Gift of interpretation

[Peytah]

I am a reformed cessationist attending a church with several "new calvinists" that are continuationist. We're all able to fellowship and worship God together but this problem some of us just agree to disagree.

I was debating with a friend over the topic, and one thing he nailed really hard about was the gift of interpretation. He's of the view that tongues was both real known languages AND the unknown heavenly prayer language as well. His defense of this was the fact that there is also a gift of interpretation.

He says:
If tongues was always a known language spoken to foreigners who know those languages, then what would be the point of needing an interpreter?
Would God put a man on stage that is speaking Spanish to a group of Chinese so that the interpreter would be necessary?

See, I was always under the impression that when someone spoke in a tongue (like let's pretend Peter spoke the language of Mesopotamians), the point of the "miracle" or "sign" is that that Mesopotamian resident would be amazed that Peter could be speaking his language when he never learned it. There would be no need for interpretation unless the language was unknown to both the speaker and the listener, correct?

 

[Edward]

some of us just agree to disagree.

Since you are OPC, if they are members, it should be a matter of church discipline. Certainly 'agreeing to disagree' is not appropriate.

Here's something on the OPC web site that might be useful

Q and A

And you might want to add a signature before a moderator shows up.

 

[Peytah]

Thank you for that heads up.

The link didn't really get to answering the question though. It explains about the apostolic foundation and the ceasing of gifts, but I'm wondering about interpretation.

 

[Scott1]

I am a reformed cessationist
This term is often used to pigeon hole the doctrine of sola scriptura, really.

It's almost like saying one is a "covetarian" because they believe the tenth commandment applies.

It's not a special doctrine to believe that new revelation, ordinarily at least, ceased with its fulfillment in the completion of the Scripture- built on the unique foundational role of prophets and apostles.

attending a church with several "new calvinists"
this term is another misnomer, Calvinism, is, what it is.
that are continuationist.
This term is another misnomer- if it is used to mean new revelation continues like Scripture, it betrays ignorance of important doctrine of Scripture, or position contrary to them. We're all able to fellowship and worship God together but this problem some of us just agree to disagree.

The issue is whether new revelation, ordinarily continues outside of Scripture (now that it has been completed for the Church). Ephesians 1 tells us the foundation was laid by the apostles and prophets, Jude 1 that it was "once delivered unto the saints." Psalms 119 that God's Word is "forever settled in heaven," not subject to modern day competition. .

I was debating with a friend over the topic, and one thing he nailed really hard about was the gift of interpretation. He's of the view that tongues was both real known languages AND the unknown heavenly prayer language as well. His defense of this was the fact that there is also a gift of interpretation.

He says:
If tongues was always a known language spoken to foreigners who know those languages, then what would be the point of needing an interpreter?
As is common for what is termed charismatic/pentecostal in this generation, the theological understanding is shallow at best, and confused.

Acts 2 describes known tongues at Pentecost, I Cor. 14 describes unknown (to the hearers) tongues that required an accompanying interpretation.

Both occurred in the context of the Word of God not having been completed through the prophets and apostles.

Would God put a man on stage that is speaking Spanish to a group of Chinese so that the interpreter would be necessary?

See, I was always under the impression that when someone spoke in a tongue (like let's pretend Peter spoke the language of Mesopotamians), the point of the "miracle" or "sign" is that that Mesopotamian resident would be amazed that Peter could be speaking his language when he never learned it. There would be no need for interpretation unless the language was unknown to both the speaker and the listener, correct?

The I Cor. 12 spiritual gift of speaking in unknown tongues requires an interpreter (see I Cor. 14), and was done in the context of corporate worship, again at a time when the Scripture had not been fully delivered in that, or any, language yet.

.

---------- Post added at 04:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:34 PM ----------

Remember, the argument is not whether "miracles can still occur," don't allow the discussion to get sidetracked to that as is often the case- reformed theology recognizes the sovereignty of God in a complete way, including His ability to do anything, anytime, anywhere as He pleases, including miracles.

