Tongues Must Be A Known Language

Transcript

GR 1356
06-10-07
Tongues Must Be a Known Language
1 Corinthians 14:6-12
Gil Rugh

We're studying the book of 1 Corinthians together so I'd invite you to turn in your Bibles to 1 Corinthians and the 14th chapter. Paul is instructing the Corinthian church on the subject of spiritual gifts. This has covered chapters 12-14. In chapter 12 he laid the general foundation and the framework showing the importance of gifts in the functioning of the body of Christ, that each person is enabled by the Spirit to contribute in some way to the development and growth of the body of Christ. In chapter 13 he showed that the gifts have to be exercised in the context of love, putting others before ourselves. Now as we come to chapter 14, Paul comes to the issue of conflict in the church at Corinth. The real issue there in the context of spiritual gifts was the gift of tongues. And some were misusing this gift, a gift that is somewhat spectacular in nature. It involved the ability to speak in a foreign language that you had never studied or learned. Obviously that is a gift that could easily draw much attention.

This whole matter, there is much confusion and disagreement that continues in the church even today, two-thousand years after Paul wrote to the Corinthians to clarify the matter. We still have confusion over the subject of tongues. One book that was written on the subject was entitled The Confusion of Tongues. And yet the intention of scripture is to clarify these matters for us. If we're going to come to any kind of understanding, we first must identify what was tongues in the New Testament. How can we determine if tongues today are biblical, if they're being used properly, if we don't even know for sure whether they are the same thing as the Bible is talking about when it talked about tongues in the book of Acts and the book of 1 Corinthians? So we spent some time looking at this matter in the scripture and we noted that the only place in the Bible where tongues are defined and explained is in Acts 2. And there tongues were clearly earthly foreign languages. And people were given the ability to speak in languages they had never studied or learned. And other people listening heard them speaking in their own native tongue.

Now sometimes it is claimed today, two-thousand years after the letter to the Corinthians, that modern tongues are indeed languages. They are just languages with which we are not familiar, but they are real true languages. One charismatic theologian has written this. One of the most striking features about glossolalia, speaking in tongues, is the fact that a new language is being spoken. It is a language totally unknown to the speaker, or it may be a variety of languages. This is a far different picture from that of glossolalia as a kind of nonsensical speech or incoherent babbling. So his claim is that modern day tongues is not just babbling. Rather, it is the speaking of real and definite languages. They are just languages with which we are not familiar. Now I want to spend a few moments before we get into the text of 1 Corinthians looking at matters related to this. If modern day tongues is indeed a language or languages, then it should be able to be recognized as such. I want to look at two examples, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament. These examples aren't directly related to tongues, but they illustrate a point that you'll see as we move a little further along.

Come back to Exodus 16. In Exodus 16 God is providing manna for the children of Israel during their journey in the wilderness. Where do you get food in wilderness areas, areas that are not productive for growing food, and you have two million people wandering around, the very young and the very old and then everybody in between. God supernaturally provides for Israel. Pick up with verse 13, it came about at evening that the quails came up and covered the camp. That's for meat. And in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. And when the layer of dew evaporated, behold on the surface of the wilderness there was a fine flake like thing, fine as the frost on the ground. When the sons of Israel saw it, they said to one another, what is it? They didn't know what it was. Moses said, it is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat. They look around and here is moisture, looks like dew on the ground in the morning, and then the dew evaporates and you have this fine flake-like substance that Israel is supposed to go out and gather this up. And then with that they can make cakes, breads and so on.

Come down to verse 31. The house of Israel names it manna. It was like coriander seed, white, and it tasted like wafers with honey. What I want you to note here is that the people of Israel didn't go out and gather this in and start to eat it and say, it tastes like dirt, it tastes like weeds. And then they had to be told, well if you believe, it will be food for you. No. Believer and unbeliever alike could look at this and touch it, observe it and say, it's white, it looks like it was made with coriander seed. It tastes like it has honey in it. Everybody recognized it’s food. It wasn't, well, it tastes like weeds, it tastes like dirt, it tastes like something that is not food, but if you believe, it will be real food. No, everybody recognized; it’s food. It can be described. I don't know that I've ever had anything like it, but it looks like it's made with coriander seed, it tastes like it has honey in it. In other words, it's real food. We all recognize that. Somebody who came in and didn't know that God supernaturally provided it could taste it and say, I've never had anything like it. It's good. What is it? Where did you get it? They may not have recognized its supernatural origin, but they could really recognize it as edible food.

