Do You Not Know?

[John Reece]

This thread is about speaking in tongues, interpretation of tongues, and prophecy.

In 1 Corinthians 12:1, Paul said, “Now concerning the spiritual gifts (PNEUMATIKA), brothers, I do not want you to not know.” (= a rendering of the text in the second line of my signature).

The phrase "to not know" is rendered thus to mirror the wording of the thread title, and to avoid the pejorative sense of the English translation “to be ignorant” (KJV), which is euphemized in modern versions as “to be uninformed”(RSV) or “to be unaware (NASB)”.

We will examine the historical record of occurrences of PNEUMATIKA in Acts, and Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Chime in.

[John Reece]

There is an open thread on personal experience of speaking in tongues, with debate occurring in that context.

This thread has a different focus. No personal testimony. No debate.

This thread is for an irenic sharing of insight gained by searching out what the scriptures say and mean.

I hope there will be responses to what is written here. If not, the thread will serve a selfish purpose of motivating me to get back to relearning things I have forgotten during years of retirement (with nothing to challenge or motivate me).

[Jaltus]

I would say that there are two types of speaking in tongues, the Pentecost kind and the I Corinthians kind, namely tongues to witness to others and tongues to pray, respectively.

[John Reece]

Good to hear from you, Jaltus.

Just the kind of response I was hoping for. :smile:

You have challlenged me to do some work, the fruit of which I hope to be able to post within 24 hours. :read:

Blessings,

John

[popof3]

There is little debate as to what 'tongues' meant in the Book of Acts. It had no need of an interpretor since it itself was the interpretor. It allowed all those around to know that the disciples were still speaking in their native languages, but all passersby understood them in their native tongues.

So, for example if the Disciple was speaking Greek, and the passerby was Egyptian, the Egyptian heard the Greek words, but understood them in Egyptian.

[John Reece]

Thanks, popof3.

My response to Jaltus may amount to a response to your comment as well. Let me know if it does not satisfy you. I still have a lot of work to do to get Jaltus' done (been in bed asleep since my initial response).:smile:

[Minister of loving1another]

I would agree with Jaltus I believe their is two types of tongues,
but I would call them public and private... although there could be possibly 3 types since there is the public type that needs interpretation as well as the one where like in acts everyone knew what was being said, and then private for praying between you and God.
IMHO

in Christs Love
luv1another

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

In response to

I would say that there are two types of speaking in tongues, the Pentecost kind and the I Corinthians kind, namely tongues to witness to others and tongues to pray, respectively.

Check me out and challenge me re the following:

The speaking in tongues in Acts was certainly a speaking of distinct languages. What was said was understood by people in different foreign languages, and the wording of the text of Acts 2:4 indicates that the speaking in tongues on that occasion was articulate speech.

There is an interesting word in the text, αποφθεγγεσθαι, which occurs in a number of places in the LXX, but in only two other verses in the New Testament: Acts 2:14 and Acts 26:25.

This verb (αποφθεγγεσθαι), which Luke uses for the speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4, for Peter’s speech in 2:14, and for Paul’s speech in 26:25, is defined thus by Thayer: αποφθεγγεσθαι ; to speak out, speak forth, pronounce, not a word of every-day speech, but one “belonging to dignified and elevated discourse, like the Latin profari, pronuntiare; properly it has the force of to utter or declare one’s self, give one’s opinion…, and is used not only of prophets…, but also of wise men and philosophers whose pointed sayings the Greeks call αποφθεγματα; Accordingly, “it is used of the utterances of Christians, and especially Peter, on that illustrious day of Pentecost after they had been fired by the Holy Spirit, Acts ii. 4, 14; and also of the disclosures made by Paul to [before] king Agrippa concerning the αποκαλυψις κυριου that had been given him, Acts xxvi. 25.”

As an aside, consider the context of the only occurrence of αποφθεγγεσθαι in the NT, other than the two in Acts: But Paul said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I am speaking true and rational words (Acts 26:25 ESV). Note that in both Acts 2:14 and in Acts 26:25, the word is used in speech that consists of a response to a charge that the Apostles were not making sense (charged with drunkenness in 2:13 and insanity in 26:24).

Think about this question: When, in Acts 2, was the Gospel communicated? Was it when the outsiders overheard the disciples “telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God”? If that was a communication of the Gospel to outsiders, it was not very effective for that purpose, because the response it elicited from the outsiders was this: And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others mocking said, “They are filled with new wine” (Acts 2:12-13).

It seems to me that the speech in Acts 2:4 was speech addressed not to men but to God.

When (in Acts 2) was the Gospel communicated for the very first time in history? Was it not subsequent to Acts 2:4? Was it not in Acts 2:14, when Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed (απεφθεγξατο) them, “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words. For these men are not drunk, as you suppose….”.

Please consider the above, popof3, and let me know if you still think that Acts 2 indicates that the disciples spoke in their own language, the hearers heard in their own languages, and the phenomenon was therefore a phenomenon of supernatural hearing on the part of the hearers, rather than a phenomenon of supernatural speaking on the part of the disciples.

Jaltus, Do you still think that the speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4 was “witness to others”?

As to whether or not the speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost was a different type than the speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians, I must deal with in a separate post. That, too, will take some work on my part, and this post is already quite long enough. :smile:

Edited to correct verse citations.

