Intuitively, I would have presumed human language this side of heaven to be (and remain) fallible. Eternal language, as the one which is used in front of the throne, cannot be marred by any of the blemishes (or even just physical characteristics) you listed in the original post. Hence the equation of eternal with redeemed. Maybe, transformed comes closer to what I meant …

(Difficult to think about that too deeply when my mind is occupied predominantly with features of written style at the word, sentence and text level – but that’s a different story.)

Incarnation is, you could say, at the heart of the scheme of redemption. (I’d have thought “His” would have been appropriate?)

By the end of your middle para there I do feel i’ve been swept off my feet slightly… but do you mean to equate “redeemed language” with “eternal language”? and if so, may i enquire, warum?

The kenotic theory may be dead. However, incarnation is still very much at the heart of the Godhead (or at least of Their Second Person – nearly wrote “Its” or “His”, both probably lacking in accuracy). This eternal giving of yourself, emanating, communicating vital information to the other, to creation, viz that God Himself stoops (in order not to say “condescends”) so deeply in order to bridge the Great Divide, the Great Divorce, I could imagine this divine quality to be (or become) the essence, the true meaning (in all its semantic, semiological richness) of redeemed, i.e. eternal language. Allow me to close with a quote from Ong (1987) who claims that,
“despite the radical primacy that the biblical text has in Christian tradition, The Word of God, who is the Son, is to be thought of by analogy with the human spoken word, not the written word.”
(full bibliographical detail: Ong, W.J. 1987. Orality-literacy studies and the unity of the human race. Oral Tradition 2.1: 371-382.)

The tongues of angels – is there any other scriptural reference to this, outside 1 Cor 13 ? – the passage is often hypothetical – if i understood *all* mysteries? – possibly mainly rhetorical?

Heaven – actually the more i think about it the less i want to make any suggestions :-) Everyone in heaven in Revelation is singing in unison, giving the same praise. Thinking in earthly terms, if we heard Thomas Boston speak or whoever, chances are it would be v difficult to understand their accent – never mind other languages. A new song, the language of Canaan … opinions differ, as we’ve already established http://ninetysixandten.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/connections/#comments :-)

Ps – i can’t think of another word apart from condescending – has off-putting connotations i know but don’t know how else to put it. What is man, that thou art mindful of him? & Isaiah 40. The limits of language eh.

Ie i don’t particularly mind using terms like “speaking” to refer to the communication within the Trinity, but obviously hedged around with caveats. The problem is that these caveats are not much in evidence in the chapters that are available online from the book in question: language is said to have as its purpose not only “human-human communication” but also “divine-divine communication”, with the implication (apparently) that human language is so wonderful because it is language that God himself uses within the Godhead. It cannot be the same thing.

And yes, I did sneak in a reference to sign languages in the original post :-) The point from O’Grady et al would then be broadened out to, All languages are physically produced, or something.

Obviously you don’t want to reduce language to its physical aspects – what is produced in the vocal tract or signed by hand – but language does intrinsically include these physical aspects. The actual physical speech stream is primary, both in production and perception, although not to the exclusion of paralinguistic and other contextual factors. (And that statement doesn’t exclude written language btw!) Without a vocal tract and an auditory perception system, language isn’t possible (- make your own adjustments for sign languages).

Limited to the use of language – would have been better worded if i’d said “…something they use, with all its limitations, in their eternal counsels…” ~ or something!