All right, come to John 2. And this is the account of the first miracle of Jesus Christ in His public ministry—the turning of water into wine at the wedding feast of Cana. Verse 6, they are at the wedding feast and the wine has run out, and this is a great social faux pas. What do you do? Well, they come to Jesus and verse 6, there were six stone [water jars] set there for the Jewish custom of purification. In other words, these pots could be used to fill with water, you could do the ceremony of cleansing and washing your hands and so on as required in Jewish law. They each would hold 20-30 gallons. Jesus said to them, fill the Waterloos with water. They filled them to the brim. He said to them, draw some out now and take it to the head waiter, steward, the one in charge of the food there. They took it to him. When the head waiter tasted the water which had become wine and did not know where it came from, but the servants knew, the head waiter called the bridegroom and said to him, every man serves the good wine first. And when people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine. That's natural, right? People come to the wedding feast, the wine, you give them the best wine because after they've drunk some of it over a period of time it won't matter what you give them. They're not going to be so discerning. But what does the head waiter say concerning this wine? You have kept the good wine until now. What I want you to note, it wasn't a matter, Jesus said, fill these pots with water. Now take it to the head waiter and the head waiter drinks it and says, tastes like water. Oh no, if you have faith it will become wine. He didn't even know where it came from, but he knew it was good wine. Without knowing that Jesus did the miracle, he still could be an objective observer and critic of whether the wine was good wine or not. There is no hocus-pocus here, well it tastes like water, it looks like water, but it's really wine. No, it looks like wine, it tastes like wine, it's really wine.

We have to be clear that we come to scripture and recognize that what God does doesn't take place in the realm of the magical, the hocus pocus, transubstantiation when it comes to communion. Roman Catholic practice, well it looks like a cup of wine, tastes like a cup of wine but it is really blood. It's a wafer, it looks like a wafer, tastes like a wafer, but it's really human flesh. No, it's manna. It’s food. It looks like food. It tastes like food. The water is turned to wine. It looks like wine. It tastes like wine. Now you keep those two examples in mind. I took them from a book written by a linguist in 1972, William Samarin. When he wrote this book he was professor of linguistics at the University of Toronto. The tile of the book was Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism. He makes no claim to be a biblical Christian. He's examining the phenomena of speaking in tongues from a linguistic standpoint. And I want to read you some excerpts from his book. I realize it is hard sometimes when I read to you, but I want you to hear what a secular linguist observes. Keep in mind the two examples—the manna in the Old Testament, the wine in the New Testament. Observers there, anybody who was there, anybody could taste it, anyone could look at it. It was real food. It was real wine. Now I'm reading from chapter 12 so you have a whole book here that has preceded this, so he has some conclusions he is drawing from his study and linguistic evaluation.

There is no mystery about glossolalia, speaking in tongues. Tape recorded samples are easy to obtain and analyze. They always turn out to be the same thing—strings of syllables, made up of sounds, taken from among all those that the speaker knows. In other words, if you study someone whose native language is Spanish, when they speak in tongues the syllables that make up their language will be made up of sounds that are part of their Spanish language. Same with English or others. And that was part of his book. They are put together more or less haphazardly, but they nevertheless emerge as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic language-like rhythm and melody. Glossolalia is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of all superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not language. All specimens of glossolalia that have ever been studied have produced no features that would even suggest that they reflect some kind of communicative system.

He also goes on to say, it has never been demonstrated that speaking in foreign languages ever occurs among Pentecostals. People just do not talk languages they are unfamiliar with. That is his general observation as an unbelieving linguist. Glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon. It is in fact a very natural phenomenon. It is similar to many other kinds of speech humans produce in more or less normal circumstances, in more or less psychological states. In fact, anybody can produce glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers what the trick is. And that's been proved time and time again. He goes on to say. And he gives an example. After writing what I just wrote, I have no difficulty in producing “prashada kumanminaru kurabinke minu minu.” I'm not Pentecostal, but I can speak in tongues. We'd say, well, that's not genuine. But his point is, it has all the characteristics of all the Pentecostal speaking in tongues that he has examined as a linguist. And he has other examples from other groups and so on as well.

