Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
tongues vs languages
#1
In Genesis it talks about the confusion of languages and in the NT it talks about people speaking in tongues. Now looking at the Hebrew word for tongues and languages it is exactly the same 'lason'. Why are they interpreted differently in the english?
Reply
#2
I think they speak of the same thing...when understood properly, it makes sense either way. In the English language..."Tongues" is an old English term for "Languages"...as far as I know...and they are the same thing, in that it is the words themselves that are rolling off the Tongue, that is the Language being spoken...

Also of note: What was seen upon those gathered in the upper room that day? It was "Tongues of Fire", distributed to each person present...and it was at that time that they began to speak in Spiritual utterances, that they never had learned before...It would be strange to translate these "Tongues of Fire" as "Languages of Fire" would it not?...because it was not "Languages of Fire" that was seen above their heads...but "Tongues of Fire". It is the same word as that word which is translated "languages"...but it was not a divided language that they saw above their heads...but divided "tongues". This may account for this spiritual gift of languages being refered to as "Tongues"...

Here are some observations on these verses, which speak of these "tongues/languages.

If you follow the context, from the 1st part of The Apostle Paul's teaching here, he begins by adressing "Spiritual Gifts"...so these are not just learned at School languages, but a Spiritual Gift...a Spiritual Language where the Spirit is giving the utterance. This is the only way it makes any sense at all to me.

1 Corinthians 14:2 "For, anyone who speaks in a (Spiritual) language does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit."

Now...this type of Spiritual gift, a Spiritual Language, seems to be different, or at least functions differently than that which is described in Acts 2...where they were indeed speaking to God...but those who heard them speaking to God, who knew those various human languages, could understand them, whereas here, which Apostle Paul is teaching about, it is said that "no one understands" and they are mysterious spiritual utterances...and there needs to be someone around who has the accompanying gift of interpretation of these spiritual languages, so that the others can understand what is being uttered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 14:4 "He who speaks in a (spiritual) language edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church."

This gift of spiritual languages, seems here to be a means, whereby a person is edified when speaking in them to God, they are for the purpose of speaking/praying to God, not to men...and not to be used in the gathering as a rule, UNLESS there is one who has the gift of interpretation of these spiritual languages, so that the others present can understand what is being said/prayed to God.

The Apostle Paul goes on to say in this passage, that He speaks/prays in spiritual languages more than them all...but in the Gathering...not so much. The Corinthian Christians were over zealous and imature in the way they were exercising their new spiritual gift of tongues/languages, that is here described as functioning more as a type of prayer language to God....and were being given some helpful guidlines to follow, by God, through His Apostle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would like every one of you to speak in (Spiritual) languages, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in (Spiritual) languages, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.

...

I heard on the Catholic Radio station here in the San Francisco Bay Area, that there is estimated to be over 200 Million Christians, among the Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant groups, who claim to have this gift of spiritual languages or tongues. Are we to judge them all as being decieved and all being used by the devil? I don't say all that goes on out there with these "Pentecostal/Charismatic" people is legit...but I can't say that it is always not of God.

Q: Are there any known, now, or in the past, among the Church of the East, either leaders or laymen, who claim/claimed to have/had this spiritual gift? And if not, what is the current official teaching about it, as witnessed to be operating among the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians?

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#3
Thirdwoe Wrote:Q: Are there any known, now, or in the past, among the Church of the East, either leaders or laymen, who claim/claimed to have/had this spiritual gift? And if not, what is the current official teaching about it, as witnessed to be operating among the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians?

According to the teaching of [Russian] Orthodox Church Outside Russia, charismatic and pentecostal "churches" are in heresy. They have nothing to do with the Church of God, His Grace or Christ Himself. There's no other special kind of baptism in the Holy Spirit apart from the one in the water. John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. It served as a preparatory stage (The Holy Spirit was not yet given) for the baptism in the Holy Spirit which is done likewise by triple immersion in water. (Acts 10:47, 2:38, 8:39; Matt 28:19, 3:16; John 1:33, 3:5; 1st John 5:6, 5:8)

if you know russian language, visit this page:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.omolenko.com/1072.html">http://www.omolenko.com/1072.html</a><!-- m -->

Father Oleg is a pastor of a former OCOR [not a KGB agent, OK? there're a lot of them in Orthodox Chruches around the world though, especially in US] who currently lives somewhere around Torronto in Canada.

