The text does not infer this is simply a known language, but states,
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. (1 Corinthians 14:2)
The most natural conveyance of this is the speaker speaks in a language known only to God.
Upon what justification can we argue that there is such a thing as a prayer tongue that is, in fact, not a language at all? Or is some Angelic “spiritual” language?
Those are Paul's words, making a distinction btwn "the tongues of men and of angels," (1Cor. 13:1) That would be mysteries, so why not?
I also despise the concept behind it, as I recall, the ‘teaching’ was that one was to pray in tongues often because it was the Holy Spirit praying on your behalf, I understand the problem, and i am not convinced i have heard real tongues from most any, but as Paul's discipline attests, abuses do not justify disallowing anything geniune.
And what Scripture says is
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. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. (1 Corinthians 14:27-28)
Likely the most disregarded text in Scripture.
It’s worse than the Papists with their Hail Marys, who at least say something intelligible, even though they’re still quite useless!
I would not doubt that charismatic Catholics pray in tongues to Mary(!), which hardly helps the Pentecostal case, but Scripture sanctions the gifts, but not praying to the departed.
I would rather censure the abuses and look for the genuine than use the abuses to disallow any continuance of the Pentecostal gifts today.
You can type faster than me!
“You can type faster than me!”
And I can do it with my eyes closed, and even hold a conversation with someone else as I do it! (I used to do a lot of data entry.)
“The most natural conveyance of this is the speaker speaks in a language known only to God.”
From Gill’s commentary on the verse:
“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue,....” Or with tongues, as some copies and the Ethiopic version read: Dr. Lightfoot thinks, that the Hebrew tongue, which was become a dead language, and understood but by few, is here meant, and that not without reason; seeing the public prayers, preaching, and singing of psalms among the Jews, were in this languages (x); in imitation of whom, such ministers, who had the gift of speaking this language, read the Scriptures, preached, prayed, and sung psalms in it, which were no ways to the edification of the people, who understood it not; upon which account the apostle recommends prophesying, praying, and singing, in a language that was understood: otherwise he
“speaketh not unto men;” to the understanding, profit, and edification of men: but unto God: to his praise and glory, and he only knowing, who knows all languages, and every word in the tongue what is said; excepting himself, unless there should be any present capable of interpreting:
“for no man understandeth him: or “heareth him”:” that is, hears him, so as to understand him; he may hear a sound, but he cannot tell the meaning of it, and so it is of no use and advantage to him:
“howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries;” though under the influence and by the extraordinary gift of the Spirit he has, and to his own Spirit and understanding, and with great affection and devotion within himself, he speaks of the deep things of God, and the mysteries of his grace, the most glorious truths of the Gospel, yet the meaning of his voice and words not being known, he is a barbarian to them that hear him; and though what he delivers are truths of the greatest importance, they are a mere jargon to others, being unintelligible.”
I think it is a bigger leap to assume that this is a totally unknown divine language rather than simply a human language that is unknown to the hearers, and is, therefore, mere “[speaking] into the air” (verse 9), or something that is seemingly a barbarous tongue. If Paul was referencing a literal divine language, I doubt he would leave it so ambiguous, but would declare straight out that they are hearing words that are spoken in the very temple of God in heaven.
It’s reading too much into the text due to the necessity of explaining why human languages are not spoken in a pentecostal service.
“Those are Paul’s words, making a distinction btwn “the tongues of men and of angels,” (1Cor. 13:1) That would be mysteries, so why not?”
More than likely it is simply hyperbole, making the point that the gift of tongues is infinitely inferior to love, even if he “spoke with the tongue of angels.” But then we would still be left with a problem, is the language of angels mere babble? Can we look at a transcript of all these “Angelic tongues” being spoken and see that they are similar, in any way, and resemble a language at all?