Only 2 types of tongues not 3

[jfrog]

I have often heard it said that there are 3 types of tongues, those being:

1. Tongues as initial evidence.
2. Tongues as a gift of the Spirit.
3. Tongues as a prayer language.

I maintain that tongues as a prayer language is not a biblically distinct type of tongues. I am not saying that praying in tongues is extra-biblical, only that it is not a biblically verifiable type of tongues. Clearly tongues were never spoken of as a prayer language in Acts. That leaves 1st Corinthians 12-14 which I shall address in the remainder of this post.

1 Corinthians 12 is clearly a chapter about the spiritual gifts. The references to tongues in this chapter are clearly in relation to the gift of tongues.

1 Corinthians 13 has only one mention of tongues. The verse is 1 Corinthians 13:1 and is mentioned right after this. From context, there are two interprations of what tongues could be in this verse.

1) They are referring to a spiritual gift because the topic had been spiritual gifts immediately before.
2) They are referring to the natural act of speaking in another language because verse 13:3 refers to the natural act of giving your goods to feed the poor.

Neither of these views lends support to a prayer language. It seems the gift of tongues is the more probable explanation. Since the gifts of the Spirit were just being spoken about at the end of chapter 12, and most all of the gifts are referenced in 13:1-2. Tongues, prophecy, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith are all mentioned.

In chapter 14 there are 14 verses referencing tongues. (Verses 2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 39)

Verses 1-6 are clearly comparing and contrasting tongues with prophesy. Verse 1 even speaks about desiring spiritual gifts. Clearly the context of these verses dictates that they are about the gift of tongues.

Verses 7-12 give an analogy of why the gift of tongues is not useful without interpretation, because it doesn't edify the church.

Verses 13-17 are the most interesting verses on this topic and they determine the context of verses 18 and on. There are three possibilities here.

1) It is continuing speaking about the gift of tongues. No real evidence is needed for this one, it is the most obvious way to take the context. In this case it would be speaking of making a prayer through the gift of tongues.

2) In verse 13 it mentions praying that you may interpret your unknown tongue. It could be that these verses are about supernatural interpretation of your natural foreign tongue that those around you haven't learned.

3) It is very unlikely that these verses are references to people praying in tongues as pentecostals today do. Contrary to most pentecostal interpretations, verse 15 has to mean praying with the spirit and with the understanding simultaneously. Verse 14 says "...my spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful" Verse 15 paraphrased asks What should be done about this praying with the spirit but without the understanding? It recommends praying with the spirit and with the understanding also. Further verse 16 gives the reason why both is needed. Verse 16 explains that we need both because those hearing our prayer can't agree with it if they don't understand them. Verse 16 also makes it clear that you are already blessing with the spirit but makes the point that the understanding is need in addition to this.

Of all these possibilities I'm beginning to think option 2 is the best contextual reading of verses 13-17. What do you all think?

To be continued (after some responses of course ;) ) ...

[Baron1710]

I'm not so sure there is any distinction between tongues at all Biblically. That seems to be what we have inserted in there but I don't see it.

[jfrog]

I'm not so sure there is any distinction between tongues at all Biblically. That seems to be what we have inserted in there but I don't see it.

I'm not sure either, but I am pretty sure that the bible doesn't differentiate tongues with a prayer language of tongues

[Baron1710]

I'm not sure either, but I am pretty sure that the bible doesn't differentiate tongues with a prayer language of tongues

Where do we get that anyway? Seems like another invented theory to me.

[jfrog]

Where do we get that anyway? Seems like another invented theory to me.

I agree. That's why I'm trying to combat it. So if you join the cause NOW you don't have to be a kamikazee for it or even a suicide bomber!!! ;)

[mfblume]

I agree that praying in tongues is not distinguished as something other than either the initial evidence or the gift of tongues. However, I would think it is involved in the initial evidence, since it is a prayer. All who receive the Spirit baptism should be able to pray in tongues. Why would prayer be something only those with the gift can do?

[Baron1710]

I agree that praying in tongues is not distinguished as something other than either the initial evidence or the gift of tongues. However, I would think it is involved in the initial evidence, since it is a prayer. All who receive the Spirit baptism should be able to pray in tongues. Why would prayer be something only those with the gift can do?

But isn't that more from reading into the text than it is from what is actually in the text?

[mfblume]

But isn't that more from reading into the text than it is from what is actually in the text?

I got this idea FROM the text. :)

[Baron1710]

I got this idea FROM the text. :)

Really? You sure? Maybe there is some baggage you are bringing to you to the party. Perhaps?

[mfblume]

Really? You sure? Maybe there is some baggage you are bringing to you to the party. Perhaps?

That is always a possibility in anything anyone says. But when reading 1 Cor 14 and studying the idea of prayer in the Spirit and with the understanding, one cannot find any instance anywhere where a certain kind of prayer is limited to only a select few. Since each gift is only given to a select people, and not the whole church possessing all the gifts, then the entire concept of prayer in tongue-praying seems to demand that it is available to everyone! And since the Spirit baptism is for everyone, but the gifts are not, seems to be a no-brainer to me.

[jfrog]

Unless in 1 Corinthians 14:14-16 the prayer in unknown tongues was understood by the speaker and not by the listeners ;)

[jfrog]

That is always a possibility in anything anyone says. But when reading 1 Cor 14 and studying the idea of prayer in the Spirit and with the understanding, one cannot find any instance anywhere where a certain kind of prayer is limited to only a select few. Since each gift is only given to a select people, and not the whole church possessing all the gifts, then the entire concept of prayer in tongue-praying seems to demand that it is available to everyone! And since the Spirit baptism is for everyone, but the gifts are not, seems to be a no-brainer to me.

1 Corinthians 14:16 makes it clear that praying with understanding was supposed to accompany praying with the spirt (at least when others were present) This makes 1 Corinthians 14:15 have to mean that we are supposed to pray with the spirit and with the understanding at the same time.

[jfrog]

So my stance is still that the only reference in scripture we have to praying in the spirit was a reference where we are told to pray in the spirit but also with the understanding simultaneously. There is no scripture for praying in the spirit without the understanding. Without such a verse, there is no verse in the bible that can be referenced to biblically substantiate the pentecostal practice of praying in tongues without understanding what you are saying.

[jfrog]

Wow, I think I just totally figured out how 1 Corinthians 14:13-17 fits perfectly into context of the rest of the chapter...

I understand that the word "unknown" was added is not really present in that chapter. To my knowledge ever reference of tongues in that chapter is from the same greek word. I've seen some try to distinguish between unknown tongues and tongues in this chapter. I do not think this is right. Anyways now that my rant is over with here is how I see that in context...

1 Corinthians 14:1-17. The verses of this passage have a common theme. That theme is edification of the church. Verses 1-6 tell us how prophesy edifies the church and tongues do not except with interpretation. Verses 7-12 further illustrate this by natural example and concludes with an statement to edify the church. Verses 13-17 tell us what we ought to do when we speak in tongues. We ought to interpret. That is what this whole subsection is about, interpretation. 15) What is it then? I will pray with the spirit and with the understanding (interpretation) also. 16) Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? (because there was no interpretation provided) 17) For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified (because there was no interpretation)

Verses 13-17 are simply a repeat of what he has been saying all along, that tongues only edify the church when there is an interpretation.

[mfblume]

Unless in 1 Corinthians 14:14-16 the prayer in unknown tongues was understood by the speaker and not by the listeners ;)

Then what does this mean:

1 Corinthians 14:14 KJV (14) For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

[mfblume]

1 Corinthians 14:16 makes it clear that praying with understanding was supposed to accompany praying with the spirt (at least when others were present) This makes 1 Corinthians 14:15 have to mean that we are supposed to pray with the spirit and with the understanding at the same time.

Praying in the Spirit is speaking in tongues. Praying with understanding is praying in the native tongue all understand. How can you do that at the same time? Unless you mean to pray in native tongue for a few minutes and then pray in tongues afterwards in the same prayer.

[jfrog]

Praying in the Spirit is speaking in tongues. Praying with understanding is praying in the native tongue all understand. How can you do that at the same time? Unless you mean to pray in native tongue for a few minutes and then pray in tongues afterwards in the same prayer.

Actually it would be pray in tongues first and then interpret those tongues after. That is what verse 15 is about. Verse 16 even begins by saying when you bless with the spirit how should the other people say Amen. (They can't unless there is an interpreter)

[mfblume]

Actually it would be pray in tongues first and then interpret those tongues after. That is what verse 15 is about. Verse 16 even begins by saying when you bless with the spirit how should the other people say Amen. (They can't unless there is an interpreter)

Oh, I see your point. Interesting.

[jfrog]

Oh, I see your point. Interesting.

Yes, so what I'm getting at is that there is no mention of praying in tongues without an interpreter in any of the verses in 1 Corinthians 14. Everytime tongues is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14 they are only spoken highly of when there is an interpreter. In fact, the whole chapter seems to be saying don't speak in tongues without an interpreter. Maybe this is only for when you are before others in the church. But, it seems that there is nothing in this chapter to support the practice of praying in tongues being between yourself and God only. I'm not saying that practice is unbiblical only that there seems to be no verse that can be used to show this was actually an early church practice.

