SLAIN IN THE SPIRIT?

[tom55]

I most certainly am not cherry picking verses. I'm trying to be an honest exegete who sees apparent contradictions in Scripture and make an honest attempt to harmonise them. God is not the God of contradiction. He is the God of truth (Deut 32:4; Ps 57:10; 86:15; Is 55:8; Heb 6:18).
Now to the verses you raise:
1 Cor. 14:33-35 (ESV)
These verses state, 'For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church'.
So women in Corinth 'should keep silent.... They are not permitted to speak', says 1 Cor 14:33-35.
However, God’s Word states that women can speak in the church — they can pray and prophesy according to I Cor. 11:5 (NIV), 'But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is the same as if her head were shaven'. Here a woman in the church is able to pray and prophesy. The head covering is another issue, but not considered here as it is not relevant to the primary topic of the validity or otherwise of women in public ministry.
It is possible to pray without opening the mouth, but I do not know how a woman can prophesy in the church gathering with her mouth closed.
We know what is involved in praying, but what does the Scripture mean when it says that a woman is able to prophesy? Surely that can’t be done through silence!
Gordon Fee, a contemporary Bible scholar and exegete, states that
Therefore, we can conclude that for women to prophesy, it meant that they gave an oral message in a church gathering. They could not prophesy and remain silent at the same time.
1 Timothy 3:12
The ESV translation reads, 'Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well' ?
How does the NIV translate it, 'A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well'? For the ESV translation, 'husband of one wife', we have at least 4 possibilities as to its meaning:
1. The deacon needs to be married to a woman (wife);
2. It prohibits polygamy;
3. Marital fidelity between husband and wife.
4. It prohibits second marriages.
This is the parallel qualification to bishops (1 Tim 3:2).
Why the divergence in translations for 1 Tim 3:12? The ESV is a formal equivalence translation, which is an attempt at word-for-word. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence translation, which is meaning-for-meaning. So the translators of the NIV were of the understanding that the meaning of 'husband of one wife' was to 'be faithful to his wife'.
However, we need to ask the other question: Since a married deacon needs to be faithful to his wife, are there examples of female deacons in the NT? See the articles:

• John MacArthur, 'Was Phoebe a deaconess?' (Rom 16:1);
• 'Can women serve as deacons in the church?' (GotQuestions).While the answer to the question is not definitive, it does seem that there were females in the NT church who had the ministry of serving, which is like that of deaconesses.

Notes
[1] Fee (1987:505-506).
[2] Fee (1987:595).
Works consulted
Fee, G D, 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. F. Bruce, (gen.ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Wow! You have twisted scripture around so much I don't know what to say except 2Peter 3:16.

Can we START with the first fallacy you put forth about the paintings in the Catacombs of Priscilla when you used Aisha Taylor as a source. How about providing a reliable source and information that has been known for a LONG time instead of what you provided?

http://honorsaharchive.blogspot.com/2008/07/early-christian-imagery-in-catacombs-of.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/early-christian1/v/catacomb-priscilla#!

The Khan Academy link is a video. You can fast forward to about the 8:13 mark or just watch the entire video and learn something. In the other link look for the word "Orant". Since you have a PhD I don't need to define that word for you.

Looking forward to hearing from you....Respectfully....Tom55

 

[OzSpen]

Wow! You have twisted scripture around so much I don't know what to say except 2Peter 3:16.

Can we START with the first fallacy you put forth about the paintings in the Catacombs of Priscilla when you used Aisha Taylor as a source. How about providing a reliable source and information that has been known for a LONG time instead of what you provided?

http://honorsaharchive.blogspot.com/2008/07/early-christian-imagery-in-catacombs-of.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/medieval-world/early-christian1/v/catacomb-priscilla#!

The Khan Academy link is a video. You can fast forward to about the 8:13 mark or just watch the entire video and learn something. In the other link look for the word "Orant". Since you have a PhD I don't need to define that word for you.

Looking forward to hearing from you....Respectfully....Tom55

Since you refuse to deal with the content of what I wrote at #360, you are here giving me another red herring fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

I will not engage you further on this topic as your logical fallacies make it impossible to engage at reasonable/rational level.

Bye,
Oz

 

[OzSpen]

And you are getting tiresome with your constant allegation of logical fallacies. The only thing that is logical about my work is that it is not a fallacy.