Therefore there is no need to explain what causes a person to produce this form of speech. We always want to say, well if it's not produced by the Spirit, what is it? His observation as a linguist is there is no need to explain what causes a person to produce this form of speech. Nothing comes over his vocal chords, speech as people imagine does not originate there anyway, not in the vocal chords. It starts in the brain. That is where the instruction to the vocal chords comes from. So when a person speaks in tongues, they are just using their brain to give their vocal chords instructions.

I'll skip some here for your benefit. Glossolalia is normal, not supernatural as the Pentecostal believes. It is normal, not abnormal, as the man in the street believes. As a linguist he says speaking in tongues is not supernatural nor is it abnormal. Could be done by normal people in normal settings. Some will say that since glossolalia is spiritual or divine communication, since its source and cause is God the Holy Spirit, it is not possible for a linguist, Christian or not, to understand this phenomena in purely human terms. But the conclusion does not follow from the premise. Surely there is much to see without paying any attention to where glossolalia is supposed to come from. Once the speaker opens his mouth, the sounds are public property. The linguist is therefore as confident to describe this speech as a gourmet or a chemist would be to describe the manna the children of Israel subsisted on in the wilderness, and the wine Jesus made for the wedding banquet. One could at least say whether or not the wine the wedding guests drank was good. We may not be able to discern where it came from, but he could evaluate it as a wine critic. A gourmet, a food critic could examine the manna and say, it's real food. It is no argument to say that glossolalia is divine communication. Now listen to this, it is no argument to say that glossolalia is divine communication because the Pentecostal has no more idea what this is than he does of divine wine. But communication and wine are both from human experience, and we can tell if our palates and our ears are good if this is the real stuff.

Many people are fooled by ersatz wine, imitation wine, just as many people are fooled by ersatz language. But belief no more changes pseudo language into divine language than it changes water into wine. Belief is a powerful force. It changes many things, but among the things it cannot do, is make a supernatural creation of something that is a poor imitation. The glossolaliaist in credulity challenges the linguist's confidence, but this confidence probes where he is most sensitive. But the encounter is an uneven match. We know more about language than the glossolaliaist does, we know enough to declare what is and what is not language. We know as much as a mathematician who can tell the difference between a real formula and a pseudo formula, one that looks like mathematical language but does not say anything. We do not know everything, of course. We do not know exactly what the neurological basis for language is, but we know that it is systematic, that this system is reflected in systematic arrangements in speech. The glossolaliaist must grant this. One of his proofs for the existence of God is orderliness in creation. A hodgepodge of DNA produces biological nonsense as much as hodgepodge of syllables produces linguistic nonsense.

A charismatic's religious experience can be real, revolutionary, reconstituted. The glossolaliaist accepts this transformation as supernatural, that it is caused by God, it is a dramatic change. It takes on all the appearance of the supernatural, but none of this proves that glossolalia is supernatural. No number of miraculous transformations will make a glossolalia what it is not.

When others will wonder if this verbal phenomena is of God. If they mean by that miraculous, then the answer is categorically no. Glossolalia is a perfectly human, perfectly normal phenomenon. If tongues speakers believe what I've written, they can no longer trust appearance, they will have to admit that in one instance at least Pentecostal doctrine is wrong. I will not be distracted by what I hear from Anglicans and Roman Catholics, Puerto Ricans and Appalachians, traditional Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals. What I hear is nonsense. The sounds make no sense to me.

I just wanted you to hear that extensive, and I didn't read consecutively as you are aware, from a linguist. And it seems to me if we do have language, even though it's a language that no one has discovered yet, a linguist studying it can begin to discern certain patterns, certain orderliness that will be characteristic of any language because language has to communicate. Now we may not be able to break the code yet, of that language, but we can recognize the parts that make something a language can be found here. What he is saying, that is totally lacking.

