It would help explain why Paul would say something like "no man understands" while Luke gives us the first instance of SIT, where everyone understands these babbling apostles.
Is it possible that Luke meant known human languages, but Paul did not?
To your point, Acts 2 seems to be xenolalia or xenoglossia.
Acts 2 certainly does refer to xenoglossia or xenolalia (foreign language/foreign speaking).
The challenge then is, what is Paul talking about with glossolalia? He doesn't use that exact word, but the exact words he does use correspond to it (glōssais lalein) to the exent that, I think, for our purposes, there's no practical distinction. He's talking about speaking in languages.
I'm not really sure what to make of my overall question. Is Paul talking about indecipherable babbling that only God knows the meaning to?
And come on, think about it: what would be the POINT of such a thing? Perfect prayer? We don't know what to pray for, so we babble and the right words are supplied by God to articulate what he already knows and we still don't even after having prayed? So God can act on our prayer now even though we don't even know that we prayed it? But it was perfect? That's not a prayer. That's an incantation. THAT MAKES NO BLOODY SENSE!
It's like the scene in Aladdin where the genie needs Aladdin to articulate a wish but Aladdin is unconscious (having just passed out while drowning). So the genie lifts Aladdin, whose head drops down, which the genie reads as a yes and grants the wish.
It was a cheat. Aladdin never wished to be rescued. The genie did that himself.
Same with SIT as intercessory prayer. You're not praying for anything. God (the genie) knew the need before. You did nothing to contribute to his understanding of the situation or your desire for him to intervene. And he took your completely irrelevant action as a plea to intervene because he knew that's what was needed.
Hey, if he knew what was needed and was willing to intervene, what did he need your completely unconscious prayer for?
Paul had παιδεία (paideia). He had training in logic, rhetoric, philosophy, theology. He learned HOW (aytch-oh-double-you) to develop and construct persuasive arguments. The perfect prayer and all the rest of it are concessions ahead of his argument. Classic steel-manning. He was skilled at this.
Sometimes, when reading Paul, I can hear him yelling at these people. And I can hear a sarcastic, hyperbolic condescension - a rhetorical device to persuade. "I thank God that I speak glossais more than all of you...[but that's neither here nor there because it's better to speak five understandable words the ten thousand logous en glosse!]"
Clarity, comprehension, understanding, these were the most important things for Paul, not glossolalia. Vitctor got it wrong. Again.
Hadn't he already spent time in Corinth teaching and preaching? This issue never came up? "Oh, I forgot to tell you, keep the babbling to a minimum, because people on the street will hear your incomprehensible lo shontas, and it's not a good look."
If SIT is THE most important action for a believer, according to victor, why does Paul only yell about it in 1 Cor. 12-14?
If it is so important, so perfect, shouldn't he at least mention it in the salutations of his other letters? "I write to you in Christ in all supplication while perfectly praying in tongues..."
Or even in the closings? "Peace be with you, and don't forget to speak in tongues ceaselessly..."
I don't think Paul thought that highly of SIT. It was an embarrassing issue for him, along with the infighting and litigation amongst the Corinthians. I suspect Paul was aware of the prevalence of SIT among the mystery cults in the ANE. Some of his converts were coming from these cults over to his form of Judaism. He was cool with it, even propping them up (perfect prayer, etc.) and sympathizing (me too, more than you) before knocking them down (sounding like a drunk gong).
Remember, Paul himself said he would be whoever he needed to be to persuade a potential convert. It's the same with the Corinthians. "See? I would that you all speak in tongues. I speak in tongues, too, just like you, except more."
Intelligibility and love were paramount in Paul's message to the Corinthians, but he had to acknowledge this SIT fetish and set some ground rules. He was on a mission and would be damned if some babbling Greeks were going to embarrass and derail him.
