david@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (04/27/85)
Comments to a reply
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Some Information on the Baptism of the Holy Spirit
Message-ID: <5217@fortune.UUCP>
Date: 25 Apr 85 22:24:26 GMT
Date-Received: 27 Apr 85 02:51:42 GMT
References: <1379@vax3.fluke.UUCP> <386@ho95b.UUCP>
Reply-To: brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower)
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 8
As a youth I was much involved with Pentacostals and other fundamentalist
sects, and I always wondered why the original "speaking in tongues" was
understandable to the people spoken to, and "speaking in tongues", as
practiced today, seems not to be in any recognisable language, and is
not at all understandable. Is there a reason for this?
--
Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe there is probably a misunderstanding of what is the
meaning of 'speaking in tongues'. It does mean something like 'inspired
speech', or as Paul says, 'speaking in the tongues of angels'. And to
many people today, as well as then, it seems to refer to a kind of
ecstatic utterance which some believe is verbally as well as religiously
significant.
However, I do not believe that this was the intended meaning
of Paul in Corinthians, or Luke in Acts (even though this may have been
confused by some even then, as Paul's letters suggest). One of the meanings
of 'glossolalia' is simply 'secret' or 'esoteric speech' -- that is,
somewhat veiled religious language used by initiates, perhaps generally
involving figures of speech which were understood commonly among them,
although which might be misunderstood as nonsense by outsiders (cf Paul's
point about this in Corinthians).
Besides this, Paul say he more than others speaks in tongues --
but his example as an apostle is that of using figures of speech,
especially when referring to the resurrection and coming of Christ
(also some other more common Jewish figures for other religious matters).
If Paul did use literally ecstatic speech, he would have simply caused
outsiders to turn away. But he did use figures of speech which could be
interpretted, and would be especially significant to those who were
baptized into Christ.
The last point in favor of this view is that the reference in Acts
to Isaiah (besides the one to Joel) clearly gives the meaning of 'speaking
in tongues'. Joel is talking about prophetic speech, in the general sense
of inspired speech (all speaking from knowledge of God). But the reference
in Isaiah is clearly to God speaking through prophets in 'parables' and
'figures' (cf beginning of Proverbs).
By the way, in Mark, Jesus say that he says (literally does) every-
thing in 'parables', but that only disciples will understand these things
-- this is to be their open shared secret about the kingdom of God. He is
asked why, and he also refers to Isaiah, a different passage that says
that God will speak to mankind in parables, that is, in a veiled way,
but they will not understand (unless and until the time comes when they
will have repented of their ways). The conclusion there is pretty grim --
when Isaiah asks how long this would be, until they would finally have
repented and understand the message -- the reply is that this repentance
will come very late, after the land has been made desolate and a remnant
survive. Pretty stupid lot we are.
Finally, in the famous conclusion to Corinthinans 13, Paul says
when I was a child, I thought as a child, but now that I am a man, I put
aside childish things. We see now as in a 'dark reflection', but then we shall
see face to face. Actually, this is a reference to Numbers where it is said
of Moses, the intimate friend of God (as John was said to be of Christ),
that God did not speak to Moses in visions or dreams, like he did to the
other prophets -- that God did not speak in 'parables' to Moses, but as
one speaks to his friend, face to face. The Greek of 'dark reflection'
is 'enigma' -- a dark or veiled puzzle or saying, that is, a parable.
As far as that goes, in my opinion, the Gospels are also parables
within parables. In any case, I understand 'speaking in tongues of angels'
to mean 'speaking in parables or figures' as inspired by God. (I admit
that I haven't heard this view elsewhere, from experts or others; neverthe-
less, I believe this is true.)
David Harwood