[mfblume]

Yes, so what I'm getting at is that there is no mention of praying in tongues without an interpreter in any of the verses in 1 Corinthians 14. Everytime tongues is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14 they are only spoken highly of when there is an interpreter. In fact, the whole chapter seems to be saying don't speak in tongues without an interpreter. Maybe this is only for when you are before others in the church. But, it seems that there is nothing in this chapter to support the practice of praying in tongues being between yourself and God only. I'm not saying that practice is unbiblical only that there seems to be no verse that can be used to show this was actually an early church practice.

What about the words of Paul saying that prayer in tongues edifies oneself but PROPHESYING edifies others? He did not say prayer in tongues that is interpreted edifies others. And prophesying is not the same thing as interpretation of tongues.

I think that since Paul said prayer in tongues edifies oneself, and since he said he spoke in tongues more than them all but yet in the CHURCH he rather spoke in the native language, he meant that prayer in tongues is done in private. Why else would he say he spoke in tongues more than anyone, but YET IN THE CHURCH not do so?

[jfrog]

What about the words of Paul saying that prayer in tongues edifies oneself but PROPHESYING edifies others? He did not say prayer in tongues that is interpreted edifies others. And prophesying is not the same thing as interpretation of tongues.

I think that since Paul said prayer in tongues edifies oneself, and since he said he spoke in tongues more than them all but yet in the CHURCH he rather spoke in the native language, he meant that prayer in tongues is done in private. Why else would he say he spoke in tongues more than anyone, but YET IN THE CHURCH not do so?

Those ideas about edifying yourself come from 1 Corinthians 14:2,4. From conext, those verses are obviously about the gift of tongues. Verse 1 even says he is talking about spiritual gifts and they are compared with prophecy. So they cannot be used to support the pentecostal practice that everyone seems to pray in tongues because everyone in the pentecostal movement prays in tongues and those verses are in reference to the gift of tongues which not everyone has.

Another, thought is... what reason does Paul give for the church not being edified for your speaking in tongues? Because they don't understand it. If they are not edified because they don't understand what is being said, how can you be edified when you don't understand what is being said?

One explanation Paul could be thanking God he spoke in tongues was because his speaking in tongues were edifying those around him.

[jfrog]

Those ideas about edifying yourself come from 1 Corinthians 14:2,4. From conext, those verses are obviously about the gift of tongues. Verse 1 even says he is talking about spiritual gifts and they are compared with prophecy. So they cannot be used to support the pentecostal practice that everyone seems to pray in tongues because everyone in the pentecostal movement prays in tongues and those verses are in reference to the gift of tongues which not everyone has.

Another, thought is... what reason does Paul give for the church not being edified for your speaking in tongues? Because they don't understand it. If they are not edified because they don't understand what is being said, how can you be edified when you don't understand what is being said?

One explanation Paul could be thanking God he spoke in tongues was because his speaking in tongues were edifying those around him.

I wanted to add that if there was interpretation with the tongues that he spoke in (like he has been emphasizing for them to do) then it would make perfect sense how he could thank God for it and still talk about understanding in the church. He could even be meaning that he speaks in tongues in the church also (but only with interpretation)

[mfblume]

Those ideas about edifying yourself come from 1 Corinthians 14:2,4. From conext, those verses are obviously about the gift of tongues. Verse 1 even says he is talking about spiritual gifts and they are compared with prophecy. So they cannot be used to support the pentecostal practice that everyone seems to pray in tongues because everyone in the pentecostal movement prays in tongues and those verses are in reference to the gift of tongues which not everyone has.

You have a strong point about the tongues being the gift, since the context from chs. 12 and 13 are gifts. But why would some be able to PRAY in tongues and some not, since it is prayer?

Another, thought is... what reason does Paul give for the church not being edified for your speaking in tongues? Because they don't understand it. If they are not edified because they don't understand what is being said, how can you be edified when you don't understand what is being said?

You are edified when YOU speak in tongues because you are praying to God and God is answering your prayers, obviously. You do not have to understand the tongues in order for God to answer those prayers in tongues and edify you. Also, one who prays in tongues is operating a gift and that operation in itself edifies the person operating it.

One explanation Paul could be thanking God he spoke in tongues was because his speaking in tongues were edifying those around him.

This last point here cannot fit at all, I think. Paul said the person speaking in tongues is edified but no one else is. And then he said if he prays in tongues his understanding is unfruitful. Putting that altogether means that we pray in tongues, without understanding what we are praying, and we are edified since God obviously answers those prayers, but no one else is edified since they cannot understand the tongues. In every case in 1 Cor 14, tongues are not known by the hearers or speakers. Tongues is also called speaking "in the Spirit" as opposed to speaking in native languages with the understanding..

[mfblume]

I wanted to add that if there was interpretation with the tongues that he spoke in (like he has been emphasizing for them to do) then it would make perfect sense how he could thank God for it and still talk about understanding in the church. He could even be meaning that he speaks in tongues in the church also (but only with interpretation)

That is exactly what he is saying, I think. Paul was saying that he would not speak in tongues in a church gathering unless it would be interpreted. He spoke in tongues more than any of them. And they did it a lot in church. But the difference is that Paul would not do it in church. This can only refer to prayer in tongues. Everything said about tongues and how it edifies oneself and how it ought not be done in gathers without interpretations all fits when one realizes that one is intended to do THAT alone.

[jfrog]

You have a strong point about the tongues being the gift, since the context from chs. 12 and 13 are gifts. But why would some be able to PRAY in tongues and some not, since it is prayer?

So with my position that 14:4 must be about the gift of tongues. So it seems that the gift of tongues can be self edifying. I won't elaborate anymore on the implications of this at the moment, but maybe in a future post.

As for the prayer question, I would ask why does anyone actually need to pray in anything other than their natural language? Just because one can't pray in tongues wouldn't mean that they couldn't pray, and the ability to pray is what is important in this scenario. So since there is no absolute need to be able to pray in tongues I would think God could possibly give that ability to some and not to others.


You are edified when YOU speak in tongues because you are praying to God and God is answering your prayers, obviously. You do not have to understand the tongues in order for God to answer those prayers in tongues and edify you. Also, one who prays in tongues is operating a gift and that operation in itself edifies the person operating it.

I'm assuming you are meaning praying privately in tongues in the first bolded case. In the other bolded case, terminology is very important. I'm assuming by "operating a gift" you are not meaning that those who pray privately in tongues are actually using the gift of tongues. I'm assuming you meant they are edified when they do this privately because it is a supernatural experience from God. This idea has some merit.


This last point here cannot fit at all, I think. Paul said the person speaking in tongues is edified but no one else is. And then he said if he prays in tongues his understanding is unfruitful. Putting that altogether means that we pray in tongues, without understanding what we are praying, and we are edified since God obviously answers those prayers, but no one else is edified since they cannot understand the tongues. In every case in 1 Cor 14, tongues are not known by the hearers or speakers. Tongues is also called speaking "in the Spirit" as opposed to speaking in native languages with the understanding..

When Paul was speaking of tongues edifying only the speaker he was speaking of the gift of tongues. (You even said I made a strong case for this) This is further evidenced by him not limiting it to praying in tongues but instead using the phrase "speaketh in an unknown tongue" in verses 14:2 and 14:4, for there are many ways to speak and prayer is only one. (Just a reminder we know not everyone has the gift of tongues)

I suggest that since he used this same phrase "speaketh in an unknown tongue" in verse 14:13 that he is still speaking of the gift of tongues as he was at the start of the chapter when using this phrase. I also suggest that 14:14-17 is simply him offering an example of why one should want to interpret when they speak in tongues. (praying and blessing with the spirit in front of an audience definately both fall under the category speaking)

As for what I have bolded...

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

But I thought verse 14:2 said something about tongues speaking not to men but to God for no man understands. This seems like a contradiction because verse 28 clearly shows that he is speaking to himself and God. How can he be speaking to himself in tongues when verse 2 clearly says he he that speaks in a tongues don't speak to men?

That is exactly what he is saying, I think. Paul was saying that he would not speak in tongues in a church gathering unless it would be interpreted. He spoke in tongues more than any of them. And they did it a lot in church. But the difference is that Paul would not do it in church. This can only refer to prayer in tongues. Everything said about tongues and how it edifies oneself and how it ought not be done in gathers without interpretations all fits when one realizes that one is intended to do THAT alone.

As for Paul's claim of speaking in tongues more than them all. I see no reason it has to be referring to him praying privately in tongues. In fact I think he must be referring to something other than praying privately in tongues. Here is why...

What could give him the idea that he prayed privately in tongues more than them? I can think of no good reason anyone could ever assume this about someone they weren't around all the time. Maybe it was that he knew he was so much more spiritual than them and that more spiritual people pray privately in tongues more than not so spiritual people. That's really the only reason I can think that he could claim to pray privately in tongues more than anyone. But I don't think it takes a more spiritual person to pray in tongues more. What about you? Any ideas on how he could make such a claim in reference to praying privately in tongues?

Any thoughts mfblume? or others?

[mfblume]

So with my position that 14:4 must be about the gift of tongues. So it seems that the gift of tongues can be self edifying. I won't elaborate anymore on the implications of this at the moment, but maybe in a future post.

