In 1 Cor. 14:18, is the Apostle Paul referring to his learned, earthly languages when he says, "I speak in tongues more than you all"?

When Paul here states that he spoke in "tongues/languages" (γλῶσσαι/glṓssai) more than all of them (πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον/pantōn hymōn mallon), it can be taken as referencing the reality that, out of necessity, he spoke several languages (Hebrew, Greek and likely several dialects of same, Aramaic, inevitably some Syriac from his year-long ministry with Barnabas in Antioch and right after his conversion in Damascus, and possibly some Latin from his unavoidable interactions with Roman authorities over his lifetime).

Nigel, your comment about "conclusive statements" is interesting. I referred to 1 Cor. 14:18 and Paul's universally acknowledged numerous non-supernatural, learned earthly languages. After 5 years of deep digging on a PhD thesis (North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa), I am as sure as one can be without CDs or DVDs from the first-century Corinthian Assembly. I think one should show a little more humility than using the expression "conclusive statements." Do you have something "conclusive" to offer? You may want to check out my book, with many, many more Scripture references ("The Earliest View of New Testament Tongues: Understood as Non-Supernatural, Learned Earthly Languages) https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott

There is also the need to apply a succinct hermeneutic adage to 1 Corinthians 14:18. It's attributed to Dr. David L. Cooper (1886–1965), the founder of The Biblical Research Society. Cooper (1947–1949:4), who is known for his “Golden Rule of Interpretation” which is: “When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise.” This axiom is shortened to: “When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense, lest it result in nonsense.” When carefully considered, this “literal interpretation” dictum does not contradict acknowledging literary genre and “letting Scripture interpret Scripture.” “The interpreter should . . . conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words” (Berkhof, 1960:75). “We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent” (Alford, 1865:298).

From a comprehensive linguistic analysis, in which γλῶσσα/γλῶσσαι - language(s)/tongue(s) - is examined in its various contexts, it appears that there is no defensible definition of ecstatic or non-ecstatic angelic/heavenly language for public or private use out of the Greek terms γλῶσσα/glṓssa (singular) or γλῶσσαι/glṓssai (plural).

The singular γλῶσσα (glṓssa) is used in the Gospels and Acts (Mark 7:33 and 7:35; Luke 1:64 and 16:24; Acts 2:26) where the reference is to the bodily organ of speech.

The plural γλῶσσαι (glṓssai) is used in Acts 2:3; Acts 2:4; Acts 2:11; Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6. In Acts 2:3, the term is used figuratively to refer to the shape of what seemed to be flames of fire resting on the gathered disciples on the day of Pentecost. The context surrounding Acts 2:4 and 11, seems to be clear that the reference is to known languages of this world, as in the intervening verses 6 and 8, the assembled crowd, who understand what was being said, refer to it as their very own native “dialects.” Because there is no new definition from author Luke in Acts 10:46 and Acts 19:6, it is hermeneutically responsible to conclude that the same previous definition still applies.

In New Testament writings outside of Acts and 1 Corinthians, the meaning of γλῶσσα/γλῶσσαι (glṓssa/glṓssai) is not disputed and is understood to mean either languages of this world or the bodily organ of speech.

Elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, the terms γλῶσσα/γλῶσσαι (glṓssa/glṓssai) are used thrice more, in Romans 14:11 (singular form) and Romans 3:13 (plural form) and in Philippians 2:11 (singular form), all indisputably referring to the tongue as the organ of speech.

There is only one use of γλῶσσα (glṓssa) in the New Testament writings of Peter (1 Pet 3:10) referring to the organ of speech, five uses of the singular γλῶσσα (glṓssa) by James (Jas 1:26; 3:5–8) clearly denoting the organ of speech and no use at all by Jude.

John uses the term γλῶσσα or γλῶσσαι (glṓssa/glṓssai) seven times in the book of Revelation (5:9, 7:9, 10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, and 17:15) where the references are indisputably to languages of this world, and once in Revelation 16:10 and 1 John 3:18 where the reference is to the bodily organ of speech.