That would be easily overcome if you would acknowledge the logical fallacies you use and quit using them.

We cannot have a rational conversation when you continue to use such fallacies.

I suggest that you learn,


(courtesy Relatively Interesting)

 

[Wormwood]

So, I am trying to follow this thread but it is a little confusing and I need some clarification. Is the issue whether it is okay to translate adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" or is the issue whether it is appropriate for women to be preachers and elders in a local congregation? I think these are to very different issues. The fact is, the Greek word adelphoi means "brothers" but often carries the connotation of "brothers and sisters" when addressing a group. It is no different than the English word "man." Someone may say, "I am a man" or "There is a group of men" and it carries the connotation of male gender. Or, a person could say, "Let each man judge for himself whether it is right to serve the Lord" or "Man is desperately wicked." The latter two examples are understood to be gender indiscriminate even though it is clear a male pronoun is being used. The context determines the meaning even though the natural meaning of the term refers to male gender. It is often used in an idiomatic way.

However, we should not confuse the fact that Paul used male pronouns in a gender indiscriminate way that pronoun genders in reference to leadership in the local church are inconsequential. This is certainly not the case. Here I would agree with Tom (at least in part, I am not sure the entirety of what he is arguing or anything about the links he is posting (also, I do believe women can serve in the church in various capacities, I do think Paul is very clear about the role of teaching/preaching and eldership over the local church as a whole)). This is not how the early church understood these writings and it is clear that Paul is very direct about his views on male and female roles in some of his writings. Most egalitarians appeal to theories of interpolation or and concepts of mutual submission to make their case. I have never heard of someone using Paul's use of pronouns in greetings as a means to argue for egalitarianism in church leadership. Its just not a good argument. The Greek language isnt that abstract.

 

[marksman]

So, I am trying to follow this thread but it is a little confusing and I need some clarification. Is the issue whether it is okay to translate adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" or is the issue whether it is appropriate for women to be preachers and elders in a local congregation? I think these are to very different issues. The fact is, the Greek word adelphoi means "brothers" but often carries the connotation of "brothers and sisters" when addressing a group. It is no different than the English word "man." Someone may say, "I am a man" or "There is a group of men" and it carries the connotation of male gender. Or, a person could say, "Let each man judge for himself whether it is right to serve the Lord" or "Man is desperately wicked." The latter two examples are understood to be gender indiscriminate even though it is clear a male pronoun is being used. The context determines the meaning even though the natural meaning of the term refers to male gender. It is often used in an idiomatic way.

However, we should not confuse the fact that Paul used male pronouns in a gender indiscriminate way that pronoun genders in reference to leadership in the local church are inconsequential. This is certainly not the case. Here I would agree with Tom (at least in part, I am not sure the entirety of what he is arguing or anything about the links he is posting (also, I do believe women can serve in the church in various capacities, I do think Paul is very clear about the role of teaching/preaching and eldership over the local church as a whole)). This is not how the early church understood these writings and it is clear that Paul is very direct about his views on male and female roles in some of his writings. Most egalitarians appeal to theories of interpolation or and concepts of mutual submission to make their case. I have never heard of someone using Paul's use of pronouns in greetings as a means to argue for egalitarianism in church leadership. Its just not a good argument. The Greek language isnt that abstract.

Actually it is neither. The subject is being slain in the spirit. There are those who believe it is of satan because those words do not appear in scripture and there are those who believe it is a valid experience because they are not pedantic about wording and there is enough evidence to show that it happens and by the Spirit.

 

[marksman]

Oz it is very evident you have a fixation with logical fallacies as you seem to accuse nearly everyone who disagrees with you of writing logical fallacies.

That as it may be, I am a bit jaundiced about anything you say when you say this....

While the answer to the question is not definitive, it does seem that there were females in the NT church who had the ministry of serving, which is like that of deaconesses.

​Now I could be wrong but you seem to be implying that because these women had a serving ministry they were deaconesses. I am surprised that you do not know that everyone who does something in the church has a serving ministry as we are called to serve one another.

​If my job is to make sure the church door is shut and locked after the meeting I am serving, but that does not make me a deacon.

If my job is to stand at the door as they come in I am serving but that does not make me a deacon.

