The Meaning of "Angelic Tongues"

[PetoVeritas]

A Charismatic friend pointed out Corinthians 13:1 to me today (“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love…” ) where St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit. The phrase that caught me was that he mentions “angelic tongues” here. I know that’s not the point of the passage. It’s about doing all things out of love, but what does he mean, “angelic tongues”? I know many Charismatics that use this phrase as a proof text for speaking in nonsensical babble and I have looked all over the internet trying to find a good apologists explanation about what Paul means here, but I can’t. I see many, many, many descriptions about the gift of tongues even here @ CAF, but nothing that directly addresses “angelic tongues”.

Any ideas, suggestions, clarifying understanding?
Thanks.

 

[PJM]

=PetoVeritas;6415515]A Charismatic friend pointed out Corinthians 13:1 to me today (“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love…” ) where St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit. The phrase that caught me was that he mentions “angelic tongues” here. I know that’s not the point of the passage. It’s about doing all things out of love, but what does he mean, “angelic tongues”? I know many Charismatics that use this phrase as a proof text for speaking in nonsensical babble and I have looked all over the internet trying to find a good apologists explanation about what Paul means here, but I can’t. I see many, many, many descriptions about the gift of tongues even here @ CAF, but nothing that directly addresses “angelic tongues”.

Any ideas, suggestions, clarifying understanding?
Thanks.

The answer friend is in the “Lord’ Prayer”… Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven";

So how is God’s Will done in heaven by His Angels and Saints? It is done …Perfectly!

Perfect Worship
Perfect Love
Perfect Humility
Perfect intent

 

[kepha1]

Here’s 2 Catholic apologists:

1 Corinthians 13:1: If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels . . . I highly doubt that angels speak any one human language, and it is likely that they speak a language entirely unhuman as well (insofar as they speak at all - that would usually be with humans, I would imagine).
**
1 Corinthians 14:2,4-5:**For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit . . . Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church. Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.

Obviously, St. Paul is a “charismatic.” Note that the gift of tongues is specifically defined as not a known language. What happened in Acts 2 at Pentecost (other known languages) may also be included in Paul’s “various kinds of tongues,” I suppose, but the fact remains that when Paul explicitly defines the gift, in a teaching epistle, it is as a mysterious language that must be interpreted, in order to benefit others. Note also that Paul esteems prophesy more than tongues - so that makes him an even more wacko charismatic. I’m glad to be on the Apostle Paul’s side . . .
Different Kinds of Tongues: A Biblical and Linguistic Defense

Q&A by Br. Ignatius Mary OLSM

 

[Joe_Kelley]

** …** What happened in Acts 2 at Pentecost (other known languages) may also be included in Paul’s “various kinds of tongues,” . . .

The passage in Acts [2:7-10]

7 And they were amazed and wondered, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

can be read to say that the apostles were speaking in their own language but each listener was hearing it in his own language. Thus it was a gift of hearing rather than of speaking or tongues.

 

[GEddie]

A Charismatic friend pointed out Corinthians 13:1 to me today (“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love…” ) where St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit. The phrase that caught me was that he mentions “angelic tongues” here. I know that’s not the point of the passage. It’s about doing all things out of love, but what does he mean, “angelic tongues”? I know many Charismatics that use this phrase as a proof text for speaking in nonsensical babble and I have looked all over the internet trying to find a good apologists explanation about what Paul means here, but I can’t. I see many, many, many descriptions about the gift of tongues even here @ CAF, but nothing that directly addresses “angelic tongues”.

Any ideas, suggestions, clarifying understanding?
Thanks.

If I undersstand you aright, you wonder just what an “angelic tongue” is, since it is nowhere else referenced in Scripture. Good question, since according to our understanding, “angels” are bodiless, and as such do not breathe or use voices such as we have, which makes an “angelic tongue” somewhat of a nonsequitur.

At the same time, the distinction from “tongues of men” suggests that the angelic tongue, whatever it is, is not a known “human” language. This would fit with the incomprehensibility of known speech in tongues.

So it seems to me (and IANAP) there are 2 possibilities:

It is a heavenly language, even if not used by “angels”, or

Our understanding of angels is incomplete.

Either way, since Scripture never mentions this again, I’d say our chance is minimal of understanding this (admittedly minor) issue until we hear the language in question from Eternity.

ICXC NIKA!

