A. BIBLICAL TONGUES WAS THE POWER TO SPEAK ALL LANGUAGES.
1.
The Bible always speaks of
this gift as being plural (“tongues” -1Cor. 12:
10; 13:1; 14:5-6, 18).
It never speaks of anyone
receiving “a tongue,” as Pentecostals commonly do today. The gift was the power
to speak in MANY languages, not just one. The singular was used only when
referring to a specific message. Each
message was given in “a tongue,” not
in, “tongues” (Acts 2:8; 1Cor. 14:2,
26-27).
2.
On Pentecost the twelve
apostles spoke in languages of “every
nation under heaven” (Acts 2:4-11).
On that occasion is listed
some 15 general area distinctions and two racial and religious classifications,
which is obviously not intended to be a complete list. For instance, we know that Lyconia, which is
not specifically mentioned but included in these areas, had a language of its
own (cf. Acts 14:11). Certainly there
were more than seventeen nations and languages under heaven. They spoke more than one each.
OBJECTION: “One hundred twenty spoke
in tongues, not just twelve” (Acts
1:15).
ANSWER:
In
the context, the nearest antecedent before “they” (2:1) is, “apostles”
(1:26). This is more likely than following the pronouns back to the 120 in Acts
1:15.
The
day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was not the same day as the choosing of Matthias
(Acts 1:15). There are three distinct occasions mentioned in chapters one
and two.
The first was the fortieth
day after the Passover (Acts 1:3) when Jesus ascended and the apostles retired
to the upper room where were Mary the mother of Jesus, his brothers and the
women who traveled with them (Acts 1:11-14).
The
second was the choosing of Matthias “in
these days” (Acts 1:15) between day 40 and Pentecost. “Pentecost”
means “50,” and was counted from the
Passover Sabbath “seven Sabbaths,” to
the day after the seventh Sabbath (Lev. 23:15, 16) (7x7=49+1=50). We don’t know what day they chose
Matthias. It simply says, “And in these days Peter stood up in
the midst of the brethren...”
The
third occasion is when it says that the day of Pentecost had come (Acts
2:1). Careless readers telescope the
events of the first two chapters together as if they all happened at the same
time, whereas they actually covered a period of at least ten days (day 40-50).
Some
insist that this all took place with 120 disciples gathered in an upper room.
The fact is that it says nothing about the Pentecost events taking place in an
upper room. Were the 120, along with
the apostles and the women, living in an upper room for at least ten days? Highly unlikely. Only the eleven apostles
are mentioned as being present the day they went to the room, plus the mother
of Jesus, his brothers, and some other women (1:12-14). This would likely be no
more than 20 persons.
The
circumstances would indicate some kind of large open area near thousands of
people who heard the sound of the “rushing
mighty wind” (2:2, 6), and heard them speak to them in their language. Of these, three thousand were baptized that
same day.
The
temple was the most likely place where such a large group could be “all together in one place” --probably on
Solomon’s Porch. Certainly they
continued gathering in the temple (2:46; 3:1) and preaching to the people (3:11;
4:1; 5:12; 20-21). Some object that it
says they were in a “house.” However, the temple is also called a “house” (Mark 11:17; Acts 7:47; cf. Acts
3:1; 2:46).
The
strongest indication that the 12, not the 120, received the baptism of the Holy
Spirit is that it says all those who
spoke were Galilaeans (Acts 2:7). Jerusalem is in Judaea in southern Palestine, but those who spoke
were Galilaeans from the north (Acts 2:7).
This raises serious doubts that it included 120 since some of the
disciples of Jesus from Judaea (Mary, Martha, Lazarus etc.) would surely have
been present on such an important occasion. On the other hand, the twelve
Apostles were from Galilee (Acts 1:11), the only one of their number from the
south, Judas, having hanged himself.
The Apostles were the only
ones mentioned as standing up and speaking, and to whom the people’s attention was
directed (2:14, 37; cf. 42-43).
Nothing is said of the 120 speaking.
The twelve, rather than the
120, best fit the logistics of the situation. If
120 all spoke at once, as Pentecostals would lead us to believe, there would
have been a bedlam of confusion in which it would have been impossible for all
of these nations to have understood in their own language. It makes more sense that the twelve spoke,
each taking turns.
The 12, not the 120, were
promised to receive this power (Acts 1:1-5, 8, 22; 2:32 cf. John 14:26; Luke
24:48-49). Until the laying of hands on the servants of the church in Acts 6,
the apostles were the only ones said to have done miracles (2:43; 3:1-10;
5:1-16).
