Today we're going to preach on speaking with tongues, still not mystical in 1 Corinthians 14, second part of the series. 1 Corinthians 14, 6 says, Now brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you? Except I shall speak to you either by revelation or by knowledge or by prophesying or by doctrine. Then down in verse 15 it says, what is it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupyeth the room of the unlearned say amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? Lord God, we do thank you for your word. We thank you that you've preserved it to us in these last days in its fullness of inspiration, God, that such a mercy you've shown on us, such a blessing you've given us to have your word. Help us to take heed to it. Help us to remember what it is in truth, God, that it's your own holy word, God, that it's not written by men. that, yeah, you chose to use men as instruments, but you didn't even have to if you didn't want to. You could have written this down with your own finger, and it would have been the same, God. We thank you for preserving it for us, and again, God, help us to take heed to it now and always in our life. We ask this in Jesus' name, amen. So we are continuing our study on speaking with tongues. We have seen so far that there's no historical example recorded in our Bible of men speaking in a language that was unknown to themselves. Nor is there any example of men speaking a supposed angelic language. Neither are there any examples of God giving men the ability or so-called gift of speaking in some kind of ecstatic utterance of syllables that do not constitute words and have no rational meaning. Last time, we learned that the word tongues means languages. And we learn that in the book of Acts, these were human languages that were understood by some that were present. Acts 2 and verse 4 says, And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. Others did not understand these languages that were spoken and did not take the time to investigate the plain miracle that was occurring right before their eyes. Acts 2.13 says, others mocking said, these men are full of new wine. Now the same exact sign occurred a couple of times later in the book of Acts. As Acts 10 says in verse 45, and they of the circumcision which believed were astonished as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Acts 19 is the last time we read about a historical scriptural example of tongue speaking. It says in 19.6 of Acts, and when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied. Notice that they prophesied. In Acts 2, they also prophesied. Starting in verse 7, it says, Parthenians and Medes and Elamites and the dwellers in Mesopotamia and in Judea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. This prophesying was speaking about the wondrous works of God in languages that they had previously not known. God, speaking through Peter, directly referring to their tongue speaking, called it prophesying. In Acts 2, Starting in verse 14, it says, But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. And your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs in the earth beneath, the blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before that great notable day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. When someone speaks under the inspiration or leading of God, they are prophesying. This is the general meaning of the word. It could be the foretelling of the future, that is its primary meaning, but it could be giving thanks and praising God. We see in 1 Chronicles 25, verse three, it says, of Jeduthun, the sons of Jeduthun, Gedaliah, and Zeriah, and Jeshiah, Hashebiah, and Mattithiah, six under the hands of their father, Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp to give thanks and to praise the Lord. Notice in the example we just read, prophesying was done with a harp. Song can be a way of prophesying. Prophesying can also just be commanding something to happen. In Ezekiel 37 verse 9, it says, Prophets also prophesy sometimes just by teaching truths. In Titus 1, starting in verse 9, it says, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This prophet who talked about the Cretans was said to be a prophet because he was a teacher, not a foreteller of things to come. We see the idea of the prophet as teacher also in Acts 13. Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Mannan, which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and Saul. I notice in Acts 15, 32, Judas, this is not the traitor, obviously, this is a different Judas, and Silas were said to be prophets because they were preaching or exhorting. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them. We also saw that women were among them that prophesied when they miraculously spoke with new human tongues that they did not previously have knowledge of. Women would not be doing this prophesying in church unless they did it in song, like the great Miriam and Deborah did. In Exodus 15, we read that, And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously. The horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. And then take a look at Judges 4.4. It says, And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, she judged Israel at that time. Then in Judges 5 it goes on to say, Then sang Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam on that day, saying, Praise ye the Lord for the avenging of Israel, when the people willingly offered themselves. O hear, O ye kings! Give ear, O ye princes! I, even I, will sing unto the Lord. I will sing praise to the Lord God of Israel. Goes on to say in verse seven, the inhabitants of the villages ceased. They ceased in Israel until that I, Deborah, arose, that I arose a mother in Israel. They chose new gods. Then was war in the gates. Was there a shield or spear seen among 40,000 in Israel? Then goes on to say this in verse 12. Awake, awake, Deborah, awake, awake, utter a song. Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam. It's apparent that Barak and Deborah were singing a duet of some sort, a beautiful song, a song that taught and exhorted and praised God, a song so wonderful that God preserved it for all time, and we're still studying it today, thousands of years later. Now degradation of the distinctions between men and women, in any fashion, contributes to and ends in the rampant sodomy and transgender madness that we see today. But how many of these churches out there, by letting women preach and teach, are cursing themselves? Not just by breaking down the barriers that are ultimately designed to prevent this transgender lunacy, but also by missing out. When women are free to teach and usurp authority, they're not going to prosper. They can't do a man's job as well as a man can, just like a man can't do a woman's job as good as a woman can. And it's a shame to the men if they aren't leading like they ought and women are picking up the slack. But when women teach and preach and speak in church, this unlawful outlet for their talents can distract them from a role that they are designed to fulfill. Miriam and Deborah blessed their assemblies in amazing ways, by prophesying in song. When Paul forbids women from teaching or speaking in church, this should not be interpreted to prohibit them from prophesying in song. Some of you women and children used to sing special music in church. It was a blessing to me, and I'm sure it was to others as well. If you get blessed by even a small part of any of these messages that men up here preach to you, why don't you return the favor and bless us with singing? But more importantly, bless God. He wants you to bless him in song in the congregation. Miriam did. Deborah did. You can too. Don't let bad experiences with past leaders cause you to hide your light under a bushel. I went on that little excursion so that we can understand what the word prophecy means. In general, it can be simply speaking or singing what God tells you for the purpose of teaching or exhortation or praise. It is not exclusively about foretelling the future. We'll see the importance of this as we study 1 Corinthians 14 regarding the speaking of tongues. So again, in the book of Acts, we had people that were given the miraculously ability to speak in new tongues. These were not angel tongues. If the angels even have their own language, there will only be one angelic language. God did not divide the language of angels like he did at the Tower of Babel for man. And these new tongues were not babbling or incoherent or some so-called spiritual language. They're actual human languages. God listed out about 15 of them that we read earlier in Acts 2. So we have no excuse if we miss this. The tongues of the Bible are human languages. And this is why the gift is called diverse kinds of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12. To another, the working of miracles. To another, prophecy. To another, discerning of spirits. To another, diverse kinds of tongues. To another, the interpretation of tongues. Because it is not an esoteric ecstatic language. It is a diversity of different human languages, just like we saw in Acts chapter 2. So now let us continue walking through 1 Corinthians 14 and explain some misconceptions and false teachings regarding that chapter. I already spoke last time on 1 Corinthians 14, one through five. I won't repeat all that teaching from last time, but I will briefly summarize parts of it and introduce a few new comments as well. 1 Corinthians 14, one says, follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy." Notice that Almighty God, the Holy Spirit, through Paul, in his holy word, told us to follow charity and desire spiritual gifts. What was he talking about? Well, the previous chapter was all about charity and how important it was to follow after her. As an aside, if you think that Word is supposed to be love, you know nothing at all yet about the power and authority of God's Word and His miracle of the resurrection and preservation of His Holy Word in these last days. Charity is the beautiful, feminine side of love. She deserves her own name. She is not only Mrs. Love, any more than Eve is only Mrs. Adam, or Sol is only Mrs. Spirit. It is an honor that charity is sometimes referred to by the name of her husband, Love, but when God wants to emphasize her distinctive feminine aspects by calling her by her name, Charity, we better not think we can help God out by insisting on calling her by her husband's name. One might even say that those who insist on calling charity love are a little misogynistic. But back to the point. God told us how we need to have charity in all that we do in chapter 13 of 1 Corinthians. And in chapter 12, and 13 for that matter, he discussed spiritual gifts. The spiritual gifts he discussed, among others, were diverse kinds of tongues and prophecy. So why did God tell us to desire spiritual gifts, of which one is prophecy, but then told us, rather that you may prophesy? Wasn't that one of the gifts mentioned that we should desire? Again, it says in 1 Corinthians 1, in 1 Corinthians 14, 1, follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may prophesy. What we are going to see is that God, when he says to prophesy here, he means in the sense of teaching or speaking God's word generally. And we are going to see that he gave the gifts for a reason. The reason for these gifts is edification. If we are using a gift, like speaking in a human tongue that no one knows, we are not edifying them. And as we'll soon see, he goes even further. He tells that even merely speaking in a supernatural tongue, even if it is given a bare translation, is also not necessarily edifying. There needs to be an edifying praise or exhortation or doctrinal teaching associated with it. Just flexing your gift of speaking another language by itself is not edifying if no one understands it, and if you are not saying anything useful with it. This will become clear as we read. So it says, follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may prophesy. 