From a practical point of view, I could not s.i.t. before I was shown 'how to'.....then I could....I now show others how to'....I've been present at s.i.t. by new believers (a couple of who were 'gay as' and witnessed some supernatural happenings at the time...guess God is no respecter of persons huh ! As someone who speaks 7 differnt languages i've heard people s.i.t. a mixture and mish mash of some of those 'human languages' in the same utterance....kind of makes sense if it purports to confound the devil :)
From a Biblical pov, s.i.t. is alluded to in OT and NT ...Zephaniah 3:9 and Isaiah 65:8 are a couple that spring to mind.
A) I'm also curious which 7 languages Allan speaks. Obviously, English is one.
B) Allan, when you said "and witnessed some supernatural happenings at the time", were you referring solely to SIT at the time, or something else like healing or another? I was very curious.
C) "I've heard people s.i.t. a mixture and mish mash of some of those 'human languages' in the same utterance." If we were rehashing- or I was still trying to make up my mind on the subject, I'd think you were making Raf's argument for him. (Back when I was agreeing with you on this, it would have gotten my attention, and not in a good way.)
D) Isaiah 65:8 may not be the verse you meant. I can't find anything remotely resembling a connection in any version.
E) Zephaniah 3:9 is the verse you meant, but other than in the KJV, it doesn't remotely resemble a reference to SIT.
Part of my deconstruction process involved a hard look at SIT, reaching the conclusion that if TWI was right about what it means Biblically to speak in tongues, then what they taught us to do in PFAL was not real Biblical tongues. I carefully went over all the usages of SIT and tongues in the New Testament to demonstrate that tongues were always languages. Blah blah blah, we all faked it, I concluded. Some of you agreed with me. Some of you beat me to it by years. Some of you disagreed. Life moved on.
I'd like to take another run at the topic from a different angle.
The careful review of SIT depended very much on the notion that all the writers of the New Testament were in agreement about SIT. Since only two are relevant, let's cut to the chase: What if Paul and Luke (whoever Luke was) disagreed about the meaning of SIT? It would help explain why Paul would say something like "no man understands" while Luke gives us the first instance of SIT, where everyone understands these babbling apostles.
Is it possible that Luke meant known human languages, but Paul did not?
It would be my position that Paul wrote his doctrine on SIT before the Acts 2 story was made up, which would be the simplest reason he didn't know about exceptions to the "no man understands" rule he laid down without hesitation.
It would also make sense for Luke (or whoever concocted the Acts 2 story) to invent a practical reason God would have wanted his people to SIT in the first place, since Paul doesn't really give a coherent reason this "gift" or "manifestation" is of any use.
Interested in other thoughts.
I think it's a question of faith like anything else biblical. Raf, I'm still completely hooked on SIT and I love it. I go religiously to Roman Catholic Mass, the traditional one that's only in Latin. (and the trads do not believe in SIT as regular prayer.) But I'm there in the front row with SIT anyway. I believe it's profitable -- I've heard it said that some catholic theologians and those in the Novus Ordo Vatican 2 charismatic movement find value in SIT for personal prayer and devotion, and as a way to express feelings to God when words fail. I've persoally seen them hold services where they SIT out of order i.e. with no interpretor--- Paul is clear that it's only for quiet personal use unless interpreted and I would like to see them do it correctly if it's out there.
There's two ways to look at this: as a believer wanting to practice what the Bible teaches, and as an outsider looking for proof that the phenomenon described has any validity to it. I went from the first to the second over a long period of time. As a believer wanting to do what the Bible teaches, I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe I was producing a language, or that anyone else was. And producing a language is exactly what the Bible seems to teach (IF you agree with the premise that the Bible does not contradict itself). Once you get away from faith, starting with the belief that the Bible, even if inspired, is not the perfect word of the perfect God, and that it CAN contradict itself, then you leave open the possibility that the phenomenon described by Paul and the phenomenon described by Luke are not the same thing. So Acts gives us languages people understand, and Corinthians gives us "tongues of angels" the "no man understands." Well, which is it?
I submit "tongues of angels" and "no man understands" moves us out of the realm of making a testable claim. I also submit that if you are making an untestable claim, I am under no obligation to believe it.