​If my job is to play an instrument I am serving but that does not make me a deacon.

The fact that these women served does not make them a deaconess. It means they were doing what everyone else was doing and that was serving. The fact that they may be serving the apostles in a specific way does not make them deaconesses.

Note, deacons were instituted for the specific purpose of looking after the daily distribution of food......

Act 6:1-4 A lot of people were now becoming followers of the Lord. But some of the ones who spoke Greek started complaining about the ones who spoke Aramaic. They complained that the Greek-speaking widows were not given their share when the food supplies were handed out each day. The twelve apostles called the whole group of followers together and said, "We should not give up preaching God's message in order to serve at tables. My friends, choose seven men who are respected and wise and filled with God's Spirit. We will put them in charge of these things. We can spend our time praying and serving God by preaching."

And the word "deaconess" is only used once in scripture and only in one translation, the ISV....

Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea.

All the others use the words servant (8), leader(1) and ministrant(1) Not one referred to her as a an apostle, teacher, pastor or elder. So saying that she was a deaconess is pulling a very long bow.

 

[Barrd]

So, I am trying to follow this thread but it is a little confusing and I need some clarification. Is the issue whether it is okay to translate adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" or is the issue whether it is appropriate for women to be preachers and elders in a local congregation? I think these are to very different issues. The fact is, the Greek word adelphoi means "brothers" but often carries the connotation of "brothers and sisters" when addressing a group. It is no different than the English word "man." Someone may say, "I am a man" or "There is a group of men" and it carries the connotation of male gender. Or, a person could say, "Let each man judge for himself whether it is right to serve the Lord" or "Man is desperately wicked." The latter two examples are understood to be gender indiscriminate even though it is clear a male pronoun is being used. The context determines the meaning even though the natural meaning of the term refers to male gender. It is often used in an idiomatic way.

However, we should not confuse the fact that Paul used male pronouns in a gender indiscriminate way that pronoun genders in reference to leadership in the local church are inconsequential. This is certainly not the case. Here I would agree with Tom (at least in part, I am not sure the entirety of what he is arguing or anything about the links he is posting (also, I do believe women can serve in the church in various capacities, I do think Paul is very clear about the role of teaching/preaching and eldership over the local church as a whole)). This is not how the early church understood these writings and it is clear that Paul is very direct about his views on male and female roles in some of his writings. Most egalitarians appeal to theories of interpolation or and concepts of mutual submission to make their case. I have never heard of someone using Paul's use of pronouns in greetings as a means to argue for egalitarianism in church leadership. Its just not a good argument. The Greek language isnt that abstract.

As Marksman tells you, this thread is supposed to be about the phenomenon known as "slain in the Spirit."
I am the dissenting voice, saying that there is no Biblical support for it, nor for some of the other manifestations we are seeing in the Charismatic movement, such as "Holy laughter" or people being "drunk in the spirit", or for people behaving like farm animals "under the Spirit".

Marksman made a remark about me not being qualified to teach, because I am a woman....and here we are...

 

[StanJ]

I have never heard of someone using Paul's use of pronouns in greetings as a means to argue for egalitarianism in church leadership. Its just not a good argument. The Greek language isnt that abstract.

No, but that IS the point. The Greek does NOT connote it being directed at ONLY men, so asserting that is what Paul meant, is inserting a bias into scripture.
Not only that but the context of Paul saying women should not teach, is NOT in the context of corporate gatherings, but in the context of the family.

 

[tom55]

Since you refuse to deal with the content of what I wrote at #360, you are here giving me another red herring fallacy. We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

I will not engage you further on this topic as your logical fallacies make it impossible to engage at reasonable/rational level.

Bye,
Oz

Dear OZSpen,

Please don't go. As you may have noticed I said lets' "START with the first fallacy you put forth" which was in post #352. I am more than happy to discuss with you post #360, however, you have not defened your FIRST fallacy. How can we engage in in a reasonable and rational conversation when YOU won't even acknowledge your FIRST fallacy (post #352) and want to jump forward to your second fallacy (post #360).

YOU are the one who brought up Aisha Taylor as YOUR source of a person who researched the archaeological evidence for women’s leadership in the early centuries of the church and YOU are the one who promoted it as evidence of women's leadership in the early church.

