Did Jesus speak in tongues? Of all people, as our supreme example, why wouldn't he if it really mattered? He did experience the Spirit coming upon him, he performed all kinds of miracles, and prophesied incredible revelation. That is astonishingly rich spiritual life, no doubt, so where are the tongues?
To our knowledge, Jesus never spoke in tongues.
We have so little insight into his personal life, it is difficult to say anything definitive about his private practices. If he did speak in tongues for his own edification, no one was there to witness it. If some one did witness it, no biblical author was ever impressed by the Holy Spirit to record it. Although if someone had witnessed him doing so, I feel fairly certain it would have been recorded in light of Acts 2.
As far as his public ministry goes, we have no recorded incidence of Jesus ever speaking in tongues. We do have incidences of him speaking in Aramaic, but that was his native language, not the supernatural occurrence of speaking in tongues. Again, in light of Acts 2, had he spoken in tongues, I feel fairly certain one of the gospel authors would have recorded it. Something so seminal in the birth of the church would have surely had a precedent in the life of Christ recorded if there was one.
Regardless, I think the real issue implied by this question is that if Jesus never did, why should we? The answer is that regardless of what Jesus' experience was in this respect, at its beginning the church unanimously spoke in tongues, and the experience was promised to all that followed. For the disciples and those selected to be Apostles by Jesus, the clear choice of God was that every one of them spoke in tongues upon their baptism in the Spirit, even though Jesus never did.
So, the particular experience of Jesus in regard to speaking in tongues is not the controlling precedent for those who follow him. Instead, it is the experience of those who first followed Jesus which is the model for Christian experience. Jesus may have not spoken in tongues, but his followers did, and so can we!
To our knowledge, Jesus never spoke in tongues.
We have so little insight into his personal life, it is difficult to say anything definitive about his private practices. If he did speak in tongues for his own edification, no one was there to witness it. If some one did witness it, no biblical author was ever impressed by the Holy Spirit to record it. Although if someone had witnessed him doing so, I feel fairly certain it would have been recorded in light of Acts 2.
As far as his public ministry goes, we have no recorded incidence of Jesus ever speaking in tongues. We do have incidences of him speaking in Aramaic, but that was his native language, not the supernatural occurrence of speaking in tongues. Again, in light of Acts 2, had he spoken in tongues, I feel fairly certain one of the gospel authors would have recorded it. Something so seminal in the birth of the church would have surely had a precedent in the life of Christ recorded if there was one.
Regardless, I think the real issue implied by this question is that if Jesus never did, why should we? The answer is that regardless of what Jesus' experience was in this respect, at its beginning the church unanimously spoke in tongues, and the experience was promised to all that followed. For the disciples and those selected to be Apostles by Jesus, the clear choice of God was that every one of them spoke in tongues upon their baptism in the Spirit, even though Jesus never did.
So, the particular experience of Jesus in regard to speaking in tongues is not the controlling precedent for those who follow him. Instead, it is the experience of those who first followed Jesus which is the model for Christian experience. Jesus may have not spoken in tongues, but his followers did, and so can we!
44 comments:
This is an interesting question. I agree, I don't think Jesus spoke in tongues. My thoughts on this are because it was meant to be a corporate anointing on the people of God.
What happens at Penetcost is a reversal of Babel. At Babel men who all spoke the same language, suddenly found that they couldn't understand each other and are dispersed to every corner of the world.
At Pentecost men from every corner of the word, all speaking different languages are drawn together and suddenly find they can all understand what is being said.
At Babel men tried to show their power to take earth to heaven. At Pentecost power comes to bring heaven on earth.
Jesus said that those who followed would do what he had done... and more! Speaking in tongues is part of the "more".
We all are going to believe what we want to believe until the Lord shows us something different. I did a little searching since I have recently had this question myself.
I believe that Jesus did and could speak in tongues but it was not specifically recorded in the Scriptures. Here is why I believe this way:
1. He is God.
2. When he was baptized by John the baptist, the Holy Spirit landed on Him as a dove (thus, to me, represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit in His flesh).
3. I believe He came in the flesh to partially experience what it is like to be human and to experience what every person (collectively) experiences in their lifetime (trials, tribulation, temptation, sorrow, grief, joy, agony, pain, etc.); including the baptism of the Holy Spirit with evidence of speaking in tongues.