But I respect that you DO believe it, and I respect that you may think I am mistaken on every point, regardless of whether you can express that disagreement to MY satisfaction (you owe me no such explanation).
All of which is to say I have no argument with you and your practice of SIT. Obviously, you think (as a believer) that I am missing out by dismissing Christianity, and I think (as an unbeliever) that you are wasting your time with worship. But we can be respectful about our RIGHT to disagree on the subject of faith, and I thank you for doing so.
Recommended Posts
waysider
I moved recently, so my PFAL materials are still packed up. I'll see if I can get them back out this weekend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
To your point, Acts 2 seems to be xenolalia or xenoglossia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Acts 2 certainly does refer to xenoglossia or xenolalia (foreign language/foreign speaking).
The challenge then is, what is Paul talking about with glossolalia? He doesn't use that exact word, but the exact words he does use correspond to it (glōssais lalein) to the exent that, I think, for our purposes, there's no practical distinction. He's talking about speaking in languages.
I'm not really sure what to make of my overall question. Is Paul talking about indecipherable babbling that only God knows the meaning to?
And come on, think about it: what would be the POINT of such a thing? Perfect prayer? We don't know what to pray for, so we babble and the right words are supplied by God to articulate what he already knows and we still don't even after having prayed? So God can act on our prayer now even though we don't even know that we prayed it? But it was perfect? That's not a prayer. That's an incantation. THAT MAKES NO BLOODY SENSE!
It's like the scene in Aladdin where the genie needs Aladdin to articulate a wish but Aladdin is unconscious (having just passed out while drowning). So the genie lifts Aladdin, whose head drops down, which the genie reads as a yes and grants the wish.
It was a cheat. Aladdin never wished to be rescued. The genie did that himself.
Same with SIT as intercessory prayer. You're not praying for anything. God (the genie) knew the need before. You did nothing to contribute to his understanding of the situation or your desire for him to intervene. And he took your completely irrelevant action as a plea to intervene because he knew that's what was needed.
Hey, if he knew what was needed and was willing to intervene, what did he need your completely unconscious prayer for?
Make it make sense.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Paul had παιδεία (paideia). He had training in logic, rhetoric, philosophy, theology. He learned HOW (aytch-oh-double-you) to develop and construct persuasive arguments. The perfect prayer and all the rest of it are concessions ahead of his argument. Classic steel-manning. He was skilled at this.
Sometimes, when reading Paul, I can hear him yelling at these people. And I can hear a sarcastic, hyperbolic condescension - a rhetorical device to persuade. "I thank God that I speak glossais more than all of you...[but that's neither here nor there because it's better to speak five understandable words the ten thousand logous en glosse!]"
Clarity, comprehension, understanding, these were the most important things for Paul, not glossolalia. Vitctor got it wrong. Again.
Hadn't he already spent time in Corinth teaching and preaching? This issue never came up? "Oh, I forgot to tell you, keep the babbling to a minimum, because people on the street will hear your incomprehensible lo shontas, and it's not a good look."
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
If SIT is THE most important action for a believer, according to victor, why does Paul only yell about it in 1 Cor. 12-14?
If it is so important, so perfect, shouldn't he at least mention it in the salutations of his other letters? "I write to you in Christ in all supplication while perfectly praying in tongues..."
Or even in the closings? "Peace be with you, and don't forget to speak in tongues ceaselessly..."
I don't think Paul thought that highly of SIT. It was an embarrassing issue for him, along with the infighting and litigation amongst the Corinthians. I suspect Paul was aware of the prevalence of SIT among the mystery cults in the ANE. Some of his converts were coming from these cults over to his form of Judaism. He was cool with it, even propping them up (perfect prayer, etc.) and sympathizing (me too, more than you) before knocking them down (sounding like a drunk gong).
Remember, Paul himself said he would be whoever he needed to be to persuade a potential convert. It's the same with the Corinthians. "See? I would that you all speak in tongues. I speak in tongues, too, just like you, except more."
