What Is Praying in Tongues? (Feat. Perry Stone) 

Thanks for watching! As a member of the theology staff, I hope to contend with a few points here. Though I have heard of studies conducted by linguists on congregations assessing that the individuals claiming tongues were speaking using repetitive sounds already known in their native language, I contend with some of these claims. First, it is clear that biblical tongues are languages, as that is what "tongues" means. However, there are counterexamples from experience and Scripture that disprove certain claims you've made. "Praying with the Spirit," though not contextually being linked with language in Jude and Ephesians, is clearly referring to tongues in 1 Corinthians. It is also certainly a "mysterious" thing because, for one thing, Paul says that a person speaking in a tongue is not understood, in the context of the church service, by anyone but God. This would be the reason for a supernatural interpreter. Furthermore, Paul says that those speaking in tongues in this context are speaking "mysteries" (1 Cor. 14:2). This means that tongues, though they are real languages, are not primarily about divinely accessed understanding of language. They bypass understanding. This is why Paul says that while one prays in tongues, the "understanding is unfruitful" (14:14), and that person has to pray for the interpretation to their own tongue. Paul juxtaposes tongues to prophecy because they serve a parallel purpose- the declaration of spiritually hidden things. Praying in tongues benefits the speaker, even if these things are not revealed, but it will not benefit a congregation of people unless the hidden tongues are revealed. So Paul juxtaposes praying with the spirit, to praying with the understanding because those speaking in tongues, though speaking in a real language, do not know what they are saying (14:15). So, there is clearly more than zero reference within 1 Corinthians 14 to "praying with the Spirit" connecting to tongues or languages. It is also clear, just from 1 Corinthians 14, that tongues is mysterious, being hidden generally from the minds of those praying and from those listening in the church context, which would necessitate a gift of interpretation. As to what the linguistic studies have shown, it may be that these studies have legitimate findings. I will not speak as to the spiritual value for Christians in repetitive short phrases of these individuals. I will say that the Bible speaks of tongues as real human language, albeit perhaps some are angelic (1 Cor. 13:1). In this case of the ministry we have here at ISOW, there are examples of legitimate verified languages spoken by a tongues-speaker. The instructor here, Perry Stone, has multiple instances of speaking other languages confirmed by a fluent speaker of said languages. In these instances, he did not know what he was saying. He has spoken, for example, in a specific dialect of Aramaic, confirmed by a professor. He has spoken in Arabic, confirmed by another instructor we have here, Haitham Besmar. This is only one counterexample to the broad statement that Pentecostal and Charismatic people are really repeating sound patterns from their native language. These were instances of organized language with interpreted clear messages, and among those on staff here, we know others who have verified instances of tongues as real languages, even without the speaker understanding what they say. It is true, however, that those in missionary work have, through tongues, been given both ability to speak and understanding of other languages. So while Paul indicates that this is not the norm, it did happen, at least for the hearers in Acts 2, and supernatural understanding does still happen for the speaker, at times. Having said all this, it may be true that there are many who are not truly speaking in tongues, biblically, and there is much incorrect teaching about how one should seek the gift. This does not delegitimize the gift, however, in its use within Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.

@@ISOWConnect Part 2 - _I will not speak as to the spiritual value for Christians in repetitive short phrases of these individuals. I will say that the Bible speaks of tongues as real human language, albeit perhaps some are angelic (1 Cor. 13:1)._ “Tongues of angels” is frequently used as a vehicle to posit ‘angelic speech’. That entire phrase, as well as a few others in that particular part of Paul’s letter, is 100% pure textbook hyperbole no matter how one wishes to slice and dice it. There’s just no getting around that. In all instances of angels speaking, it has always been in a real, rational language. In fact, in traditional Jewish belief, angels can only speak and understand one language; specifically, the sacred/sacerdotal language of Judaism, Hebrew. Paul, being a Jew, would have known this, which lends further support for his intentional use of hyperbole. _In this case of the ministry we have here at ISOW, there are examples of legitimate verified languages spoken by a tongues-speaker….._ There are (unfortunately) absolutely no documented cases of xenoglossy - anywhere. Thousands, if not tens of thousands, of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one was ever found to be a real rational language, living or dead. Despite this, the tongues-speaking community is rife with such examples. Unfortunately, every one of them seems to be anecdotal at best. The quintessential example circulating a few years ago was tongues coming out as Hebrew or Aramaic. It got to the point where it was almost cliché and reached virtual urban legend status. Any pastor worth their salt had to have such a story in their repertoire. If something that profound happened, I should think that the tongues-speaker would, at the very least, want to know specifically what language s/he was supposedly speaking and would want to ask the person who heard him/her _exactly_ what was said. Did the speaker’s speech actually become this language or was it something simply “heard” by the listener. To most however, the specific details are recalled rather vaguely at best. Further, anyone engaged in preaching in a multi-cultural environment is going to either consciously or subconsciously pick up praise phrases in various languages. It’s inevitable. With respect to the language miracle at Pentecost - When it’s boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowd’s assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter. If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but that’s a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of “tongues” at Pentecost and, more so as “initial evidence” of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is “apophtheggesthai” - usually translated as “to give utterance”. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but it’s the one that has come to be the more or less ‘de facto’ rendering. This word is from “apophtheggomai” which is best translated as “to give bold, authoritative, inspired speech to” (don’t go to Strong’s and look it up - “Strong’s” is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; there’s a _huge_ difference). It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speaker’s native language. In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken. So why is it usually translated as “to give utterance”? That hinges completely on the next part… The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. “All nations under heaven” is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from. Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any argument there. Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. The Eastern Diaspora was different - no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’, the language “wherein they were born” was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile - they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity. To try and use a more modern analogy - think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born - that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogy’s Yiddish) was Aramaic. Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both. Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is? When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in?? The “list of nations”, as it’s called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the “tongues” of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption. The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism. Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the ‘mertugem’). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and “began to speak in ‘other’ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them. The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars. Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority. To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be ‘drunk’ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in today’s times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages ‘attached/associated’ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner. No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read ‘languages’) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost - it didn’t need to be. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages. This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called “prayer language “ of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various “types” of “tongues”. There is only one type of “tongues” in the Bible - real rational language(s).

​@kavikv.d.hexenholtz3474 Dude no one cares about your copy and paste job. 😅😅

@janr3107 Too bad it's not cut and paste. Linguist who has studied the phenomenon of modern Christian glossolalia.