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. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation and comfort. As we saw before, an unknown tongue means that the language, whatever human language is being spoken, is unknown to the hearer, not unknown to the speaker. This will become increasingly plain as we go through this passage. It says no man understands him because no one in the assembly understands the particular language he has been gifted with being able to speak. It says he speaks mysteries in the spirit unto God because God understands the language. God understands all human language. The phrase in the spirit is not some mystical phrase that means something esoteric. This way of thinking leads to Gnostic heresies that are extremely prevalent doctrines of devils that sadly saturate even the fundamental churches of our age. When he's speaking of the spirit, he's talking about using his mind. As we saw last time, Job 20, one through three says, Then answered Zophar the Naamathite and said, Therefore do my thoughts cause me to answer, and for this I make haste. I have heard the check of my reproach, and the spirit of my understanding causeth me to answer. In that passage, thoughts equals spirit of my understanding. So the man praying in an unknown tongue is communicating with God in a thoughtful manner, using human words that are unknown to the others nearby but that are perfectly understandable to him and God. The mysteries that are spoken are mysteries that God has revealed to him, not things that he doesn't know what he is saying. We saw this before throughout the Bible, but it especially harkens back to 1 Corinthians 13, the chapter right before this one. In 1 Corinthians 13, 2, it says, though I have the gift of prophecy and understand all mysteries. So the mysteries he speaks to God are not things he does not know. They are revealed truths that he is speaking to God about in a human language that the people around him do not understand. So let's continue. In verse 2 it says, For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. For no man understandeth him, albeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself, but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. So he's now contrasting speaking in an unknown tongue with prophesying. Why? Because prophesying, that is preaching, builds people up, because they can understand it. Speaking in an unknown tongue, a foreign language that only you and God know, that only edifies the speaker because he's the only one who understands it. You don't get edified or exhorted or comforted by someone talking in a foreign language. If I was up here speaking in Swahili or Russian or German or Mandarin, even if God gave me the power to do so miraculously right now, it would serve no purpose to any of you. That leads us to the next verse. In verse five it says, Speaking with tongues is just as good as prophesying, which as we just saw was preaching, exhorting, et cetera, but only if it's interpreted. Because if the church doesn't understand what is being said, they don't get edified. That is why nonsense words are not the tongues of the Bible. They don't edify anyone, neither the speaker nor the hearer. But what does interpret mean? At first glance, that's a simple question to answer. Consider this miracle of our Lord in Mark 5 in verse 39. Our Lord Jesus, talking about him, it says, And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him the scorn. But when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother of the damsel, and them that were with him, and entereth in where the damsel was lying. And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha Kumi, which is being interpreted, damsel, I say unto thee, arise. And straightway the damsel arose and walked, for she was of the age of 12 years, and they were astonished with a great astonishment. Let's just stop and consider that for a moment. Jesus just walked up to a dead girl and told her to arise, and she got up. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, He is the resurrection and the life. The girl's parents knew the unfathomable heartbreak that can only be known by someone who has lost a child. A 12-year-old, they had known and loved this girl for 12 whole years. They had known only to watch her get cut down, her life snuffed out at such a young age. And she had to face death herself, not as a grown woman, which would be hard enough, but it's just a little girl. Jesus just walks up and tells her to arise, and she does. No matter what trials we have in this life, Jesus is our help and our salvation, and he's surely an adequate help and salvation, more than adequate for any problem that we have. But look at the words now that actually came out of our Lord's mouth. They were not, damsel, I say unto thee, arise. They were, telleth Hakumei. And he took the damsel by the hand and said unto her, Talitha cumi, which is being interpreted, damsel, I say unto thee, arise. Mark wrote this gospel in Greek or whatever. He recorded the exact Aramaic phrase and he interpreted it. That is, he translated it so the reader would know what Jesus meant when he said, Talitha cumi. So when 1 Corinthians 14 says, At the bare minimum, you would need to