JimO:
Read I Cor 14:2 as an isolated verse. It gives the opposite impression of verses 27-28.
Now read the last part of verse 28 “…each one speaking only to himself and God.” This says clearly that if there is nobody present with the gift of interpretation, each one should speak to himself and to God. In context, it suggests that speaking in tongues is not prohibited, only that speaking tongues aloud without an interpretor is out of order. One is not prohibited from using a personal prayer tongue, or “praying in the spirit” (go back to verse 14).
You can not read isolated verses, you must take the whole chapter in context. In context of audience and in context of meaning.
Others speak of the personal prayer language using this approach, but it doesn’t flush out. Paul is trying to stop the chaos brought out by the mystery religions in Corinth. He was trying to weed out those with false gifts, which resulted in all kinds of chaos, tongues being one of the biggest problems. So he wants to make sure it is a real gift, hence the interpreters. Remember, tongues is not for believer, but the unbeliever (
How did he come to this? Look at the preceding verses.
6-8
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? Even things without life, whether flute or harp, when they make a sound, unless they make a distinction in the sounds, how will it be known what is piped or played? For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself for battle?
Paul is emphasizing not only the need for authenticity but also saying that tongues are purposeful, they serve a purpose. Musical instruments aren’t much good if you don’t know how to make the notes.
9-11
So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.
Actual words, actual languages. Otherwise? It’s like you are talking to wall, or in Paul’s words “speaking into the air”.
12-14* Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. *
Edification of the church, not the self. Why? No understanding.
15-16
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding. Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?
What does he conclude? That we should use some kind of personal tongue as a prayer language? NO! Just the opposite. Pray with spirit AND understanding. Sing with spirit AND understanding. Why? Because it isn’t edifying to anyone if it’s not understood.
17-20 *For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature. *
Again, Paul emphasizes tongues are for the church, NOT for the self. It’s more important to understand.
Again and again, tongues is for the church, not the self. Where is the personal prayer language encouragement? And why does Paul keep saying that tongues is the exact opposite of “personal”?!
, but it was a bit offensive to openly share my experience on this thread only to have you dismiss my personal spiritual journey and suggest, in a self-righteous tone (“It doesn’t matter how broad the brush is.”), that I have been disloyal to the Church.
But outside of our home, she is chronically considerate of the people around her… and very very thoughtful about everything she does and experiences. I agree that sometimes people hear what they want/need to hear, and I agree that it is possible that this was the case with her, as “anything is possible”. Just know that I’m already aware of mistakes like this, and in light of all that, the evidence shown me tells me this is not the case. I have studied psychology before, and a huge priority in my life is to discern accurate communications between individuals; I believe that confusion/misunderstanding is a huge cause of today’s problems.