Glossolalia or Xenolalia?

[TK]

This post brings to mind an obvious question that I have raised elsewhere on this forum when we have discussed the topic of "speaking in tongues."

IF Zerhusen (and others) are right- in that either 1) tongues weren't supernatural at all in the first place or that 2) tongues were supernatural in the first place, but they were ONLY known languages (i.e. not a "heavenly language") and these no longer continue today, then we are left with the dilemma of millions of sincere Christians (admittedly some more sincere than others) who claim to speak or pray in a "heavenly tongue."

I suppose there are several options(although there may be others):

1) They are pretending (lying)
2) They are not pretending or lying, but they are mistaken about the origin of this speech (i.e.- HS vs. self)
3) They are speaking not a heavenly language, but rather a language of hell (i.e. it is demonic)

Now, I believe that any of these three may be applicable to some Christians who claim to speak in tongues. What I have a very hard time accepting is that one of the three must apply to ALL Christians who claim to speak in tongues.

I do not know whether Zerhusen discusses this dilemma, but I'd be interested in his thoughts.

TK

[Homer]

Hi TK,

Then there is the fact that the same(?) phenomenon is reported among non-Christian groups all over the world. I think sometimes when we read the passages in 1 Corinthians about tongues, head coverings, etc. it is a bit like discussing football with someone from a foreign country who speaks broken English and he is thinking about what we call soccer, and he calls it football in his native tongue. And to compound this, we are separated by almost 2000 years from the Corinthians and are only reading their mail.

The problem is compounded by the translation of glossa as "tongue" instead of language as it should be. And so we have all sorts of doctrines developed concerning something that we can't agree on the meaning of the word.

[TK]

I was listening to Steve's introductory comments for his Psalms lectures on the way to work this morning. He mentioned 1 Cor. 14:14-15:

14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. 15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. NKJV

His point was that Paul seemed to distinguish between praying in the spirit and praying with the understanding. In other words, when he was praying in the spirit, he didnt have understanding. Given the context of this chapter, it doesn't take a huge leap to conclude that he was equating praying in the spirit with praying in an unknown tongue.

Homer wrote:

And so we have all sorts of doctrines developed concerning something that we can't agree on the meaning of the word.

Except that it is not merely doctrine-- since many thousands (millions?) practice praying in tongues.

TK

[DanielGracely]

TK: I do not know whether Zerhusen discusses this dilemma, but I'd be interested in his thoughts.

His ideas can be read at http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/ ... rzacts.htm
Incidentally, despite this link leading to the reformationink website, Zerhusen is not a Calvinist.

[DanielGracely]

TK: [Steve Gregg's] point was that Paul seemed to distinguish between praying in the spirit and praying with the understanding. In other words, when he was praying in the spirit, he didnt have understanding. Given the context of this chapter, it doesn't take a huge leap to conclude that he was equating praying in the spirit with praying in an unknown tongue.

I understand the logic of your argument; indeed, I, too, saw the matter more or less this way for a long time. However, Zerhusen offers his own peculiar, but I think intriguing, view. Based on his understanding of Greek in the context of Paul’s discussion, this can mean that the speaker’s mind, or thoughts, were (Gr. lit.) “barren” (“fruitless”), by which Zerhusen understands that the thoughts of the speaker were fruitless to the group’s benefit, not, of course, to the benefit of the speaker himself. Hence, Paul’s dyadic perspective comes into play, in which the apostle shows that he is more concerned with the Body’s experience than with the experience of any particular member.

[RickC]

I just started reading Daniel's link which cites "Stanley H. Horton" in the second paragraph. He is Stanley M. Horton (Monroe is his middle name). Just to note that....

TK -
The above link has some 'driving listening material' of "Brother Horton" (if you haven't heard him).

'Now back to the Zerhusen article....

[DanielGracely]

Hi TK (and all),

This appears to be Zerhusen's view of what it means to have the "gift" of tongues. I came across it this morning while reading his article. Zerhusen states:

First of all, some misunderstand Paul's meaning in 14:13. They assume that language-speaking and translation were supernatural abilities practiced by members of the Corinthian church. Not all the manifestations of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12 are miraculous abilities. In fact, according to Paul something can be a manifestation of the Spirit and not be a miraculous ability. Even Fee, a staunch charismatic scholar says of the "gifts" of "administration," (literally, "steersmanship"--Mitchell: 163) and "helps":

"The sixth and seventh items (lit. 'helps' and 'guidances'), which are deeds of service, are noteworthy in three ways: (a) they are the only two not mentioned again in the rhetoric of vv 29-30; (b) they are not mentioned again in the NT; (c) they do not appear to be of the same kind, that is, supernatural endowments" (618-19).