4. He exercised and manifested the other gifts of the Holy Spirit so what makes us doubt that He didn't manifest speaking in tongues also. He walked on water, raised the dead, translated from one place to another...He was all God and all man.
5. Part of His being, if you would want to call it that; the Heavenly Father part, parted the Red Sea, created the world, created you and me!
Those are just a few reasons I believe He DID speak in tongues. What do you think?
Hello Calliope, welcome to the Sound.
Great name. There's a young lady in my congregation named Calliope. I thought she was unique!
#1 & 4 are sound, reasonable thoughts. You may well be correct about them.
#2 I addressed in the post, in that speaking in tongues was never mentioned in the scriptural accounts. That is an argument from silence, I understand, but if he had, I think it would have been recorded in some fashion. Of course, I cannot say he did not with absolute certainty.
#3 has some merit. Speaking in tongues is about letting the Spirit express words from God that are perfect, divine; whereas we, in spirit, are neither perfect or divine and so cannot. Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and experienced life as we experience it, but I do not think we can say that he had a spiritual shortfall like we do in which he would have been aided by tongues. Therefore, I don't see a practical purpose for him to speak in tongues. Though I think my supposition is reasonable, like yours, it is one made from the silence of the record and so cannot be made with certainty.
I am a little confused by #5. I cannot tell if it is alluding to something modalistic, or some confusion of the nature of the Trinity. Perhaps you can expound upon what you meant a bit, so I could give you a response.
#5 was referring to the trinity. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one yet seperate. Jesus said himself that "the Father and I are one" in John 10:30. In John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.
Most of all, I believe that Jesus was all powerful and if the opportunity had ever presented itself for Him to speak in tongues..He could have. I guess that is my main point, He could have if the need arose for Him to do so. Even if it is not recorded in the Scripture, I believe He could have spoken to anyone He pleased in whatever language He needed to.
Iknow alot of christian that don't speak in tongues but have been used of God and have touch the lives of people.I know christians who they say speak in tongues but are critical of others because they don't speak in tongues.It really doesn't matter whether you do or not, the greatest is that we all speak the language of love and be filled with the love of God that it controls us. All we do and say doesn't matter if there is no love.If you speak in tongues or have any other gifts that you may say you have please first show me your love. What do you say to someone that cannot speak in tongues because he's mute.Gifts are there but the greatest is love
I speak another language and I am able to communicate the gospel in their tongues clearly without problem and I thank God I am able to.
Anonymous,
I wish I knew who you were, but Iet me respond to your comment as best I can not knowing anything about you or where you're coming from.
The "gift" of tongues is a different thing than tongues coming as a result of being filled with the Spirit. The gift is for edification of the body (when followed by interpretation) whereas tongues which are evidentiary and personal are for self-edification. Anyone filled with the Holy Spirit can speak in tongues evidentially and for personal edification, whereas only the gifted are meant to speak out loud for the edification of the body. IOW, everyone can speak in tongues, but only some are meant to do so for public consumption.
I agree with you about the supremacy of love, but that is never presented in the scripture as a substitute for tongues or the gifts. They are not mutually exclusive: it's not either or but both and with.
I could easily turn your first statement around:
I know alot of Christians that speak in tongues have been used of God and have touched the lives of people. I know Christians who say they don't speak in tongues but are critical of others because they do speak in tongues. Not to be cruel, but your statement has no substance.
As far as the mute, I have met those that claim a Spirit baptism experience where they did speak in tongues even though what came out of them wasn't clear. Can muteness get in the way when human understanding is bypassed and it's the Spirit that is the one providing utterance?
The only question of substance is whether or not tongues are a scriptural practice and therefore represent a blessing from God. If so, then the question of maturity is why wouldn't one speak in tongues?
I honestly think it is a load of crap. If there was no record of Jesus speaking in tongues then there is no reason for us to put our on twist on it and say he did. And if being a Christian is to be Christ-like then we should strive are best to be like Jesus. Jesus was more holy than anyone and he never spoke in tongues. If that is the case and we aspire to be like him then why should we. This is nothing but people twisting the word to fit what best suits them. God have mercy on you all.
XGRX,
You are the one who has the burden of proof, since everyone in the early church spoke with tongues. Did they not get the memo about being Christ-like?
