Q. I believe speaking in tongues is an area you may be mistaken. For simplicity alone, the issue of tongues would be a lot less complicated if it were strictly the gift of known languages, but this does not seem to be the case. As you know, 1 Corinthians 13:1 indicates that angels have their own tongue, and given the various types/classes of angels (e.g the Watchers from Daniel, the Cherubim from Ezekiel) it is possible for each class of angels to have their own tongue. It would be presumptuous to assume a monolithic heavenly language (telepathy included). Paul says, “I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all” (1 Cor 14:18) not because he is ministering to those in other languages but because, “He who speaks in a tongue does not speak to man but to God” and “The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (14:1-4). There is no indication here that tongues are of no use to the believer, but that they are “not a sign to those believing” (14:22).

A. All of these queries/points I have previously answered/refuted, in depth, in the many articles on our Tongues webpage, so in brief:

• 1. There is no evidence that malakim (angels) have their own specific languages. The solitary passage you cite in evidence of angel languages (1 Corinthians 13:1) is not enough to build a doctrine on, especially as it can be better interpreted in a non-literal way. To this end I highly recommend you read Ben Witherington III's book, Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Paternoster Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1995) and New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament (Cascade Books, Eugene, Oregon: 2009) as he is the undisputed expert in this field.

  Paul is witnessing in the Greco-Roman world to Gentiles in the great pagan polyglot metropolitan Roman commercial colony of Corinth. The language he writes and preaches in is Greek, the culture he appeals to is Greek, the particular form of oratory is Greek, not Hebrew. The language here is poetic - the goal is not to be a demonstrative, showy like a "noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (NRSV) but to be possessed of love. When he therefore speaks of employing the "tongues of mortals and of angels" (NRSV) he is acting the Greek poet, and being hyperbolic (since he obviously does not speak literal angelese and his listeners knew it) to illustrate his desire to be able to communicate the Gospel - in love - as powerfully and eloquently as a celestial being or as a great Greek orator.

  Paul is not of the 21st century Western scientific-rationalist world like ours, he does not make appeal or analyse in the way we do. He's in the Greek theatre, like Homer, speaking their kind of rhetorical 'language'. Witherington shows that this is a way Paul 'dresses' his speech like the Gentiles in order to reach them by using their 'own language'. He would have been naturally able to do this, given his rounded education in Roman Tarsus, where he learned of both Hebrew and Greek ways, as as such, then, well placed for his calling as the future Apostle to the Gentiles. This is often why Peter says Paul is easily misunderstood by his fellow Hebrews, especially (2 Pet.3:16) - when, for example, in a bout of frustration, he wishes the circumcision party to go and completely emasculate themselves (Gal.5:12). He would have struck a humorous chord that the Greeks would have appreciated that a Hebrew might have found shocking. He was not advocating they go and literally castrate themselves or, worse still, chop off their male organ. This is how we should therefore understand his use of 'angel tongues';

• 2. When conversing with humans, malakim (angels) always speak in human languages, so even if there were hypothetically multiple malak (angel) languages, these messengers would not use them when conversing with humans - what would be the point? This is why I find monolingual American Pentecostal preachers, who claim all their kind are 'baptised in the Spirit' (as they understand the term) and 'all speak in tongues', required as the evidence of a full salvation, still require interpreters when addressing crowds of non-English speakers. That is a contradiction in terms. The first 'Pentecostals' in Acts 2 clearly spoke, not gibberish, but only known foreign languages and only for the express purpose of evangelism. Even were I to grant that giberish was a legitimate part of the charismatic repertoire, that's very clearly what the folks in Jerusalem were not doing - it can't be disputed. But speaking in gibberish was well-known pagan behaviour, and was a phenomenon first encountered by believers in Corinth, famous for its pagan priestesses and purported oracles. If there is one thing I have learned about Heaven, that Scripture makes plain, it's that Elohim (God) is economical with words and doesn't mince them;

• 3. As far as it being a presumption on my part to insist that malakim (angels) don't speak in multiple languages, surely the presumption is the other way round? If your thesis is correct, then you are implying that Yahweh is incapable to maintaining a single supernatural language in the perfect realm that is Heaven, or that such is even undesirable. Why would that be? We are taught in Genesis that the whole reason for there being multiple languages is only because of wickedness (the Tower of Babel). It is a property of a fallen world, not a perfect one. Originally there was only one human (Adamic) language because that was the original design and intent. The fact the humans now speak in many languages that continuously mutate and evolve is testimony that this is not something that should be admired or praised, however familiar we have beconme with them. It is the result of a divine curse, not a blessing. I wish I hadn't have had to learn Swedish and Norwegian as I don't speak them as well as I would like, thus making for limited communication.

