Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
I think that's missing the thought intended to be related to us. I believe that there are tongues of men and angels. And when it says NO MAN, I do not think that is saying no man on earth anywhere, unless it's tongues of angels. Usually, the congregations typically have few if any of another language.
I believe it's more scripturally sound to say that, for example, the day of Pentecost saw every man's language represented among the 120 who spoke in tongues, rather than take it to mean every single person the onlookers appeared to be heard speaking every single one of the languages that onlookers knew. The idea you present sounds as though if all the onlookers looked at any given single person speaking in tongues in Acts 2, each one would hear that same person speak THEIR language at the same time others would hear the same person speaking another distinct language, depending on what the HEARER KNEW. On the other hand, I think each of their languages were spoken by at least one or more of the tongue talkers who actually spoke that language. This puts the miracle in the speaker, not the listener. And if the Spirit gave them utterance to speak in tongues, the tongues are not gibberish. They're actual languages, whether or angels or men.
Similarly, I believe that it's faulty to read 1 Cor 14 as saying literally no man can understand the tongue being prayed. The miracle did not occur in the listeners, but in the speakers. The Spirit gave utterance to the speakers, and did not give supernatural experience of translating gibberish into languages in the hearers. The Spirit giving utterance to the speakers means a miracle occurred in the speakers. To say that the hearers were touched by the Spirit to supernaturally hear the same person speaking Italian to someone of Italian descent while at the same time speaking German to a person of German descent would be the Spirit doing something in the listeners and not the speakers at all. EACH OF THE HEARERS heard their language spoken by someone in the 120 while that same someone did not speak another language.
How can the tongues in 1 Cor 14 be unknown to ANY MAN, and yet the tongues in Acts 2 be known by people due to a miracle in the hearer in one case and not the other? The difference between the gift and the Spirit evidence is not whether God does something to the hearer in one case but not in the other while the other hears a language no one knows.. The difference is only that the gift is specifically to precede an interpretation while the initial evidence is not intended for that It is praise to God that incidentally were known by the onlookers.
Unknown in the case you cited is in italics for the reason you cited. But that still does not mean tongues are not known TO ANYONE on earth, but rather the general conditions where teh congregation wa susually of one language. |
If "no man understandeth him" means nobody in the meeting understands him, then what would be the point if it was an otherwise known existing language? And further, what actually would be the difference? If a group of English speakers are in the meeting, and somebody starts speaking Swahili, and nobody there understands Swahili, how would anyone even know it was Swahili and not ecstatic gibberish? (By gibberish I don't mean nonsense, I mean a non-existent language, a language not known to ANY man anywhere.)
So I fail to see how your distinction is making a difference.
As for
Acts 2, the text plainly says what it says:
Acts 2:6 KJV
Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that
every man heard them speak in his own language.
Every man - singular, each individual visitor.
Them - plural, the disciples who were speaking with other tongues.