Speaking in Tongues

[fightwriter]

I read that this is the subforum where the bible is assumed truth. For all non-believers with an axe to grind feel free to leave your input just remember that the bible is assumed truth in this thread.

I'm looking for the views of others on "speaking in tongues" within the scriptures. Feel free to use experiences as a reference to support your scriptural viewpoint.

[JoshC]

Mark 16:15-18

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

You can support whatever you want with the bible, however who knows what Jesus actually meant.

p.s... PM me I can help you do it for a tenner

[McCulloch]

For a bit of New Testament context, this is the first recorded instance of speaking in tongues:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.
They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes¹, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"

Footnotes:
¹ Acts 2:10 i.e. Gentile converts to Judaism

In this example, notice that the languages were clearly understood. This is nothing like the glossolalia experienced by the Pentecostal-type churches. It was practical, it was so that each listener miraculously heard the sermon in his own language. I know of no modern practitioner of tongues who claims to be following the biblical example.

Paul makes this claim about tongues. So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers. Now, if the tongues being spoken of are the miraculous simultaneous translation following the example in Acts 2, this instruction makes sense. If some church had a preacher who whenever he spoke, anyone and everyone could understand him in their own language, without electronics, this would be a mighty sign to get the attention of the unbelievers. But if the tongues are indistinguishable from gibberish, Paul's comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

This seems to be the justification for the gibberish.

But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.
Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?
So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

It seems clear at this point, that gibberish does not benefit the congregation.

There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Paul goes for the understatement here!

What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

This instruction seems to make sense and seems to be ignored by the tongues movement within Christianity.

Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.

So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

I have no idea how tongues as practiced by the Pentecostalish churches could in any way be seen as a sign to the unbelievers. Now, tongues as recorded in Acts 1, that would get my attention. Why is it that there are no churches where deaf people attend who can hear the message by miraculous means, no sign-language interpreters or message boards?

Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

This trick is called cold reading.

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;

Notice the use of the word must. Interpretation was not optional for Paul. He gives some good reasons why.

but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

No interpreter. Hush up!

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Oh yeah, men only please.

Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Paul claims the authority of the Lord on these things, they are not cultural or matters of opinion.

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues. But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.
In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

A few things I might draw to your attention. Firstly, there is no mention of tongues or languages in this passage. If you wish to interpret this passage to mean tongues or languages (the Greek word is the same) then you have the burden of proof. Groanings too deep for words. Clearly something too deep for words cannot be something expressed in any language or tongue. This is not the same phenomenon. No one else need hear these prayers, review Jesus' teachings on prayer and privacy.

[Heterodoxus]

Mark 16:15-18 ...; they will speak in new tongues;..., however who knows what Jesus actually meant.

In Mark 16:17, if authentic, the word attributed to Jesus is ΓΛΩΣΣΑΙΣ (γλωσσαις, glōssais {glōss-sais}; root ΓΛΩΣΣΑ, γλῶσσα, glōssa{glōss-sah'} = a language (tongue) not naturally learned (i.e., the languages of the people in the places where the disciples were to travel).

[JoshC]

I agree completely.