As for the prayer question, I would ask why does anyone actually need to pray in anything other than their natural language?

I think this corresponds with the same principle mentioned in Romans 8. We sometimes do not even know how to pray or what to pray for in some situations. Since tongues are unknown to us (Paul said his understanding is unfruitful if he prays in tongues), this gives even more credence to the association with Romans 8's note. When we do not know what to pray for, the Spirit makes intercession for us. How? Tongues and perhaps other ways as well.

Just because one can't pray in tongues wouldn't mean that they couldn't pray, and the ability to pray is what is important in this scenario. So since there is no absolute need to be able to pray in tongues I would think God could possibly give that ability to some and not to others.

Like I said, there is a need, for everyone at be point or another will not really know even how to pray in certain situations. Perhaps we cannot see a person healed, and do not know the reason, and prayer in tongues is the Spirit ministering through us and He knows what the answer is! Who knows the possible solutions as to why we need the Spirit to pray through us in tongues since we do not know how to pray?

I'm assuming you are meaning praying privately in tongues in the first bolded case. In the other bolded case, terminology is very important. I'm assuming by "operating a gift" you are not meaning that those who pray privately in tongues are actually using the gift of tongues. I'm assuming you meant they are edified when they do this privately because it is a supernatural experience from God. This idea has some merit.

Gift or not, I did not have to say gift. Speaking in tongues is supernatural, and anything we do in the Spirit edifies us while we do it. It's just awesome! :)

I suggest that since he used this same phrase "speaketh in an unknown tongue" in verse 14:13 that he is still speaking of the gift of tongues as he was at the start of the chapter when using this phrase.

Maybe, but I am not convinced. Perhaps he just threw in both forms of tongues since the topic arose.

I also suggest that 14:14-17 is simply him offering an example of why one should want to interpret when they speak in tongues. (praying and blessing with the spirit in front of an audience definately both fall under the category speaking)

As for what I have bolded...

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

But I thought verse 14:2 said something about tongues speaking not to men but to God for no man understands. This seems like a contradiction because verse 28 clearly shows that he is speaking to himself and God. How can he be speaking to himself in tongues when verse 2 clearly says he he that speaks in a tongues don't speak to men?

Speaking to himself is not intended to be woodenly interpreted as self is the audience. I think it is keeping it to yourself, in our terms.

As for Paul's claim of speaking in tongues more than them all. I see no reason it has to be referring to him praying privately in tongues. In fact I think he must be referring to something other than praying privately in tongues. Here is why...

What could give him the idea that he prayed privately in tongues more than them? I can think of no good reason anyone could ever assume this about someone they weren't around all the time. Maybe it was that he knew he was so much more spiritual than them and that more spiritual people pray privately in tongues more than not so spiritual people. That's really the only reason I can think that he could claim to pray privately in tongues more than anyone. But I don't think it takes a more spiritual person to pray in tongues more. What about you? Any ideas on how he could make such a claim in reference to praying privately in tongues?

Any thoughts mfblume? or others?

I think the solution is simple. Paul knew his dedication, and knew the hearts of the Corinthians. They were simply carnal. Their bickering and feuding proved that. I think it stands to reason that such people FLAUNT their "spirituality" alone in the open when in that sort of state.

[jfrog]

I think this corresponds with the same principle mentioned in Romans 8. We sometimes do not even know how to pray or what to pray for in some situations. Since tongues are unknown to us (Paul said his understanding is unfruitful if he prays in tongues), this gives even more credence to the association with Romans 8's note. When we do not know what to pray for, the Spirit makes intercession for us. How? Tongues and perhaps other ways as well.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Anything spoken is uttered. Romans 8:26 is not an example of why praying privately in tongues is useful. Tongues can and always are uttered. The act of speaking is an utterance. When they spoke with tongues in acts 2:4, it even says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. Romans 8:26 must be about something other than tongues.


Like I said, there is a need, for everyone at be point or another will not really know even how to pray in certain situations. Perhaps we cannot see a person healed, and do not know the reason, and prayer in tongues is the Spirit ministering through us and He knows what the answer is! Who knows the possible solutions as to why we need the Spirit to pray through us in tongues since we do not know how to pray?

Using the point I just made about Romans 8:26, it seems we can have help with not knowing how we should pray with something other than tongues(groaning that cannot be uttered). So why would privately praying in tongues be something God would need to give everyone? Why couldn't he give it to some and not to others?


Gift or not, I did not have to say gift. Speaking in tongues is supernatural, and anything we do in the Spirit edifies us while we do it. It's just awesome! :)

True, anything supernatural seems as if it would bring edification to us.


Maybe, but I am not convinced. Perhaps he just threw in both forms of tongues since the topic arose.

Maybe, but I think context seems to point to it all being the gift of tongues he is speaking of. I think you have agreed with me that 14:1-13 seems to be about the gift of tongues.

Verse 14:14 mentions praying in tongues. Though it is immediately following a verse about speaking in tongues. Also verse 17 (just 3 verses later) is about lack of edification in the hearers. This lack of edification is clearly tied to the tongues not being interpreted. If you are right, it seems odd Paul would mention praying in tongues privately right in the middle of all this talk about speaking in tongues (what I would interpret as the gift of tongues).

In fact unless your just picking a few verses out of the chapter, almost every time he mentions tongues he also mentions them being interpreted. Because of his countless mentions of interpreting the tongues I think it's very safe to conclude that this whole chapter seems to be about the gift of tongues.


Speaking to himself is not intended to be woodenly interpreted as self is the audience. I think it is keeping it to yourself, in our terms.

That is one possible resolution for the apparent contradiction. Another is that in verse 2, Paul was meaning that he did not speak to any other men. That he wasn't saying anything about whether the speaker understood his own words or not, but just that others did not.


I think the solution is simple. Paul knew his dedication, and knew the hearts of the Corinthians. They were simply carnal. Their bickering and feuding proved that. I think it stands to reason that such people FLAUNT their "spirituality" alone in the open when in that sort of state.

I think there is a better solution. I think the solution is that Paul was not meaning a private prayer language at all when he said he spoke with tongues more than them all. I think he was meaning that he used the gift of tongues more than them all. It makes sense to since he was going around the world spreading the gospel he would need to speak in other languages much more than the corinthians would.


Now with all that said I would like to say a little about what all this means. There seems to be a few different options we can use to understand this passage.

1) If I am right then, that every mention of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is referring to the gift of tongues (and not a private prayer langauge), then the bible doesn't once give reference to a private prayer language in tongues. This would not mean it wasn't of God but only that no biblical support of it would exist.

2) 1 Corinthians 14 could be written in such a way that the gift of tongues and the private prayer language are written of in no apparent order. That is, that Paul goes in and out of mentioning one then the other and so on. (I think this seems very unlikely but I list it for thoroughness) This would mean the private prayer language of tongues was in the bible. Though, without some predetermined logical way of making sense of which verse referred to the private prayer language and which referred to the gift of tongues you would soon face accusations of just picking and choosing which verses referred to which type of tongues. So unless a clear logical method can be given for determining the type of tongues Paul is meaning in a particular verse this position is not very appealing.

3) Maybe the gift of tongues is the source of the private prayer language and as such every reference to tongues in 1 Corinthians also references this, and it is the interpreting of this prayer language that gives messages to the church and edifies them. This method implies that not everyone would have the private prayer language because not everyone would have the private prayer language.

Pentecostals cannot choose option 3 because every Pentecostal has a private prayer language. So this leaves options 1 and 2. Option 1 leaves no biblical mention of a prayer language but still allows it's existence. Option 2 allows for it's existence and some biblical support, but option 2 also runs into the problem of trying to explain why some verses refer to the prayer language and others refer to the gift. If an adequate explanation of this cannot be given then option 1 is the only valid option for a pentecostal. Though this means privately praying in tongues cannot be defended by the bible.

[mfblume]

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

That is why I said the same principle is found in Romans 8.

Anything spoken is uttered. Romans 8:26 is not an example of why praying privately in tongues is useful.

No, but the principle of the Spirit interceding when we do not know how to pray is the point. And I also said other ways.

Tongues can and always are uttered. The act of speaking is an utterance. When they spoke with tongues in acts 2:4, it even says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. Romans 8:26 must be about something other than tongues.

Agreed. But again I am saying the principle of not knowing what to pray for and seeing the Spirit intervene is the point. The Spirit does that. Why would not tongues be one of those means, too?


Using the point I just made about Romans 8:26, it seems we can have help with not knowing how we should pray with something other than tongues(groaning that cannot be uttered). So why would privately praying in tongues be something God would need to give everyone? Why couldn't he give it to some and not to others?

I see your point. It's just not totally concrete. But you may be right. The point is, Paul could mention the tongues all can receive in the fray of dealing with tongues overall in 1 Cor 14.


Maybe, but I think context seems to point to it all being the gift of tongues he is speaking of. I think you have agreed with me that 14:1-13 seems to be about the gift of tongues.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Especially after you mentioned there are indeed other ways for the Spirit to intercede for us, leaving prayer in tongues not essential for everyone.