 

[Moscati]

The first translation I read it in (NASB) said:

“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”

That caught my eye, because it seems to say, to me, that Paul means to say if he speaks with the tongues of men, or he speaks of/ABOUT angels, but has not love, then he is nothing. Not necessarily that he (or anyone) speaks in an angelic tongue. So, I looked further.

DR: “If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels”
KJV: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels”
RSV: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels”
NAB: “If I speak in human and angelic tongues”
New Jerusalem: “Though I command languages both human and angelic”
and, just for fun, The Message: “If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy”

The Latin Vulgate says “si linguis hominum loquar et angelorum”. My Latin vocab is okay, but I don’t know much about grammar. Someone smarter than me: how does it read? Should look at the Greek, too . . .

That comma in the Douay makes a difference!

Just a thought. I got a little carried away. And this wouldn’t apply to that other passage about interpreting.

 

[PetoVeritas]

GEddie, yes, that’s specifically what I’m talking about. This is very much the same sort of problem I was having when I read the passage where Paul refers to a community that was having themselves baptized for the dead. It’s never mentioned again in Scripture and it kind of leaves one puzzled about exactly what was going on there. I guess without being an historical bible scholar we’ll never really know.

Moscati, very interesting observation. I wouldn’t have looked at it like that but I definitely think that might be food for thought.
I would definitely like to see what the Latin and Greek rendering of this phrase is to see if there is more to gather from them.

I don’t dispute the gifts of the Spirit when taken in the context of all of Scripture. I do see definitely how it could be saying, “If I speak… of angels…” referring to speaking of heavenly, or angelic things and the phrase “tongues of men” put in there beforehand is not referring to the entire statement.

 

[God4me]

A Charismatic friend pointed out Corinthians 13:1 to me today (“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love…” ) where St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit. The phrase that caught me was that he mentions “angelic tongues” here. I know that’s not the point of the passage. It’s about doing all things out of love, but what does he mean, “angelic tongues”? I know many Charismatics that use this phrase as a proof text for speaking in nonsensical babble and I have looked all over the internet trying to find a good apologists explanation about what Paul means here, but I can’t. I see many, many, many descriptions about the gift of tongues even here @ CAF, but nothing that directly addresses “angelic tongues”.

Any ideas, suggestions, clarifying understanding?
Thanks.

The Bible mentions about 8 operations of tongues, Angelic language being one of them.

[1] Foerign languages. Acts 2: 4–11.
We could speak in a foriegn language to be a blessing or help someone into the faith.

[2] Tongues that will be interpreted. 1 Corinthians 12: 10,& 30, 1 Cor 14: 13, & 26-27.

[3] Tongues of Angels. 1 Cor 13: 1.
This is an Angelic language God’s people can speak.

[4] Tongues that are a mystery 1 Cor 14: 2, This is different to the foriegn language becuase no man can understand this tongue, Only God.

[5] Tongues that build up. 1 Cor 14: 4. Jude 20.
This tongue edifies the believer

[6] A prayer language. 1 Cor 14: 14-15.
This is an aid to help peoples prayer life.

[7] Tongues that can be sung. 12 Cor 14: 15–17.
This operation of tongues sings God’s praises.

[8] Tongues the Holy Spirit uses to interceed for us. Romans 8: 26-28.
This is a tongue that isn’t our native language, and the Holy Spirit needs our tongue to interceed. Then all things work together for our good.

This is the gift of the Holy Spirit, But a person needs to be baptised in the Holy Ghost first.
Acts 2: 4, Acts 8: 18–21, [The word, “Matter”, in v21, Is Tongues] Acts 10: 44–46.
Acts 19: 2–6.

 

[God4me]

The passage in Acts [2:7-10] can be read to say that the apostles were speaking in their own language but each listener was hearing it in his own language. Thus it was a gift of hearing rather than of speaking or tongues.

No, It was the Disciples who had the gift, Not the people from other countries.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Since angels do not have bodies, and therefore no voices, I presume their language is telepathic.

 

[GEddie]

Since angels do not have bodies, and therefore no voices, I presume their language is telepathic.

Hmmm… then someone who “spoke in angelic tongues” would himself be a telepath?

Strange then, that such propensities are absent from the rest of scripture, as well as from Church history?

