Tongue Tied in Corinth (1 Corinthians 14. 1-25)

This past Sunday (9/9/2018) I spoke on 1 Corinthians 14.1-25 and made a brief mention of the differences between tongues (glossa/glossolalia) and languages (dialektos) but gave little explanation because of time restraints, and then promised to address this in a blog article. So here is the explanation that I didn’t have time to expound upon on Sunday.

As I understand it, in Acts 2, On the day of Pentecost, we read that the disciples having been filled with the Holy Spirit began speaking in tongues (glossalia) and that the crowd gathered below was having a mixed reaction to the glossalia. Some were calling it drunken noise, but others were hearing them speak in their own (dialekto) language. It does not say that the disciples spoke in all the dialekto of the Jewish diaspora that was present. It says that some of the diaspora heard the message in their own dialekto. In the text it says they spoke in glossalia, tongues, that some described as drunken-babble.  

As I have studied this verse, my understanding of the text is that all the people heard glossalia, but some of them also heard their own dialekto of Persian, Parthinian, Latin, Aramaic and what have you.  The traditional view is that each disciple spoke a different known language: Parthinian, Persian, Mesopotamian, Libyan, Cyrene, Latin, Aramaic, etc. Yet the indication is that people heard one thing in the natural that many people responded to with mockery, while others heard something (dialekto) that they responded to with wonder.  

Likewise, I have studied a few languages other than English. As well, I have traveled a bit of the world, been to many countries, and spent time in some international cities, right here in the US, like Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc. I have heard many languages spoken that I did not understand, but I never did hear a foreign language that sounded to me like drunken-babble, unless of course the person actually was drunk. In contrast, the first time I first heard someone at a church speaking in tongues I did think maybe they were drunk. It sounded like drunken-babble to me. The indication here in the text by reason of the two different words: glossalia  and dialekto suggests that two different things are happening simultaneously which would be a sign to those who did not believe but were receptive, while those whose hearts were hard only heard the babble of tongues and called them drunk.

Consider again the passage of 1 Corinthians 14.13-19 about praying in glossalia in the assembly, the Apostle Paul said that nobody, not even the speaker understood what was said, but that the spirit of the speaker was edified, while yet their mind was unfruitful, and that the speaker should pray that they would interpret for the other believers. Then he said, if they should speak in a tongue, but an unbeliever would hear (I assume in their own dialekto) they might believe and be saved. Thus, the primary point of tongues (glossa) is about either edifying the person doing it (self edification) or to convert unbelievers. So Paul admonishes them to pursue things in the assembly that will primarily edify the whole body of believers, not just a few.

There are plenty of folks who do not agree with my assessment of the text and opt for  glossalia and dialekto being  essentially the same thing but this only seems to leave more questions than answers. You are free to disagree. This is not a salvation issue. It’s my interpretation,  not inspired, although I do believe it is accurate.