Verse 14:14 mentions praying in tongues. Though it is immediately following a verse about speaking in tongues. Also verse 17 (just 3 verses later) is about lack of edification in the hearers. This lack of edification is clearly tied to the tongues not being interpreted. If you are right, it seems odd Paul would mention praying in tongues privately right in the middle of all this talk about speaking in tongues (what I would interpret as the gift of tongues).

I think he did it in order to explain how tongues simply should not be done in public without interpretation, and granted them the fact that prayer in tongues with no interpretation does indeed edify the talker. He simply put it in its rightful place.

In fact unless your just picking a few verses out of the chapter, almost every time he mentions tongues he also mentions them being interpreted. Because of his countless mentions of interpreting the tongues I think it's very safe to conclude that this whole chapter seems to be about the gift of tongues.

It mostly is if not all of it is.


That is one possible resolution for the apparent contradiction. Another is that in verse 2, Paul was meaning that he did not speak to any other men. That he wasn't saying anything about whether the speaker understood his own words or not, but just that others did not.

I think there is a better solution. I think the solution is that Paul was not meaning a private prayer language at all when he said he spoke with tongues more than them all. I think he was meaning that he used the gift of tongues more than them all. It makes sense to since he was going around the world spreading the gospel he would need to speak in other languages much more than the corinthians would.

But he said, "yet in the church." The church is the corporate body where more than one person is present. So I still think he meant private prayer. If he was walking with a couple other folks in the church, he still would be "in the church" at that moment.

But Paul did mention praying in the Spirit when his understanding is unfruitful.

[jfrog]

That is why I said the same principle is found in Romans 8.


No, but the principle of the Spirit interceding when we do not know how to pray is the point. And I also said other ways.


Agreed. But again I am saying the principle of not knowing what to pray for and seeing the Spirit intervene is the point. The Spirit does that. Why would not tongues be one of those means, too?


I see your point. It's just not totally concrete. But you may be right. The point is, Paul could mention the tongues all can receive in the fray of dealing with tongues overall in 1 Cor 14.


Yes, that does seem to be the case. Especially after you mentioned there are indeed other ways for the Spirit to intercede for us, leaving prayer in tongues not essential for everyone.

Agreed, though you are right that a private prayer language in tongues would indeed be a possible way the Spirit could intercede. I really want to make it clear that I am not ruling that out. Whether there is biblical evidence of the practice or not, I don't think the people doing it today are doing it because of Satan or anything like that. Just wanted to make that perfectly clear :)



I think he did it in order to explain how tongues simply should not be done in public without interpretation, and granted them the fact that prayer in tongues with no interpretation does indeed edify the talker. He simply put it in its rightful place.


It mostly is if not all of it is.

I agree that he was doing it to show how tongues should not be used in public. Are you for option 1 or 2 or 3 that I just mentioned in my last post. It'll be hard to respond till I know where you are coming from.


But he said, "yet in the church." The church is the corporate body where more than one person is present. So I still think he meant private prayer. If he was walking with a couple other folks in the church, he still would be "in the church" at that moment.

Church is the coming together of christians. This is true. Though I'm not sure if "the church" would qualify as such a coming together if only 2-3 were present. Not saying God wouldn't be with them, just that I'm not sure 2-3 is what he had in mind when he was referring to the church. Though even if he did mean it that way, I'm sure he could have had enough private moments alone with sinners he was talking in tongues to, to make the claim. I mean if it's the way you are saying then he surely had enough private moments to pray alone in them alot. So it seems he must have had plenty of alone time away from other christians either way. Either that or he didn't mean 2-3 when he was referring to the church in this passage.


But Paul did mention praying in the Spirit when his understanding is unfruitful.

This is something I have been meaning to bring up and keep forgetting about.

Romans 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongues my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Must that phrase mean he didn't understand? I'm not sure which way it means for sure but I have an alternative for you to think about. Maybe he was saying "The understanding I possess (my understanding) doesn't bring understanding in others (is unfruitful).

[mfblume]

Option 2 seems to be closest to what I am saying. However, there may be another option you did not mention. I just have to take more time and think about this. :)

[jfrog]

Option 2 seems to be closest to what I am saying. However, there may be another option you did not mention. I just have to take more time and think about this. :)

yea, I know what you mean. I've found that whole chapter quite puzzling for years. I'm curious as to what other option there could be. Though since the second option seems to be the closest to your views I am wondering if there is anyway one can know when a verse is referring to a private prayer language of tongues and when it is not. If you need more time that is fine. But, I would love to hear your opinions on that.

By the way, if you haven't tried this you should. Considering all the other possible meanings I have brought up about some of the verses and phrases in that chapter. Leave aside the fact it is talking about the spiritual gift of tongues and read the chapter with the thought of "unknown tongues" being a language the speaker knows but the hearers do not. To me everything in that chapter seems to make alot of sense when I do that. What about for you? Though I dislike one thing about reading it that way... it takes away from the gift of tongues being a supernatural thing.

[provivfli]

Considering all the other possible meanings I have brought up about some of the verses and phrases in that chapter. Leave aside the fact it is talking about the spiritual gift of tongues and read the chapter with the thought of "unknown tongues" being a language the speaker knows but the hearers do not. To me everything in that chapter seems to make alot of sense when I do that

[mfblume]

I cannot see it not talking about the supernatural experience for sure.

[mfblume]

I personally see no contradiction.


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

Paul sums up the previous chapter 13 here. He urges believers to seek operation of the gift of the Spirit, as listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Though we should seek love above all, do not stop seeking the gifts either. Chapter 13 warned us to seek love above the gifts, but that does not mean we should not seek the gifts at all. Just keep the gifts in proper perspective beneath our seeking for love.

But when it comes to gifts, themselves, seek prophecy above all else. And in this chapter, Paul shows that LOVE is involved in seeking prophecy, as we shall see. So the "BEST GIFTS" mentioned in 13:31 would include prophecy.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For 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.

This verse says that TONGUES are not spoken to men. Men are not intended to be able to understand them. Men MAY HAPPEN TO understand them, as in Acts 2: 11, but that does not mean they were the target of the language spoken.

Many say that Acts 2:11 proves that tongues are to be used to speak to men that they might understand, but those in Acts 2:11 overheard the 120 PRAISING GOD... referring to the wonderful works of God.

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

The above verse does not mean that the 120 who spoke in tongues were preaching about God's works to the people standing by. The 120 were merely worshiping God.

Psalm 40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

David explicitly referred to God's "wonderful works" as he simply praised God. This is what the 120 were doing in the upper room, but doing in tongues. That is why Paul said that tongues are spoken not to men, but to God, in praise. Keep in mind that this is the form of speaking in tongues that does not precede an interpretation, nor does it necessitate an interpretation.

Tongues are words directed to GOD.

But, on the other hand, prophecy is intended for men to hear.

1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

Prophecy is speaking the Word of God in native language, and God's Word comforts and edifies the hearers when understood in their native language.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Concerning edification, as noted in the previous verse, tongues only edify the one speaking. As one speaks in tongues, which are words towards God, one communes with God and prays to God, and God answers.

Since nobody else can understand the tongues, nobody else is edified.

But prophecy edifies the church because others understand the words.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

All should speak with tongues. But it is BETTER to prophesy IN THE CHURCH. Note the reference to "IN THE CHURCH." That refers to gathered believers.

Tongues were not the natural ability to know a foreign language, because the speakers did not know what they were saying - see 14:13-14.

1 Corinthians 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Only with an interpretation do tongues edify. And the Church needs to be profited. But where is the profit if Paul came to them and only spoke in tongues? They would not understand anything he said. Paul is in effect asking how could others be comforted by his words that they could not even understand?

Words can only profit people if they do one of the four following things:

1. REVELATION - speak forth words that reveal truths to people.

2. KNOWLEDGE-Teaching.

3. PROPHESYING-that is straightforward, as Paul mentions that prophecy is inspired Words of God spoken in one's native tongues, so as to be understood by those of like tongue.

4. DOCTRINE - teaches factual truths that are basic.

1 Corinthians 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? 1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Corinthians 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Things without life are MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. You will not know what is played unless there is a distinct sound made using these instruments. You would not know the tune. Trumpets were used to command to charge, retreat, etc. Without intelligible words, we are only speaking to the air. Nobody else is getting anything out of it. Some may "opinionize" and think that their spiritual exertion to speak in tongues is doing some mystical work to the others present, but that is simply unscriptural.

1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.

There are many, many different languages and articulate things that are said and understood by people in the world.

1 Corinthians 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

If we do not know the specific language spoken by a foreigner, I will be like a barbarian to them and they like barbarians to me. Greeks and Romans called everyone not of their races "barbarians." So he is saying that I am speaking like a Foreigner to these people.

1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.

If you seek to be involved in the gifts of the Spirit, seek to operate gifts that help OTHERS when you are around others. For example, seek miracles out of a true sincere desire to help those who are suffering. Or seek prophesying in order to to let others hear God's word.

1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

With that same attitude in mind, if one does indeed speak in tongues in the church around others, then that one must pray to interpret those tongues. Others need to be edified, and that can only be done, when tongues are involved, by an interpretation that follows those tongues.