[Jaltus]

John,

I would say that your own argument works against you, since Peter was one of those who was speaking in tongues. Anyway, it seems like you missed the preceeding verses in Acts 2

4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.
5 Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.
6 When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
7 Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?
8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?
9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome
11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"
You will note that each people group heard them in their own tongue! In all liklihood, those who accused them of drinking were those who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic as a first language, for none of the people groups listed spoke those tongues. Hence, Peter got up and declared the gospel in the common language of Jerusalem.

Note verses 6, 7, 8, and 11. Most telling that the men were speaking intelligible languages was that people knew they were Galilieans from their accents, otherwise how could they tell? You can only guess at accent when you know what someone is saying, generally, in order to know it is not part of what you are hearing. How else could they know where they were from? nobody knew who these guys were, and they would be dressed no differently from anybody else nor would they look any differently. There is only one conclusion to be drawn, namely that the Christians were speaking in understandible tongues and people were hearing the gospel in their native language. Otherwise too much of this section makes no sense.

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

You are not understanding what I wrote.

You say
There is only one conclusion to be drawn, namely that the Christians were speaking in understandible tongues and people were hearing the gospel in their native language. Otherwise too much of this section makes no sense.

Every word you thus wrote is in perfect accord with what I wrote.

You say
You will note that each people group heard them in their own tongue!

Absolutely. That is in perfect accord with what I wrote.

You say
I would say that your own argument works against you, since Peter was one of those who was speaking in tongues.

That quite misses the point.

Would you please state my argument, as you understand it?

[Jaltus]

Sorry, misread a single word and it changed the entire post (I read inarticulate speech).

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

:smile:

[John Reece]

luv1another,

Re:

I would agree with Jaltus I believe their is two types of tongues, but I would call them public and private... although there could be possibly 3 types since there is the public type that needs interpretation as well as the one where like in acts everyone knew what was being said, and then private for praying between you and God.

I'm at a loss as to how to respond. I don't know what scripture you are referring to as a basis for that belief.

Does Paul really write about different types of tongues in 1 Corinthians? Or does he rather explain how the singular manifestation of speaking in tongues is to be expressed appropriately in different settings?

[John Reece]

Jaltus,

Let me know if you still think that the speaking in tongues in Acts 2 was a matter of witnessing to people rather than speech addressed to God.

I see speaking in tongues in Acts 2 as a praising and worshipping of God, overheard by outsiders.

As I see it, the first witness to others, in terms of speaking language intended to convey a message to others, happened as recorded in Acts 2:14ff, rather than in Acts 2:4-13.

Do we still differ regarding that point?

[John Reece]

Acts 2

The text of Acts 2 indicates that the speaking in tongues that occurred in that context was speech addressed to God.

Those who spoke in tongues in Acts 2 were not witnessing, they were worshipping.

The witness that occurred in Acts 2 was not by means of speaking in tongues, but by means of Peter’s speech addressed to the gathered crowd in their own language.

Acts 10

The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles

44While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. 45And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, 47"Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (ESV).

The witness that occurred on this occasion was given by Peter.

The speaking in tongues was by the people being witnessed to.

The speaking in tongues was not speech addressed to people as a witness, it was speech addressed to God as praise and worship. They were "extolling God".

There is no indication in the text that the speaking in tongues in Acts 10:46 was of a different kind or type from the speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4.

Acts 19

Paul in Ephesus

1And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit." 3And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism." 4And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying. 7There were about twelve men in all. (ESV)

There is no indication in the text that the speaking in tongues in Ephesus, as recorded in Acts 19:6 was of a different kind or type from the speaking in tongues in Acts 10:46. In terms of the spread of the apostolic ministry, Ephesus and Corinth were close in terms both of geography and time of visitation by the Apostles.

What textual indication is there to believe that the speaking in tongues in Corinth was of a different kind or type from the speaking in tongues in Ephesus?

[Jaltus]

Do we still differ regarding that point?Yes, we do differ, though not much. I think it is hard to not worship God without proclaiming the gospel message, so instead of a distinction between the two, I would argue for a unity.

[John Reece]

I think it is hard to not worship God without proclaiming the gospel message, so instead of a distinction between the two, I would argue for a unity.

No argument from me on that point.

How would you distinguish that in Acts from that in 1 Corinthians, in terms of the biblical texts?

[Jaltus]

Let me get back to you tomorrow or Friday.

[John Reece]

O.K.

:thumb:

[Minister of loving1another]

John sorry for not getting back to you before this.
ok you asked why I was believing what I was and where I got the ideas..... well my original post said there could be possibly 3 diffrent tongues .... I have since gone and actually looked it up my bible and checked it out :) .... I would now say there are two types of tongues ... the tongues of men, meaning someone will know whats being said and this is generally whats used in public worshipwhere someone will hear and understand whats being said but also there appears to be tongues of angels... I would think that this would be the type of tongues that is used for private prayer language.... hmmm maybe Im just not explaining well .... basiclly Im just saying there is public tongues which God gives for the Body of Christ where there needs to be interpretation and private tongues where we can speak in the prayer closet and have no idea what we are praying..... ok ummm did I make anymore sense than before?.... hey I know what Im trying to say :D


Love in Christ
luv1another

[John Reece]

Luv1another,

I think I know what you are trying to say.

Thanks for sharing.

Blessings,

John