OBJECTION: If
only the Apostles spoke, why did it say, “daughters”
(2:17)?
ANSWER: Joel’s prophecy was not
restricted to the day of Pentecost. It also says, “All flesh,” which included Gentiles. That was not until some years
later (Acts 10; 11:1-18; 15:7-9).
OBJECTION: Mathias was not a
true apostle.
Some
deny Matthias was an apostle, falsely assuming that there were to be only
twelve.
ANSWER:
There
were only twelve apostles to the Jews.
However, Paul and others are called apostles “to the gentiles” (Gal. 2:7-9: Rom.
11:13). In Matt. 19:28, Jesus had said
to his followers, “ye shall sit on
twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Matthias
met the qualifications (Acts 1:21-23).
Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that Matthias was “numbered with the eleven.” If Matthias was not an apostle, Luke surely
would have so indicated.
In
Acts 2:14, Peter stood up “with the
eleven.” Matthias was included,
even after they were inspired.
In
Acts 6:2 he was included with “the twelve,”
and in verse 12 they are called “apostles.”
In
1Cor. 15:5 Paul says that after his resurrection Jesus appeared to “the twelve.” Since Judas was dead, and neither James, the brother of Jesus,
nor Paul, was yet chosen, Matthias must have been included.
Again,
in 1Cor. 15:7 Paul says Jesus appeared to “all
the apostles,” following this with the statement that he was “last of all” (15:8). He clearly,
distinguishes himself from the twelve.
3.
“Tongues” included human
languages, not just babbling nonsense
Pagans
professed tongues (Isa. 8:19). “Tongues” in the church had to do with
speaking actual languages (Acts 2). It
appears that much of the mistaken idea that tongues are not languages comes
from an erroneous concept that the word, “tongues”
has some special divine meaning. The
fact is that the word simply means “languages.”
It does not mean exclusively tongues of angels (1Cor. 13:1). It does not mean that it could not be
understood (Acts 2:8).
a.
Definition
Thayer’s Lexicon
defines it as, “the language used by a
particular people in distinction from that of other nations” (p. 118, “glossa”).
Strong’s definition is:
1100 glossa ¤ of uncertain
affinity; TDNT - 1:719,123; n f ¤ AV -
tongue 50; 50 ¤ 1) the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech 2) a tongue 1a) the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.
b. Biblical usage
The
Greek word translated “tongues”
(#1100 glossa) is commonly used in
the sense either of one’s physical tongue (Mk 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; 16:24; Acts
2:26; Rom. 3:13; 14:11 etc.) or of a foreign language (Acts 2:4; Rev.
5:9; 7:9; 10:7; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).
It is specifically called a “language”
(#1258 dialectos) in Acts 2:6, 8 (cf.
Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:9; 26:14).
1.
“Glossa” in Acts 2:4 is used in 2:11 of
natural languages and in 2:6-8 is understandable to those who know them.
2.
Rev.
5:9; 11:9; 17:15. It is used of human language.
In 1Cor. 14:10
it speaks of the different languages “in
the world,” clearly indicating that was what they were doing in
tongues. If they were not understood
they would be regarded as “barbarians”
(14:11).
3.
1Cor.
14:21 cites speaking unto them by the lips
of strangers, quoting from Isaiah 28:11. These were words used of the
languages of these foreign nations.
4.
1Cor.
14:16, 23 suggest these languages could be “learned.”
Romans 8:26-27 is sometimes
cited but this says nothing about tongues or the ability to understand
them. It speaks of “groanings which can not be uttered.”
OBJECTION: “1Cor. 13:1 specifies speaking the tongues of angels.”
ANSWER:
Note
that first in likelihood were, “tongues
of men.” This is the only place tongues of angels is mentioned and the
illustration suggests that this was about as likely as moving a mountain
(13:2). Paul’s point is that even if
they could do all of these things, without love they were nothing. They were in conflict about the gifts and
had forgotten the greater importance of love.
OBJECTION:
“On
Pentecost they only spoke one heavenly language which God made all to
understand.”
ANSWER:
It
says they spoke in other, “tongues”
(Acts 2:4). The reason they all heard in the language in which they were born
(2:8) was because the Apostles were speaking in those languages. The miracle was of speech, not of
hearing.
1Cor.
14:22
indicates that tongues were foreign languages.
Tongues were intended as a sign for the unbeliever. As on Pentecost, when used to speak fluently
all languages, without having learned them, it would amaze the unbelievers. However, in the church where people of the
same language assembled, they would not understand unless it was
translated. Indeed, an unbeliever,
hearing them speaking, and especially if they all spoke at once, would think
they were “mad” (14:23).