Seek to let others be blessed and helped. Notice that Paul is encouraging people to LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

If you have to PRAY to interpret, as Paul says here, then this is not speaking about naturally-learned languages. Notice this says "PRAY IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE." This proves that Tongues are a form of prayer for they are talking to God (see verse 2 again). Praying with understanding is here introduced not as praying in tongues, but praying in your native language. He associated praying in tongues with lack of understanding. And since we never know what words we are praying in tongues, then it is praying without understanding.

1 Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Paul said we can do both – pray with understanding (praying in our native language where we consciously know what we are praying), or pray in the Spirit (praying in tongues, where we do not consciously know what we are praying, for our spirits pray). This is the difference between SPIRIT AND SOUL.

Those who pray in tongues never understand their own words. The soul (thinking) is not involved, just the spirit.

What should we then do? Paul answers himself. We should pray in tongues without understanding as well as pray with our native tongue with understanding, knowing what we are praying about ourselves, for we know God is ministering through us to this end, due to verse 2.

1 Corinthians 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Notice how he again associates lack of understanding with tongues. If you bless with the spirit alone [which blesses only you – edifies you alone, and no one else – see verse 4], and not with understanding, through prophecy using words others comprehend, then how can the one who also does not understand the language say, "SO BE IT"? (This shows people audibly said, "Amen," during speaking in the early church meetings.) The "unlearned" person here is the one who simply does not know the tongue.

continued...

[mfblume]

1 Corinthians 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

You are giving thanks in a perfectly good manner. It is a genuine work in the Spirit and it is spiritual and good. But nobody else is blessed, because verse 4 says tongues edify only the speakers themselves. This proves that Paul is not mocking people who speak in tongues, as anti-tongue people say he is, but is honestly saying they do well.

Don't prohibit tongues from being spoken at all! Just use order and know when to talk in tongues and when not to. There is a time and place for speaking in tongues in worship and prayer, but that place is not around others in the church. This is referring to “in the Church,” because OTHERS are to be considered. DO NOT TALK IN TONGUES ALOUD IN CHURCH unless you are giving a message that you know God wants to be interpreted. You can certainly pray in tongues without hollering it forth, though.

1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

Paul spoke in tongues. In Acts Paul is said to have been filled with the Holy Ghost, but we do not read he spoke in tongues as the Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles did. Yet here we read that he did speak with tongues more than most people.

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

But “in the church” he did not speak so much. “In the church” means around other people in a gathering for worship. Five words in our own tongue is better than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue, when others are with us, as in church, since nobody understands the unknown tongue.

1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Use good sense in dealing with what is done in church. Do not be childish and unlearned about this issue. In knowing how to attack people, be ignorant and unlearned. But not in this matter.

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With [men of] other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Paul quotes from Isaiah 28: 11-12.

Isaiah 28:11-12 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore 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.

Paul said that this prophecy from Isaiah proves to us that tongues are genuinely to be used for a sign to unbelievers. (That destroys the idea of anti-tongue people who say that Paul was mocking the speaking in tongues altogether in church meetings). But a person speaking a prophetic utterance is doing something that is intended to be a sign to unbelievers.

People hear tongues and perk up and wonder what is going on. And then an interpretation is supposed to follow, and the unbelievers are at full attention. That is how tongues are for a sign.

1 Corinthians 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

So when the CHURCH is gathered, and sinners, who do not know the languages being spoken, are not given an interpretation, they will think you are crazy. So do not speak in tongues aloud just to worship.

1 Corinthians 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: 1 Corinthians 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

But if everyone spoke in the native tongues of those present, sinners and saints, and spoke Words of God, they will speak truths that touch others' lives since it will be God's Spirit prompting them and the visitors will feel they are face to face with God, and will know God is really there. That is quite a difference from thinking we are crazy!

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath arevelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

So what should we do in public assembly? It is incorrect for EVERYONE to have a psalm, tongue and etc. The rule to keep in mind is that everything that is done in CHURCH ought to be done in edifying others. Tongues only edifies the people speaking, themselves, and no one else. Notice the stipulation for this rule is WHEN YE COME TOGETHER. That is, when OTHERS are present with you. Or, "In the Church."

Now it is important to note, also, that one CAN speak in tongues and edify oneself in church. But Paul is trying to tell the people to not shout out loud with such tongues. One can do it in worship so long as it is not outbursting the tongues, and not catching the attention of everyone else.

continued...

[mfblume]

1 Corinthians 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

Here is where tongues are to be spoken in church. No more than two out loud or three. And that by course, or by taking turns speaking. Not everyone at once. And one person should interpret. Notice that tongues should only be spoken in Church meetings as a precursor to interpretation of those tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

But if there is no interpreter, then do not speak in tongues out loud. Speak in tongues to yourself, quietly, and to God, because verse 2 says that what is said using tongues is between you and God alone when it is prayer or worship in tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

Prophets, are people who speak words in native tongues of those present, to edify these others. And let no more than three people prophesy.

"Let the other judge." This means that you do not take every prophecy that is given and deem it as being from God by default. Determine if it is from God or not, by the Word, for example. A prophecy that contradicts the Word is not of God. And there will be a witness in the spirit to informs you if the prophecy is of God or not. One may prophesy commonly-known thoughts from the Word. In that case, the prophecy is biblical, and judging it from the word will show it is indeed biblical. But it may be the person’s own flesh prompting one to do such, and not be the result of an actual moving of the Spirit of God causing that one to prophesy. Some just want to be heard by others!

1 Corinthians 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

If one speaks out in the Spirit and to the people in prophecy, and a second person starts to speak while the first one is still speaking, the first one should stop and let the second one proceed.

1 Corinthians 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

There can be others who prophesy, but not all at the same time. ONE BY ONE. That way there is no confusion, and everyone (others) can clearly hear the prophecy without being distracted by another prophecy that is being spoken at the same time. Others can then be edified, or comforted, with a word from God that they can understand. See verse 3.

1 Corinthians 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Nobody can say that they cannot control themselves, because the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. In other words, God never moves upon someone to the extent that the person cannot control themselves. Demons make people do things they cannot control. God is a gentleman, and never overrides our choice to work with Him.

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

God will not override, nor will He direct people to prophesy all at the same time, without taking turns, because He does not author confusion.

(Words spoken about women learning in church by asking aloud questions is referred here next).

1Cor 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Paul asks the people at the Corinthian Church, mockingly, if they are God, themselves, and think that whatever they decide is the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

If someone perceives oneself to be spiritual, then that one had better follow Paul's words of instruction about tongues, for his words were given to him by God.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

But he who wishes to carry on with one's stubbornness and not follow Paul's instruction, Paul said that such a one is ignorant, and such a one will remain ignorant of God's will in such matters.

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

Paul sums it all up again by saying that Prophecy is the best gift in public gatherings of worship, but that does not that mean people should never speak in tongues at such times. And it does not mean that tongues should be prohibited from being spoken in any form (as modern-day anti-tongue people propose). Its just that tongues must only be spoken in public to precede an interpretation, and they must be spoken in private when in form of worship or prayer to God.

I trust that this little study has helped you as a believer to know the purpose for tongues as a form of prayer and as a precursor to an interpretation. May we do things decently and in order. We do not want to turn the world away from us by our own ignorance of how we should act in the Spirit when the world comes to our meetings to find God. Some Pentecostal people never consider that the world does not understand a blessing in the Spirit. We can get pretty much beside ourselves at times in worship. And that is good. But wisdom may tell us to watch ourselves around unbelievers who just might not understand all that we are involved in. And it might scare them away.


This is not only for the sake of the unbelievers who do not understand, but Paul's words teach that even out of concern for our brothers and sisters, who know all about tongues, we should endeavor to prophesy, if anything. This is because, even though our brothers and sisters understand that prayer in tongues and praise in tongues is genuine, they are not blessed themselves as we are blessed in speaking in tongues around them. We should seek to bless our brothers and sisters, rather than ourselves alone. This is the spirit of love in 1 Corinthians 13 coupled with the gifts of the Spirit. Speak in tongues to edify yourself, but do not do it loudly to catch the attention and ears of the others.

[jfrog]

My point is that 1 Corinthians 14 is about the gift of tongues whatever that may be. This means that any attempt to use these verses to support a private prayer language, places that private prayer language under the domain of 1 Corinthians 12:30, which states that not all speak in tongues. This means IF 1 Corinthians 14 is about a private prayer language, how can it be taught that all have this private prayer language?

[mfblume]

My point is that 1 Corinthians 14 is about the gift of tongues whatever that may be. This means that any attempt to use these verses to support a private prayer language, places that private prayer language under the domain of 1 Corinthians 12:30, which states that not all speak in tongues. This means IF 1 Corinthians 14 is about a private prayer language, how can it be taught that all have this private prayer language?

Why not say the gift of tongues is BOTH a prayer language and precursor to interpretation of tongues?

[jfrog]

Why not say the gift of tongues is BOTH a prayer language and precursor to interpretation of tongues?

If it is then 1 Corinthians 12:30 says not all have the gift of tongues. You believe all do have the prayer language, which you are claiming is part of the gift of tongues. See the contradiction?

[Pressing-On]

My point is that 1 Corinthians 14 is about the gift of tongues whatever that may be. This means that any attempt to use these verses to support a private prayer language, places that private prayer language under the domain of 1 Corinthians 12:30, which states that not all speak in tongues. This means IF 1 Corinthians 14 is about a private prayer language, how can it be taught that all have this private prayer language?

