying that he speaks in tongues more than any of you, but would rather speak one word understandable to those listening than 10,000 words in a tongue. So the assumption is that the "unknown tongues" that the Charismatics practice are the tongues the great Apostle is referring to in that passage.

The gentile believers who Peter is preaching to in Acts 10:44-46 are filled with the Holy Spirit and begin speaking in tongues. Paul at Ephesus, chapter 19:5-7 lays hands on the 12 men who had not yet received the gift of the Holy Spirit and they begin speaking in tongues and prophesying. I suppose these occasions don't necessarily mean that they were speaking in an unknown tongue, but I have the impression that they were.

I only began attending church at 36 years old, and in a Assemblies of God, Pentecostal congregation. I made up my mind that like it or not I would attend for 3 months and did. Speaking in tongues was a regular feature amongst a few of the parishioners and the language, if it was a language, was certainly unknown to me. I found the practice so disturbing that when the three months was up I searched for and found a Baptist congregation where I felt quite at home. I cannot help but feel that 'tongues' is one of those gifts that has ceased.
 
I think it is plain from Scripture that real tongues-speakers understood what they themselves were saying. Is it likely that the Apostle Peter would preach a sermon on Pentecost after having given a prophecy thst he himself did not understand? Would that be good preparation for addressing an audience or congregation? "I've just addressed you in words of which I have no understanding, and still have no understanding, but now I will continue to address you with that my ignorance of the meaning of the prophecy I gave to you hanging over the rest of what I say."

All Peter would have needed to go ahead with his sermon is the God given insight into what was going on - the tongues of fire descending on each to the 120 would have been a strong indicator that the promised Holy Spirit had come: he may not have needed to understand the specific praises being uttered. Or he and he alone may have received miraculous understanding of the other languages on this occasion (and possibly again later at Cornelius' house).
 
That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?

Could you please elaborate on your comment that interpretation is not the same as translation. What are the differences?
 
To "interpret" one language into another is to translate it. John 1:41.

The "tongues" of the NT were certainly real languages. "Unknown tongues" were languages unknown to the speaker or hearer. 1 Cor. 14:11.

1 Cor. 14:2 provides no instruction relative to tongue-speaking other than the preference for prophesying because of its intelligibility and tendency to edification. What the apostle says about tongue-speaking is argumentum ad hominem, that is, arguing according to the way the Corinthians understood what they were doing by speaking in tongues. He later corrects their understanding when he speaks about the mind (intelligence) being unfruitful. The idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit had already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

How does 1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" What appears to be ruled out in these verses is simply the idea that the Holy Spirit will be behind doctrinal falsehood.
 
How does 1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" What appears to be ruled out in these verses is simply the idea that the Holy Spirit will be behind doctrinal falsehood.

A contrast is set up between being carried away unto dumb idols and being able to intelligently discern what is spoken by the Spirit of God. The word translated "dumb" is used again in 14:10-11, with specific reference to tongue speaking and being unable to ascertain the meaning of the speech.
 
Palmer Robertson takes the references to "mysteries" as evidence that Biblical tongues were new prophetic revelations. The speaker of the revelation knew what he was saying and was therefore edified, but anyone listening who did not know the language, did not understand and thus was not edified. For tongues to function properly and to edify everybody they had to have an inspired and infallible translation confirm the prophetic message.

Tongues were a sign that people of all nations would be incorporated into the Israel of God (Acts 2) and that judgment was coming upon Israel as it had previously through the Chaldeans (I Cor.14:20-22) After the end of the theocracy they were superfluous.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
How does 1 Cor. 12: 2,3 rule out speaking "mysteries in the spirit?" What appears to be ruled out in these verses is simply the idea that the Holy Spirit will be behind doctrinal falsehood.

A contrast is set up between being carried away unto dumb idols and being able to intelligently discern what is spoken by the Spirit of God. The word translated "dumb" is used again in 14:10-11, with specific reference to tongue speaking and being unable to ascertain the meaning of the speech.

Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters. In Ch 12:2 it is used in the sense of mute or dumb to describe idols: in ch. 14 Paul uses it of human languages to tell us that none of them are without meaning (aphonon). Since the word is demonstrably used to describe two different things, neither of which specifically is the phenomenon of the biblical tongues (whatever they may have been), a better explanation for the claim that 1 Cor 12:2, 3 rules out speaking "mysteries in the spirit" is needed, especially since BAGD comment on 14:2's use of "mysteries" is "the one who speaks in tongues utters secret truths which he alone shares with God."
 