Now the charismatic theologian that I read you earlier that said that tongues is not babble, it is language, even though it is a language we haven't ever heard before, responded to Samarin. Let me read you what the charismatic theologian response is. In reply, he's replying to Samarin, parts of which I just read you, I can confidently and emphatically say that anyone who has truly spoken in tongues knows that there is no possible comparison of it with human gibberish. As Simon Tugwell, a Dominican priest, succinctly says, you cannot engineer tongues. So you see what the charismatic theologian's response is to the linguist. All of us who speak in tongues know it is not gibberish. Like Samarin said, I'm a linguist, linguists know more about language than tongues-speakers do. How do you know it is not gibberish? We have examples of people of all kinds of beliefs speaking in tongues. As you analyze what they speak in tongues, it is a collection of syllables and so on, and you can't discern any difference. So you have unbelievers doing it. And furthermore I am troubled. He makes the statement that anyone who has spoken in tongues knows it is not gibberish. And then he quotes Simon Tugwell, a Dominican priest who says you cannot engineer tongues. Now how does a Dominican priest become an authority on tongues? He doesn't even understand what biblical salvation is. Now you have a person whose doctrine of salvation is unbiblical and anti-biblical becoming the authority on what are genuine tongues. And all of a sudden you realize it's just so because I say it's so, it's just so because I believe it's so. So if we had. had manna in the wilderness and we were there and I say, here's manna and you eat it and you say, it tastes like dirt, tastes like weeds. Ah, but it's food, trust me, believe it, it's food. And Jesus made the water into wine and then you bring it to the head waiter and he tastes it and says, well, it looks like water, tastes like water, ah, but it is wine. You have to believe it. Then we come to tongues and people are making all these sounds and linguists evaluate them and can't find any semblance of language and the structure that characterizes all languages, but you have to believe it is really a language. Why do I have to believe that? All of a sudden the church is open to believe a lie. Our foundation for believing that tongues is a foreign language is because the Bible makes that clear. But I wanted you to understand there is support for that as we look at language period.

Okay, now let's come to 1 Corinthians 14, and you'll be happy that we're going to get into the Word now. What Paul is emphasizing, we come to chapter 14, is the importance of using the gift of tongues for the building up of the church. We're not saying that the gift of tongues did not have a place in the church. The issue of whether it has a place today is somewhat resolved by the fact that it's not a language. New Testament tongues was a language. The speaking today is not a language, it does not have any of the pieces and parts that make something language. So if people say to me, don't you believe in tongues for today? Well I believe in biblical tongues. Well how do you know it's not present today? Well do you know of anybody speaking in an earthly foreign language?

Let me read you one more statement from the charismatic theologian, J. Rodman Williams. Incidentally, in regard to documentation, tongues spoken have on occasion been recorded and later checked for language content, evidence that they are a particular human language is totally lacking. I think most everybody agrees today. It’s not happening. Any reports of that become anecdotal. My landlord's nephew spoke in Russian and he never learned Russian. But they go with their tape recorders, they can't find it, nobody ever does it. So even the charismatic theologians who are serious acknowledge there is no evidence anywhere that anyone is speaking in foreign languages they haven't learned. Then the issue is resolved, right? There are no biblical tongues happening today. Oh yeah, but there are people speaking in tongues. Not if it isn't a foreign language. I'm not sure where we're chasing this circle around. There are no foreign languages being spoken today. Charismatics admit it. End of discussion. Tongues does not exist today. We have a different kind than they had in the New Testament. Then you don't have biblical tongues. They had babbling speech in New Testament times—Babylonian mystery religions, and on it goes. So we ought to be sure we are defining and dealing with what is biblical.

Let's look into chapter 14. Paul has been setting the pace here through the first five verses. The one who speaks in a tongue, verse 2, does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands. That doesn't mean all of a sudden now we've come up with a new kind of communication that only God understands. If you get up and speak in a foreign language and no one in the church understands that language, the only one who understands is God. That's the point. You're not speaking to men because no men present understand you. Repeat this with a broader ramification in a moment.

The goal, and this is why prophecy is superior to tongues, the person who prophesies speaks to men for edification, verse 3 and so on. And that's what the goal of our gifts is, to build up others. One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, the one who prophesies edifies the church. It's the contrast here. The gifts were never given to edify yourself. Functioning in love never is self-focused, chapter 13. So when he makes this statement he is not telling you how important it is to use tongues to build yourself up. We have a lot of instruction in the scripture on how we are to grow and be built up in our faith, and none of it talks about tongues. So here a simple statement. If I get up here and start to preach my heart out, but I'm preaching in Russian, it's probably safe to say that nobody here, unless there happens to be an exceptional person whose background is in that, understood. I didn't build you up.

