On Tongues

I don't want to belabor the issue of speaking in tongues" but Paul did belabor that point. It appears that there was chaos in the Corinthian church, and it also appears that the people were not understanding prophecy. Although Paul spoke in tongues (in private) more than anyone, he cautioned on publically speaking them. It appears that Christians can and shall control the tongue. (James 1:26). Thus, speaking in tongues is not God speaking, but the speaker. Why so?  It would be disrespectful to bridle God!

Therefore, what comes from the mouth of tongue-talkers would not be God speaking but praise for God. He understands all tongues. We are to edify God, and not ourselves (1 Corinthians 14:26). Thus, tongues, if done in private edifies God, and if done in the church without interpretation, edifies the speaker.

Edification is "building up". The problem with mankind is ourselves. We are inclined to build-up ourselves and diminish God - that being original sin. We must be extremely cautious why we do things!

Paul prayed in tongues. My sincere belief is that tongue-speaking is not an "unknown tongue" given that the adjective "unknown" is not in the textus receptus. In fact, it is in a well-known but disused language - the language of the angels and of God. Those not enlightened cannot understand the pure undefiled language of God. Ironically, God appeared to give unbelievers a little peek at heaven, but for the hard-of-listening only - the Jews.

Scholars believe that the audience at Corinth was mostly Gentiles with a few Jews. Because Jews require signs but Gentiles wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:22), it wasn't beneficial to speak to that church in tongues. Let examine Paul's reasoning:

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. 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? 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

The  Corinthian church didn't need signs since it was not Jewish. Likely, some of the Jews, small in number, spoke in tongues, having received that ability at Jerusalem. The natural thing to do would be for the Gentiles to behave in one of two ways: (1) babble to mimic those who were obviously righteous to edify themselves, or (2) think that the tongue-speakers were mad!

Let us say that tongue-speaking is still edification of God. It is natural that others would desire the "proof" of having the Holy Ghost. In fact, many insist that "the speaking of unknown tongues" is evidence of salvation, and that the Holy Ghost is only received by saying the Name "Jesus". Thus, many Christians who read Acts 2 want to be holy as well. It is natural that many would fake it, or Satan would confuse them.

As the angel of light, Lucifer (aka, Satan) uses God's methods to deceive. He shines an artificial light into the world to propagate his law of sin. Satan desires that man edify himself! When we do, we diminish God. In fact, Satan is so good at his job that even strong Christians can be deceived (Matthew 24:24).

The other reaction to the gift of tongues is ridicule. Even genuine tongue-speaking will be ridiculed. The Jews needed that sign. For the Gentiles, it was foolishness, especially since the speaker could control it!

In the first century, the church ceased to speak in tongues as far as we know. Since, the tongue can be controlled, perhaps it ceased to prevent chaos. Zealots in the church were considered madmen, and still are to this day. Whatever the reason, wisdom won out. To this day, reason and logic is much more convincing than signs. Just as the court magicians in Egypt could do signs, false prophets in apostolic times could too!

Thus, publically speaking in the language of God ceased. It seems reasonable that it was still done in private worship so as not to confuse the unlearned and unbelievers, but there is scant evidence of tongue-speaking in public or private in extant literature. Then, with the Azuzu Street revival in 1915, speaking in tongues were restored there. I've written of this revival before, but the preacher was taught to speak in tongues. My worry, that if the speaking in God's tongue is a gift, the speaker cannot give it to himself! Teaching of the language of God would not be necessary if it is a gift.

My worries are that since this was mainly a black revival, that those of that race may have brought  false tongues from the Caribbean Islands. I have no proof of that but it does worry me. Regardless, the speaking of tongues has divided the church. Satan is the author of confusion, and that worries me. Paul dealt with that in Corinth. Apparently, the disciples were convinced because speaking in tongues became a moot issue.  If that gift was, indeed, proof of the reception of the Holy Ghost, then there aren't many Christians in the Church. Since, I don't speak in tongues, then with their doctrine, neither am I a Christian!

Satan wants me to believe that I am not a Christian so that I give up. Guilt is from God, and I should feel guilty when I sin. Those who don't are reprobate. However, I don't feel guilty for failing to speak in tongues. Some want me to! That type of guilt is false and from Satan. You can now see why Paul put the public use of tongues into perspective. Even when genuine, it can be disruptive.

I don't question the authenticity of that gift. Just as God encrypted the original tongue at Babel, I believe He decrypted it for His purposes at Pentecost. It was an attempt to get the Jews on board because they needed a sign. I believe it is still genuine, but just as Paul said, prophecy has more utility in persuading. Prophecy, by the way, is already fully given. We know what happens up to the end of time. No further prediction is necessary. What is useful is using logic to explain that prophets foretold the gospel story, and all they said has came about, and will continue to do so until the end of time. It is convincing that Isaiah told of Jesus's birth centuries before Christ was born. It is less convincing to hear unintelligible words.