"Biblical Tongues Were Always Known Languages--Not The 'Gibberish' You Hear in Pentecostal Churches Today."
Romans 8: 26 and "gibberish"
It should be noted
that cessationists believe that the Spirit prayer of Romans 8: 26
(below) is for us today. What they do not realize is that Rom. 8:26
either describes quiet/silent tongues-speaking, or it is a prophetic
phenomenon that is 99% the same as "tongues."
"Likewise the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should
pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us
with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the
hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh
intercession for the saints according to the will of God." Rom. 8:
26-27
Does the Holy Spirit pray to the Father on our behalf in a known earthly language? Or does He pray/talk/intercede for us in a Spirit-language? Why then, must every prayer to God by the Spirt's power be in a known earthly language?
The problem, of course, is that cessationists can not pray by the Spirit's power; so they assume that you and I can not either; then they must assume that all tongues-speech is not for prayer and praise to God, but rather, for it is for evangelism--to speak to people in their own language. This charge is answered in the "TONGUES EDIFY" article on this site which refutes the "gibberish theory" by
showing that there are many different kinds of tongues-speaking. There
is a tongues that is a prayer to God, (quietly, or silently), and there
is a tongues that is a message for the church (out loud). There is a
tongues-speaking from the prophetic spirit that dwells inside of a man
(qiuetly, silently, or loudly), and there is a tongues-speaking that is
from God's Spirit that is outside of man--coming directly from God
speaking through a man (qiuetly, silently, or loudly). There is a
tongues that is strictly a praise of God, (quietly. or loudly), and
there is a tongues that is a more serious heart prayer to God
(silently, and described in Rom. 8: 26)
In Context
The context of the above verses is that of the saints
praying (Rom 8: 26); therefore, it is a time when one prays and the Holy Spirit
takes over and prays through him ("through him" because his heart is
being searched as he prays. This is not a case of the Holy Spirit or
Jesus in heaven interceding for a man while that person may or may not
be in prayer ). The man has initiated the praying himself, therefore he
cannot be separated from what is going on; in fact, he continues
praying while the Holy Spirit prays through him. This is probably
"tongues." But if not, it is very similar (a variation of tongues; a
manifestation of tongues), as the man could very well be making vocal
sounds or groans as the Spirit prays through him--and that certainly
would not be in an understandable foriegn language. 1 Cor. 14: 28
(below), speaks of "tongues" that is either similar, or identical to
Rom. 8: 26.
"But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God." 1 Cor. 14: 28
The
above verse is similar to Rom. 8: 26 when a man is praying
prophetically (in tongues), but silently. He does this by the prophetic
spirit that lives inside of him. But 14: 28 is identical to 8: 26 when
the man is praying prophetically (in tongues--a variation of tongues)
but it is God's Spirit--from God Himself, who is actually initiating
and doing the praying. This is similar to when God has a message for
the congregation, and He speaks to the congregation through a man in
tongues and interpretations, or prophesies through a man--this is not
when a man is simply praising God in tongues by the prophetic spirit
that dwells inside of him; but, rather, God Himself operating the Holy
Spirit within a man.
If a cessationist says that " tongues are
always foriegn languages," or "there is no tongues speaking today;"
then he is saying that he knows everything about Rom. 8: 26-27, and
that he knows for a fact that as man and Spirit pray together, there
will not be one prayer-sound coming from the mans mouth (which would
then make it a vocal prayer language), and that the word, "groanings"
in that verse does not actually mean "groanings." The two verses below
show a tongues that is from man to God, that is not in a foriegn
language for other men to understand:
"For he that speaketh in
an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man
understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries." 1 Cor.
14: 2
"Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he
that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of
thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" 1 Cor. 14: 16
If
tongues are always foriegn languages, then there is no reason for
anyone to do it alone (where no foriegners could hear). Also, there
would have been no reason for the Ephesians (of Acts 19) or for
Cornelius' family (Acts 10) to speak in tongues since there were no
foriegners there to understand it. Because God has the ability to cause
one to pray to Him in a foriegn dialect, He can also cause one to pray
in a better, more expressive heavenly language. When a cessationist
says that "tongues are always foriegn languages;" he is saying that he
has heard every single tongues-prayer, tongues-praise, and
tongues-message that anyone anywhere has ever spoken, and has realized
that they are always foriegn languages.
A Note: The "TONGUES EDIFY" article on this site thouroughly refutes the "gibberish theory" by
showing that there are many different kinds of tongues-speaking. There
is a tongues that is a prayer to God, (quietly, or silently), and there
is a tongues that is a message for the church (out loud). There is a
tongues-speaking from the prophetic spirit that dwells inside of a man
(qiuetly, silently, or loudly), and there is a tongues-speaking that is
from God's Spirit that is outside of man--coming directly from God
speaking through a man (qiuetly, silently, or loudly). There is a
tongues that is strictly a praise of God, (quietly. or loudly), and
there is a tongues that is a more serious heart prayer to God
(silently, and described in Rom. 8: 26)
Heavenly Language
Is it not possible
that a heavenly language can be more dynamic, and express a far more
complexity of thought than any man-made language can? Why do
cessationists insist that all tongues-speaking must be in known foriegn
languages? If tongues-speaking is always to men okay; but much
tongues-speaking is to God. Does God only understand earthly languages?
