Speaking in tongues

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tim Blodgett on July 9, 2010 at 9:23pm

You mention Acts 19:6-7 in passing; however, you don't expand upon those verses in context. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on the following passage?

> And it happened, while Apollos was at Corinth, that Paul, having passed through
> the upper regions, came to Ephesus. And finding some disciples he said to them,
> "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" So they said to him, "We
> have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said to them,
> "Into what then were you baptized?" So they said, "Into John's baptism." Then
> Paul said, "John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the
> people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on
> Christ Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
> Jesus. And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them,
>and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

I do not dispute the fact that every believer is indwelt with the Holy Spirit at the point of salvation. I also spent time in the charismatic "church". I have opened my mind to try to see Paul's writings as well as the story in Acts differently (if necessary) from the way it was taught to me. I heard my share of charismatics teach that unless you spoke in tongues you had not been filled with/by the Spirit.

The idea of water baptism being the "baptism of John" and tongues being evidence of the "baptism of Jesus" is a new concept that I am reviewing. Your thoughts would be welcomed on this. Thank you for your time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tyler on July 24, 2010 at 7:00am

Hi Tim

My advice is not to get too hung up on any particular passage, but look at the totality of what is said about any subject - in this case, tongues. We always have to remember that the events described were real events that happened at a particular time and in a particular place. A single passage, such as you quote, may have a general message for us but is not, and was never intended to be, some form of command.

The overall message is that the Holy Spirit can work through us in many different ways. He gives us particular gifts as he sees fit, to carry out God's works, not because a denomination or preacher tells us which gifts are right or wrong, essential or not.

Water baptism is a symbolic cleansing - the water doesn't actually do anything, but the act demonstrates your new obedience to God. Spirit baptism is a symbolic filling - it is the desire to receive His gifts that God honours, not the actual laying on of hands. In water baptism you accept that you have been cleansed, renewed, reborn. In spirit baptism you accept that you are a willing worker to be used as the big boss sees fit.

Can you be a Christian without being water baptised? Yes! But you are demonstrating some degree of unwillingness to let yourself go. Can you be a Christian without ever exercising any of the spiritual gifts? Yes! But you'll be missing out on one element of God's work in you if you don't ask for them. Of course, if someone doesn't know about baptism or the Holy Spirit, then it is not a sign of holding back or lack of desire! The passage you quote shows that the issue for these followers of The Way were not unwilling, but merely ignorant. Nobody had told them about the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps at least a little.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Blodgett on July 24, 2010 at 9:37pm

John,

Thanks for your response. I pretty much agree with everything that you said. The intent of my response to the original poster, Darren, was to get his impression and opinion about the specific passage that I listed. It seemed as though his post was anti-tongues as it seemed to have been forced upon him and listed as a sign that he wasn't filled with the Spirit. I simply wanted to try to see things from his perspective on that passage.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tyler on July 25, 2010 at 5:18am

Apologies! I misunderstood where you were coming from.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Blodgett on July 25, 2010 at 11:56am

Please, don't feel bad. I was not offended in the least. Blessings to you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Darren on July 28, 2010 at 10:15am

Well depending on what version of the bible you have could make a big difference or not. I happen to use the King James Version. But in the King James the word tongues meant languages. It is kind of and old usage of the word. Now a days you do not here the word tongues out side of a church or Christian setting. You wouldn’t go up to a foreigner and ask him what tongue he speaks even though it would be proper English to do so it is not common. Today you would ask him what language he speaks. That is because both tongues and language are synonymous. When they translated the modern Bibles like the NIV and NAS among others the put the book into modern English except when it can to the word tongues they did not replace it with the word tongues that is I believe because Charismatics makes up a huge present of Christian and the scribes who put together new bible versions are profit driven.

Since the word tongues and languages are synonymous when ever you come across the word tongues in you bible use the word languages in that place and see if it means the same thing it should.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.