I sat in a service in China and I listened to a guy preach away. I enjoyed being there, I enjoyed observing what they did in the service, I enjoyed observing what they did, but I didn't understand a thing he said. He could have been denying the gospel, for all I know. I couldn't be edified. I didn't understand. This becomes an important matter and as we work through this I'll be drawing it to your attention, but I mention it now. Beyond the issue of tongues God intends our worship to take place in the context of our minds and come out of our minds. You'll note the way the evangelical church is moving, where we spend a lot of time with music in many churches today and we minimize the teaching of the Word. Greg has been doing some traveling, just looking at music men in different places. One of his observations as he comes back and it's become very . . . , he says, they seem to be trying so hard to create a mood, to move you with some kind of feeling. Now wait a minute, we're supposed to communicate truth and let the Spirit of God take that truth and carry it to our hearts and minds. And by the renewing of our minds that God changes us. No doubt music has an emotional dimension and our lives have an emotional dimension. But that's not to lead us, that's not to guide us. We can come in and have someone play some mood music, and what is that to do? It is to create a mood. Is that the Spirit of God doing that? No. Certain kinds of music creates certain kinds of feelings. The evangelical church is moving away from a focus on the serious consideration of the Word of God, in even its songs, singing the truth of God, having some kind of experience.


Those are the very kinds of things that are being dealt within 1 Corinthians 14. And if it doesn't deal with your mind and the truth being communicated to your mind, then it has no place in building up the body. Paul would like them all to speak in tongues, he'd like them to have all gifts as he as an apostle does. But that's not going to happen. But you want the focus on the gifts that will edify the church, the end of verse 5.

What he's going to do now, and we can move through this rather rapidly because he's going to give illustrations with application to his point. So verses 6-12 will contain several illustrations with their application. You'll note the application statements, verse 9 starts, “so also you,” and then verse 12, “so also you.” So we'll walk through this and when we get to those “so also you,” points he'll then drive home the illustration to the gift of tongues.

Look at verse 6, but now, brethren. This follows on, the contrast here, the goal is to edify the church, the end of verse 4. The goal is so that the church may receive edification. But now, brethren, verse 6, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you? The church is to receive edification, that's the goal of the use of the gifts. Now if I come and speak to you in tongues what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophecy, or of teaching. In other words, I come and speak to you in a language you don't understand, there is no benefit to you, that can produce no growth. Emotional feelings do not produce growth. You can hear someone sing in a language you don't understand, but there is something about the music, it begins to move you. One old preacher in the late 1800s with the flourishing speech of the Victorians, they'd say, he could say Mesopotamia in such a way that the audience cried. I said, is that the Spirit of God? If I learned to say Mesopotamia with such feeling that you're moved to tears, does that mean the Spirit of God really works in that church? No, it has nothing to do with the mind. I can sit and listen to a soupy love song and cry. Wouldn't think it, but I think I could. Music moves us.

Okay. If I don't come and speak to you in a way you can understand, it's no help. If I'm speaking a language you don't understand, it's no help unless he interprets. That will become the point, verse 5. Verse 6, unless I speak to you by way of revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching. In other words unless that language is translated into the language that you understand and thus communicate the biblical truth to you in various ways—revelation, knowledge, prophecy, teaching—it's of no value to you. So we're not saying biblical tongues were of no value, but they had to be interpreted. And that will become part of a future study.

Okay, so that's verse 6. I can't profit you if I don't speak in a language you understand. Here is an illustration. Even lifeless things, inanimate objects, those things that have no life, no soul, like a flute or a harp, stringed instrument or a wind instrument. In producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp. In other words, an instrument has to play distinct sounds that you recognize. That's true. You go to different countries and they have their own music and they play that music in a way that communicates to the people that are part of that language group. You can sit there and think, this music doesn't even communicate to me. We'd say, sometimes within our own family of languages it does. Then you move outside of that to one of the languages spoken in Asian countries or other parts of the world, Russia or Slavic countries, even their music—how do they listen to this? Well it's because they are communicating with distinct sounds that those people can understand and relate to. Very simple analogy. Even things that aren't human, that don't have life have to communicate with a certain order, a certain structure, or they won't communicate. That's the point in verse 7. Lifeless things function this way. This is the way God has made His creation in all aspects.