The Bible says the Holy Spirit helps us when we cannot pray properly in our native tongue. He does this with "groanings" which cannot be spoken in our native tongue. Paul was clear that praying in the Spirit was vital to the individual believer and to the church. Jesus did the same thing when he "sighed". Groanings and Sighed are the SAME Greek word so Jesus spoke the same language as the Spirit. If "groanings" are praying in tongues as many believe, then it is likely Jesus also prayed in the Spirit.
That is very thin. Romans 8:22 uses the same root concerning all creation--should we take that to mean that all creation speaks in tongues? No, I think the contexts of Jesus' sighs and groanings make the leap to Jesus speaking in tongues on the basis of stenazo too difficult to make. I'll give you credit, however, for being creative.
I think Jesus didn't speak in tongues. He said that we would do the same things He did and even greater right? So I think speaking in tongues is one of those things! (:
You could be on to something there, Anonymous.
I've heard that when our Lord Jesus rose Jairus' daughter from the dead he spoke in another language, saying 'talitha koumi'. What are your thoughts on that? Why didn't the writer just write 'little girl or damsel arise'? Just a thought. I am not claiming that Jesus spoken in tongues or not, because I have not done extensive study on the matter, but it is an interesting statement.
Hello sml, welcome to Sounds.
Jesus, at that point, spoke in Aramaic, which was the common language of the Galilee. It was not tongues, therefore, because it was a language known to its speaker. For it to be tongues it would have to have been a language unknown to Jesus. Whereas while on earth walking in the limits of manhood such a concept would be possible, certainly in his divinity it would not. I suppose an argument could be made that it would be impossible for Jesus to speak in tongues, because in Spirit no language was unknown to him.
there is proof int the bible that jesus did speak in tounges.
a few times jesus went away to rest there i belive he spoke in tounges to pray to the father.
3 accounts i found he spoke in tounges 2 to heal the sick, 1 before he died on the cross.
these are found in mark.
-------------------
mark 5:41
And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
he did not speak there language it had to be interpreted so he spoke in tounges. then said in their language i say unto you arise.
he spoke in tounges here to heal the sick. but told them not to tell any one because it was not available to he died.
---------------------------------
mark 5:43
And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat.
there is more accounts stronger ones than this email me at
amundy86@optusnet.com.au
i will tell anyone more
Amundy,
You are completely mistaken in these assertions, thoroughly, absolutely, completely! Jesus is quoted in Aramaic, a language spoken widely in the Holy Land at the time (really, the common language of the day). He knew the language, those hearing him knew the language, it is only because he is quoted in that actual language that it had to be interpreted for the Koine readers of the scriptural account.
the whole bible is interpreted for many languages.
it would of just said. I say unto you arise. like all the other versus in the bible is translated
but jesus spoke in tounges then said I say unto you asire in there language.
Anonymous,
You obviously do not understand the nature of tongues. Tongues is a supernatural empowerment that allows a person to speak in a language THAT PERSON DOES NOT KNOW NATURALLY (see 1 Corinth 14:14, and the rest of that chapter). The Galilee spoke in Aramaic, Jesus was a Galilean, Jesus is quoted speaking Aramaic on more than one occasion in the gospel. How can you then attribute Jesus speaking in his native language to be an incidence in tongues? To do so is a blatant error.
You may also not understand the nature of the spiritual manifestation of interpretation, although that is not quite as obvious. Interpretation of tongues is a supernatural enablement wherein the empowered is able to give forth an understanding of what was spoken in tongues EVEN THOUGH NEITHER THE SPEAKER NOR THE INTERPRETER KNOW THE LANGUAGE NATURALLY. There are occasions (like in Acts 2) where a speaker in tongues will speak in a language the speaker does not know (otherwise it would not be tongues) but some hearer does. In those cases interpretation is not necessary because the natural capacities of language are capable of knowing what was said. Regardless, this has nothing whatsoever to do with what you have offered concerning translation and the Bible.
You seem to be completely confused about tongues, interpretation and their nature and use.
Thanks SLW, "because it was a language known to its speaker"
Looks like you nailed it.
Luke 10:21 says He rejoiced in the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind Luke writes the gospel after he is baptized in the Holy Spirit, He also wrote Acts. It seems to me that this verse gives an indication that He spoke tongues. Luke knowing well that "In the Spirit" mean a manifestation of tongues according to 1 Corinth. 14.