Also, we can allow God might operate extraordinarily and do a miracle like speak a language unknown to the speaker (e.g. missionary with a remote people group that does not have the Word translated in their own language), as a concession. But, this is not an ordinary means of grace (as charismatic/pentecostal teaching or practice contends).

The question is whether new revelation comes by especially unknown tongues and interpretation of unknown tongues as an ordinance of corporate worship.

The Word is very clear that it is that revelation for the church and the ordinary means of grace (not ongoing revelation by unknown, then interpretation of unknown tongues as done in standard charismatic/pentecostal practice.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter I
Of the Holy Scripture

I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.[6]

.

 

[Peairtach]

The individual speaking the language ("tongues" is just an Elisabethan word for languages) knew what he was saying:

Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. (I Cor 14:16, 17 ESV)

Paul's argument in I Corinthians 14 is that there is no edification without understanding. From the above it follows that those speaking in an unknown language could themselves understand what they were saying - unlike modern "tongues" speakers.

Why then the need for the gift of interpretation? Well they were transmitting an inspired, infallible and inerrant prophecy in an unknown tongue, not just speaking about the weather.

Therefore they or someone else had to be able to communicate that prophecy in an inspired, infallible and inerrant translation into a known tongue/language.

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. (I Cor 14:2)

The one who speaks in a language unknown to the hearer is understood by himself and God but not others, but he speaks prophecies/revelations by the Spirit of God.

On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. (I Cor 14:3-4)

The one who prophesies is understood by both himself and others therefore all are edified. The one who speaks in an unknown language only edifies himself because only he knows the prophecy he is speaking.

Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up. (I Cor 14:5)

Prophecy is better than tongues without inspired, infallible and inerrant translation, because only the tongues speaker is edified by his understanding if he or someone else doesn't have the supernatural gift of translation.

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. (I Cor 14:14)

My spirit prays intelligently because I understand what I'm saying but my understanding does not bear fruit in the hearers.


The whole passage is eloquent evidence, if needed, of the supernatural in the early NT Church, in these rather unusual miraculous gifts of languages and the translation of languages but it is far from what the Pentecostals/Charismatics say it is.

O.Palmer Robertson is very good on this:
Tongues Today? by O. Palmer Robertson

There may be mp3s of him preaching on the subject of tongues and prophecy out there:
Monergism :: Cessationists View Audio

The messages by Robertson on tongues and prophecy on the above page are worth their weight in gold on this subject.

 

[Peytah]

So it is true that back then when the gift still existed that God would give some the gift of languages and that language did not always neccessarily have to be the one of the culture/community? (thus, needing translation) To me that seemed kind of pointless, because if God were to give someone a gift of a language he did not know, why didn't he just give him the language of the congregation or people group?

 

[Scott1]

So it is true that back then when the gift still existed that God would give some the gift of languages and that language did not always neccessarily have to be the one of the culture/community? (thus, needing translation) To me that seemed kind of pointless, because if God were to give someone a gift of a language he did not know, why didn't he just give him the language of the congregation or people group?

Acts 2 records several miracles on the day of Pentecost- one of them being people praising God in languages they did not learn. I Cor. 12 (and 14) speak of spiritual gifts during corporate worship- including someone speaking in an unknown tongue, then interpreting to a known tongue.

One of the Corinthian purposes apparently, was evangelism, as tongues are said there not to be a sign for believers (as charismatic/pentecostal practice wrongly does today), but rather, for unbelievers.

God then, as now, can and does do miracles-
but speaking in an unknown tongue then interpreting back to an unknown tongue as an ordinary means of grace, part of corporate worship, is, in the light of the completed Scripture given by the prophets and apostles, is not biblical.

The Word has that place, and the Holy Spirit illuminates the understanding of the believer as he reads, hears that (sufficient, powerful, living) Word.

