1 Cor, 14:2

[Brian]

1 Cor. 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.

Just curious, those of us who view tongues in the bible as simply meaning language, as in a foreign tongue.....how is it that this verse says that "no one understands"? Certainly someone could understand if it simply was referring to another earthly language. Like in Acts where it say's that each heard and understood in there own native tongue. (miraculous to be sure!)

So is this "tongues" just one kind of the "diverse tongues" as mentioned in the bible? If so, how can so many people discount tongues in the church today?

[Pastorbps]

I can see this in two ways. First I believe Paul describes "tongues" as being not understood by people in services as more common than what happened in Acts 2. This is the whole reason for 1 Cor 14. People in Corinth were speaking in tongues without people understanding them. Paul's casual and repeated mention of the need for an interpreter implies it was much more common for those present NOT to understand when a person speaks in tongues. Why would you need an interpreter if it was the same as Acts 2 where everyone understood in their native language?

As far as no one understanding him, I think you have to take that in the context in which it is given. He is speaking of "no one in that particular gathering" understanding him. I don't think he is saying no one in the world. Remember, the discourse is about speaking in tongues in service without interpretation and without people in the service understanding the tongue being spoken. In that case, no one understands him and he is not to be disruptive. He can do that either by being silent or by speaking to himself (1 Cor 14:28).

Another factor may be the mention of the "tongues of angels" in 1 Cor 13:1. If someone was speaking in an angelic language when speaking in tongues, then no one in the world would understand him.

I'm not sure I understand the last part of your question. If you are asking why people don't believe in "tongues" I really don't know. It clearly happened in the Bible. It clearly happened to Jews & Gentiles and it happened around the world at that time. The only answer people could give is that it was for back then and not today but they can't give scriptural basis for its disappearance.

If you are asking why people don't believe in "speaking in tongues" during a church service, I think that may have to do with how they interpret 1Cor 14 regarding being silent or speaking to one's self. Many have a problem with people all speaking in tongues with no interpretation. Clearly there are times when a person speaks in tongues for personal edification. At the same time, these types of situations should be carefully managed in the church services so as to not disrupt the reason for the gathering. I personally feel, if it is not disruptive (to one's self) and if it fits the type of meeting (Believers), then speaking in tongues for self edification would be acceptable.

[scooter]

They don't understand.

[beckrl]

I think the point is within the context that no one would understand without an interperter. If no interperter is persent then keep silence.

Certainly someone could understand if it simply was referring to another earthly language.

That's not necessary correct in an local church service.

But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

That is much different that the day of Penetcost where there were no need of an interperter.