Although this case is as good as the case gets for suggesting that Jesus spoke in tongues, it too fails for the following reasons:
-we are directly told by Luke 10:21 what the joy of the Holy Spirit incited Jesus to say, and it wasn't tongues, to wit: 'He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”'
-what you offer as interpretive factors produce eisegesis rather than exegesis; in other words, you're reading meaning into the text rather than reading meaning from the text. The text on its face would never lead one to conclude it was recording an instance of Jesus speaking in tongues; in fact, I think it would preclude it.
-the expression, "in the Spirit" is not synonymous with a manifestation of the Spirit, and certainly not so in 1 Corinthians 14 where an action has to be associated with it (e.g sing, thank, pray) within the understood context of tongues (and other manifestations) in order to convey that thought.
So, to offer Luke 10:21 as an instance of Jesus speaking in tongues fails objectively. To hold such a position, one would have to do so on subjective bases rather than the facts of the text. One could say that it at least isn't precluded from the text, but all things being equal, I think that it is.
I submit the idea that there are 2 things occurring.
1: He rejoiced in The Spirit( that's the literal translation in the Greek text.)
And (Kai- [then also])
2: said, "I praise.... Etc.
In 1 Corthin. 14:14-16 "In the spirit or Spirit, is directly connected with tongues, it mentions several things , and even the simplest of them all, which is "bless" will not be understood by an unlearned or ungifted man, verse 15 especially confirms that "in the spirit or Spirit" is speaking in tongues.
I'm no theologian, just an idea, ya know, God bless you brother, May we all continue to grow in the knowledge and mercy of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Oh, I agree with you that two things are happening, but they are happening together. I think what you end up with is a very tenuous thread on which to hang the proof of a what would be a biblically unique occurrence.
Those two things are connected by the common conjunction "kai", but what makes you think it is more than a simple "and" in this context? Is there a Koine authority upon which you posit the "then also"? "Moreover" could be a possibility, but that only goes to strengthen my point: that his rejoicing in the Holy Spirit was accompanied by intelligible speech (and not tongues).
Even if we could accede to your "then also" as making a hard break between one action and the next (and I don't see how it can), "rejoicing in the Holy Spirit" would have to carry the load of communicating the action of speaking in tongues. In other words, you are burdening the phrase "rejoiced in the Holy Spirit" with actually meaning "praised in tongues." I see no warrant in 1 Corinthians 14 for making such a leap, particularly because intelligible speech was connected to the rejoicing by "kai".
i can rejoice in the sprit, and not speak in tongues. God knows my and understands my language. toungues means language.
Anonymous,
I take it you are not the same "Anonymous" immediately above. I agree with you, I think. Rejoicing in spirit should not be equated with tongues. Someone speaking in tongues could be rejoicing in or with the Spirit, but someone rejoicing in spirit does not need to be speaking in tongues.
What is the difference between tongue, language and angelic language? I Cor 13: 1 (If I speak in tongues of men or angels...)
Tongues of men are those languages spoken by the different nations of men, tongues of angels is that language spoken by angels. Presumably, any tongue of men would be interpretable by some person somewhere (i.e. a person somewhere at sometime spoke that language), whereas a tongue of angel would not be understandable to any person any where without divine assistance.
Why is it hard for folks to understand Jesus' words ... "And these signs will follow those who believe; In my Name they [i.e. you] will speak in new tongues."(Mark 16:17). You either believe in the whole Bible or nothing at all. Whether Jesus spoke in tongues or not does not even come into question because He is God and knows all tongues be it heavenly or earthly.
Personally I believe he did, but again the important thing to know is what he said concerning those who believe. Jesus said that in His Name they will speak in new tongues. Now take that as you please. Do not question the gifts of the Holy Spirit one among which is "tongues." I think it is worse blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, I think folk don't want to speak with other tongues. If they did, they would, or at least wouldn't be against it. According to Acts 2, the promise is for all vertically in time, so it was never God's intention to have a tongues-less church. Ever!
As for the value of Mark 16, it is in vogue amongst modern scholars to dismiss the longer ending as not part of the original manuscript. If it was appended, it was added very early in history, perhaps as early as Mark himself (by 68 CE), but no later than about 150 CE. Everything in the longer ending is paralleled in other portions of the scriptures, so it seems to me the effort to discredit the longer ending serves little practical good. It's old, it's true (in that it is restated in other terms elsewhere in the scripture), it is well attested in ancient manuscripts; therefore, it can be relied upon as scripture--and therefore believed and practiced.