No 2 ways around it, “language” and bodilessness together make for some extremely knotty conjecture.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[God4me]

If I undersstand you aright, you wonder just what an “angelic tongue” is, since it is nowhere else referenced in Scripture. Good question, since according to our understanding, “angels” are bodiless, and as such do not breathe or use voices such as we have, which makes an “angelic tongue” somewhat of a nonsequitur.

At the same time, the distinction from “tongues of men” suggests that the angelic tongue, whatever it is, is not a known “human” language. This would fit with the incomprehensibility of known speech in tongues.

So it seems to me (and IANAP) there are 2 possibilities:

It is a heavenly language, even if not used by “angels”, or

Our understanding of angels is incomplete.

Either way, since Scripture never mentions this again, I’d say our chance is minimal of understanding this (admittedly minor) issue until we hear the language in question from Eternity.

ICXC NIKA!

[1] Angels do have bodies, But they are spiritual bodies, They can be manifested as humans.
[2] Angels do speak.
[3] Paul said he could speak with tongues of Angels. 1 Cor 13: 1.

Angels

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Hmmm… then someone who “spoke in angelic tongues” would himself be a telepath?

Strange then, that such propensities are absent from the rest of scripture, as well as from Church history?

No 2 ways around it, “language” and bodilessness together make for some extremely knotty conjecture.

ICXC NIKA.

Note that Saint Paul says if he could; he doesn’t say that it is possible. It may be just an exaggeration to make his point.

 

[God4me]

Note that Saint Paul says if he could; he doesn’t say that it is possible. It may be just an exaggeration to make his point.

No No,
Paul didn’t say, “If”, He said, “THOUGH” I speak with tongues of Angels.
Theres a big differnce.
He Spoke in an Angelic language.

 

[Moscati]

No No,
Paul didn’t say, “If”, He said, “THOUGH” I speak with tongues of Angels.
Theres a big differnce.
He Spoke in an Angelic language.

That depends entirely on the English translation you use. Many do say “if”, and the Latin says “si”, which I believe means “if” (it does in Spanish, anyway.)

 

[PetoVeritas]

The more I think of it the more I like Moscati’s idea that it is two separate ideas, like, “If I speak in tongues or of angelic things.” Of course, this depends on who’s translating the passage which determines how it reads. It, for me personally, seems to make the most sense. This also has weight with me b/c of my personal convictions on speaking in tongues and other “gifts of the Spirit.”

 

[peary]

A Charismatic friend pointed out Corinthians 13:1 to me today (“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love…” ) where St. Paul talks about the gifts of the Spirit. The phrase that caught me was that he mentions “angelic tongues” here. I know that’s not the point of the passage. It’s about doing all things out of love, but what does he mean, “angelic tongues”? I know many Charismatics that use this phrase as a proof text for speaking in nonsensical babble and I have looked all over the internet trying to find a good apologists explanation about what Paul means here, but I can’t. I see many, many, many descriptions about the gift of tongues even here @ CAF, but nothing that directly addresses “angelic tongues”.

Any ideas, suggestions, clarifying understanding?
Thanks.

It has to do with the gradations of spiritual charismatic gifts that Paul elaborates elsewhere. An inventory of gifts, arranged in careful gradation: neither tongues (on the lowest rung), nor prophecy, knowledge, or faith, nor even self-sacrifice has value unless informed by love. (Notes: New American Bible). In other words, Paul is saying that even if he speaks different languages or ‘glossolalia’ (sometimes called the language of angels or the Holy Spirit) and does not have love and Faith, he is really nothing.

 

[God4me]

That depends entirely on the English translation you use. Many do say “if”, and the Latin says “si”, which I believe means “if” (it does in Spanish, anyway.)

The original Greek test says, when, whosoever, everyone. So Paul was saying, though I speak with tongues of angels, He meant it.

 

[God4me]

The original Greek text says,
“when, whosoever,anyone and everyone”. So Paul was saying, “though, I speak with tongues of angels”, Or, When I speak with tongues of Angels", So when Paul said he spoke with tongues of angels,He meant it,.

 

[Moscati]

The original Greek test says, when, whosoever, everyone. So Paul was saying, though I speak with tongues of angels, He meant it.

I don’t mean to be picky, but do you have a source for this? i.e., do you read Greek, or do you have a reference to link to, from someone credible who does? Could you reference the Greek word, and explain it?

You may be right, of course. I freely admit I don’t know Greek, and I’m amenable to correction. But I guess I’m not inclined to believe you just because you say so.