translate what the words mean that are being spoken when you are speaking in a tongue that is unknown to the listeners in your church. But it does go farther than this. Let's continue reading. In 1 Corinthians 14, 6 it says, Now brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you, either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? We see here that Paul is going farther than a mere translation of the tongue that you are speaking. He says it will not profit unless he speaks by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine. What does this mean? It means speaking in tongues will not profit someone even if translated for them if there is no purpose in it. What if I just said, hey, look, everyone, I have the gift of tongues. I can speak German. Das ist die Katze. Nein, das ist nicht die Katze. Das ist der Hund. You know what that means? Let me give you the interpretation. Das ist die Katze. That's the cat. Nein, das ist nicht die Katze. No, that's not the cat. Das ist der Hund. That's the dog. Did that bless you? I don't think it did. I don't think that blessed anybody. If God supernaturally gave me the power to speak German, like in Acts 2, or if God gave me the gift of tongues using regular means, like giving me a natural ability to quickly learn languages to spread the gospel, whatever the case would be, demonstrating the gift like that would still not profit you at all. There has to be a spiritual purpose to what is being said So let's continue. In verse 7 it says, And even things without life-giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air. Notice how God just told us that when we speak in tongues, there should be distinction in the sounds. Weird, nonsense sounds the false Pentecostals call tongues do not have a distinction, are not easy to be understood. In fact, you can't understand them at all. And furthermore, they're not even words. But consider that it says we need to speak in a way that is easy to be understood. We'll come back to this point in a bit. In 1 Corinthians 14 10, it says, There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. God tells us that all kinds of voices have signification, that is, meaning. The incoherent nonsense that some people call tongues does not have any meaning. Sure, they will sometimes claim to interpret what is said, but that is not any actual translation of some so-called heavenly language. If it were, we could watch videos of different people interpreting the angelic language and figure out what the various sounds of speaking in this ecstatic tongue mean. But we can't do that, because they're not words. And anyone that claims to be interpreting what is being said is a liar. And the Bible says, all liars shall have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone. If this describes anyone hearing this, you need to wake up to righteousness and stop lying to yourself and others. God is telling us here that if we are zealous about our spiritual gifts, specifically the gift of speaking in other human languages, we need to seek to be able to use the gift in a very excellent way to truly edify the Church. If our brothers and sisters do not understand us, we are not edifying them. 1 Corinthians 14 then goes on and says, This means, considering all that Paul has just said, if you're going to speak in a foreign language, you need to pray that you could interpret it. This means that if you pray in a foreign language that only you know, you are praying with your spirit, that is, your inner mind, your inner man, your mind, and this wouldn't preclude your emotions as well. But the understanding that you have when you pray in a language that only you know is unfruitful. Unfruitful does not mean you don't know what you are saying. It means that even though you know what you're saying, what you're saying is not fruitful to those around you because they have no idea what you are talking about. It goes on to say in verse 15, what is it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the understanding also. This means that when you pray with the spirit, you need to pray with a fruitful understanding also. The same goes with singing. You sing with your spirit, your inner man that has understanding of the words you sing, but you need to sing in such a way that your understanding is received and shared with the people around you. This can only be done if they know what you are saying, which is why there needs to be interpretation of your words. If you don't, as it said earlier, you will be like a barbarian to everyone. This doesn't mean that you're walking around in bear skins with a big club or something. A barbarian just means a foreigner that you cannot communicate with because you don't understand their language and they don't speak a universal language like Greek was at that time. So continuing in verse 16, it says, Else, when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. So think about what we just read, especially if you are doubting the interpretation that the Spirit means the understanding of your mind here, as opposed to some esoteric spiritual meaning, where one is supposedly speaking to God in a ecstatic language. It says, when thou shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall the unlearned say amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? Why does he not understand what you're saying? Is it because he's not spiritually mature? Does he not have the special gift of interpreting mystical tongues? Is it because the Spirit has not been poured out on him yet? No, it says he doesn't understand because he's unlearned. That simply means he has never learned that language. The language is learnable if you study. It's a human language. It is just not known by the hearer. It is an unknown language