I can see why you would equate questioning the validity of tongues with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I don't think that it necessarily reaches that threshold. If someone claimed tongues were of the Devil, while knowing in their heart that they were manifested by the Holy Spirit, then you would have the proper application of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Dear Pastor,
My name is Tyson and I was raised in the church (baptist, penecostal, non denom). My question is this - how is speaking in tongues more than gibberish used in a way to prove one is "higher up" through show? Now, a roman catholic convert, when I went back to churches from my past I had people of the church prey on me as though they were talking to a non-christian. Isn't the house of G-d a place for prayer and cenegog (mispelled)? Didn't Jesus himself attack the money changers for bringing things into His house that didn't belong? Speaking in tongues, after experiening it, having the "ability" myself but don't practise - appears to be something made up specifically by one denomination as a way of creating a show.
Hello Tyson, welcome to the Sounds.
Speaking in tongues is gibberish as far as the human ear and human mind is concerned according to 1 Corinthians 14:2. It may actually be a language spoken among men, but it won't be one the speaker knows, so it will never make rational sense as far as that goes. So if one only has the faith to see it as gibberish, then that one can never experience the blessing of it. On the other hand, any born again person, and I mean any one, who is willing to believe can enter into the promise of the baptism in the Spirit and speak in tongues. It's not a badge of merit or achievement, it is a grace given freely by God.
To the issue of show: I don't doubt you've seen tongues practiced in an unscriptural way. If it is delivered publicly (loud enough to gain the attention of the group in which it is spoken) it is supposed to be interpreted out loud so all may benefit. If that does not occur, then it is being practiced in a disorderly way.
As far as it being something made up by one denomination, that just isn't so. It is clearly described in 1 Corinthians and narratively mentioned in Acts. Tongues were clearly God's idea, meant by him for blessing those willing to practice them.
Jesus did NOT speak in tongues, espacially this baby language that people today believe is something from G-d. In a very interesting fact everyone should turn there bible to Matt. 6:7 and read the verse. Now the KJV uses the term "Vain repititions" BUT let us look at the original Greek. The word used here is 'βατταλογήσητε'. Now if you look in the Greek-English Lexicon for the true meaning of this word you will see that it means Babble, speak without thinking, to speak estaticly, etc. So now lets see what Jesus said in the verse:
Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
NOW lets read it in the original way...When ye pray, DO NOT BABBLE or SPEAK WITHOUT THINKING or SPEAK ESTATIC LANGUAGES!!!! This is our Lord and Savior saying not to do this. I love the Johnathan Mitchel New Testament (JMNT) for this verse cause he uses all the meanings in the Lexicon: "Now during praying, you folks should not babble (or: make repetitious utterances; stack up meaningless phrases; or: stutter; speak without thinking; use empty words) – even as those of the ethnic multitudes (pagans; nations). You see, they habitually imagine and continuously suppose that in their much speaking (or: using many words) they will be fully heard and really listened to." Jesus does not want us to act like the Pagan, so please tell me WHY IN THE WORLD would G-d or Jesus give you something Pagan?
Another very interesting fact, in all the Gosples when Jesus is Baptized, the Bible states the the heaven opened up and the Holy Spirit came down and fell on Jesus BUT there is absolutly no indication of Jesus speaking in tongues or falling to the floor spazing out...Also Ive heard that the speaking in tongues can actually protect you from the devil because the spirit comes on you BUT AGAIN we have no record of Jesus speaking a word of an unintelligible language for the 40 days he was tempted by Satan. OH and when the Gospel of Mark quotes Jesus speaking in Aramaic....its because that was his language! The original gospel was wrote in Aramaic and there are some words in Greek that just dont translate perfectly. So if we were to take your understanding that Jesus DID speak in tongues because the bible writes down the Aramaic words Jesus spoke, then that means what he spoke on the cross as he was dying was tongues..."My G-d My G-d why has thou forsaken me?" and the place where he was crucified at must have been a moutain named after tongues....? See that makes no sence! I understand that not everyone is going to be a scholar but everyone has the ability to research and find.
Travis,
You are mistaken about your notion of babble. What Christ was referring to was repeating phrases without thought, similar to the way the rosary is often used. Heathens are not trying to speak in tongues but to effect spiritual results through their own known languages. What they are doing is formulaic, not out of relationship with God, but mechanistically to do a thing which they think might get a result.