Perhaps they spoke in foreign languages that are how I see it. Remember the Roman Empire people were moved around from region to region and I am sure it was difficult to witness there. I mean Turkey alone had several languages back then, let alone different dialects. I believe that the gift of tongues was a gift to speak foreign languages without being taught perhaps. Some one who spoke Hebrew and the be able to speak Latin or Carthaginian.

They had had John’s Baptism a baptism of repentance and then they were baptized into Jesus’ baptism how interesting isn’t it. Well Jesus’ baptism was also symbolic of the death burial and resurrection. So in a since it is like dieing being buried and rising with Jesus. So how could those before Jesus resurrection do that with him in baptism when he had not done it and they did not know he would? Does that make any since it is hard to explain in writing?

I am not judging you if you speak in a tongue that’s your right and I don’t personally think it affect salvation either way. If you believe that tongues ahs more meanings then that is your choice. I used to think that I spoke in tongues a few times in my Christian walk. But I know believe I was not. But that is okay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tyler on July 28, 2010 at 2:01pm

How are you, Darren? I know where you are coming from. From the sound of it, we have had some similar teaching which was an exaggeration of what the bible actually says. I wholly agree with you that it is languages that are being talked about. In fact I know a lovely lady who once found herself speaking to a troubled Cypriot woman who understood everything she was saying. Only afterwards was she complimented on her mastery of the local dialect of Greek, though she only naturally speaks English!

I'm interested in what you say about baptism...
They had had John’s Baptism a baptism of repentance and then they were baptized into Jesus’ baptism how interesting isn’t it. Well Jesus’ baptism was also symbolic of the death burial and resurrection. So in a since it is like dieing being buried and rising with Jesus. So how could those before Jesus resurrection do that with him in baptism when he had not done it and they did not know he would? Does that make any since it is hard to explain in writing?

Again, I repeat what I said in an earlier post, it is best not to take a single passage and read too much into it. You make the point that different translations offer slightly different meanings, and we must also remember that each passage was originally written for a specific audience at the time. The best thing, therefore, is to look at the totality of what is said about baptisms and the examples of what John, Jesus and the disciples did. There seem to be two forms of baptism - water and Spirit. One symbolises cleansing, as practised by John, and was also used in the ceremony when a priest was appointed. This is what it symbolised for Jesus, who did not need cleansing, while for the rest of us it is simply a sign of being newly washed and, as you say, of being reborn. Spirit baptism is being washed in the Spirit. It is the Spirit who actually brings us to the point of choosing to turn to God and we are all 'sealed' by the Spirit at that point, in other words, our change of status is made official. At this point the fruit of the Spirit starts to grow, but the gifts are not automatically given. For these we have to ask. Water baptism is a sign of obedience to Jesus, and Spirit baptism is our acceptance that he can use us in any way that he chooses to do his work. As his ambassadors we swear an oath of allegiance (water baptism), and he then uses us to represent him with demonstrations of his power, mercy, wisdom, etc (Spirit gifts). We often talk about being given the gifts, which is true, but really the purpose is not for us to use them, but rather for us to allow ourselves to be used by the Spirit. He gives the gifts as and when he sees fit.

We are redeemed by Jesus as a free gift. You are right, therefore, it is not a condition that we be either baptised or demonstrate particular spiritual gifts. On the other hand, when we undergo the experience of spiritual rebirth, we mostly want to show our obedience and receive all the gifts going! Let's thank him for the spiritual gifts we do have, not worry about the ones we don't.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Darren on July 28, 2010 at 4:46pm

I really like what you said you have a gift of explaining things so well perhaps you were born with this gift, but you use it for GOD. You said “We often talk about being given the gifts, which is true, but really the purpose is not for us to use them, but rather for us to allow ourselves to be used by the Spirit. He gives the gifts as and when he sees fit”. Amen to that brother that is so right on. I have never herd that explained so easily to understand heck It would have taken me two paragraphs to say what you just said. You should consider written tracts putting a complex issue into a simple to understand short message. Then it is easier to translate in to other tongues.

I agreed with every thing you wrote but you know throwing in a few scriptures to back up what you says goes along why.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Tyler on July 28, 2010 at 5:32pm

Thanks, Darren, for your kind and encouraging words.