You didn't go further when it says, "...do all interpret?" Tongues and interpretation, as a spiritual gift, must operate in unison. So, I must view them together. That is much different than speaking in tongues where you are speaking to yourself and to God as per I Cor 14:2 which is supported in I Cor 14:28. The person in verse 28 is using his personal edification in the wrong way by appearing that he has the tongues for an interpretation to go forth. He needs to remain silent in that case, speaking to himself and to God. Verse 2 shows how he does that.

You seem to be viewing I Cor 12:30 as saying that some will not speak in tongues at all. That is evidence of the Holy Ghost infilling, so it stands to reason, that wouldn't make sense. Paul says in I Cor 14:8, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more (to a greater degree) than you all." What he is trying to do in I Cor 14 is to admonish them to desire to seek spiritual gifts and not to be satisfied with just speaking in tongues during the services. Anyone can do that, but it edifies no one but the person speaking.

He leads into chapter 14 with chapter 13 by showing that if love is not at the center - it is a sounding brass (roaring noise) or a tinkling (wailing) cymbal. In other words, it means nothing and is just a bunch of noise.

He ends the chapter with I Cor 39-40 "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (40) Let all things be done decently and in order.

He never implies that people will not speak in tongues. He rather encourages it, if done decent and in order.

[mfblume]

If it is then 1 Corinthians 12:30 says not all have the gift of tongues. You believe all do have the prayer language, which you are claiming is part of the gift of tongues. See the contradiction?

No, I already said that it is possible for this to be solely speaking of the gift of tongues, since not everyone needs the prayer language because there are other ways the Spirit intercedes for us to pray when we do not know how to pray.

[jfrog]

Why not say the gift of tongues is BOTH a prayer language and precursor to interpretation of tongues?

No, I already said that it is possible for this to be solely speaking of the gift of tongues, since not everyone needs the prayer language because there are other ways the Spirit intercedes for us to pray when we do not know how to pray.

What I'm saying is this verse should not be used to establish a personal prayer language. You say you agree but keep on going back to this verse as evidence of a personal prayer language. That's what doesn't make sense to me.

[jfrog]

You didn't go further when it says, "...do all interpret?" Tongues and interpretation, as a spiritual gift, must operate in unison. So, I must view them together. That is much different than speaking in tongues where you are speaking to yourself and to God as per I Cor 14:2 which is supported in I Cor 14:28. The person in verse 28 is using his personal edification in the wrong way by appearing that he has the tongues for an interpretation to go forth. He needs to remain silent in that case, speaking to himself and to God. Verse 2 shows how he does that.

Tongues is a gift of the Spirit. This gift of the spirit seems to be able to occur with and without interpretation as in 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 14:4.


You seem to be viewing I Cor 12:30 as saying that some will not speak in tongues at all. That is evidence of the Holy Ghost infilling, so it stands to reason, that wouldn't make sense. Paul says in I Cor 14:8, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more (to a greater degree) than you all." What he is trying to do in I Cor 14 is to admonish them to desire to seek spiritual gifts and not to be satisfied with just speaking in tongues during the services. Anyone can do that, but it edifies no one but the person speaking.

1 Corinthians 12:30 does indeed say that not all will have the gift of tongues. Using 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 14:4 to show that there was a private prayer language of tongues links that private prayer language to the gift of tongues. The tongues in those verses can be interpreted. As such they are referring to the gift of tongues. Since you have used those verses to refer to the gift of tongues I am simply applying 1 Corinthians 12:30 that not all have the gift of tongues. In light of this in 1 Corinthians 12:30 it seems the gift of tongues can be used with or without interpretation.


He leads into chapter 14 with chapter 13 by showing that if love is not at the center - it is a sounding brass (roaring noise) or a tinkling (wailing) cymbal. In other words, it means nothing and is just a bunch of noise.

He ends the chapter with I Cor 39-40 "Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. (40) Let all things be done decently and in order.

He never implies that people will not speak in tongues. He rather encourages it, if done decent and in order.

He implied not all speak with the gift tongues in 1 corinthians 12:30. Note I have not said nothing about the initial evidence of tongues. I have seperated that from the gift of tongues being discussed in 1 Corinthians.

[jfrog]

I'm starting to think the best way to read the passage is as the gift of tongues being responsible for the private prayer language and messages in tongues (when interpretation is present) Though this implies that not all will have a private prayer language in tongues.

[mfblume]

What I'm saying is this verse should not be used to establish a personal prayer language. You say you agree but keep on going back to this verse as evidence of a personal prayer language.

A personal prayer language to those who have the gift.

[mfblume]

I'm starting to think the best way to read the passage is as the gift of tongues being responsible for the private prayer language and messages in tongues (when interpretation is present) Though this implies that not all will have a private prayer language in tongues.

That is what I have been trying to say may be the case.

[jfrog]

That is what I have been trying to say may be the case.

Sorry then. I should stop assuming things! I was assuming that you would find it impossible to reconcile that with the pentecostal experience where everyone seems to have a private prayer language.

[Pressing-On]

Tongues is a gift of the Spirit. This gift of the spirit seems to be able to occur with and without interpretation as in 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 14:4.



1 Corinthians 12:30 does indeed say that not all will have the gift of tongues. Using 1 Corinthians 14:2 and 14:4 to show that there was a private prayer language of tongues links that private prayer language to the gift of tongues. The tongues in those verses can be interpreted. As such they are referring to the gift of tongues. Since you have used those verses to refer to the gift of tongues I am simply applying 1 Corinthians 12:30 that not all have the gift of tongues. In light of this in 1 Corinthians 12:30 it seems the gift of tongues can be used with or without interpretation.



He implied not all speak with the gift tongues in 1 corinthians 12:30. Note I have not said nothing about the initial evidence of tongues. I have seperated that from the gift of tongues being discussed in 1 Corinthians.

Yes, Paul does say that they don't all speak with the gift of tongues, which is coupled with interpretation. I only separate that from the tongues you have received with the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost and, IMO, that is where your personal edification and prayer comes from. I view that as separate or a different mode of operation from the "spiritual gifts" that are used to edify the church.

Everyone that has been filled with the Holy Ghost has a prayer. That is separate from the spiritual gifts.

Paul does instruct the church to "desire" spiritual gifts. That is a strong and passionate word! It means to be "jealous", "zealous" and "covet earnestly".

So, IMO, just because he says that not everyone has the "gift of tongues", he goes on in I Cor 14:1 to admonish and instruct them to seek after those gifts that are lacking your life!

IMO, it would be erroneous and unfortunate to settle, rest and be satisfied that some do not speak in tongues.

[jfrog]

Yes, Paul does say that they don't all speak with the gift of tongues, which is coupled with interpretation. I only separate that from the tongues you have received with the initial infilling of the Holy Ghost and, IMO, that is where your personal edification and prayer comes from. I view that as separate or a different mode of operation from the "spiritual gifts" that are used to edify the church.

Everyone that has been filled with the Holy Ghost has a prayer. That is separate from the spiritual gifts.

Paul does instruct the church to "desire" spiritual gifts. That is a strong and passionate word! It means to be "jealous", "zealous" and "covet earnestly".

So, IMO, just because he says that not everyone has the "gift of tongues", he goes on in I Cor 14:1 to admonish and instruct them to seek after those gifts that are lacking your life!

IMO, it would be erroneous and unfortunate to settle, rest and be satisfied that some do not speak in tongues.

You cannot prove what is bolded scripturally without quoting passages that must be attributed to being about the gift of tongues.

Your idea that it is only the gift of tongues when there is interpretation fails because 1 Corinthians 14:2 is about the gift of tongues. He is comparing it to prohecy (another spiritual gift) and further in verse one he even says he is speaking about spiritual gifts.

EDIT: I wanted to note again that I am not saying those filled with the Holy Ghost do not all speak in tongues, only that a private prayer language carrying over from that cannot be found in the bible.

[jfrog]

Pressing, on the other thread you said you believed this: If the gift of tongues refers to a natural language that God imbues the person with that he can use in various ways then your explanation is the only one that makes sense.

Since the gift of tongues refers to that, how can you say in this thread that it only refers to the gift of tongues when interpretation is present.

[Pressing-On]

Pressing, on the other thread you said you believed this: If the gift of tongues refers to a natural language that God imbues the person with that he can use in various ways then your explanation is the only one that makes sense.

Since the gift of tongues refers to that, how can you say in this thread that it only refers to the gift of tongues when interpretation is present.

My first thought is that God uses me in the gifts and I can only speak from what I have experienced and seen.

Therefore, because I Cor 30 says, "Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

I know these two work together, so that is the conclusion that I draw from that verse. I also know that not always will the same person give both the tongues and the interpretation, so I see why Paul separates that in the verse.

You can have one person give both and many times, you have two or three separate people giving the tongues before the interpretation. I've only been in one service where there were three tongues given before the interpretation.

We had two tongues go forth before interpretation at our Tuesday morning Ladies Prayer meeting last week.

[Pressing-On]

You cannot prove what is bolded scripturally without quoting passages that must be attributed to being about the gift of tongues.

