Re: Eph 1:4-5 etc.

From: Gary S. Shogren (
Date: Wed Apr 10 1996 - 21:44:49 EDT

Don Wilkins wrote:
>The meaning of LALEW is talk in general and in some more specific instances,
>inarticulate speech (in my earlier distinction of LEGW and LALEW I should have
>stated that LEGW is used of articulate speech, not just "speech"). For this
>reason it is used of tongues, not because LALEW inherently refers to spiritu-
>al communication. One can theoretically argue that LALEW gradually assumes
>a spiritual sense based on specialized usage in the NT, but I don't think
>this is the case, and at any rate we can understand the use of LALEW adequate-
>ly based on its usual meaning of (sometimes inarticulate) talk.

I wonder on the face of it if this isn't an unwarranted restriction of
meaning. And, besides, doesn't it prejudge whether glossalalia is supposed
to be human language (articulate speech that is not understood because it's
alien) or ecstatic utterance (inarticulate? speech that is not understood
because it's inarticulate).


Gary S. Shogren
Biblical Theological Seminary
Hatfield, PA

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:40 EDT