You know, I did throw in quite a lot of scripture, just not the chapter and verse quotations, both of which were invented by institutional churchmen a very long time after Jesus' walk on earth. But, hey! this is getting into a whole new discussion!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen H Cornell on February 21, 2011 at 2:23pm

hello!  Experientially, I am in the exact position you are in!  I believe the Holy Spirit is Sovereign God and manifests himself as He chooses which means just as Paul said in Romans, some do one thing and some another by the self-same Spirit!

Then Paul states that we should not use our convictions to seperate from or condemn or even trip up others!  I feel strongly that in the future, the Pentecostals and the Cessationists will have to acknowledge each other and work together so we should start doing so now!  Many denominations are set up exactly for the reason of seperating from other believers over differences of convictions and Paul said to keep that between yourself and God! 

What really humbled me was that I took part in a house church which asked me to be an elder when most everybody else was from pentecostalist backgrounds and they knew I was not!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Zhang on March 3, 2011 at 11:58am

Brothers, I too was raised in a charismatic church and attempted to speak in tongues on several occasions. It always seemed very forced and fake to me, but I did not question the teaching until I went to college. I went to a cessationist school where I was forced to wrestle with the Scriptures on this issue. I became very frustrated because I found that I agreed with neither camp once I read the Scriptures for myself, however, I did not know what to say about tongues. I kept searching and eventually found an article by Robert Zerhusen about the cultural and linguistic background of Acts 2.

Based upon his study, he made the case that tongues were normal Gentile languages, normally learned, and normally spoken.  I know this brings up several questions:

1)     Aren’t tongues a miraculous sign (I Corinthians 14:22)?   It seems that this is the understanding of most who have written here so far. Let me be clear that I DO believe in miracles and so does Zerhusen. However, if you do a study of the word ‘sign’, you will find that it is not always used miraculously. “And this will be a sign unto you; You will find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” Luke 2:12  This is a good example of a miracle (virgin birth/incarnation of God’s Son) the ‘sign’ of which is something rather ordinary.

2)     Why were the hearers so amazed? Yes, they were amazed, but they also accused them of being drunk, which is a very strange charge if the disciples were exhibiting behavior which would lead the hearers to believe they were far more educated than they appeared. You don’t charge a taxi driver who can quote Shakespeare with intoxication!

So, in a nutshell, here is what Zerhusen thinks happened:

It was Pentecost, a holy day, in Jerusalem. The disciples were gathered somewhere near the Temple (hence the big crowd). The Holy Spirit came with miraculous signs upon them (rushing wind and tongues of fire) and gave the disciples the freedom/boldness/utterance to do something which was culturally unacceptable at that time: to use unholy Gentile languages (which they already knew: Greek and Aramaic would have been considered the native languages of all the people listed) to praise God when the custom was to only use Hebrew for such speaking on a holy day in a holy place. The crowds are amazed at this spectacular display of (seeming) inappropriate speaking coming from Galileans who should have known better than to violate this cultural rule. The only explanation to be found was that they were drunk and therefore more uninhibited by social norms. Peter then goes on to address the whole crowd (without interpretation and everyone understands—another clue that there are not a dozen languages being used) and quotes from Joel which says nothing about strange language abilities, but rather that when the Spirit was poured out, everyone would be able to speak boldly the words of God. We see this again and again throughout Acts: bold speech being coupled with the filling of the Spirit—sometimes this is termed ‘tongues’ because it is Gentile languages and sometimes it is not.

I Corinthians seen in a similar light is astounding in its practicality for how to deal with a multi-lingual church situation—something I deal with daily. I commend to you the website (www.tonguesrevisited.com) where you can look into articles by Zerhusen as well as a very thorough free ebook by Renton MacLacklan which explores all this and gives much more proof and detail than I can here. I have read all of it and am happy to pursue discussing this further. Thank you all for your willingness to wrestle with this topic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Oliver Elphick on March 3, 2011 at 5:23pm

I'm afraid I find Zerhusen's interpretation thoroughly unconvincing.