Your idea that it is only the gift of tongues when there is interpretation fails because 1 Corinthians 14:2 is about the gift of tongues. He is comparing it to prohecy (another spiritual gift) and further in verse one he even says he is speaking about spiritual gifts.

EDIT: I wanted to note again that I am not saying those filled with the Holy Ghost do not all speak in tongues, only that a private prayer language carrying over from that cannot be found in the bible.

Everyone that has been filled with the Holy Ghost has a prayer. That is separate from the spiritual gifts.

Paul says that he speaks in tongues more than all in I Cor 14:8. He says that is "praying in the spirit" (I Cor 14:14). He instructs us in Jude 1:20 to build up ourselves and our faith by praying in the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit helps our infirmities (weakness) making intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.

I maintain that "praying in the spirit" and with "groanings which cannot be uttered" are both a work and operation of the Spirit.

[jfrog]

My first thought is that God uses me in the gifts and I can only speak from what I have experienced and seen.

Therefore, because I Cor 30 says, "Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"

I know these two work together, so that is the conclusion that I draw from that verse. I also know that not always will the same person give both the tongues and the interpretation, so I see why Paul separates that in the verse.

You can have one person give both and many times, you have two or three separate people giving the tongues before the interpretation. I've only been in one service where there were three tongues given before the interpretation.

We had two tongues go forth before interpretation at our Tuesday morning at our Ladies Prayer meeting last week.

Again, if the gift of tongues is only for a message then your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 13 being about angels are in error. This would mean the tongues of men and of angels could not be differentiating between speaking in them as a man and speaking in them as a message

[jfrog]

Paul says that he speaks in tongues more than all in I Cor 14:8. He says that is "praying in the spirit" (I Cor 14:14). He instructs us in Jude 1:20 to build up ourselves and our faith by praying in the Holy Ghost.

Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit helps our infirmities (weakness) making intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.

I maintain that "praying in the spirit" and with "groanings which cannot be uttered" are both a work and operation of the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 14:14 is about the gift of tongues. He is using the "For if I pray in an unknown tongue..." as an example of why there should be interpretation. Read verses 14:13-17 with this in mind. They will make sense.

Jude 1:20 is about praying in the spirit. This does not necessarily mean tongues.

Romans 8:26 uses the phrase groanings that cannot be uttered This cannot be referring to tongues because tongues are uttered.

EDIT: Most of these points I have made much more indepthly in my previous posts with mfblume.

[Pressing-On]

Again, if the gift of tongues is only for a message then your thoughts on 1 Corinthians 13 being about angels are in error. This would mean the tongues of men and of angels could not be differentiating between speaking in them as a man and speaking in them as a message
I don't agree. I can speak in tongues as a person and I can deliver an anointed message. He is speaking of operating both in love. That is the focus of I Cor 13 - handling all with love.

You are trying to put "interpretation" (to explain thoroughly) of I Cor 12:30 with "angels" (messenger, to bring tidings) into I Cor 13:1.

Is that what you are doing?

The tongues can and probably includes our private prayer and operation in the gifts.

[Pressing-On]

1 Corinthians 14:14 is about the gift of tongues. He is using the "For if I pray in an unknown tongue..." as an example of why there should be interpretation. Read verses 14:13-17 with this in mind. They will make sense.

Jude 1:20 is about praying in the spirit. This does not necessarily mean tongues.

Romans 8:26 uses the phrase groanings that cannot be uttered This cannot be referring to tongues because tongues are uttered.

You are missing, I think, the point that Paul is addressing more elements than only the spiritual gifts. He is specifically speaking of self-edification in I Cor 14:2;4. That means that it takes place. He also says in I Cor 14:39-40 not to forbid speaking in tongues, just do everything in order.

You can't prove that Jude 1:20 is not including tongues, either. ;)

I didn't say that the groanings were speaking in tongues. I'm saying that in our private prayer or self-edification, we can have both.

[jfrog]

What I'm trying to point out is that I don't care which interpretation you take, but you cannot both be right about angels in 1 corinthians 13:1 and about what the gift of tongues are. That is the point I am trying to make. I actually think you are right about the angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1 now, but that means the gift of tongues also includes in its scope the prayer language. When taken with 1 Corinthians 12:30 this implies that not all have the gift of tongues. The gift of tongues being defined in your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:1 as something which has different aspects, one that is not a message and one that is a message. So not all would have these things.

You keep on saying because it says Do all interpret tongues right after the do all speak in tongues to try to show that the gift of tongues is only with interpretation. Do you not realize by doing this you destroy your own argument for tongues of men and angels (still referring to the same thing as 1 Corinthians 12 was) referring to tongues not for a message and tongues for a message.

[Pressing-On]

What I'm trying to point out is that I don't care which interpretation you take, but you cannot both be right about angels in 1 corinthians 13:1 and about what the gift of tongues are. That is the point I am trying to make. I actually think you are right about the angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1 now, but that means the gift of tongues also includes in its scope the prayer language. When taken with 1 Corinthians 12:30 this implies that not all have the gift of tongues. The gift of tongues being defined in your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:1 as something which has different aspects, one that is not a message and one that is a message. So not all would have these things.

You keep on saying because it says Do all interpret tongues right after the do all speak in tongues to try to show that the gift of tongues is only with interpretation. Do you not realize by doing this you destroy your own argument for tongues of men and angels (still referring to the same thing as 1 Corinthians 12 was) referring to tongues not for a message and tongues for a message.
No, I don't think that I destroy anything. Paul is speaking of self-edification and spiritual gifts in all three chapters.

If he, IMO, speaks of tongues in I Cor 13, he is bringing in both - self-edification and spiritual gifts. I believe that because he uses the word "tongues" which is diverse and "angels" which means, as I said, "a messenger, to bring glad tidings".

He doesn't use the word "interpretation" which means "explain thoroughly".

Therefore, I can only conclude that he is bringing in ALL operations that the Spirit manifests itself and that he wants us to make sure that the bottom line of everything we do is to operate in love.

There have been times in my private prayer that I have to calm down and submit to God in love so that my prayer will not be unfruitful.

Again, I see Paul drawing on ALL elements of the operation of the Spirit - for the body and for self-edification.

[jfrog]

No, I don't think that I destroy anything. Paul is speaking of self-edification and spiritual gifts in all three chapters.

If he, IMO, speaks of tongues in I Cor 13, he is bringing in both - self-edification and spiritual gifts. I believe that because he uses the word "tongues" which is diverse and "angels" which means, as I said, "a messenger, to bring glad tidings".

He doesn't use the word "interpretation" which means "explain thoroughly".

Therefore, I can only conclude that he is bringing in ALL operations that the Spirit manifests itself and that he wants us to make sure that the bottom line of everything we do is to operate in love.

There have been times in my private prayer that I have to calm down and submit to God in love so that my prayer will not be unfruitful.

Again, I see Paul drawing on ALL elements of the operation of the Spirit - for the body and for self-edification.

Then would you say the tongues mentioned in verse 12:30 is about both or only about the interpreted kind. Seems to me it must also be about both for he is listing most if not all of the spiritual gifts he just mentioned in chapter 12. Why would it be that 1 Corinthians 13 would be the first time he referenced the private prayer language if that is what it is meaning?

Also, the word tongues in all of these verses is the same in the Greek. This, supports my case that he is speaking of the same kind of tongues from the beginning of ch. 12 to the end of ch. 14.

[Pressing-On]

Then would you say the tongues mentioned in verse 12:30 is about both or only about the interpreted kind. Seems to me it must also be about both for he is listing most if not all of the spiritual gifts he just mentioned in chapter 12. Why would it be that 1 Corinthians 13 would be the first time he referenced the private prayer language if that is what it is meaning?
No, I couldn't see it as both because the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost is speaking in tongues. So, you couldn't say, "Do all speak in tongues?" That would contradict scripture, IMO

Of course, if some want to take that and say it is proof you don't have to speak in tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, that's their prerogative. It's not my view or belief. I won't argue on it, but I won't take that, for me, as truth.

Why would it be that 1 Corinthians 13 would be the first time he referenced the private prayer language if that is what it is meaning?
I don't think the question is - "Why the first time?" When you get to Chapter 14 Paul makes a distinction between self-edification and profiting the church body. That means that BOTH elements were going on.

The whole problem began with their misuse of both. He is lining that out for them. Chapter 13, in the middle of both 12 and 14, is putting much stock in there just appearing to be a bunch of loud noise if they don't operate in love. Having said that and setting the precedent, He then goes on to show them how to properly operate in both - self-edification and in edifying the church.

I think it would be erroneous to say that all three chapters are about spiritual gifts only, because Paul does address self-edification and also goes on to say at the end of the discourse that they should not forbid anyone to speak in tongues, but make sure you do ALL in order.

That's very simple to me because I've seen it all before my eyes and it makes the scripture clear to me.

Also, the word tongues in all of these verses is the same in the Greek. This, supports my case that he is speaking of the same kind of tongues from the beginning of ch. 12 to the end of ch. 14.

Of course it's the same meaning because we are speaking in a language that is not native to us. You are doing that in self-edification and in being used in the spiritual gifts.

[JoeHardy07]

Isn't speaking in tongues and praying in tongues the same thing?