He uses a particular musical instrument, a bugle, a military trumpet. Verse 8, “. . . if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for the battle?” In other words, a bugle, a military trumpet, a trumpet used for military means, has to communicate the proper message, otherwise nobody would get ready for battle. They'd say so-and-so is over there playing the trumpet, playing the bugle. Doesn't mean anything to us. They're not playing the right thing so nobody gets ready for the battle. Very simple. It has to communicate understandable things. That's the point.

So verse 9, so also you. Now let me take these examples and apply them to you in your situation. “. . . Unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken?” You will be speaking into the air. Unless what you say in a foreign language is interpreted, translated so that the people there understand, nothing happens. Now you'll note here, up in verse 2, one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God. No one understands. So if I were speaking in Russian and nobody here understands Russian, God would be the only one who understands. Now down in verse 9 Paul even makes it more blunt. You'd just be speaking into the air, because didn't intend that the gift of tongues be used to communicate to Him. So you know what? You're just talking to the air, there is nothing done. Nobody understood you, so your voice is just going out into the air here. That's it. You're talking to the air.

So we put this in the proper context to try to work into this some kind of idea that tongues is a unique gift and ability to communicate with God on a level that others couldn't or other languages couldn't just has no support anywhere in scripture. The problem is, it doesn't accomplish anything if it's not interpreted.

Look at verse 10, there are perhaps a great many kind of languages. So we're going to move from the inanimate, lifeless objects like musical instruments, now to languages themselves. Just the language of the world, not talking about the gift of tongues now. There are perhaps a great many kind of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. Now he uses the word for languages here in verse 10, different than the word translated tongue.

1) He doesn't want any confusion here, I'm not talking about the various kinds of the gift of tongues that would be spoken around the world. I'm talking about now human languages here as an illustration.
2) Also, there is a play on words here. He uses the word, phono here. We get it in words like phonograph, phonics, and so on. The word means sounds, voice, language, a word that has that type of range of meaning. And you can understand that. Sounds, voices, languages. So here he's talking about the various voices or languages in the world and he uses that word here because it helps him do a play on words that we can't pick up in English, because it's the same word that is translated without meaning at the end of the verse. Only you put an “a” on the front and that makes it negative.

There are various kinds of languages, but no non-languages. There are various kinds of voices, but no not-voices. You say, that doesn't make any sense. And that's why you can't pick up that play on words that is there the way Paul uses it. The point is, every language has to be a language. That's the purpose of language, that's the definition of language. It is a means and an ability of communicating, right? If it doesn't communicate, it doesn't classify as a language. “Abie hupadon. Djsoekd dkslcl,fngj. Akdhb;lasdkjgalkj.” I hope some of you at least understood, and that's spiritual perception. I didn't say anything. Then it's not a language, I just made it up, it's a collection of sounds. You know like babies do to grown up adults? “Goo-goo, goo.” What reduces a grown man to talk that way? “Ckgha;ljemga lkjdflgj.” Here I am, a grandfather, I'm trying to talk to him and he's talking back, “Goo, goo, goo.” He's talking to me. He is not. It's not language so it doesn't communicate. It becomes a game, but there is nothing really being said. Language has to communicate. There is no language that is non-language, otherwise we have nonsense. That's the point of verse 10, there are many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning, no non-language. If there were a non-language it wouldn't be a language. That's a play on words. It has to communicate, and so without meaning gives us the sense, without the play on words that Paul has used.

Every language communicates to someone who knows that language. We send missionaries overseas. Wycliffe Translators for years went over and sometimes first they had to reduce a language that is only spoken to writing, so that they could then translate the Bible into that language. So you have then missionaries there and translators there and they're listening to people speak, and then they point out something, a nose, and then the person can give their language word for nose and then they can try to write that down and put it into letters that form a word. So that sound, the word for language there in verse 10 I said was phono. So you're going to do that, you say, well if I said phono, now reduce that. “Ph” would be “f” sound, “o”, “no.” Now we've got a word. We do that with our kids. We send them off to school and before they go to school they want to learn the alphabet. So our kids and grandkids come and they want to tell us the alphabet and they think they've accomplished something great, and then they go through and they miss a letter. And you say, wait, what comes between “n” and “p”? An “o”. It doesn't matter. The alphabet is not a word, who cares if they miss a letter? Well, the letters are going to make up the words, and the words have meaning, and then put them in sentences and that's how we communicate. So language does have a structure. That's the linguist's argument. You can discern even languages you've never learned, you've never discovered before, when you come across it you can begin to analyze it. And pretty soon you can break it down, because any language communicates and has structure to do so.