 

[Boosterseat_91]

The need for an interpreter was for the edification of the church. The "tongue speaker" was to keep silent if no interpreter was present (1 Cor. 14:28) because the church would not be edified (1 Cor. 14:5). Tongues were a sign to the unbelievers within the church, however, if no interpreter was present no tongues were to be spoken. There are a number of conclusions you can draw from this.

1) Tongues were known languages. This is obvious by the distinction of "tongue" (singular) and "tongues" (plural) within 1 Cor. 14. "Tongue" seems to refer to unknown languages, or gibberish which cannot be plural since gibberish is just gibberish (note that this is probably why the KJV interpreters add "unknown" before each use to set it apart from "tongues"). "Tongues" seem to refer to languages. Also, it seems obvious that tongues were a sign to unbelievers visiting the church who might have spoken a different language.

2) It was known if you were an interpreter.

3) The tongues speaker/interpreter could have simply been multi-lingual, though not necessarily.

4) The interpretation was given for the edification of the church. A likely situation could be a visitor who speaks a different language attends service and thus the need of a message in a language they'll understand.

Simply ask him for any Scriptural proof of a "unknown heavenly prayer language" because he won't be able to give any. The only possible one I've heard is 1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." And they'll say, "See! Angels have a language." Just ask for biblical proof of that because every angel I know of in Scripture spoke in a human language...Paul was speaking hyperbolically here.

 

[Peytah]

I'm not looking for arguments for when, why, or how tongues have ceased. I'm simply asking about the gift of interpretation.

When the men spoke in tongues in Acts 2, there was no interpreter. The men with the gifts spoke in the languages of the hearers, thus negating the need for an interpreter.

So should the tongues of rules be something like:
If the tongue that is given to the speaker is the language of the people listening, he is allowed to speak even without an interpreter.
If the tongue that is given to the speaker is NOT the language of the people listening, he is only allowed to speak with an interpreter to translate it to be understandable to those people.
If the tongue that is given to the speaker is NOT the language of the people listening, he is not allowed to speak but should pray for an interpreter.

So would this mean that if I had the gift of tongues in those days, I, as a Jewish man, would go to Mesopotamia and start saying "God is sovereign" in the language of Crete, and an interpreter would translate it to to the language of Mesopotamia? Why wouldn't God just give me the language of the Mesopotamians so there would be no need for the translator? Then I could just continue preaching in their proper language. Did God just give random languages or was it always the language of the people hearing?

---------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

Another confusing issue on the Corinthian chapter of tongues is whether or not Paul was also addressing the false jibberish. MacArthur and a few others argue that whenever he mentions "tongue", he is talking about the jibberish and condemning this false miracle but is trying to approve of genuine tongues. Others (including Palmer Robertson) argue from the chapter with the perspective that he's talking about the same thing throughout.

 

[Scott1]

So should the tongues of rules be something like:
If the tongue that is given to the speaker is the language of the people listening, he is allowed to speak even without an interpreter.
If the tongue that is given to the speaker is NOT the language of the people listening, he is only allowed to speak with an interpreter to translate it to be understandable to those people.
If the tongue that is given to the speaker is NOT the language of the people listening, he is not allowed to speak but should pray for an interpreter.

The point is is that unknown tongues/interpretation of unknown tongues has ceased in the fulfilled revelation of scripture, so the "rule" is that they are obsolete now, at least in the sense of an ordinary source of revelation.

Back in the time of Corinth, the special revelation (Scripture) had not ceased, so God used the I Cor 12 spiritual gifts, we have a couple instances of that, at least in Scripture.

The "gift of interpretation" (interpretation of unknown tongues) was necessary because, as the Apostle said, it was of no use to have someone speak in an unknown tongue during corporate worship, it had to be accompanied by interpretation back to a known tongue, so it could be understood. (The Word is all this now that the prophets and apostles have delivered it by inspiration of the Holy Spirit).