The controversial matter of γλῶσσα/γλῶσσαι (glṓssa/glṓssai) in the Christ assembly at Corinth seems not to have been an issue in any of the other New Testament congregations and the subject receives no mention. The ministry function lists recorded in Romans (12:3-8), Ephesians (4:11–13) and 1 Peter (4:10–11) do not mention γλώσσαις/glṓssais (languages/tongues), which would lead one to believe that there was something unique about the particular ministry needs in the cosmopolitan, multilingual context of Corinth.

With English speakers, the term “languages” eventually overtook the term “tongues” in normal, street-level parlance, but the mystically suggestive “tongues” remained in the King James Version, and so to a great extent unfortunately shaped biblical exegesis in the last century (Buchanan, 2012:5). The illegitimate and polemic insertion of the adjective “unknown" (the peasantry not knowing the Roman Catholic Latin mass), in the KJV, confirmed it in the minds of those illiterate in Greek and so “interpretation” arose alongside it (Buchanan, 2012:5). It’s worth reiterating that in the New Testament alone, apart from those places where the Greek word, γλῶσσα (glṓssa) obviously means the literal tongue, the organ of speech, and leaving aside the debated 1 Corinthians occurrences, all the figurative references clearly mean earthly, learned “language(s)” (cf. esp. the seven references in Revelation 5:9, 7:9, 10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 14:6, and 17:15)).

It is important to remember that the Greek terms, of Luke in Acts and of Paul in 1 Corinthians, are identical on this matter. When one adds the weight of Luke and Paul’s close personal and ministry companionship over a number of years, it is inescapable that if they used the same Greek term, they would have used it in the same sense (Johnson, 1963:310). It is most logical that Luke who wrote Acts, after Paul’s Corinthians Epistles, would not have deviated from the terminology of the Apostle Paul (Johnson, 1963:310). Luke was undoubtedly informed by Paul about the event of John’s twelve disciples at Ephesus, which Luke dutifully recorded in Acts 19:1–7, and Luke likely knew of the Corinthian tensions directly from Paul (Johnson, 1963:311).

Luke accompanied Paul on his final journey from Caesarea to Rome when Paul was a prisoner while Luke was his attending physician. Paul and Luke were shipwrecked off the coast of Malta in approximately 60 AD. It was probably during Luke’s stay with Paul under house arrest in Rome that Luke wrote the book of Acts. Acts had to have been written before Paul’s possible second imprisonment and martyrdom and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD because these momentous events are not mentioned in the book of Acts (Marshall, 1980:48; LaSor, 1972:22; Ger, 2004:6; MacArthur, 1994:3–5). Luke and Paul had intensive time together (Acts 16:10–40; Acts 20:5–21:18; Acts 27:1–28:14; Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11), so it is to be expected that they would be consistent in their definition of γλῶσσαι (glṓssai). Consequently, the full description of the language speaking at Pentecost “must be allowed to explain the more limited descriptions that occur elsewhere” (Johnson, 1963:311). The onus would be on skeptics to negate the above Scripture passages indicating that Luke and Paul spent significant time together and to conclusively prove that the use of “we” in the Acts passages (Acts 16:10–40; Acts 20:5–21:18; Acts 27:1–28:14) was no more than a literary convention and doesn’t mean what it actually says. The skeptic would then also have the burden of responsibility to persuasively articulate why two close travelling companions would use distinctly different meanings for the same Greek word when having a document scribed.

(All above bibliographic text references can be found via the link https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott "The Earliest View of New Testament Tongues: Understood as Non-Supernatural, Learned Earthly Languages)

When Paul here states that he spoke in "tongues/languages" (γλῶσσαι/glṓssai) more than all of them (πάντων ὑμῶν μᾶλλον/pantōn hymōn mallon), it can be taken as referencing the reality that, out of necessity, he spoke several languages (Hebrew, Greek and likely several dialects of same, Aramaic, inevitably some Syriac from his year-long ministry with Barnabas in Antioch and right after his conversion in Damascus, and possibly some Latin from his unavoidable interactions with Roman authorities over his lifetime).