I clearly debunked YOUR source as a biased anti-Catholic who calls herself Catholic and a person who clearly doesn't know the history of Christian art and YOU didn't respond.

Now YOU are accusing ME of refusing to deal with the content of what you wrote? Really? It is obvious I am dealing with the content that you wrote in post #352 (which is before #360) and you obviously don't want to discuss it.

Respectfully....Tom55

 

[Barrd]

No, but that IS the point. The Greek does NOT connote it being directed at ONLY men, so asserting that is what Paul meant, is inserting a bias into scripture.
Not only that but the context of Paul saying women should not teach, is NOT in the context of corporate gatherings, but in the context of the family.

It doesn't make sense that God would give someone the ability to serve, and then forbid them from serving. I have known quite a few very gifted women in positions of authority in the church. Obviously, they were meant to do what they are doing.

 

[StanJ]

It doesn't make sense that God would give someone the ability to serve, and then forbid them from serving. I have known quite a few very gifted women in positions of authority in the church. Obviously, they were meant to do what they are doing.

and when Paul says forbid NOT speaking in tongues, it was not ONLY directed at men, but at ALL members of the local congregation.

 

[StanJ]

Another one who likes to say that we said what we did not say. No one has said that God does not use women.

Well you certainly said God does not allow women to teach men, which is just as false as the former.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz it is very evident you have a fixation with logical fallacies as you seem to accuse nearly everyone who disagrees with you of writing logical fallacies.

That's another red herring! :wub:

And the word "deaconess" is only used once in scripture and only in one translation, the ISV....

Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea

You are incorrect in saying 'deaconess' is used in only one translation, the ISV. It is also used in The New Jerusalem Bible in Rom 16:1.

If you understood that the Greek has only 2 genders for this word, diakonos (masculine) and diakonon (neuter) - used in Rom 16:1 - and NO feminine, you would understand why many of the translations use 'Phoebe, a servant' (ESV) or 'Phoebe, a deacon' (NRSV). That fact that Phoebe is a 'sister' in the Lord, and thus a female, makes her a female deacon.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

So, I am trying to follow this thread but it is a little confusing and I need some clarification. Is the issue whether it is okay to translate adelphoi as "brothers and sisters" or is the issue whether it is appropriate for women to be preachers and elders in a local congregation? I think these are to very different issues. The fact is, the Greek word adelphoi means "brothers" but often carries the connotation of "brothers and sisters" when addressing a group. It is no different than the English word "man." Someone may say, "I am a man" or "There is a group of men" and it carries the connotation of male gender. Or, a person could say, "Let each man judge for himself whether it is right to serve the Lord" or "Man is desperately wicked." The latter two examples are understood to be gender indiscriminate even though it is clear a male pronoun is being used. The context determines the meaning even though the natural meaning of the term refers to male gender. It is often used in an idiomatic way.

However, we should not confuse the fact that Paul used male pronouns in a gender indiscriminate way that pronoun genders in reference to leadership in the local church are inconsequential. This is certainly not the case. Here I would agree with Tom (at least in part, I am not sure the entirety of what he is arguing or anything about the links he is posting (also, I do believe women can serve in the church in various capacities, I do think Paul is very clear about the role of teaching/preaching and eldership over the local church as a whole)). This is not how the early church understood these writings and it is clear that Paul is very direct about his views on male and female roles in some of his writings. Most egalitarians appeal to theories of interpolation or and concepts of mutual submission to make their case. I have never heard of someone using Paul's use of pronouns in greetings as a means to argue for egalitarianism in church leadership. Its just not a good argument. The Greek language isnt that abstract.

Wormwood,

You have provided not one Scripture to substantiate what you are saying.

I have provided evidence from the Greek lexicons and an eminent word study (Kittel) that when adelphos is addressed to a group (as in the Corinthian church) as in 1 Cor 14:6; 14:26, it means brothers and sisters who are engaged in vocal ministry in the church.

Your 2 paragraphs are a promotion of the traditional view against women in a teaching/preaching/eldership ministry in the local church. However, you have not dealt with the difficulties of this view when consistent exegesis is attempted. I have tried to deal with some of these matters in this thread.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Well you certainly said God does not allow women to teach men, which is just as false as the former.