The event specific manifestations on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) were miracles, not ordinary experiences "gifts" to be regulated. (One can't really regulate "miracles" anyway.).

 

[Peairtach]

So it is true that back then when the gift still existed that God would give some the gift of languages and that language did not always neccessarily have to be the one of the culture/community? (thus, needing translation) To me that seemed kind of pointless, because if God were to give someone a gift of a language he did not know, why didn't he just give him the language of the congregation or people group?

If you listen to O.Palmer Robertson on Tongues/Languages he explains this as well:

The key to tongues is in this passage and in the fact that they are a sign to unbelievers rather than to believers:

In the Law it is written, "By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord." Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds. But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. (I Cor 14:21-25, ESV)

The Apostle is quoting from Isaiah 28 where being spoken to by God in foreign languages is a sign of God's curse on Israel for their wickedness, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.

In A.D. 70 a similar calamity befell Israel because of their unbelief. Tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews that God's judgment was coming and that God's New Covenant people would consist of all nations from Jews and Gentiles with the same priviledges:

Peter also explains the purpose of the gift of languages:

But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: "'And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.' (Acts 2:14-21)

I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,

No longer will the Jews have priviledged status in the Kingdom of God.

And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes,

There will be great judgements by God, including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

The prophetic sign gifts of languages and the translation of languages are no longer required, and haven't been required since the first century.

Modern counterfeit "tongues" just make the evangelical church look mad:

If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? (I Cor 14:23)

 

[Peytah]

One more point: If the gifted individual DOES understand what he is saying, why can't he simply translate it himself?

 

[Scott1]

One more point: If the gifted individual DOES understand what he is saying, why can't he simply translate it himself?

It has been well established that the "gift of interpretation" as you are using that term (speaking in an unknown tongue, interpretation of an unknown tongue) has been fulfilled in the revelation of Scripture, and that such is the doctrine of your confession.

So, it's not present tense, not in any ordinary sense anyway.

The I Cor. 12 gift required (per I Cor. 14) an interpretation of an unknown tongue for it to have been done in corporate worship. The person with the gift of speaking an unknown tongue would not understand what he was saying, that's why it is called unknown.

In Acts 2, apparently, on the Day of Pentecost miracle, the speaker did not know the language he was speaking, but it was understood by others listening.

 

[Peytah]

Not according to what Richard says up there.

 

[Peairtach]

Yes. I'd disagree with Scott, in view of my study of the subject. I once again recommend Robertson's mp3s on prophecy and tongues at Monergism.com.

Since a message in an unknown language was understood by the speaker, but was also a prophetic revelation, it was necessary for the speaker or someone else to have the gift of inspired, infallible and inerrant translation, and not just give an uninspired, fallible and errant translation.

One of the benefits of this whole section in I Corinthians is that it confirms to us the existence of the miraculous in the first century Church. A careful study of it also confirms that modern "tongues" however "well meant", and even possibly exercised sometimes by genuinely converted people, are a lot of "hoopla".

 

[Scott1]

The Apostle is quoting from Isaiah 28 where being spoken to by God in foreign languages is a sign of God's curse on Israel for their wickedness, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.

In A.D. 70 a similar calamity befell Israel because of their unbelief. Tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews that God's judgment was coming and that God's New Covenant people would consist of all nations from Jews and Gentiles with the same priviledges:

I can't quite get to this.

I Cor. 14 establishes:

1) speaking in an unknown tongue/ interpretation of an unknown tongues is not the focus of corporate worship (the word, prophecy, is)

I. Cor. 14
1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

3But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

2) there needs to be interpretation of an unknown tongue for it to be accepted

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

3) apparently, unknown tongues/interpretation was for evangelism (a sign for unbelievers)

22Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

I need to study further if it was also special revelation to believers at that time (before Scripture had been completed).

In any event, these precepts, being violated in Corinth, are violated in the same way today by standard charismatic/pentecostal practice.