We can argue forever about who fell into heresy vs. who didn't, so it all really boils down to the these facts:

-whether you trust the Word of God in the form of Holy Scriptures (a choice)
-whether you are a person of open mind (a trait)
-whether you stand in the Grace to discern good from evil (a gift)

and may God help you.

When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.
(Proverbs 11:2)

Even though Paul says "Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy" (Corinthians 14:1). Russian Eastern Orthodox Church fathers (among whom is St. Ignaty Brianchaninov) of 19th century has warned us that passion for working miracles and desiring FLASHY spiritual gifts in our latter times were the first symptoms of gracelessness. Such an one is altogether "a natural man", will be the first to follow antichrist when he comes.

Arkady. Russia.
Reply
#4
Arkady,

Thanks for your info on The {Russian} Orthodox Church. Do you speak for them officially, in leadership perhaps, or is this just what you have read somewhere?

Also, you quoted my question there, but then didn't answer the question I asked in the quote. I was asking about the Church of the East. I know that there are many Charismatics in The Orthodox Church, and I don't believe that I have ever heard these to be considered in heresy by The leadership of The Orthodox Church. I'll check into what you say there though, to try to validate it. Thanks for sharing!

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#5
Thirdwoe Wrote:Do you speak for them officially, in leadership perhaps.

In no way. I am a miserable person myself, the one who needs to be led by others in order to be saved.

Thirdwoe Wrote:or is this just what you have read somewhere?

Yes, it is just my cumulative impression after reading the latest ROCOR Iiterature I have gone through so far. So take it for what it is. Should I say that ROC and most of ROCOR are heretical as well? So keep these things in mind when visiting their official websites.

Thirdwoe Wrote:Also, you quoted my question there, but then didn't answer the question I asked in the quote. I was asking about the Church of the East. I know that there are many Charismatics in The Orthodox Church, and I don't believe that I have ever heard these to be considered in heresy by The leadership of The Orthodox Church. I'll check into what you say there though, to try to validate it. Thanks for sharing!

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." (1st John 2:19)

The keyword is Apostasy. Those who profess heresies that have been anathemized by the 7 Ecumenical Synods apparently remain under those anathemas until completely repented. So it is also clear that so called Russian Orthodox Church in such annual acts of anathemizing (both in Russia ano ourside its borders) has anathemized itself and desisted from being the Body of Christ and probably became one of the Satan by participating in ecumenical movements around the world and performing Eucharist services with the heretical Latin "Church", Baptist "Church" and many others. In doing they have made "ROC" no different from them. What you see happening in nowadays Russian Orthodox "Churches" mostly resembles a spectacle, a theater. Sorry for offtopic.
Reply
#6
I have come to learn over the last 30 years of being a Christian, and attending services/gatherings, or felowshipping with many Christians of diverse Church expressions as to their form and even doctrines, that no group seems to be free of being considered/labled "heretical" by other Christians/Churches.

I have never been an "official member" of any particular group of Christians before, though I have attended and fellowshiped regularly with some groups longer than others. I have submitted my first formal membership papers with a local Parish of The Church of the East though...which is the 1st time in 30 years of being a follower of Christ and part of His Spiritual Body, that I felt to do so. There seems to be no end to the things that divide us (sadly)...and one day, these things will be ironed out, once and for all and we will all be in perfect unity and of one mind (Christ's).

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#7
Shlama,

Just a point for clarification:

The Hebrew LASHON literally means "tongue" as the organ in your mouth, but is used also to mean a language itself.