Womenshould remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.A womanshould learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;she must be quiet.

Scripture is very clear about this.. Jesus chose men as his apostles and when they voted to replace Judas they chose a man. No where in scripture or historical writings does it say a woman was promoted to a position of authority in the church. Our early church fathers preached against it. This practice of promoting women to positions of authority (priest, bishops, deacons whatever word you want to use) is a tradition started by man, not God or the apostles.

 

[Barrd]

and when Paul says forbid NOT speaking in tongues, it was not ONLY directed at men, but at ALL members of the local congregation.

As long as we all understand that "tongues" are human languages, as spoken in Acts 2.

 

[tom55]

Dear OZSpen,

Please don't go. As you may have noticed I said lets' "START with the first fallacy you put forth" which was in post #352. I am more than happy to discuss with you post #360, however, you have not defened your FIRST fallacy. How can we engage in in a reasonable and rational conversation when YOU won't even acknowledge your FIRST fallacy (post #352) and want to jump forward to your second fallacy (post #360).

YOU are the one who brought up Aisha Taylor as YOUR source of a person who researched the archaeological evidence for women’s leadership in the early centuries of the church and YOU are the one who promoted it as evidence of women's leadership in the early church.

I clearly debunked YOUR source as a biased anti-Catholic who calls herself Catholic and a person who clearly doesn't know the history of Christian art and YOU didn't respond.

Now YOU are accusing ME of refusing to deal with the content of what you wrote? Really? It is obvious I am dealing with the content that you wrote in post #352 (which is before #360) and you obviously don't want to discuss it.

Respectfully....Tom55

 

[OzSpen]

It doesn't make sense that God would give someone the ability to serve, and then forbid them from serving. I have known quite a few very gifted women in positions of authority in the church. Obviously, they were meant to do what they are doing.

The Barrd,

That's not how the traditionalists argue. They would say that if God gave a woman the gift of serving (a deaconess) or teaching, she must never do it among a mixed group of males and females. Her ministry must be exclusive to women.

However, in this thread I have attempted to show that the Greek word didache (meaning instruction or teaching) is used in 1 Cor 14:6 (NIV); and 1 Cor 14:26 (NIV) and this is addressed to adelphoi, brothers and sisters - which is what the Greek lexicons and eminent word study confirm.

Then one has to deal with the supposed difficulty of 1 Tim 2:11-12 (NIV):

11 A woman [or wife]should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman [or, wife] to teach or to assume authority over a man [or husband]; she must be quiet.

How can a woman be allowed to give instruction/teaching in 1 Cor 14 but has to remain quiet (ESV) or be in silence (KJV) in 1 Tim 2?

When I was a traditionalist supporter, I could not overcome this apparent contradiction. With God's help and grace I've been able to come to some biblical solutions on this issue. I've attempted to share some of these in the current thread, but with flack from traditionalists. I've articulated some of my teaching in the articles,

• Must women never teach men in the church?

• Women wrongly closed down in ministry

• Amazing contemporary opposition to women in public ministry

• The heresy of women preachers?

Women bishops – how to get the Christians up in arms!

Are women supposed to be permanently silent in the church gathering?

Why don’t you take a read of this article by N T Wright (2004) for an alternate view: ‘Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis’. In this challenging and thought provoking teaching, Wright wrote of 1 Timothy 2:12,

The key to the present passage, then, is to recognise that it is commanding that women, too, should be allowed to study and learn, and should not be restrained from doing so (verse 11). They are to be ‘in full submission’; this is often taken to mean ‘to the men’, or ‘to their husbands’, but it is equally likely that it refers to their attitude, as learners, of submission to God or to the gospel – which of course would be true for men as well. Then the crucial verse 12 need not be read as ‘I do not allow a woman to teach or hold authority over a man’ – the translation which has caused so much difficulty in recent years. It can equally mean (and in context this makes much more sense): ‘I don’t mean to imply that I’m now setting up women as the new authority over men in the same way that previously men held authority over women.’ Why might Paul need to say this?

There are some signs in the letter that it was originally sent to Timothy while he was in Ephesus. And one of the main things we know about religion in Ephesus is that the main religion – the biggest Temple, the most famous shrine – was a female-only cult. The Temple of Artemis (that’s her Greek name; the Romans called her Diana) was a massive structure which dominated the area; and, as befitted worshippers of a female deity, the priests were all women. They ruled the show and kept the men in their place.