Contrary to what the Scriptures teach here, they are used today as a center of corporate worship, an "ordinary means of grace," and as a source of revelation for believers, treated at or above that of Scripture.

Today, at least, standard charismatic/pentecostal practice is speaking in a tongue unknown (to anybody), usually, but not always, followed by an interpretation into the common language.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Scott

I need to study further if it was also special revelation to believers at that time (before Scripture had been completed).

It says here that the person speaking in an unknown tongue speaks "mysteries". A mystery is a new revelation from God, something that was not formerly revealed.

2For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Scott

Today, at least, standard charismatic/pentecostal practice is speaking in a tongue unknown (to anybody), usually, but not always, followed by an interpretation into the common language.

Paul's argument in I Cor 14 is that without understanding there is no edification. The language speaker that doesn't translate or get someone to translate is edified himself because he understands his foreign language prophecy. No-one else is edified.

Modern "tongues" aren't the real deal because the speakers themselves don't know what they are saying yet claim to be edified, which the Apostle denies is possible with tongues. Often modern "tongues" are not followed by a "translation", and often more than one peson is speaking in "tongues" at once.

Sometimes "tongues speakers" claim that tongues is for personal use, which contradicts what the Apostle says about it being a sign gift for the sake of unbelievers.

Either Pentecostalists don't read their Bibles very carefully, or when they do they ignore the teaching of the Bible on this subject. They must believe so much that the gift of languages is for today that they persuade themselves that their red herring "gift" is the real deal.

 

[timmopussycat]

I was debating with a friend over the topic, and one thing he nailed really hard about was the gift of interpretation. He's of the view that tongues was both real known languages AND the unknown heavenly prayer language as well. His defense of this was the fact that there is also a gift of interpretation.

He says:
If tongues was always a known language spoken to foreigners who know those languages, then what would be the point of needing an interpreter?
Would God put a man on stage that is speaking Spanish to a group of Chinese so that the interpreter would be necessary?

See, I was always under the impression that when someone spoke in a tongue (like let's pretend Peter spoke the language of Mesopotamians), the point of the "miracle" or "sign" is that that Mesopotamian resident would be amazed that Peter could be speaking his language when he never learned it. There would be no need for interpretation unless the language was unknown to both the speaker and the listener, correct?

I'm not a continuationist although I spent some time in those circles. And, depending on your situation, while it may be important to deal with questions of confessionalism that may arise in this situation, I suggest that it is ultimately more profitable to begin by showing that even on continuationist premises your friend’s argument overlooks key biblical data.

First–and this is true whether the Corinthian tongues were human languages, angelic speech or both–even in the Corinthian church, the purposes of tongues were twofold and the second use of tongues required interpretation if the tongues were to have their intended benefit.

Tongues were primarily intended as a sign of judgment to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21,22), not as a means to build up the church or impress unbelievers. Whenever a tongues incident occurred in the Corinthian church, a problem would result unless the tongue was interpreted: any unbeliever present who did not know the meanings of the words would think the speaking individual and the community tolerating it were out of their minds (v.23). And unless all members of the Corinthian church knew every single human language, they too would need to have the tongue interpreted if the speaker’s message were to be of any benefit to them. And Paul’s key point about any speech in the church setting is that it must build up the church. (1 Cor. 14: 4,5,6,9-12, 18,19). So, whatever “tongues” were in the Corinthian context, both unbeliever and believer would need to have them interpreted in order for any benefit to accrue to them.

Second, there is no certain evidence that "tongues" were angelic language or languages. Paul's sole reference to "tongues of angels" is found in the hypothetical clause "If I speak . . ." (1 Cor. 13:1). How does your friend know that Paul is simply not trumping the Corinthian misuse of human tongues (the basic problem Paul was addressing) with a bit of hyperbole? We cannot conclude that just because Paul mentions the tongues of angels that they were then occuring in Corinth: the point he makes is that even tongues of angels will be useless to the church if not exercised in love.

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------