  Why, then, would angels be 'cursed' with multiple languages? Are we to believe Yahweh created different orders of angels speaking different languages? What would be the point? Then they'd have to speak in tongues too (something Paul says will poass away). Granted, such might be true in the demonic realm, which is fallen and cursed, but why the heavenly realm where singularity is the rule? We live, unfortunately, in a fallen world where confusion pervails, and not only in the matter of languages, but in religion, philosophy, economics, the lot. It makes my job as a preacher and teacher much harder, requiring that I devote time I would otherwise have preferred to use in other endeavours. So a multi-lingual angel world of faithful supernatural created beingts is not at all the picture I see painted by Scripure of the heavenlies where great order, economy and unity prevail. It sounds more like Science-Fiction. Hence believers are admonished to pursue unity - to seek unity rather than promote diversification (or diversity as the atheistic politicians do today). The goal is to have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism", not thousands of denominations, and this in recognition of the fact that we serve "one Elohim (God) and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (Eph.4:5-6, NKJV), not many deities loike the pagans. Our eyes are on the echadness of our original Home as we earnestly anticipate and hope for the New Creation which is a reflection of that heavenly unity.

  Worldwide we are moving toward fewer and fewer languages - languages have started being standardised in the last 400 years with (in the case of English) the publication of dictionaries in 1604 and 1755, and we now have, effectively, a single global language now. Where today there are six primary European languages - Russian, English, French, Italian, Spanish and German - before there would have been thousands, as we see in local dialects still. And colonialism has resulted in most of the world, including populous China, India and Indonesia, now speaking English at least. No one in the right minds would wish to return to the linguistic barriers of yesteryear because we all see the value of speaking English, Spanish, French or Russian (with perhaps Mandarin now competing to join the field). Common sense tells us we need fewer tongues, not more. The European Union recognises that and uses English, even following Brexit;

• 3. That said, your desire for simplicity is the reasonable explanation for supernatural tongues being only one phenomenon and not two (or more) makes better sense, does it not? Which leads me to your other objections which I will only summarise as I have already written extensively on these. If we follow the 'simplicity' rule, which I hope makes better sense than the multiple interpretation version of the Pentcostals and Charismatics, we will see how Paul's teachings neatly dovetail into 'tongues' only being actual languages, as on the first Messianic Shavu'ot in Acts 2;

• 4. Paul's justification for the use of supernatural tongues is edification of the local congregation or assembly. This edification is seen primarily to be in the realm of prophecy. The whole reason for his instruction of chapters 11-14 is, moreover, is how to use the gift of languages when the qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) are meeting together - how to behave when they are assembled. When Pentecostals and Charismatics take chapter 14 and make the gift of tongues a private devotional language, they are taking that out of the context in which exists. What Paul is saying, simply put, is that 'when you come together, instead of wanting ecstatic manifestations like the pagans throughout the city of Corinth and regiion that you have been involved in all your lives prior to conversion, seek for someone who is actually prophesying in the Hebrew way, so that Yahweh can speak to you out of His Davar (Word).' That is the theme;

• 5. Instead, then, of validating the old pagan ways, which Pentecostals and Charismatic exegetes try to make Paul out to be doing (which you seem to be backing), the apostle rather is adding a corrective (it's at this point that accurate translation becomes critical, and that is something rarely done, for in the one critical text the indefinite article is dropped when it ought to be rendered in the absense of the Greek detinite article. This translation omission is based on an assumption of an a priori doctrinal Pentecostal presupposition (after all, Pentecostals are on most translation committees and would resist anything challenging their pet practice):

  "For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to a god..." (1 Cor.14:2)

  There is a world of difference between speaking to 'God' and speaking to 'a god'. You can vread this either way but the latter makes better sense because of the context. Paul is saying: 'You have fallen down on the basic use of spiritual gifts - their use to build up the Body. The tongues-speaking that you are involved in, however, is not for people - it's for a pagan god'. You can check out the rules of Greek grammar if you're not familiar with them. The word 'God' (or 'god' - it can be either, depending on the context) does not have a definite article ('the') in the Greek text. This is known as the anarthrous construction. Given the overall context, it is clear that Paul is gently rebuking the Corinthians for continuing in their old pagan ways. He's saying, 'No one understands you. You're talking in mysteries (incomprehensible gibberish) and this is not the order of heaven.' He then contrasts this with the genuine mysteries of the faith by saying:

  "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries, but do not have love, I am nothing" (v.2, NRSV).

  Paul does indeed speak of mysteries but these 'mysteries' have nothing to do with the occultic pagan mystery religions which conceal rather than expose ('occult' means 'concealed'), which are presented by meaningless or confusing hexameter poetry (the Delphic Oracle) or plain gibberish (common to all pagan religions). Christian mysticism is very different to the pagan variety. Christian mystery concerns Christ and the cross which Paul, the brilliant theologian, explains (he was Christianity's first theologian). For Paul there is a divine order - 1. Love, 2. Prophecy, 3. Tongues that is congregational. Paul is saying: 'He that speaks in ecstatic gibberish, speaks not to men, but to a [pagan] god (elohim). For nobody understands him, including the true Elohim (God). That's not His kind of talk.'