 

First, a sign is something significant.  A baby in a manger is unusual and therefore a sufficient indication of the right baby.  Miracles are also very unusual and therefore significant.  It is not particularly unusual for someone to use a second language that he knows.  Zerhusen's suggestion of why it would be unusual is contrived and without any biblical evidence.  But speaking a language you don't know is unusual.

 

Second, it is highly unlikely that Galileans (Acts 2:7), who to our knowledge had never left Israel, should have any acquaintance with the tongues of "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Meopatamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians", still less that they should be sufficiently fluent to be able to "tell in their own tongues the mighty works of God" (2:9-11).  How could they have learned them? and if they could, why would they?  The disciples were not merely using Greek or Aramaic (as Zerhusen's book suggests); the obvious implication of the passage is that a minimum of 15 different languages were being heard.

The fact that Greek was the lingua franca of the whole Mediterranean made it unnecessary to learn other languages; it had been spread throughout Alexander's empire and was the international language of the time.  If you went to another country, you spoke Greek.  (Thus we see Paul in Lystra obviously using Greek and expecting to be understood, while the crowd spoke among themselves in Lycaonian, which Paul did not understand.)

There is no explanation, in Zerhusen's account, of how these Galileans at Pentecost might have come to learn such a variety of languages (and bear in mind that in times of limited travel, local languages could vary from one valley to the next, but 2:11 suggests that someone of the 120 was speaking each visitor's own language ).  Nor is there any support in the bible for the idea that these Galileans were violating a cultural rule. The remarks some made about them were not that they were rude but that they were drunk.

Peter spoke in plain language to preach, most likely in Aramaic, possibly in Greek.  The norm in such circumstances is for people in the crowd to translate for those who don't understand; that would not be thought worthy of mention.  In explaining what his audience had been hearing, he speaks of the miraculous events prophesied by Joel, so the natural conclusion is that he was referring to miraculous events that the audience had witnessed, including the tongues.

There is no dispute that tongues means languages.  But the point is that the language used in the gift is one not known to anyone, not even to the speaker.  That is the whole point of it.  "...one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." (1 Cor 14:2)  and "...if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful" (14:14)  If the speaker understands the language, it is not the gift of tongues.  Hearers may occasionally understand, if the language given to the speaker is one they know.  That was the case for many at Pentecost.  Paul's testimony (1 Cor 14:18) is that he spoke in tongues more than anyone, but that it was not intelligible and so he did not use it in the assembly.  (I looked at Zerhusen's book and find his answers to these objections unconvincing.)

The scripture shows that the content of speech in tongues is addressed to God and therefore it is praise, thanksgiving (possibly) or prayer.  (Acts 2:11; 1 Cor 14:2)  (So an interpretation that is not addressed to God is suspect; or maybe it is a prophecy being given at the wrong time.)  It is a gift that is potentially available to everyone and desirable for everyone (1 Cor 14:5), and that would not be said of learning foreign languages in the normal way.

The fact that tongues will be praise or prayer addressed to God is the reason that their use should apparently come first, before prophecy (1 Cor 14:27-29)  The use of tongues, in which the Spirit himself is producing praise to God, sets the spiritual atmosphere of the meeting (which should be being led by the Holy Spirit throughout). This is therefore a example of the activity of the Spirit in believers that definitely builds up the church, when it is accompanied by interpretation.

 

Multi-lingual church is a different problem, which is not related to the Corinthian problem.  Corinth is in Greece and we can take it for granted that everyone there apart from the occasional visitor could speak Greek fluently, and most visitors could speak it well enough to get by.  I have direct experience of the multi-lingual problem here in France, where neither the French nor the English can speak the others' language well (or at all, in some cases).  This necessitates translation for teaching.  We use alternate speech in each language; another fellowship I know does simultaneous translation via headphones for English-speaking visitors.  For prayers, we don't normally attempt to translate, but prayer subjects have usually been mentioned in both languages beforehand.  The difficulty of handling this means that we don't attempt to integrate the different groups, but come together less frequently than weekly or even monthly for fellowship.  This is still an area that needs work.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page