There should really be no distinction in the meaning of LASHON as language when the context calls for it (no pun intended). Whether it is ecstatic or known is another subject altogether, but it is misleading to translate it as "language" in one instance and "tongues" in another if both references are to speech.

Anyhow, I am enjoying the discussion - don't let me stop y'all!

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#8
Hi Jeremy,

Do you think that what is described as divided tongues of fire in Acts 2, which is said to have appeard over those who were gathered in the upper room, has anything to do with the instance of the gift of spiritual languages, given by unction of the Spirit being termed "tongues"...either in ancient times, or modern times? I think it might be a reason...other than the fact, that the old English translations render the Greek word that way. There seems to be a correlation to me. I'll have to check on the ancient Church Father's like Justin, Ireneaus, and Tertullian, who speak of this gift in their generation of the mid 2nd to early 3rd century. I'll check to see if they refer to this utterance gift in the same way as it is today among those who claim to have this gift.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#9
Thirdwoe Wrote:Hi Jeremy,

Do you think that what is described as divided tongues of fire in Acts 2, which is said to have appeard over those who were gathered in the upper room, has anything to do with the instance of the gift of spiritual languages, given by unction of the Spirit being termed "tongues"...either in ancient times, or modern times? I think it might be a reason...other than the fact, that the old English translations render the Greek word that way. There seems to be a correlation to me. I'll have to check on the ancient Church Father's like Just, Ireneaus, and Tertullian, who speak of this gift in their generation of the mid 2nd to early 3rd century. I'll check to see if they refer to this utterance gift in the same way as it is today among those who claim to have this gift.

Shlama,
Chuck


Shlama akhi,

my personal opinion is that when a LESHAN appeared over the person's head, it was a symbol for the unification of the Ruwkha upon the believers, and this unification came about physically through the ability to speak in the differing languages of those who were present at the event. the text is clear that they were speaking known languages. the "tongue" resting upon them would be symbolic of this ability of reunification of communication.

i don't think that textually it can refer to anything other than known tongues. it doesn't appear to be related to the modern ecstatic version in common use among charismatic circles. i am highly suspect of that version, but i won't say entirely that is MUST be in error, as i've had some experiences with it where it seemed real. but for the most part i am very wary of it. i've heard individuals speak the same phrase over and over and over while giving an "interpretation" that is supposed to be about what they are "ecstatically" speaking. to me, that is not how a language works. it has to make some kind of sense.

and from what i know of the history of the ecstatic form of tongues, it is not one that instills much confidence in the modern version. if you haven't already, i would suggest familiarizing yourself with the history of how it "returned" in the 20th century, and i'd love to hear your thoughts.

from what i know there was no ancient acceptance of ecstatic tongues in the Church at any time. one tried to use it as early as the second century, named Montanus, and was quickly labeled heretical due to this, and other beliefs. definitely someone to research with the ancient witnesses concerning this topic.

so for me, i won't completely deny the ecstatic "tongue," but i am very cautious of it -- i've seen so much of it and so little seemed real. i think the Aramaic text provides the best Semitic answer to the problem: they were known languages - divinely-inspired in the ability to speak them, but known languages nonetheless. i don't think the Peshitta can be used to support the idea [edit for clarity: of ecstatic tongues], since it uses the Hebrew cognate of LASHON, and the idea was never an ecstatic one in Hebrew.


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#10
I know much of the history Jeremy....both ancient and modern....and it's of note, that the early teachers of the modern occurances of "the gift of tongues" taught that it was know human languages that were given. The Methodist, Agnes Ozman, is said to have been given the ability to both speak and even write in the Chinese Language in an instance on Jan 1st, 1901 in Topeka Kansas, at the Bethel Bible School lead by a Methodist "holiness preacher" named Charles Parham, after seeking the gift during a time of prayer and fasting, whose other student during that winter (out of forty), William Seymour, who was also a Methodist "holiness preacher" and a son of a southern states slave.

His Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission in L.A. was where all this seemed to begin, at least in the 20th century, and spread from there all around the world during an extended "revival" consisting of 3 services a day, 7 days a week, for over 3 years.