Those
on Pentecost were “amazed” (Acts
2:6-7, 12). The same was true in Acts
10:46 when they were understood to “magnify
God” (11:15, 17; 15:8-9). Paul, who
traveled much among people of different languages with no mention of an
interpreter, said, “I speak more than you
all” (1Cor. 14:18). Tongues were
for a sign in speaking to unbelievers in their own language (Acts 2:6-12; 1Cor.
14:22), not for mere demonstration in the church. If modern Pentecostals really had this power, why do they have to
take time to learn the languages in order to speak in them?
OBJECTION: #3. “1Cor. 14:2 says it is
‘unknown’ and ‘no man understands’.”
ANSWER:
The
word, “unknown” is in italics,
showing that it does not appear in the Greek and has been inserted by the
translators to indicate it was foreign or unknown to them. The CONTEXT reveals the meaning. The problem is that people take the phrase,
“no man understands” out of context
where the clarifying factors are evident.
“No man understands,” has reference to
those gathered “in the church” (14:4,
5, 12, 19, 23, 26, 28, 33, 34, 35) --those who would be speaking the same
language. If one speaks in a foreign
language and no translation is provided, he will be speaking only to God
because no one will understand.
B. BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE FULLY SUBJECT TO CONTROLS REQUIRED BY THE SPIRIT.
To have all edified, decency
and order maintained and confusion avoided, Paul laid down clear simple
guidelines (1Cor. 14:27-28).
·
When
they came together, no more than two or three were permitted to speak in tongues (No gift was to receive
undue attention).
·
Only
one person was to speak at a time.
·
If
there was no interpreter they must remain silent in the church (The gift could
be exercised elsewhere in private).
Unfortunately,
I have repeatedly observed Charismatic groups breaking these rules under one
justification or another. Regardless of
their rationale, the fact is that I was not edified and, just as Paul warned,
some people who attended with me said, “These people are crazy.”
1.
The
control of tongues, required by the New Testament (1Cor. 14:27-28), is lacking
in the modern “tongues” movement. If
they do not know to control it, or cannot do so, they are not being led by the
Spirit. If they were, they would obey
the injunction of the Spirit (1Cor. 14:32, 33, 37, 38).
2.
“Tongues” is a gift (1Co. 12:4-10). Like healing, this gift was available to be
used when needed. Once received, the
gift was under the person’s control (cf. 14:32). In speaking to unbelievers they could be convinced (1Co. 14:22)
by speaking their language (Acts 2:8-11).
Use of this gift could be regulated in order to follow Paul’s guidelines
for edification of the assembly (14:23, 28).
Proper use was the
responsibility of the one given the gift.
3.
The
requirement that there must be an interpreter present (1Co. 14:28) shows that
this was not something that just hit on the spur of the moment over which the
speaker had no control. It is evident
that he knew he could speak and was to make certain before he did that someone
could translate.
4.
Along
with the gifts came the power and responsibility for their control (1Cor
14:32-33).
5.
All
things must be done in decency and in order (1Cor. 14:40). That which is not understood by the listener
can not edify (14:16-17) and will result in confusion (14:23). God
is not the author of confusion (14:33). When the church comes together, “ALL things” are to be done “unto edifying”(14:26). This
applies to the whole church (14:4, 5, 12, 13, 26).
6.
God
repudiates that which does not conform to His pattern (Matt. 7:22).
a.
1Cor.
14:32. If the Spirit is of God it can be controlled.
b.
1Cor.
14:33. God is not the author of that which produces confusion.
c.
1Cor.
14:37. The truly Spirit-guided person will recognize and uphold these regulations
as God’s commandments (John 8:47; Isa. 8:20).
d.
1Cor.
14:38. Those who on insist ignorance should be left to their ignorance. They are not Spirit guided.
OBJECTION: “These regulations apply
only to the GIFT of tongues, not to the prayer tongue.”
ANSWER:
The
Bible makes no such distinction. The
same word is used for all tongues, whether in prayer or otherwise (Mark 16-17;
1Cor. 14:22, 27, 28). It does not single out prayer tongues as being the sign. It simply says, “tongues.”
1Cor.
14. Paul includes both praying in tongues (vs. 16) and speaking messages (vss.
21-23). The regulations apply to
all.
Whether
the tongue was directed to God or to men would not change the problem of not
knowing when to say the “amen” or
having outsiders think they were “mad.”
To avoid this in either case, the regulations would be needed.
OBJECTION: Some deny that 1Cor.