Carson notes the same reality: "It is at any rate very clear that these spiritual gifts art not among those frequently regarded today as 'charismatic,' even though Paul is happy to think of them that way" (41). Discussing the "gift" lists in the New Testament Carson writes:

The lists as a whole contain an impressive mixture of what some might label "natural" and "supernatural" endowments, or "spectacular" and "more ordinary" gifts. This is in line with what we have gleaned from Paul's argument in 12:1-7. The intriguing thing is that Paul himself makes no such distinctions: it is the same God who works all things in all men. Paul's overarching doctrine of divine sovereignty is precisely what can prompt him to ask the Corinthians elsewhere: "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" This suggests in turn that Paul would not have been uncomfortable with spiritual gifts made up of some mix of so-called natural talent what he would consider still to be God's gift and of specific, Spirit-energized endowment [37].

Watson makes the same point: "Paul makes it clear that the gracious gifts of the Spirit need in no way be striking, spectacular, 'out of this world'" (131). Discussing "helps" and ''steersmanship," Watson says these were "gifts which are in no way striking or extraordinary, such as ability to help others or power to guide them. The Corinthians need to be reminded that the latter are every bit as much the work of the Spirit of God as the former" (137).

This leads to an important conclusion. If some of the manifestations of the Spirit (or "gifts") are not miraculous abilities (e.g., "steersmanship" and "helps"), then abilities in multiple languages and translations of multiple languages (1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30) could also be non-miraculous manifestations of the Spirit. This conclusion follows directly from observation of the text and cannot be refuted on exegetical grounds. We should not be surprised that in multilingual Corinth of all places, Paul would consider those with natural abilities in languages and translation to be essential persons in the local church. While I would maintain that these particular abilities were not miraculous, I do nevertheless believe that miraculous abilities (e.g., "workings of power" and "healings") were also present.

[TK]

Thanks, RickC.

So when Paul said "I speak in tongues more than all of you" does that mean (per Zerhusen) that he was the most multilingual, or just got a kick out of speaking different languages?

I must say that my gut tells me Zerhusen's theory is wrong. Interesting, but wrong.

TK

[DanielGracely]

Hi TK,

I think you are right in suspecting how Zerhusen views the matter—that Paul is talking about being multi-lingual. But I’m guessing that Zerhusen would say it’s a bit more—an ability or gift to use another language skillfully. Probably this would include understanding the nuances of a language, the shades of meaning of words, etc., which I think is evident in Paul, especially regarding his use of koine Greek. On the other hand we know Paul had a weak presence as a speaker, so I don’t think he had a gift for the rhetoric of language.

I saw your comment about finding it hard to believe that millions of Christians might have had a false experience regarding “tongues”. I grant this difficulty, and yet it seems millions of Christians have gone false all their lives in other areas of their professed Christianity, e.g., Calvinism's 'doctrines of grace', original sin, immutable eternal security, etc. So I don’t see why “tongues” would necessarily be any different. I’m just expressing my personal view here, but the older I get, the less astonished (but more depressed) I am at the breadth of falsehood within Evangelicalism.

[DanielGracely]

TK,

I should add that I'm not sure koine Greek was not Paul's native langauge, so perhaps the example I gave wasn't the best. I did some research on Paul's native tongue, and the matter is a bit obscure to me at present. On the one hand Tarsus, where Paul was born, is thought to perhaps have been Jewish in origin, though it is known that Aramaic was spoken there in the first century (and used on some minted coins). And yet Tarsus was reputedly heavily Hellenized. Then again, one online commentator claimed that though Paul had been born in Tarsus he was actually “brought up” in Jerusalem during his formative years in a Hebrew-oriented environment (Hillel, Gemaliel, Phariseism etc.).

If I remember right, God spoke in Hebrew to Paul on the road to Damascus. Exactly what the significance of this was I don’t know. Does it suggest Paul’s native language was Hebrew, or only that Hebrew was instantly recognized by the Jew as appropriate for all solemn religious purposes, hence God's way of getting Paul's attention?

All in all, I guess I would venture the guess that Aramaic was Paul’s first language, since it was present in Tarsus and also the common language of Palestine in the first century. Granting this, koine Greek would probably NOT have been the most native tongue for Paul. But again, that’s just my view with pretty limited research.