It's an interesting study to say the least...and now, with over 500 Million (half a Billion) people who claim to have this gift, being the fastest growing part of Christianity...its not an easy thing to simply say its all not of God. I endevour not to pass judgemnt on those who claim to have this gift, as we are to know by their fruit of the Spirit, not by their gifts of the Spirit, who are our true brothers and sisters in Christ.

You are of the Netzari branch right Jeremy? Are there any people who claim this gift among the Netzari? I believe I have heard of it being present in some of the Jewish Messianc communites/branches.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#11
Shlama akhi,


I just want to clarify that I don't discount it altogether - just that the textual--and I must stress textual-- witness points to known languages. I won't say the modern form is not of Alaha, but I am wary of it due to the lack of clear witness of it in Scripture, as well as some personal experiences with it.
I could tell you some wild stories about it (I was in the charismatic community for 4 years). I don't want to ever say the Spirit cannot do something so I won't reject it outright, but I have serious doubts about ecstatic tongues.

Yes I fall under the Netzari branch (a great pun). There are people from all persuasions who follow the Netzari path, so there is no standardized belief system, therefore I do know some who still use ecstatic speech. I met my bride in the charismatic churches, and she grew up doing it all her life. When we moved into Netzari practice all that stopped for her. She has used them once since we officially left the charismatic church in 2002. She questions it very much now, knowing very well some of the obvious abuses of it. But she also has personal experiences she can't explain away, too.

So as you can see I am not deadset against it, just very cautious.

Blessings,
Jeremy
Reply
#12
I understand Jeremy, and I am very cautious as well, both to not accept all that I see and hear, as if it is always of God, nor to despise all that I see and hear, as if it must never be of God. We are instucted by God, in Holy Scripture, not to believe every spirit, but to test the spirits, whether they be of God or not.

I have been reading through all the statements tonight from the early Greek and Latin Church Father's and Teachers from about 150-250 A.D. namley...Justin, Ireneaus, Tertullian, Origen, and Novation...and I noticed something that I hadn't before.... That though they all make referance to the gifts of the Holy Spirit being demonstrated in The Church of their generations, among which are mentioned the ability of some to "speak in all kinds of languages", they also give witness that the heretics/false teachers and their various groups of followers who were outside of The Church in their day, were also seen to demonstrate various "signs and wonders" as well, but were considered by them to be not genuine...and not just the Montanist group (which Tertullian later considered to be true Christians who had the true gifts of the Holy Spirit), but also various "gnostic" groups as well, which were way off into major doctrinal error.

It seems not much was different in the early Church of the mid 2nd to the mid 3rd century than our own in this respect.

So far I have not seen "the gift of tongues" being refered by these as being of the "ecstatic" type, but rather of know languages of men, yet unlearned by the mind before hand.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#13
Thirdwoe, this is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Arkady. Russia.
Reply
#14
Thirdwoe Wrote:So far I have not seen "the gift of tongues" being refered by these as being of the "ecstatic" type, but rather of know languages of men, yet unlearned by the mind before hand.

Shlama,
Chuck


Shlama,

yes, that makes the most sense to me via the text and historical witness. i'm all for the continuation of these gifts, just trying to properly approach the reality of them all in correct context can be difficult when you've had experiences that are unexplainable.


Chayim b' Moshiach,
Jeremy
Reply
#15
This is my understanding.

1 Corinthians 13:1 also states
Though in every tongue of men and of angels I spoke, and had not love, I should be as brass which soundeth,
or a cymbal which giveth voice (Etheridge)

that when speaking in a tongue it can be the "tongues of men or of angels" that the believer is speaking via the gift of the holy spirit that each born again one receives.

Thus as 1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaks in a tongue, speaks not unto men, but unto Alaha; for no one understands what is said; yet in the spirit,
he speaks a mystery (Murdock)

states no man understands the language one is speaking whether it is of men, a known language, or of angels which is an unknown language among men.

Chuck
or I guess that would be Chuck2 <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)