to him because he is unlearned. There's no other way to interpret 1 Corinthians 14. The so-called Pentecostal understanding of speaking in tongues is false. It is a doctrine of devils. Also notice he was giving thanks in an unknown tongue. We have seen so many different examples mentioned, giving thanks, singing, doctrine, exhorting, et cetera. This shows again that prophesying that keeps being mentioned here is in context not just strictly the gift of being able to foretell the future. And speaking in tongues is just speaking in foreign languages. And for it to be edifying to the church, it has to have a real spiritual purpose. In verse 18, he says, I thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all. Yet in the church I'd rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue. Paul speaks tongues more than them all. This does not mean, as should be plain by now, that he makes bizarre gibberish noises that in some mystical way constitutes a language without words. It rather means Paul is very learned in languages. Consider Paul speaking in Acts 22. The fact that he spake Hebrew was very impressive. It is evident that though the Israelites still knew it, they didn't speak it very often, or hear it spoken. Paul was at or near the temple when this happened, and was speaking of religious matters, yet they were still stunned into silence by his using of the Hebrew tongue. He was taught by a leading Pharisee of the day, Gamaliel. In Acts 22.3 it says, Paul was obviously very well educated. It's apparent that he was multilingual. When he said he speaks with tongues more than you all, he was hearkening to his learning and knowledge of languages. Nevertheless, he makes the point that is consistent with this entire chapter, which is that speaking even 10,000 words in a language that the Church did not understand would be a useless waste of time. So 1 Corinthians 14 20 then goes on to say, Why does he say this? If you keep reading, you will see Paul is not starting a new topic. He is still totally talking about speaking with tongues. So why does he say this? In understanding, we need to be men, not children. So who speaks words that are indistinct or unclear? Little children, toddlers. The immediate previous chapter said this in 1 Corinthians 13, 11, It is cute when a child is struggling to speak his very first words. The sounds at first are indistinct and hard to be understood, but as a child grows up, he needs to learn to speak clearly. Tongue speaking in the so-called charismatic way, with its indistinct, nonsensical sounds, is childish at best. We need to put away childish, unclear attempts at speech. The verse also says we need to, in malice, be as children. What does this have to do with the topic? Well, it's similar to Romans 16, 19. We need to be children, that is, not be experienced or practiced in malice or concerning evil. Tongue speakers, falsely so-called, are following doctrines of devils. We'll prove this in a later sermon, Lord willing. But this verse fits well with the topic, in malice be ye children. So the last topic we'll discuss today will begin with answering a question that can arise from what we already read. In verse 13 it said, wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. If the unknown tongue is unknown to the hearer, but is known to the speaker, as we have shown over and over again, why would he need the prey that he may interpret? If he knows what he's saying, and he does, why can't he just translate what he is saying into the common tongue of the church? Why would he need the prey to be able to interpret? Or, as we read later in the chapter, why would he need an interpreter? Here's these later verses, starting in verse 26. The first reason why an interpreter might be needed or that he might need to pray to interpret, is that the man who speaks in a foreign tongue might not be able to speak the common tongue of the assembly at all. He might simply be a foreigner with no supernatural gift of tongues. This passage in 1 Corinthians 14 needs to address all situations about speaking in foreign languages, not just the situations where there are supernatural gifts that come into play. Secondly, it's possible that a man could be given the supernatural gift of tongues exactly like what happened in Acts 2. Suppose a man could suddenly speak Cretan, and he went around speaking to people in Acts 2 in that language, and they heard him, and there was a miracle that day. But maybe Aramaic is his native tongue. He knows exactly what he is saying in Cretan and could readily translate it to Aramaic. But maybe the common language of this assembly is Greek. In this case, the man absolutely understands this Cretan language that God supernaturally gave him the ability to speak. He knows exactly what he is saying, but he can't translate it to the common tongue of Greek because maybe he just knows a smattering of Greek. Enough to get by and listen at the assembly, but not enough to speak it fluently. In this hypothetical case, the man can speak in an unknown tongue. It is a tongue that is unknown to the church, but was given to him miraculously on the day of Pentecost. He knows what he's saying, but does not know the common tongue of the assembly well enough to translate it accurately. So he needs to either pray to be able to translate it, God could give him more gifts to be able to speak the common tongue of the assembly better, or it needs to be translated by someone else, or he needs to just keep quiet. Then there's a final possibility. This one also fits with the immediate context, so let's read this passage one more time starting in verse 6. Now brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life-giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? For ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore, if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. The final reason why someone might need to pray that he might be able to interpret is not because he's unable to complete a minimal translation of whatever he is speaking in a foreign language. It is that he needs to learn to interpret what he is saying in a way that is profitable for his hearers. This would be something he needs to do whether he was speaking in a foreign language or not. Even if he's just reading a scripture, for example, he needs to give the sense of it to more thoroughly edify his listeners. This sense of interpretation is more than just the translation we saw with Talitha Kumai, Damsel Arise, that example we looked at earlier. Consider an Old Testament example of speaking in tongues. Daniel and the handwriting on the wall. Do you remember this scary story? In Daniel 5, 1-6 it says, Belshazzar, the Greek, made a great feast to a thousand of his lords and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, whilst he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem, that the king and his princes, his wives and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God, which was at Jerusalem. And the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. In the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king's palace. And the king saw part of the hand that wrote. Then the king's countenance was changed and his thoughts troubled him so that the joints of his loins were loose and his knees smote one against another. So this powerful king, is celebrating his pathetic, inanimate idols as if they were gods. He blasphemes the true God by taking out the vessels from the temple that were taken years prior when the temple was destroyed. And he saw a disembodied hand writing on the wall, and he was terrified, so much so that his knees were knocking together. So they call Daniel. And this is what the king says to Daniel. And I have heard of thee that thou canst make interpretations and dissolve doubts. Now if thou canst read the writing and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and thou shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom. So he wants two things from Daniel, to read the writing and also to interpret it. And Daniel then explains what is written in 5, 24 to 28. Then was the part of the hand sent from him, and his writing was written. And this is the writing that was written. Mene, mene, tekel, ufarsin. This is the interpretation of the thing. Mene, God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Tekel, thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting. Peres, thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. There are several things to notice in relation to our topic about tongues. First, Daniel was able to read the writing. The unbelievers could not read it, but Daniel could. It was evidently in a language that Daniel could understand, Hebrew. It consisted of actual words. If he just did a bare translation, an interpretation along the lines of talitha kumi, meaning damsel arise, he could have just said, mini equals number, tekel equals weighed, ufarsin equals divided. There you go, King, that's my interpretation. But that would not be an interpretation of edification, or in this case, warning. King Belshazzar would still have no idea what it really meant. So Daniel did more in his interpretation. He gave Belshazzar the sense of what was really going to happen. It was his kingdom that was going to be finished. It was his person that was weighed and found wanting. And his kingdom would be divided, but not only divided, but given to the Medes and Persians. This is the kind of interpretation we need to give. It needs to serve a spiritual purpose. We can't just come up here and show that we can speak in some foreign tongue and then just translate it. And this is not just for speaking in tongues. Those of us that address the church assembly, which can be any of us, remember, when we include singing, must serve a purpose with our prophesying. If we sing, it can't be to glorify ourselves. It must be done to glorify God and edify others. But what else does this true story teach us about tongues? The rebellious unbelievers could not read the writing or understand what it said. Daniel could read Hebrew, but God still needed to give him the interpretation. Again, notice there were people that could not understand this language, and these people were rebellious unbelievers, just like in Acts 2. And just like in Acts 2, there was a person of an honest heart, Daniel, who could understand this tongue that was unknown to Belshazzar and his court. If there was any time God was going to write something in a terrible angelic tongue, you would think maybe it would be when he was writing a warning on a wall with a disembodied hand. But no, he wrote it in a human language. And maybe most amazing of all, we can prove that this is so from our Bible alone. The words written by that hand were evidently in Hebrew. Notice that they were not mystical words, but words that had meaning. To prove this, we're going to focus on the last word that was written. This might be a little easier to follow along with these notes. It says, here it is again. There's this writing that was written, many, many, tekel, upharsin. This is the interpretation of the thing. Many, God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Tekel, thou art weighed in the balances and are found wanting. Perez, thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians. So in verse 25, it says upharsin was the last word. But when Daniel interprets it, he substitutes the word Perez. Why did he do this? And how is this relevant to showing this was a human language? Perez and