It can be naturally assumed that Paul used those languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, and Greek dialects out in the public marketplace, in his bi-vocational leatherworking trade and in his missionary endeavors out on the byways and highways of the Empire (Thomas, 1978:219; Hasel, 199l:149). This then would mean that Paul could speak in more different languages than all of the Corinthians (Toussaint, 2015:184; Benson, 2019:9945; Clarke, 1967:1118; Gill, 1746–1748, col 14:18; Hodge, 1860:292; Barnes, 1949:267). The Apostle engaged in multiple languages outside the believers’ assemblies but limited himself therein to beneficially teach in a language they understood (1 Cor. 14:19; cf. 1 Cor. 14:6).

It is out of harmony with Paul’s prior “edification of the church” argument to assume that he now endorses some kind of esoteric, exotic, extra-terrestrial language (γλῶσσαι/glṓssai) for personal edification. It would be the only one in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 12 or other lists which is “self-oriented” and would stand in sharp contradiction to Paul’s urging in 1 Corinthians 12:7, 25, 26; 13:5; 14:5, 12, 26 that the various ministries be used to edify others. Such use of γλῶσσαι/glṓssai would be practiced without the support of Scripture.

If I had been tasked with Paul’s enormous responsibility as Apostle to the Gentiles, I would surely give thanks to God that he had prepared me from my mother’s womb (cf. Gal 1:15) to speak a variety of essential languages to reach the nations (ἔθνος/ethnos).

The Apostle Paul never speaks of "unlearned, non-earthly languages." To begin with "glossolalia" is not a word anywhere in the Greek New Testament.

Furthermore, none of the Pauline letters contain the Greek word for “ecstatic” (ekstatikos) nor its cognates.

The peculiar, ecstatic phenomena in the Greco-Roman world is never referred to as “speaking in tongues.” That right away should tip us off that "glossolalia" (“non-earthly, angelic/heavenly language”) is probably not what’s under consideration here in 1 Corinthians.

It is of note that the Apostle Paul doesn’t diagnose the psychological, emotional, or mental state of the γλῶσσα/glṓssa (language) speaker in 1 Corinthians 14:2 or anywhere in the chapter. Therefore, we also should avoid diagnosing the speaker’s mental state as is presumptuously done by too many modern lexicographers and commentators when conjecturing an ecstatic condition for the γλῶσσα/glṓssa-speaker.

Because we say we believe in the grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, for further explanations, you may want to check out my book, with many, many more Scripture references, and a comprehensive linguistic, cultural, historical, contextual, exegetical and translational analysis ("The Earliest View of New Testament Tongues: Understood as Non-Supernatural, Learned Earthly Languages) https://www.amazon.com/author/maurice.vellacott

Prof. Dr. Philip La G. Du Toit (Associate Professor & Subject Chair | New Testament (North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa) says: "Vellacott advances compelling arguments . . . His interpretation deserves to be accounted for in scholarship. The work is written in an accessible and engaging way. Since the topic of speaking in tongues is debated beyond academia, this book should appeal to a wider audience.”

Rev. Dr. Ernest van Eck, Principal and Professor of New Testament, Knox College, University of Toronto and Extraordinary Professor, University of Pretoria, says: “The sources cited for the book are extensive and impressive. The sources used are critically engaged in an integrated manner, and Dr. Vellacott interprets the sources used in a balanced manner. Where applicable, the salient aspects of arguments from scholars are authentically represented. The book contains an overall logical argument, and the different chapters form a cohesive whole. There is a consistency in the thesis. The study is systematic, logical, well-structured, balanced and clear. The book contains a high quality of research. The work is written in an accessible and engaging way, and because of the topic, it should appeal to a wider audience. The quality of the writing is of a high standard.”