  What we have here is the first perversion of the gift of tongues, for all gifts were intended to build up others rather than ourselves individually. "But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" (1 Cor.14:3, NIV). Paul contrasts their pagan, ecstatic speech with prophesying - which authentically speaks the truth of Elohim (God) to the hearts of people. That's a tremendous contrast. Then Paul continues and strikes at heart of the real issue, namely their selfishness, in verse 4: "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the messianic community (church)" (1 Cor.14:3-4, NIV). Remember, not all 'edification' is good. Let's look at that.

  In 1 Corinthians 8:10-11 Paul tells the Corinthians: 'It's not wrong to eat meat offered to idols. But because there are some weak believers who believe it's wrong, don't do it when you're around them - or you'll make them stumble. In verses 10-11 says, "For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor.8:10-11, NIV). The word 'emboldened' here is the Greek oikodomeó which means 'built up' or 'edified'. In other words, he will be negatively edified or 'built up in the wrong way' and be tempted back to his old ways. In other words, it is possible to edify someone to his harm. In this case, edification would cause a weaker brother ruin. And even though we know eating food offered to idols, cleansed with prayer, is fine, we must consider our brother in his weakness and edify him in the correct way. Thuds edification can be for good or bad. In chapter 14, the point is that if you can use a gift to build up (edify) the congregation, it's for good. If you use the gift to build yourself up, it's an act of selfishness...so don't do it, for whatever reason.

  This is the point Paul is making. The fact that one speaking in gibberish is praying to a demon (a pagan god) is, of course, important too as this is idolatry but Paul doesn't address that side of the issue here. He's treating these people gently. Only later, when they fail to respond to apostolic instruction, does he get tougher, for the Corinthian congregation, as is reflected in Paul's frustration with them, never do repent while he is still alive. It is the next generation, in the sub-apostolic era, that the Corinthian Assembly (Church) has its golden period, albeit a brief one which you can read about in Clement's first epistle to them;

• 6. It might be helpful to address another misused scripture at this point as it fits neatly into the overall theme, as this is used to justify antinomianism or lawlessness. I am speaking of 1 Corinthians 10:23-24:

  "'Everything is permissible (lawful)' - but not everything is beneficial (expedient). 'Everything is permissible (lawful)' - but not everything is constructive (edifying). Nobody should seek his own good (edification), but the good (edification) of others" (1 Cor 10:23-24, NIV & KJV).

  Do you see the point? Paul is saying, 'All [legitimate, Torah-permitting] things might be OK for you, but don't do them because they're OK for you - do them because they're going to mean something to someone else'. (This has nothing to do with Torah-obedience or not - Paul hasn't suddenly repudiated the mitzvot or commandments). He's talking about our obligation to forfeit legitimate freedoms granted by Torah if it will help a brother. My wife gets upset by my use of certain words even though I am breaking no commandment in using them. It's a cultural hang-up and for her sake I choose to limit my use of those words, even though I don't have to. I do it out of love for her.

  The whole point of spiritual gifts is they're not for Elohim (God) and they're not for you or me - they're for the assembled messianic community (church). Love (sacrificial, agapé, ahavah love) "seeketh not her own" (1 Cor.13:5, KJV).

  The purpose of 'tongues' is evangelism especially in a polyglot culture like Corinth. Whereas Greeks spoke the language of Empire (Latin), Romans tended not to speak Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire. It was a bustling sea port with people of many races and languages and the local assembly at Corinth would have been respresentative of a cross-section of language-speakers who were not always mutually intelligible. Here in Gothenburg (Sweden) and Bergen (Norway) a similar situation once existed, as was true of all European Hanseatic cities. They were both polyglot and multiracial cities, long before the recent 20th and 21st centuries' phenmomenon of mass immigration. Thus in Bergen you will find racial characteristics that are very unNorwegian-like. Had the pre-Christian Vikings of Norway and Sweden been pagan tongue-speakers before being converted to Christianity, and had the first century gifts been present in the mediaeval period there, the people of Bergen and Gothenburg would have faced similar problems to the Corinthians as elsewhere in Roman Imperial metropoles, but more so in Corinth because of its Pythic Oracle for which it was famous. Many fateful decisions affecting Greek, European and world history were impacted by the false tongues of that pagan world, and there has been no less a fateful impact on Protestant Christianity caused by the American Azuza Street 'revival' of the beginning of the 19th century. You might say the Corinthian heresy was resurrected in our time in California and has since caused great confusion in the Body of Christ.