Eupharsin are apparently synonyms or different forms of the same word, as he just used them kind of interchangeably here. And the word means divided. We know that, but not just from this passage. Behold the King James Bible. Watch it interpret itself without a need to go to any so-called original language. So what does peres mean, P-E-R-E-S? Again, we know both it and upharsin mean divided according to Daniel 5. But can we see the meaning divided elsewhere in scripture and thus prove that this was a human language like all the rest of the tongues are in Acts 2? In Genesis 38 and verse 28 it says, And it came to pass when she travailed, that the one put out his hand, and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out, and she said, How hast thou broken forth? This breach be upon thee. Therefore his name was called Phares. And afterward came out his brother that had the scarlet thread upon his hand, and his name was called Zara. So we have this son here that was named Phares, P-H-A-R-E-Z. That means breach or broken according to our Bible right here. These are both synonyms for divided, especially in the context of an empire being split up. Notice how similar Phares is to Perez. But now look at 2 Samuel 6 verse 8, And David was displeased because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah, and he called the name of the place Perez-Uzzah to this day. If you remember this story, this was when Uzzah was trying to stabilize the ark, and it was moving, it hit a bump, was gonna fall over, he grabbed it, God struck him dead, he was not supposed to touch that. David was displeased, he didn't like this, and so he named that place, and he called it Perez-Uzzah, because the Lord made a breach upon Uzzah. So here we have Perez, P-E-R-E-Z, meaning breach. So that word's even closer to Perez with an S. Perez instead of Perez. So now instead of ending in Z, can we get Perez with the ending in S? Well, if you look at Matthew 1, verse 3, it says, and Judas begat Perez with an S, and Zerah of Tamar, and Perez begat Ezram, and Ezram begat Aram. That's talking about the same person here. Notice that in Matthew, talking about the same exact person, Perez, P-H-A-R-E-S, ends in S, just like in Daniel. But they both still have an H. Will we see this H disappear from his name anywhere? Well, in Nehemiah 11, it mentions this guy again. And at Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah and of the children of Benjamin, of the children of Judah, Athaniah the son of Uzziah, the son of Zechariah, the son of Amoriah, the son of Shephtahiah, the son of Mahaliel, of the children of Perez. And Maasaiah, the son of Baruch, the son of Kohosei, the son of Hezeziah, the son of Adahiah, the son of Joirerib, the son of Zechariah, the son of Shaloni, all the sons of Perez that dwell at Jerusalem were 400, three score and eight valiant men. There you go, the H disappeared. So we have seen the same guy whose name according to the Holy Bible means broken or breach, have his name spelled Three different ways, phares, P-H-A-R-E-S, phares, P-H-A-R-E-Z, and peres, P-E-R-E-Z. Is there any doubt with the way the Holy Bible varies spellings that peres, P-E-R-E-S, that is said to mean Daniel, divided in Daniel 5, comes from the same Hebrew words? We're able to prove that without any book other than our Holy Bible. But there's more. People who object to the Holy Bible in English being perfectly preserved and all sufficient for our faith complain about the word upharzen suddenly turning into peres. Why did Daniel interpret it that way? Again, like we said earlier, it must be a synonym or form of the same word. And we can prove this by using more scripture that will show upharzen is related to peres. We have already seen that the PH or just a P can sometimes be interchanged. Besides in Phares Perez itself, we can see an H being optional in Tamar. Ruth 4.12 says, If we compare that genealogy with Matthew 1, 2, and 3, it says, Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren, and Judas begat Phares, there's that S, and Zerah of Tamar. Now it's got an H in it. And Phares begat Ezram, and Ezram begat Aram. Here she is called Thamar. So if we remove the H, we now have Uparzan compared with Perez. We have an extra schwa sound, that uh, at the beginning of Parson. Does the Bible sometimes have the same name or word with an extra schwa at the front? Amazingly, it's right here, in the same exact verses that prove Peres means divided. Look at that name Aram. Matthew 1, 2-3, Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren, and Judas begat Pharaoh and Zerubbabel of Tamar, and Pharaoh begat Ezra, and Ezra begat Aram. Compare that to Ruth, where he's called Ram, without that initial a. In Ruth 4, in verse 18, now these are the generations of Pharaohs. Pharaohs begat Hezron, and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Enimadab. So you have Ram and Aram, same person, missing that a in the front. So if we got rid of that initial a sound in ufarsin, along with the P. Now we just have this left for a comparison, or along with the H. Parsin with Perez. It's getting closer. You can see that that parsin is missing an extra schwa sound in the middle of the word. So again, right in the same context, Do we have an extra schwa sound in the middle of a word? Look, in the same verses. Now these are the generations of Pharaohs. Pharaohs begat Hezron and Ruth, and Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Nashon, and Nashon begat Salmon. That name Nashon, look how it's rendered in Matthew 1.4. And Aram begat Amminadab, and Amminadab begat Neahasan, and Neahasan begat Salmon. So by doing this linguistic study of two Bible words that we already have good reason to presume are related, upharsin and peres, using only our