14:27-28 places these restrictions.
Donald L. Barnett, Pastor of
Community Chapel in Seattle, (United Pentecostal), makes his own “translation”
in his book, “Glossolalia,” p. 50, as
follows:
“If anyone speaks in an unknown tongue and there is no interpretation, Let the tongue be repeated two, or at
most, three times. Let those who are participants in
confirming the uninterpreted message in tongues, repeat the tongues by turn (in
succession). If there is still no
interpretation, conclude that there is no interpreter (for this message), and
if the spirit of tongues is still with you, don’t give the message again
(enough time has been spent without edification); but you may continue to speak
unto God within yourself (silently) in tongues.”
ANSWER:
Compare
that with the Bible! It is obviously a
very distorted paraphrase to serve his theological interests. Pastor Barnett’s contention is that it restricts
the number of times the message is repeated, not the number of people
who can speak.
On p. 49 he says,
“Are we then forbidden to ever have more than one person speak in
tongues at one time?...NO...”
On p. 97 he says,
“The Gift of Tongues requires that only one speak at a time and that
interpretation follow... whereas tongues that accompany the infixing...are not
to instruct others, and therefore all may speak at once.”
To
give the impression of scholarly support he includes the following comparison,
below to which, I have included Marshall’s interlinear translation:
|
BARNETT: |
If |
in a tongue |
anyone |
speaks, |
|
ANGLESIZED GREEK |
eite |
gloosee |
tis |
lalei |
|
MARSHALL: |
If |
in a tongue |
anyone |
speaks, |
|
BARNETT: |
[repeat] by |
two |
or |
the |
most |
three [times?]* |
|
ANGLES. |
kata |
duoo |
hee |
to |
pleiston |
treis |
|
MARSH. |
by |
two |
or |
the |
most |
three |
|
BARNETT: |
and |
in succession. |
And |
one |
let interpret: |
|
ANGLES. |
kai |
ana meros, |
kai |
eis |
diermeeneuetoo: |
|
MARSH. |
and |
in turn, |
and |
one |
let interpret; |
|
BARNETT: |
if but |
not may be |
an interpreter, |
|
ANGLES. |
ean de |
mee hee |
diermeeneutees, |
|
MARSH. |
but if |
there is not |
an interpreter, |
|
BARNETT: |
let him be brought to silence |
in |
assembly; |
|
ANGLES. |
sigatoo |
en |
ekkleesia |
|
MARSH. |
let him be silent |
in |
church |
*
Brackets [ ] mine. (Glossolalia, p. 50)
It
is obvious that this matches neither the standard translators nor his previous
“translation.” In the first line he added the word,
“repeat” to translate the word, “kata”
(which means, “by”) and tries to make
it mean that the same message is to be given repeatedly up to three times. The result is about as reliable as when the
devil added “not” to God’s warning to Adam and Eve saying, “Thou shalt [NOT] surely die.”
Would
not the Spirit who searches the hearts (Rom. 8:27), know whether an interpreter
who would give the translation, was present?
It takes a fertile imagination to extricate people from such theological
absurdities.
The explanation simply will
not wash.
Thayer’s
Greek Lexicon (p. 326-328) says of “kata,” a
preposition denoting motion or diffusion or direction from higher to
lower...II. With accusative... 3...
a... all one by one, successively, 1Co.
14:27...” On p. 187, as referred to
under “eis, 4 c,” it says, “of a series, one by one, successively:
kath en, all in succession, John 21:25; kath ena pantes, 1Co. 14:31.
Pastor
Barnett attempts to confirm his wishful thinking by arguing that, “In verse 29, where the prophets speak ‘two
or three,’ the Greek ‘kata’ is not used” (p. 50). However, he failed to recognize that in 14:31 (cited by Thayer
above), it is used. It says they could
all prophesy “one BY [kath]
one.” “Kath” is the same word as
“kata.” In order to smooth the language the “a” on the end is changed to
an “h” when the word is followed by a vowel.
This is much like the way we change, “a” before a vowel to “an” (such
as, “an auto”). The word is spelled
slightly different but the meaning is the same (See Summers Grammar, p.33
#6). It has nothing to do with
repeating the message. Compare with the
following.
1Cor.
14:27
|
lalei, |
kata |
duo |
hee |
to |
pleiston |
treis, |
kai |
ana |
meros, |
|
speaks, |
by |
two |
or |
the |
most |
three, |
and |
by |
turn, |
|
propheetai
|
de |
duo |
hee |
treis |
laleitoosan, |
|
and
prophets |
and |
two |
or |
three |
let
them speak, |
|
dunasthe |
gar |
kath’ |
hena |
pantes |
propheeteuein |
|
ye can |
for |
by |
singly |
all |
prophesy |
The best commentaries
likewise conflict with his claims.