Does the Holy Spirit only speak through earthly languages--the silly
languages of man? When we pray to God in an earthly language, we cannot
express complex thoughts very fast. He has to wait for us to speak one
word at a time, with our limited earthly vocabulary. For instance if I
am outside and I see a blue 1966 Pontiac drive by, I might say, "I like
that 66' Pontiac." But the complex thought that I would be trying to
express by those words are as follows: 1) "I like that aqua blue
color--it reminds me of the ocean." 2) "I like that real metal, and the
shiny, silver chrome looks of a pureness that makes me think of living
on a beautiful planet that has no litter, trash, or anything that
defiles." 3) "It reminds me of the good-old-days when there was less
crime, and children would pray in their school buildings". 4) "The
reflection of the sun on the car reminds me of being at the beach on a
warm sunny day." And many other such thoughts would all be contained in
the statement, "I like that 66' Pontiac." But why try to communicate
such detailed thoughts in an earthly language? For there would never be
enough time to do so! And cessationists would have us believe that when
we pray to God it must always be in a one-dimensional earthly
language--even when it is God's Holy Spirit that is praying to God
(through us)!
Paul makes it clear that there is a heavenly language, as he goes so far to describe it as angelic speech:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels" 1 Cor 13:1
Paul
makes sure to say that the angelic speech is beside that of human
languages, as he uses the word, "and" to show that it is in addition to
the languages of men. But cessationists have come up with an answer for
1 Cor. 13:1. They say that Paul is using the literary technique of
"hyperbole" (exagerration to make a point) to show that love is more
important than prophetic speech. They refer to the verses below:
"Though
I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity
[love], I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though
I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all
knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all
my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and
have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." 1 Cor. 13: 1-3
Hyperbole
Cessationists
say that there are exagerations in the above verses. They point out
that Paul certainly cannot understand all mysteries, or move mountains
whenever he pleases. Therefore, they say that he cannot speak the
(heavenly) language of angels either. But they are actually reading too
much into the text. For angelic speech is an excellent way to describe
heavenly tongues. There is a bad implication of what the cessationists
are saying; for hyperbole is used to clarify something--To make a point
clear. But cessationists imply that Paul did not know how to use
hyperbole correctly; so instead of clarifying the issue, he confused
it. If cessationists are correct, then Paul used the wrong example of
hyperbole. If cessationists are correct, the hyperbolic statement that
Paul should have made (to show that all tongues are earthly languages)
is thus:
"If I speak in the tongues of all nations but have not charity ..."
The
hyperbole exageration would then be realized because Paul certainly
does not speak the tongues of every single tribe on the planet; rather,
he would be using hyperbole to show that "tongues" are the many earthly
languages. That is why; as mentioned earlier, that Paul uses the word
"and" (in 13: 1) to show that he speaks in a language that is beside
that of men. Notice how accurately Luke uses hyperbole:
"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" Acts 2: 5
Of
course there were not Jews there from "every" single nation on the
entire planet. But Luke's hyperbolic statement, "every nation under
heaven" is accurate; meaning that there were Jews gathered there from
all over the place. Cessationist will admit that Luke knows how to use
hyperbole properly; and if asked, they will admit that they, themselves
(and millions of school-children), know how to use hyperbole correctly,
to clarify--not confuse an issue. Why, then, do they insist that Paul
does not use hyperbole correctly by saying that "tongues of angels"
actually means "tongues of men," As "earthly," rather than "heavenly"
languages.
This whole issue of earthly/heavenly languages
"hyperbole" is cleared up by reading something from the Old Testament
(below): Remembering that God rained down manna (miraculous grain) from
heaven to sustain the wandering Israelites:
"And the manna was
as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdellium.
And the people went about, and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or
beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it: and
the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil. And when the dew fell
upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it." Numbers 11: 7-9
Now,
there are weak Christians (or non-Christians) who doubt the miraculous
nature of the manna. They say, "The 'manna' is actually the coriander
seed that is still found in the East today." They then say that Asaph,
who wrote Psalm 78 (below) was actually using "hyperbole" when he wrote
that "Man did eat angels' food." They say that Asaph used a hyperbolic
_expression, "angels' food" to describe an earthly bread that the
Hebrews never had before. However, according to Asaph (The Psalmist),
it is a miraculous, heavenly food:
"Though he had commanded the
clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven, And had rained down
manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven. Man
did eat angels' food" Psalm 78: 23-24
About this hyperbole; ask
the cessationist if Asaph used the phrase, "angels' food" to describe
earthly food or to describe heavenly food. Cessationists are in a
dilemma. They are forced to use a double standard by saying that
"angels' food" is a hyperbole that describes heavenly, rather than
earthly bread; but that "tongues of angels" in 1 Cor. is a hyperbole
that describes an earthly, rather than a heavenly language.
Copyright
2006 - 2007. Peter Kwiatkowski. All rights reserved. This work is
licensed under a Creative Commons Public Domain License.