Furthermore, you have completely misunderstood anything I have said regarding Jesus. I have said over and over again that Jesus did NOT speak in tongues. Please read more carefully before you offer any comments in the future. I have already deleted your other comment, and will do the same with anything else you might offer that is off point or makes claims for what I have said not supported by the original post or the comment thread.
I thank you for deleting my other post...I figured it was to much. I was answering multiple things here seeing how others have given there view that Jesus DID speak in tongues. I was not just pointing to you but to all. To answer your response, it is your personal interpretation that Jesus meant prayer like the rosary which I am not catholic so I'm not backing them up BUT you can't argue with what the word says. The KJV has used the term "vain repetitions" as its definition for the Greek but if you look the word up in its original written form (Greek) you will find that the word does mean babble, etc. [Bauer, Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the NT p.137] the meaning is clear: to babble, speak without thinking, talk idly. The difference with your interpretation that Jesus was talking about prayer like the rosary, and mine which is what the word actually says is that tongues is unknown to the speaker and listener. The rosary and other 'chant' type prayers are understood by the individual and the ones listening.
Travis,
You are ignoring context, so I can argue with you. The meaning of words used in conjunction with other words is colored, even determined by context. Jesus clearly states that what he was addressing in referring to babble (battalogeo) was the speaking of many words that accomplished nothing despite them being many. To wit: "And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words." Matthew 6:7, NASB
Your equating tongues with this is unfounded, misses the point of what is actually being addressed and seems validated by you by discounting what Paul said. If you do not accept 1 Corinthians on the same level of authority and inspiration as the Gospel of Matthew, we have nothing further to discuss.
I do not feel that I am ignoring words nor using words out of context. I am quoting Jesus the Lord and Savior during a time when he is explaining to his apostles what not to do during prayer. Let us use your NASB and read it again. You are completely correct on the greek word but I think you might be missing the hidden truth behind it a little. Your NASB uses the term Gentiles. My KJV uses the term Heathens. Now Jesus himself is a Jew and he is talking to his Jewish apostles telling them not to pray like....Gentiles. Now what could Jesus be meaning when he says don't babble like the Gentiles do?
Lets jump to Paul now. He's writing a letter to a church that has been infiltrated by a group called the Phoenicians, a group that is use to this ecstatic babbling language and Paul is telling them that they have it all wrong. Now this isn't about Paul it's about Jesus and I'm going to go with Jesus over Paul since he is the savior NOT Paul. Back to the point, the Phoenicians are a group of Gentiles I mean the church of Corinth was a Gentile church to begin with and they were all messed up. Back to Jesus he tells his apostles NOT to pray as the Gentiles do...can you find any history about Jewish people speaking in a babbling Unintelligible language? No but you can find plenty of history about Gentiles doing it. As I said in the post you deleted, all spiritual gifts were given as a sign to the unbelievers which is what happened in Acts. The spirit fell on them and they began to speak in other languages as the spirit gave them utterance. But the key is that all understood in there native tongue and again we see that Jews were speaking to other Jews during a huge Jewish holiday. So as Jesus told his disciples don't pray in this babbling nonsense. So like you said Jesus did NOT speak in tongues and I am answering other posts not you. I agree with you but we just seem to have a discrepancies on one verse. I feel as though we are both right but I just don't believe in tongues all together (at least today's babbling).
Hidden truth? Phoenicians? I think in your effort to discredit tongues you've gone way outside the boundaries of the text and history. What is driving that? Certainly nothing found in scriptures.
To say that the Gospels' recording of Jesus' words are somehow more authoritative that the words of Paul, or John, or Peter, or James is to not understand the inspiration of the scriptures. Surely you understand that Jesus did not write the gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did. How is their recollection of Jesus' teaching essentially or substantially different than the Apostles writings? It is Holy Spirit inspiration that makes the one as reliable as the other. I think you're attributing too much "magic" to the red letters.
The babbling referred to in Matthew 6:7 is clearly associated with many words not foreign words. Paul specifically says that what a tongue speaker says is between him and God (1 Corinthians 14:2) and that the tongue speaker has no idea of what he is saying (1 Corinthians 14:14).
You obviously do not accept tongues, but I see nothing in your disavowal that has anything to do with what is actually said in the scriptures.