Bible, we have come to a point where we have P-A-R-E-S-I-N, which is the upharsin, and we have peres, P-E-R-E-S. The only significant difference we have left between these two words is the in at the end. The A and the E get freely switched in pharaohs and pharaohs. So we know that I am at the end of a word can mean plural. For instance, in Exodus 25, 19, you see cherub becoming cherubim. And make one cherub at the one end and the other cherub on the other end, even of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubims of the two ends thereof. But this is upharsin, which ends in an IN instead of an IM. Do we ever see that swap made in the Bible between an N and an M at the end? Amazingly, in the exact same context, we see that happen too. In Matthew 1, 2-3, Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren, and Judas begat Pharaohs, and Zerah of Tamar, and Pharaohs begat Ezram. and Ezram begat Aram. But if you go back to Luke 4, talking about the same person, now these are the generations of Pharaohs, Pharaohs begat Hezron with an N instead of an M swapped out. Ezram with an M becomes Hezron with an N. So after all this, would it be reasonable to conclude that maybe Eupharsin is a plural form of Pharaohs? that it is a plural form of breach or divided? Let's look at 2 Samuel 5, 20. And David came to Baal-parazim. And David smote them there and said, the Lord hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me as the breach of waters. Therefore he called the name of that place Baal-parazim. So there was a breach upon Baal, Breach, or divided, equals Baal perizim. Perizim was a breach upon David's enemies. Plural, perizim. Back in Genesis, it was singular, peraz, instead of perizim. And if you notice, in Genesis 38, 29 to 30, it says, starting in verse 29, how hast thou broken forth this breach be upon thee? Therefore his name was called Perez, so it was singular. So it was Perez instead of perizim. In 2 Samuel 2, 6, when it was a singular breach upon this one man, Uzzah, it was also called Perez. And David was displeased because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah and he called the name of the place Perez, Uzzah, to this day. So when we put this all together, what do we have? Farzin can reasonably said to be a plural form of Perez. Does this fit with the original text? Daniel 5 again says, this is the writing that was written? Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin? This is the interpretation of the thing. Mene, God hath numbered thy kingdom and finished it. Tekel, thou art weighed in the balances and are found wanting. Perez, thy kingdom is divided and is given to the Medes and Persians. Upharsin and Perez both mean divided, breached, or broken, according to our Bible. Perez is just arguably the singular form of upharsin. Daniel could have switched from the plural to the singular form of the word to emphasize that the dividing was caused by the plural Medes and Persians, but also by our singular God. Or the one kingdom was singularly breached, but was divided between the plural entities of Media and Persia. So why was this lengthy, maybe difficult to follow exercise important? Because it shows our Bible is right. It shows that anything that is true about it does not need scholars with extra biblical materials or original languages to help show us the way. It shows that the Bible is written by God and retains its miraculous inspiration and preservation even in our English language. Ut Farzin becoming Perez in this text, it's not a mistake and it's not unexplainable without so-called experts or commentators. And incidentally, some commentators did come up with this, though it wasn't likely from the Bible alone. Barnes says, Perez in Daniel 5.25, this is Ut Farzin, they are but different forms of the same word, the word in Daniel 5.25 being in the plural and here in the singular. Remember, anything, anything a commentary points out about our Bible, if it's true, You'll be able to find it using the Bible and a knowledge of English. You don't have to study the unknown languages in order to understand our Bible. So to wrap up this message, we see once again that believers with a good heart understand God's words. Languages, like the words written by that solitary hand, that are not understood by rebels, are signs of their impending doom. This example of an unknown tongue in the Old Testament is not the only example in the Old Testament. We left off at this verse in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 21, Next time, God willing, we will see some more that when God gives you a language that you can't understand, it's not a good thing. The tongues that the so-called Pentecostals speak today, those are not good signs. They are manifestations of devil possession or oppression or utter foolishness. They are a sign of judgment upon the people that partake in them. May God use this message to awake people to this danger and to deliver them from devils or help them never to get caught up in such things in the first place. Lord God, we do thank you for your word. We thank you again, God, for what you teach us. God, help us to hear. Help us to hear, but not just hear, but to leave this assembly when we leave, being doers of thy word, God. Help us to see how important doctrine is, how that it actually affects people in their lives, God, that it matters what your Bible says, that it's not just some study that is unimportant, God, but it actually affects people, Lord. Help us to remember that. God, help us to remember that you are the resurrection and the life, God, that you're the one we need to turn to for all answers, for all problems, God. Help us to remember this. And we ask all these things in humility in the name of your son, Jesus Christ. Amen.