Barnes (p. 272) says, “That is, two, or at the most three in one
day, or in one meeting.” “They should not speak at the same time.”
(See also Grotius, Rosenmuller, Doddridge, Bloomfield, Jameison, Clark,
McGarvey, Shepherd, Locke, etc.).
Macknight suggests an unusual view
that it means to give only two or three sentences between interpretations. Even this would not support Pastor Barnett
in claiming it means to repeat the message three times before giving up on the
idea of it being interpreted. It is sufficient to ask, Out of over five hundred
times it appears, where is kata ever translated, “repeat?” Even more to the point
than “kata” is the fact that “ana meros” (“by turns”) indicates that they were speaking individually rather
than all at one time.
Whether
or not one knows Greek, it obviously makes no sense that these limitations
would be placed on the prophets and not on those speaking in tongues. The problems of “confusion,” “decency and
order,” and lack “edification” of
the whole church, more apply fit the problems resulting from tongues than
prophecy.
OBJECTION:
Pastor
Barnett further contends that: asking if
an interpreter is present before delivering a message in tongues, would show
lack of conviction that the message was from God (p. 53). Withholding the
message in the absence of an interpreter is resisting the moving of the Holy
Ghost (p. 53), and shows lack of faith in God. On p. 54 he declares, “If
God gives someone a message, it is the duty of that one to give it. The
problem of whom God gives the interpretation to is God’s business; it is
NOT the problem of the one who receives the tongues!” Then, on p. 46 he says, “But, if the entire congregation is
praising God aloud (if that is their custom), whether a person prays in
a known or unknown tongue is immaterial.”
ANSWER:
Thus
Pastor Barnett sweeps away the Holy Spirit’s whole injunction for sustaining
order. According to him, the church may
gather and practice that which does not edify all. Stumbling unbelievers may be disregarded.
Passing
these regulations off as “God’s problem” seems to be the general attitude among
charismatic teachers. Claiming that it
is the interpretation rather than the interpreter which must be present
illustrates their shallow reading and determination to have it their way no
matter what the Bible says. Making “kata” mean that the same message should
be repeated three times in the absence of an interpretation, is an excellent
example of their “scholarship.” This does gross violence to the word of
God. The “problem” is not with God but
with their theology. By speaking when
God says to keep silent they clearly manifest that they do not have prophecy
among them and God is not the author of their claims (1Cor. 14:33, 37; 1John
4:6; John 8:47).
Why
do charismatics take such an obviously flawed position? --Because bogus
tongues cannot operate by scriptural rules. They must rely upon mass delusion to keep them “pumped.”
To limit tongues to no more than three people talking in turns and only
with someone there to translate, would be absolutely fatal to their
delusion. However, true tongues would
not have such a problem. The modern “gift
of gibberish” does.
OBJECTION: When all else fails,
charismatics try to argue that God is not bound by rules.
ANSWER:
This
justifies ignoring what it says and is an ideal tool of the devil to
rationalize anything they want.
However, if we cannot rely upon what God says, then this whole thing is
a farce. They are their own god and the
people are at the mercy of unscrupulous leaders.
The
Bible clearly shows that teachings which are not according to the scriptures
are not of God (Is. 8:20). God cannot
contradict himself (2Tim. 2:13). The
scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35).
We are to reject those who are not in harmony with what God has revealed
(Gal. 1:6-10; 2John 6-10).
C. BIBLICAL TONGUES WERE NOT “THE SIGN” OF HAVING THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Donald
Barnett speaks of receiving tongues as “the sign” (Glossolalia, p. 87, 89),
“evidence” (p. 90), or “manifestation” (p. 87), which is sometimes
characterized as the “infilling.” He
contrasts this with the “gift of tongues”
(p. 96-97), which he views as a “message in tongues.” According to him, no one is filled with the Holy Spirit without
the evidence of tongues.
However,
as we have shown, every Christian receives the Holy Spirit when baptized into
Christ (Acts 2:38-39; 5:32;).
1.
The
Romans had the Holy Spirit (chap. 8) but had no spiritual gifts (Rom. 1:11).
2.
No
one can belong to Christ who does not have the Spirit (Rom. 8).
3.
No
one can please God who does not have the Spirit (Rom. 8).
4.
To
be God’s possession we must have the Spirit (Eph. 1; 13-14).
5. <