Last edited:
Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters.

The only difference is between the general and the particular. The word association connects the particular act of unintelligible tongue-speaking to the general course of action which they were accustomed to pursue as "Gentiles."
 
Actually the word aphona is used in two different senses in the two chapters.

The only difference is between the general and the particular. The word association connects the particular act of unintelligible tongue-speaking to the general course of action which they were accustomed to pursue as "Gentiles."

The difference is not between general and particular. It is between two different senses of the same word spoken of two different subjects neither of which is tongues speaking spaced over two chapters apart and separated by other subjects and without any hint to the original readers to make a link between them. If you try to support the assertion that

armourbearer post #19 said:
the idea of speaking "mysteries" in the spirit has already been shunned in the test set down in 12:2-3.

without any further support than you have provided, you may be able to get away with that kind of eisegesis within ill-informed Reformed circles where your argument is not tested, but if you try it with a Charismatic who has access to an intelligent and informed mentor from within that perspective, they will easily spot the same holes in the argument I did with the result that the unsoundness of your argument will only convince them of the rightness of their errors.
 
Last edited:
That the glossolalia of the charismatics are not real languages is evident to any linguist. It doesn't even require a lot of skill. By and large this is the case in charismatic churches. But sometimes they are real languages. And sometimes they are understood by native speakers who happen to be present. Note also that interpretation is not the same as translation, at least not in English. Is there a difference in Greek?

Could you please elaborate on your comment that interpretation is not the same as translation. What are the differences?

There is a distinction in English. I ran into this all the time in clinic. I would tell a patient, "I'm sorry I can't help you." My "translator" would say, "There is nothing wrong with you," which would send me into a controlled burn. (My understanding is much better than my speaking.) That's an interpretation, not a translation. It can be more subtle. My son might tell someone who comes to see me on Saturday, "Mary isn't here today." That is an interpretation of my statement, made on Thursday, that I'm going to Addis. Usually we stay for 3 days, so it's a reasonable interpretation, but then I might have returned on Friday. Likewise, I'm wondering in the Greek if there is a distinction. If so, it could explain someone giving an extensive message in tongues, but the interpretation's being short. The message might have been a long song and dance about all the sins someone did, but the interpretation could be a simple, "Repent."

Something I don't understand. If the speaker necessarily understood everything he/she was saying, and if interpretation is the same as translation, why would anyone have to pray for interpretation? Any speaker could just repeat in the local trade language what he just said in an unknown language. This whole Corinthians passage becomes a muddle to me if the speaker in the unknown tongue knew exactly what he was saying, i.e. he could precisely translate. There is also (what seems to be) the contrast between praying in the spirit and praying with understanding. This makes a lot more sense if the speaker/pray-er can't translate his utterance.
 
Last edited:
Palmer Robertson takes the references to "mysteries" as evidence that Biblical tongues were new prophetic revelations. The speaker of the revelation knew what he was saying and was therefore edified, but anyone listening who did not know the language, did not understand and thus was not edified. For tongues to function properly and to edify everybody they had to have an inspired and infallible translation confirm the prophetic message.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Can you explain to me where the idea that, tongue / foreign language + interpretation = prophesy comes from?

I picked this idea from my time in the charismatic movement, but free of that, I am struggling to find a biblical justification. It seems a very circuitous way of giving a prophesy - especially if the office of, well, prophet was operational?
 
@Peairtach and the others too.
What the Word say of that gift is clear : 1 Co 14, 13 "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret." That imply that the people who have this gift are not sure to understand what they are saying. All the Christians, fully and faithfully in Christ, that i know and that have that gift (and i know many) say the same : speaking in tongues is one thing, to be able to interpret is an other thing. But like Paul said, the people that have that gift have to pray to be able to interpret their gift continually because in some church that i have visited, the Christians that have that gift (real Christians not mystics with false doctrines like in some churches in which the people are falling on the ground or i don't know what else) usually speaks in tongues but forgot to pray to be able to interpret... Because with that gift, they builds up themselves so well (1 Co 14, 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself) and are bringing into adoration so well that they usually forgot to pray to be able to interpret their gift in order to edify the whole church.

Fortunately, i know some protestant churches that practice that gift without "falling" into the problems that may result of his "utilization". The most simple is that the person that have that gift speak quietly for herself like Paul said and if she receive interpretation, as she may speak for the entire church.

But, most of all, pursue love because science, speaking in tongues, prophecy and all that are temporals things that are destinate to disappear one day ; but not love ! :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top