Ok so it's a language that's between you and G-d that the speaker has no clue as to what he is saying? Wow very interesting. As for my history, I attend a theological seminary school and take lots of interest in the biblical history. I also know very well that the biblical writings were written and re-written by many different people and at many different times. I have done extensive work on the bible and know these things. There is no "magic" in just the red words seeing how Jesus never wrote anything and the first gospel took about 40yrs till it was written down. Not to mention that we don't even have an original manuscript nor do we have a copy. We have a copy of a copies copy.
How can you say that I'm going "way" out of the scriptures and history? You mean to tell me that out of the entire bible, where only one chapter in one book is truly dedicated to speaking in tongues, you have never thought to yourself what is this group? I mean the whole book of Corinthians is about how messed up this church is. You've never wondered who these people were? I urge you to look into it.
Paul makes it very clear that G-d is a G-d of peace not confusion. I'm not sure where in the world you can say that G-d gives you a language that you don't understand. All the gifts were given for the edification of unbelievers, the church, etc. How can you use a gift that was given to edify others; to talk to G-d with? G-d doesn't need edifying. All gifts were given as a sign that the power of G-d was present. How does speaking unintelligibly show that G-d is present? Paul is also clear that prophecy is much better than speaking in tongues. Why doesn't everyone seek that? Why is tongues so important? Doesn't Paul again so that we shouldn't strive for the showy gifts? I think it's funny that through the entire bible only Paul in 1st Corinthians and a few verses in Acts, not one gospel, other epistles, the books of Peter, James, John etc say nothing about speaking in tongues but it is such an important thing? Even deeper than that not one of the books that didn't make it in the bible say anything about speaking in tongues. No apocrypha books, not even a church father say anything about tongues. Actually I take that back, the church fathers talk about a cult group that actually acts just like Pentecostals today! Lots of church fathers actually talk about them. I'm surprised you haven't heard what the starters of the church had to say about this speaking in tongues. And again I am not using the words out of context, you have to use hermeneutics with the scriptures. Lets just take this Greek word out and look at the next part, "...as the heathens (Gentiles, pagans) do." One has to wonder how were they praying during the time of Christ? Obviously not the way the Torah commanded the people of G-d to pray. Jesus had to make a statement to his people to not pray as they do. So when you look into the history of the religions of the time Christ walked you can see what he meant. There were groups that chanted prayers, babbled prayers, used ecstatic languages, screamed, etc and they were all Gentiles, pagans, heathens that were doing this!
You know at the end of the day it's really you and what you believe is right, true and from G-d. If this is your belief then that's what you will be held accountable for. I say G-d bless and go with what you feel is right. I on the other hand do not believe in tongues in the way it is used today. I was raised in the Pentecostal movement and have devoted YEARS to the study of tongues. It's been awhile since I've pulled out all my research but through it all there is no way today's tongues are true and from G-d.
Travis,
Have you read 1 Corinthians 14? It teaches that tongues are for the edification of the one speaking them, unless spoken for public consumption and they are interpreted. You're making a hard, fast demarcation that the Word doesn't give you license to. Paul does not say there is anything wrong with the personal edification involved, only that a meeting with other saints is not the proper venue for such. Your prejudice against tongues prevents you from seeing the obvious.
The likeness to the pagans is specific--many words--not screaming, ecstatic utterances, cutting and wailing, drunkenness or sorcery (pharmakia) or anything else. You're reading into things at the same time you're erasing them! I have no idea what you have been studying, let me assure you I've spent my own hours upon hours in the Bible, in scholarly works and some primary source material as well. The bottom line for me is that nothing that any extra-biblical source says, or doesn't say, can ever be allowed to trump what the scriptures do say. Those scriptures say every single one in the earliest church spoke in tongues (Acts 2) and implies that everyone could in the church at Corinth. Paul said speaking in tongues should not be prevented. The onus is on naysayers like you to come up with scriptural support for doing so, in my experience you can't.
I take it you are referring to the Montanists. I'm not so sure the case against them is so open and shut, especially since what survived the ravages of time came from folk who believed something like modern cessationists. Folk looking for reasons to not behave in accord with what is written in the Word don't strike me as folk that are examples of obedience and faith, and in looking into their objections to tongues, I consider the source.