Now if you were writing a letter to someone in a small, new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, and wanted to say that because of the gospel of Jesus the old ways of organising male and female roles had to be rethought from top to bottom, with one feature of that being that the women were to be encouraged to study and learn and take a leadership role, you might well want to avoid giving the wrong impression. Was the apostle saying, people might wonder, that women should be trained up so that Christianity would gradually become a cult like that of Artemis, where women did the leading and kept the men in line? That, it seems to me, is what verse 12 is denying. The word I’ve translated ‘try to dictate to them’ is unusual, but seems to have the overtones of ‘being bossy’ or ‘seizing control’. Paul is saying, like Jesus in Luke 10, that women must have the space and leisure to study and learn in their own way, not in order that they may muscle in and take over the leadership as in the Artemis-cult, but so that men and women alike can develop whatever gifts of learning, teaching and leadership God is giving them.

Doing the hard yards with exegesis and interpretation in context and trying to allow the Scripture to speak for itself without the intrusion of your or my existing position, is extremely difficult. Laying aside one's bias, whether it be egalitarian or traditionalist, is a challenge when trying to listen to the content of Scripture.

May the Lord help us to be wise interpreters of his Word. We need to take this warning seriously: 'Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly' (James 3:1 NIV). The 'fellow believers' (NIV) uses the Greek adelphoi, which means 'brothers and sisters' as the footnote to James 1:2 (ESV) indicates. James 3:1 (NLT) reads, 'Dear brothers and sisters, not many of you should become teachers in the church, for we who teach will be judged more strictly'.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

As long as we all understand that "tongues" are human languages, as spoken in Acts 2.

The Barrd,

That's not what 1 Cor 14:2 (NIV) states, 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit'.

So what is needed when someone manifests the gift of tongues? We know the procedure from 1 Cor 14:13 (NLT), 'So anyone who speaks in tongues should pray also for the ability to interpret what has been said'.

We have this further instruction in 1 Cor 14:27-28 (NIV),

If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

That's clear that tongues is an 'unknown' language that does not need a translation but an 'interpretation'.

This is why, when I walk into a Pentecostal/charismatic church in my part of the world that I see so much disorder with a commotion of many people speaking in tongues - all at the same time. They are out of order biblically because if there is no one there to interpret what is said, 'the speaker should keep quiet in the church'.

Biblical order is critical for the church to function properly.

Oz

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

That's not what 1 Cor 14:2 (NIV) states, 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit'.

Oz,

That's the only cryptic verse dealing with tongues I know of. Given that in most of the other verses, it is pretty clear that human tongues are meant, I think we can accept that this one, though unclear, must be referring to the same phenomenon.
Remember, some of Paul's writing contains things that are difficult to understand. I think this is one of them.

So what is needed when someone manifests the gift of tongues? We know the procedure from 1 Cor 14:13 (NLT), 'So anyone who speaks in tongues should pray also for the ability to interpret what has been said'.

If you saw my testimony about my friend who found herself praying in tongues, I think I was clear that she didn't understand what she was saying just at first. It wasn't till the lady she was helping exclaimed that she hadn't heard that old Hawaiian dialect since she had been a little child with her grandmother that my friend understood what she had been saying.

We have this further instruction in 1 Cor 14:27-28 (NIV),

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Imagine how frustrating it would be, to have God giving you a message for the people, but you can't tell anyone about it, because you don't understand it yourself.

That's clear that tongues is an 'unknown' language that does not need a translation but an 'interpretation'.

You mean the way a Legal Assistant might need an interpreter when dealing with an illegal alien, for instance?

This is why, when I walk into a Pentecostal/charismatic church in my part of the world that I see so much disorder with a commotion of many people speaking in tongues - all at the same time. They are out of order biblically because if there is no one there to interpret what is said, 'the speaker should keep quiet in the church'.

That's going on where I live, as well, Oz. Everyone is in a huge hurry to "show off" their "relationship" with God.
That chaos is one of the major objections.

Biblical order is critical for the church to function properly.

Seeing as it is Paul who said that, you'd think they'd "get it"...But...

Oz

Barrd