Intelligibility and love were paramount in Paul's message to the Corinthians, but he had to acknowledge this SIT fetish and set some ground rules. He was on a mission and would be damned if some babbling Greeks were going to embarrass and derail him.
That's my reading. I could be wrong.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
From a practical point of view, I could not s.i.t. before I was shown 'how to'.....then I could....I now show others how to'....I've been present at s.i.t. by new believers (a couple of who were 'gay as' and witnessed some supernatural happenings at the time...guess God is no respecter of persons huh ! As someone who speaks 7 differnt languages i've heard people s.i.t. a mixture and mish mash of some of those 'human languages' in the same utterance....kind of makes sense if it purports to confound the devil :)
From a Biblical pov, s.i.t. is alluded to in OT and NT ...Zephaniah 3:9 and Isaiah 65:8 are a couple that spring to mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What seven languages do you speak? Yeah, I know it's a bit off-topic. Just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for your input and insight, Allan. Obviously we are going to disagree on the big picture, so no need to rehash.
My only other thoughts:
Zephaniah 3:9 doesn't even remotely hint at S.I.T. Neither does Isaiah 65:8. Like, remotely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Forgive me for interrupting the thread.
A) I'm also curious which 7 languages Allan speaks. Obviously, English is one.
B) Allan, when you said "and witnessed some supernatural happenings at the time", were you referring solely to SIT at the time, or something else like healing or another? I was very curious.
C) "I've heard people s.i.t. a mixture and mish mash of some of those 'human languages' in the same utterance." If we were rehashing- or I was still trying to make up my mind on the subject, I'd think you were making Raf's argument for him. (Back when I was agreeing with you on this, it would have gotten my attention, and not in a good way.)
D) Isaiah 65:8 may not be the verse you meant. I can't find anything remotely resembling a connection in any version.
E) Zephaniah 3:9 is the verse you meant, but other than in the KJV, it doesn't remotely resemble a reference to SIT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think it's a question of faith like anything else biblical. Raf, I'm still completely hooked on SIT and I love it. I go religiously to Roman Catholic Mass, the traditional one that's only in Latin. (and the trads do not believe in SIT as regular prayer.) But I'm there in the front row with SIT anyway. I believe it's profitable -- I've heard it said that some catholic theologians and those in the Novus Ordo Vatican 2 charismatic movement find value in SIT for personal prayer and devotion, and as a way to express feelings to God when words fail. I've persoally seen them hold services where they SIT out of order i.e. with no interpretor--- Paul is clear that it's only for quiet personal use unless interpreted and I would like to see them do it correctly if it's out there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
There's two ways to look at this: as a believer wanting to practice what the Bible teaches, and as an outsider looking for proof that the phenomenon described has any validity to it. I went from the first to the second over a long period of time. As a believer wanting to do what the Bible teaches, I had to admit to myself that I had no reason to believe I was producing a language, or that anyone else was. And producing a language is exactly what the Bible seems to teach (IF you agree with the premise that the Bible does not contradict itself). Once you get away from faith, starting with the belief that the Bible, even if inspired, is not the perfect word of the perfect God, and that it CAN contradict itself, then you leave open the possibility that the phenomenon described by Paul and the phenomenon described by Luke are not the same thing. So Acts gives us languages people understand, and Corinthians gives us "tongues of angels" the "no man understands." Well, which is it?
I submit "tongues of angels" and "no man understands" moves us out of the realm of making a testable claim. I also submit that if you are making an untestable claim, I am under no obligation to believe it.
But I respect that you DO believe it, and I respect that you may think I am mistaken on every point, regardless of whether you can express that disagreement to MY satisfaction (you owe me no such explanation).
All of which is to say I have no argument with you and your practice of SIT. Obviously, you think (as a believer) that I am missing out by dismissing Christianity, and I think (as an unbeliever) that you are wasting your time with worship. But we can be respectful about our RIGHT to disagree on the subject of faith, and I thank you for doing so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.