The are two schools of thought; those who say He did and those who say He didn't! So my answer is BOTH, Jesus sometimes he did speak in tongues and sometimes he did not speak in tongues, just like we do. Some say he was baptized in the Holy Spirit by God himself and he baptized us in the Holy Spirit- well I would like to argue about that, I think Jesus was baptized by a man called John (just to fulfill all righteousness), surely John baptized him with the water and God confirmed it by opening up the heavens so the Holy spirit descended like a dove onto Jesus. I think we must attribute the whole miracle package (the water and the Holy Ghost) to John the baptist- he did the work well and god answered. Jesus being God became flesh, he was born of a woman, he became man, was baptized by a man, ate the food of man and died the death of man. Therefore having received baptism by a man, he received the spirit by reason of that man- it becomes obvious- spake in tongues too like man.He [Jesus] groaned in the Spirit and was troubled."(John11:33)this shows that He spoke in tongues. Jesus " Who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplication, with vehement cries [tongues] and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear (Proverb 8:13; Psalms 97:10)."(Hebrews 5:7).
Anonymous,
The problem is that what you have suggested is a trail of supposition and inference without any clear testimony of your conclusion in scripture. If you want to believe it, you can, but I see no warrant scripturally for you to do so.
As with it is with all human beings, saying and teaching something that isn't even there occurs often and is the case with speaking in tongues. The Bible is it's own witness and there is NOT a single time that Yeshua taught anything remotely close to what Pentecostal preachers teach on this issue. In fact Paul also didn't teach this either. When asked directly how to pray, we all know that Yeshua taught, what we lovingly call, "The Lord's Prayer." In fact, the Word of God warns us NOT to "...babble like the pagans do (some versions of the Bible say hypocrites/Gentiles)with empty phrases." And Shavout (or Pentecost), where the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples was for the strict purpose of causing them to speak in other languages so that the people who were there to celebrate Shavout would be able to understand the message of salvation in their own languages.
People argue that Paul was the one who taught about speaking in tongues as a babbling language because he spoke of "...speaking in the language of men and angels..." but where does that say "babbling?" It doesn't! So what is "...the language of men and angels?" It is the language of worshipping our God. It is the language that God provided for us to do that. How do I know? Remember, the Bible is it's own witness...so here goes...what language did Mary hear when she was told that she would give birth to the Son of God? What language did Joseph hear when he was told to stay with Mary? What language did the shepherds hear when they were told of the birth of the Savior? What language did Moses hear when God spoke to him...or any of the other many examples in the Word of God for that matter? Tell me even just one time where Yeshua taught babbling in prayer is a prayer language? In fact there is no place in the Bible that teaches this at all. Let's go back to Paul, where all of the human misinterpretation begins...let's clear this up once and for all: 1 Corinthians 12:1 1Now concerninga spiritual gifts,b brothers,c I do not want you to be uninformed. 2You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 3Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit.
4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
What does Paul say here? "Various kinds of tongues" which means what? Not babbling...various is the key to answer this question. If you were looking for a heavenly language, it would be ONE language! Various tongues means exactly that, various tongues or languages! Just as happened on Shavout for the purpose of teaching all over the world for people to understand the message of salvation.
Don't forget too that Paul was an educated man who did speak several different languages. He was Roman, Hebrew (Jew), he was a Pharisee and educated in the temple, he spoke and wrote Greek which is why he went into Greece to teach (where Corinth was located).
And what do we know about Corinth? It was a port city that received people from all over who spoke in many other languages who came to buy and sell. Which explains why to the church of Corinth it was important to receive the gifts of "various tongues!"
So instead of reading between the lines and making up something that sounds "cool," why not read it as it is actually written...straight forward without any secrets hidden within. The Word of God is not meant to be confusing or a mystery, but it's not really open to interpretation either. It's all right there for you to read for yourself. It really is quite plainly stated. Just bear in mind too, that this was written for God's people in the middle east and it comes to us through grace. Don't use replacement theology to make things fit, use these scriptures as they were intended to be right from the get go.
Welcome to the Sound oldmom. Let me suggest you read this from Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians:
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (14:2)
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. (14:14-15)
Your description of tongues as babble is mere supposition. Tongues are not meant to be understood by speaker or hearer and so appear as babble, precisely as described not only in 1 Corinthians but also throughout Isaiah. Paul thought such "babble" was worthwhile. I'm afraid your arguments are merely prejudicial and without substance.
Post a Comment