Read verse 2 and 13-17. It seems to me that Paul uses speaks and prays interchangeably...

[JoeHardy07]

QUOTE You have a strong point about the tongues being the gift, since the context from chs. 12 and 13 are gifts. But why would some be able to PRAY in tongues and some not, since it is prayer? QUOTE

Because praying in tongues and speaking in tongues are the same thing. Speaking in tongues is speaking to God. We call that prayer. That's what Paul men's when he says "Praying in tongues." He simply means speaking to God.

You may have the ability to pray to God in tongues. That simply means that you have the ability to speak in tongues.

Only some have that ability to speak (pray) in tongues. If everyone had that ability, then there would be no interpretation.

I may have the ability to interpret those tongues. Or maybe I have faith, or healing.


This seems a lot less confusing that using one scripture to try and prove three different uses for tongues.

[jfrog]

Isn't speaking in tongues and praying in tongues the same thing?

Read verse 2 and 13-17. It seems to me that Paul uses speaks and prays interchangeably...

Possibly, I'm not convinced that he is using speaks and prays interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17. I think that passage is best understood as Paul using praying in tongues as a specific example of why one should interpret when they speak in tongues. I don't think it's best understood as an interchangeable use of prays and speaks.

However, other than that one point, the whole chapter seems to make sense when thinking of it as being about praying in tongues with the possible interpretation of those prayers. So it's hard to rule out this idea. It's definately a possibility.

One question for you about tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why does it say he is speaking to himself in tongues. Verse 14:2 makes it clear that he doesn't speak to those who don't understand him. So how is he speaking to himself if he doesn't understand himself in light of 14:2?

[JoeHardy07]

Possibly, I'm not convinced that he is using speaks and prays interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17. I think that passage is best understood as Paul using praying in tongues as a specific example of why one should interpret when they speak in tongues. I don't think it's best understood as an interchangeable use of prays and speaks.

However, other than that one point, the whole chapter seems to make sense when thinking of it as being about praying in tongues with the possible interpretation of those prayers. So it's hard to rule out this idea. It's definately a possibility.

One question for you about tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why does it say he is speaking to himself in tongues. Verse 14:2 makes it clear that he doesn't speak to those who don't understand him. So how is he speaking to himself if he doesn't understand himself in light of 14:2?


Paul stated that anyone who speaks in tongues speaks to God and not to men and that he speaks mysteries in the spirit. Look back into Acts 2, some were in doubt saying "What meaneth this?" as they disciples were speaking praises to God in other tongues. It's not that the onlookers didn't understand the words, they didn't understand the MEANING. It was mysterious to them. Just think what kinds of things these 120 were saying! It was probably some crazy stuff, BUT! as Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 14:10, every language on earth has meaning and can be understood, even if it must be interpreted. They were not spouting off gibberish. These were clear, understandable words coming out of their mouths. The MESSAGE of the tongues was a mystery, not the words themselves.

On the Day of Pentecost:

The Tongues were spoken TO GOD...just like Paul said.
The tongues served as a sign FOR (not TO) unbelievers...just like Paul said.
The tongues were understood as EARTHLY languages...just like Paul said.
The tongues were interpreted and dispelled all confusion...just like Paul said.
The church was edified by the gift (3,000 added)...just like Paul said.

Answer me this: Tongues are a gift right, just like healing? Now, did God give you the gift of healing for yourself, or for others? What makes the gift of tongues any different?

Step back a few centuries. When Joseph INTERPRETED Pharoh's dreams, was it becuase Pharoah couldn't understand the language or because he coudn't understand the meaning?

Holy Ghost infilling tongues IS the gift of tongues. They fulfill God's plan in reaching unbelievers when used responsibly and selfLESSly...just like every other gift.

Think about it. Healing wouldn't have got those guys attention in Acts 2. Jesus had been healing them for years and they still wouldn't listen. He needed a way to prove that salvation was for the whole world. He couldn't very well do that with casting out demons, could he? What better way than to confound those selfish, unthankful Jews than with the langauges of the earth...just like in Acts 2, 10 and 19.

[jfrog]

Possibly, I'm not convinced that he is using speaks and prays interchangeably in 1 Corinthians 14:13-17. I think that passage is best understood as Paul using praying in tongues as a specific example of why one should interpret when they speak in tongues. I don't think it's best understood as an interchangeable use of prays and speaks.

However, other than that one point, the whole chapter seems to make sense when thinking of it as being about praying in tongues with the possible interpretation of those prayers. So it's hard to rule out this idea. It's definately a possibility.

One question for you about tongues:

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Why does it say he is speaking to himself in tongues. Verse 14:2 makes it clear that he doesn't speak to those who don't understand him. So how is he speaking to himself if he doesn't understand himself in light of 14:2?


Paul stated that anyone who speaks in tongues speaks to God and not to men and that he speaks mysteries in the spirit. Look back into Acts 2, some were in doubt saying "What meaneth this?" as they disciples were speaking praises to God in other tongues. It's not that the onlookers didn't understand the words, they didn't understand the MEANING. It was mysterious to them. Just think what kinds of things these 120 were saying! It was probably some crazy stuff, BUT! as Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 14:10, every language on earth has meaning and can be understood, even if it must be interpreted. They were not spouting off gibberish. These were clear, understandable words coming out of their mouths. The MESSAGE of the tongues was a mystery, not the words themselves.

On the Day of Pentecost:

The Tongues were spoken TO GOD...just like Paul said.
The tongues served as a sign FOR (not TO) unbelievers...just like Paul said.
The tongues were understood as EARTHLY languages...just like Paul said.
The tongues were interpreted and dispelled all confusion...just like Paul said.
The church was edified by the gift (3,000 added)...just like Paul said.

Answer me this: Tongues are a gift right, just like healing? Now, did God give you the gift of healing for yourself, or for others? What makes the gift of tongues any different?

Step back a few centuries. When Joseph INTERPRETED Pharoh's dreams, was it becuase Pharoah couldn't understand the language or because he coudn't understand the meaning?

Holy Ghost infilling tongues IS the gift of tongues. They fulfill God's plan in reaching unbelievers when used responsibly and selfLESSly...just like every other gift.

Think about it. Healing wouldn't have got those guys attention in Acts 2. Jesus had been healing them for years and they still wouldn't listen. He needed a way to prove that salvation was for the whole world. He couldn't very well do that with casting out demons, could he? What better way than to confound those selfish, unthankful Jews than with the langauges of the earth...just like in Acts 2, 10 and 19.

I still don't see an explanation to verse 14:28 where it says "speaks to himself".

[mfblume]

I still don't see an explanation to verse 14:28 where it says "speaks to himself".

I already noted my idea. It means to speak in tongues quietly and not aloud to everyone else. It's a manner of speech that simply indicates one is keeping it to oneself. Not that one is giving a message to oneself.

[JoeHardy07]

I already noted my idea. It means to speak in tongues quietly and not aloud to everyone else. It's a manner of speech that simply indicates one is keeping it to oneself. Not that one is giving a message to oneself.

Close, but I think there is more to it. I can speak in tongues AND interpret all I want, but unless there is some shred of proof as to what I am saying, there is only confusion. BUT, if someone else can support what I speak by interpreting it, confusion goes bye bye. Funny how God uses the body to edfiy itself thru MULTIPLE members. lol. Keeps liars, corruption and confusion out.

If no one else is there that can back up my words, foriegn or not, I need to keep silence. This is what Paul was drving at when he commands that we should speak to ourselves when no interpreter is present. Else there would just be confusion and suspicious activity and anyone could claim anything was from God...sounds kinda familliar to me.

This opens up a whole new can of worms. You may ask in reference to verse 2, "What if I speak in a heavenly language?"

Answer: Find me in any scripture were tongues were UNDENIABLY anything other than earthly languages. It cannot be proven unquestionably...only theorized. God wouldn't make us assume that tongues were the initial evidence, not would he make us assume that they were anything other than earthly. He would have made if very clear so even retarded and slow individuals could understand it.

[mfblume]

Close, but I think there is more to it. I can speak in tongues AND interpret all I want, but unless there is some shred of proof as to what I am saying, there is only confusion. BUT, if someone else can support what I speak by interpreting it, confusion goes bye bye. Funny how God uses the body to edfiy itself thru MULTIPLE members. lol. Keeps liars, corruption and confusion out.

If no one else is there that can back up my words, foriegn or not, I need to keep silence. This is what Paul was drving at when he commands that we should speak to ourselves when no interpreter is present. Else there would just be confusion and suspicious activity and anyone could claim anything was from God...sounds kinda familliar to me.

This opens up a whole new can of worms. You may ask in reference to verse 2, "What if I speak in a heavenly language?"

Answer: Find me in any scripture were tongues were UNDENIABLY anything other than earthly languages. It cannot be proven unquestionably...only theorized. God wouldn't make us assume that tongues were the initial evidence, not would he make us assume that they were anything other than earthly. He would have made if very clear so even retarded and slow individuals could understand it.


What I meant to add to my thoughts was that we pray to ourselves and to God about INTERPRETATION. Pray to interpret.

[JoeHardy07]

What I meant to add to my thoughts was that we pray to ourselves and to God about INTERPRETATION. Pray to interpret.

LOL! Gotcha.