Verse 11, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. To the Greeks everyone who didn't speak Greek was a barbarian, a foreigner. The word here is a word that uses a play on the sound. If someone is speaking in a language you don't understand, they sound like they're just saying, bar, bar, bar, bar, bar. Doesn't communicate. Nothing is meaningful to me. When we were in China, I can't understand anything. “Ding ding dong, ching ching.” Well anybody that may have an Asian background would say, he didn't say anything, he just made noise. That's all it sounds like to me, right? It is true when I've gone to other countries, I don't understand. Now here in our own family of languages, sometimes there is a certain familiarity because of similar structures. But you know what happens when you go overseas and you're trying to find out where the restroom is, and this person doesn't understand the word. So what do you do? You slow up—where is the restroom? Doesn't help a bit. “Jong ching poo.” Didn't help me a bit, could you go slower? It doesn't help because I don't understand any of it. It's not a matter you're going too fast or slow. If I'm learning the language I may say, talk slow. But if I don't know anything about that language, it doesn't help me to just slow down. So if I don't know the meaning of the language, I will be the one who speaks a barbarian, the one who speaks to me will be a barbarian. It's meaningless. No communication is taking place.

So also you, verse 12, another application. Since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. This is what it is all about. There is no discussion in here of how you might learn to communicate with God privately or in prayer. That prayer issue will come up in our next study. It's all about edifying the church. So since you are zealous on these matters of the Spirit and the gifts the Spirit produces, and that's good. Same word, if you're zealous of spiritual gifts. Back in chapter 12 verse 31, earnestly desire, same word there. Be zealous for the greater gifts. In chapter 14 verse 1, earnestly desire, same word we have translated being zealous down in chapter 14 verse 12. Since you are zealous, earnestly desire these manifestations of the Spirit, seek to abound. Be zealous in an overflowing way for the edification of the church. He's not rebuking them for having a zeal for spiritual gifts, but you have to put spiritual gifts in their proper context. They are for the benefit of the body. They are to be exercised in love. So your passion with spiritual gifts is to build up the body of Christ. You can't do that if you do not communicate in an understandable way. He'll go on to talk about tongues has a place, but only if it's interpreted. Because the interpretation then will enable it to be a revelation, or knowledge, or prophecy, or teaching, as it was in verse 6. If no understandable communication takes place to the mind, then no edification occurs. So this is where our passion is.

The church is losing its focus on this. I want to go, I want to feel like I've worshiped. Just what does it feel like to worship? I was watching a secular person on TV yesterday. And he was presenting a concert. There must have been 10-20,000 people in that hall. And he started to play and he told them he was honoring a dead musician. And you know that whole audience is moved by it. Were they having a religious experience? We have moved the worship of the living God from the realm that He has placed it to a realm of our own liking. We have less and less seriousness about God's truth that communicates to the mind in our songs, in our teaching and preaching. And thus we move away from the worship of God, but we disguise it, thinking it is something real now, because I go away feeling a certain way. We must be zealous for spiritual gifts. We must be overflowing in zeal with that passion to build up the church.

Back in chapter 13 verse 1, if I speak with the tongue of men and of angels and do not have love, which is focused on doing what is good and best for the other person, I become a noisy gong, a clanging cymbal. If I have all the gifts to the greatest degree and don't have love, the end of verse 2, I am nothing. If I make the greatest sacrifice possible, but don't have love, it profits me nothing. We have to be absolutely sure that we place the gifts in the context that the Bible places it, and they can accomplish the purposes that God intends for them.

Let's pray together. Thank you, Lord, for your great grace, the work you have done in our lives. We were lost and without hope in the world, we were your enemies, hardened toward you. Yet in grace you brought to our heart a message of your love in the death of your Son to pay the penalty for our sins. By your grace we place our faith in Him. We have been made new, the Spirit now dwells in us, He gifts and enables us to function as a necessary and vital part of your church. Lord, it is absolutely essential that we function according to your instruction, according to your will so that your work might be accomplished in us and through us. We desire to grow together, to be built up as a church. And that happens as we concentrate our energy and efforts in doing what is necessary to build up others. May that be true of us as your church in this place. We pray in Christ's name, amen.