“Tongues Of Fire: A Study of the Spiritual Gift As Seen In Acts Compared With I Corinthians.” by A.Kelley, Pastor

In Acts 2:1-13, Luke presents the happening of "tongues" or Glossalalia (glossia) on the day of Pentecost. This paper will explore the true meaning of glossia or tongues in the original setting and then draw some conclusions from a neutral point of view for its use or abuse for our day without going into depth on the charismata or charismatic ‘gifts’ themselves.

According to Luke, after Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1), the disciples went into an upstairs room in Jerusalem where they were staying. They proceeded to choose someone (Matthias) to replace Judas Iscariot. In Acts Chapter 2, while praying and fasting for approximately ten days, Luke describes what happens next as sounding "like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting" (Acts 2:2). In Acts 2:3, the heavenly manifestation of fire in the shape of tongues came to rest on each of the disciples' heads. Some have suggested that these “tongues” in reference to shape may indicate a cloven type shape. Regardless of shape, the meaning is clear, that a spiritual event took place. At this point, Luke adds that they (the disciples) were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in glvssia- other languages, as the Spirit enabled them.

Luke's report of the results of this supernatural event are found in Acts 2:6, where a crowd gathered. People from every part of the Roman world were present and each heard "wonders of God" in his own tongue or language. But, the first reaction from the crowd was that the disciples “had too much wine” meaning they were drunk (Acts 2:13). In fact, this very act, according to the term glvssia means "language" (ABS:1993:37). If one were to look at the Greek text further, the term apofqessomai (apothesomai) means to "utter or speak in connection with inspired utterance" (ABS: 1993: 23). But, Rienecker disagrees and cites Bruce and Haenchen, who feel this term is not "ecstatic speech" but more "weighty or oracular utterance" (1980: 265). The implication is this, if Rienecker is correct, the gift of glvssia enabled the disciples to speak in a weighty discourse by speaking to everyone present in his own native tongue. Several considerations must be thought through before any further study can be given. First, it must be noted here that the filling of the Spirit was experienced not just by the Apostles only. Luke uses the phrase, “All of them,” which indicates that it was more than just the Apostles, but all those who were with them. In this case the one hundred and twenty disciples with the Apostles in the upper room (Acts 1:15). The traditional view is that no one else had access at this time to the Spirit, other than the Twelve. But, we can not assume that Jesus only gave the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, in John 20:22-23. John seems to leave the amount of disciples open, and it can be reasonably argued that Mary (Mother of Jesus) and Mary Magdalene was present as well plus countless more, such as the one hundred and twenty. Thus more than just the twelve received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22-23. Then Luke records that the “disciples numbered one hundred and twenty” in Acts 1:15. Reese noted that the prediction and fulfillment of Joel 2, does not apply to all who were present (1993: 46). Reese sees the prophesy of Joel was more inclusive to the Twelve and restricted to them in the early state of the Church. But, this view that Reese espouses is problematic at best and holds no scriptural weight. What Peter equates at the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 is on going since many aspects of that prophesy still have not come to completion. In addition, if the one hundred and twenty did indeed receive the gift along with the Apostles, then the conclusion is clear- the gift of tongues is for the church as a whole, not just for the twelve. Second, the result of this filling has a direct correlation with the filling of the Holy Spirit that all the disciples experienced, this is seen as the references to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is available to not only Jew but Gentile- and all who are far off. According to Luke, this did not happen until the "tongues of fire" rested on each disciple. Thirdly, the disciples spoke in glvssia as the Spirit gave them utterances. Reese points out that the Apostles were "inspired" to speak in "languages they had never studied" (1993: 49).

Historically, God's presence has always been seen through fire. A few examples are: Exodus 3:2-5 tells the story of Moses' experience with the burning bush and then with the mountain of fire in Exodus 19. Jesus told of the baptism by "wind and fire" in Luke 3:16-17 and He wanted to bring “fire” upon the earth (Luke 12:49). The Hebrew author wrote that God is a "consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). In the End Times, God will throw Satan and his angels into the "Lake of Fire" described in Revelation 20:14. Acts 2:3 reveals God's presence by the "tongues of fire" to fill the disciples, enabling them to miraculously speak in utterances that the hearers heard as their own languages. Thus, this fire that rested on each disciple, must have wrought the power and strength of God to over empower the disciple to accomplish the will of God.

This event on Pentecost (Shavuoth), does seem to be a restoration of the separation of languages in the Genesis account of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9). Of course, it can be said that the beginning of the early Church and the spreading of the Christian Church may have started on the day of Pentecost. But, it can be noted that the early Church has it’s very roots when Jesus commissioned the disciples to “go into all nations” (Matthew 28:18ff.). The glvssia (glossia) in Acts helped to launch the Christian message in one central place (Jerusalem), during one central time (Pentecost), to all peoples in the Roman world. Bruce analyzes this event by stating "not only are the speakers' words partially or completely beyond their conscience control, but they are uttering in languages of which they have no command in normal circumstances" (1992: 52). But, this is not the only form of glvssia. According to Bruce, it is the "spiritual gift" mentioned in the Corinthian Letter (1992: 52). Which will lend itself to another form used during deep intimate prayer. This spiritual gift for the church that Bruce mentioned can best be stated as a supernatural utterance during one’s prayer to the Lord (I Cor. 14:28). The significance of the Corinthian aspect of the glvssia will be discussed later in this paper. But it would be wise to say at this point that glvssia was a gift in connection with the gift of interpretation (I Cor. 14:5), once used in a corporate sense. The Corinthian Church spoke in unintelligent utterances publically that no one could understand unless there was an interpreter. The glvssia in Acts 2 is different than in I Corinthians. The only interpretation Luke records is that each (i.e. disciples) were “declaring wonders God” (Acts 2:11). Bruce adds that the "Church of Christ still speaks in many tongues, and if her speech is not normally of the supernatural order that marked the day of Pentecost, the message is the same -- the mighty deeds of God" (1993: 53). But, it can be stated that the church does need the gift of tongues for the edifcation of the body.

Since, then, the term glvssia, in Acts primarily means other languages, what languages were heard? Luke records in Acts 2:9-11 the role call of dialects. They represented various parts of the Roman world: "Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappodocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs. These represented every "nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5). This, obviously, was a spectacular event that was much more significant than the first glance at the text might indicate. The glvssia in Acts Chapter 2 was the catalyst which launched the early Church into a worldwide expansion that would not stop. The fact that the twelve core disciples were simple, unlearned Galileans who spoke only the dialect of the common working man made this event even more spectacular. After the Pentecost experience in Acts Chapter 2, glvssia is not mentioned again until Chapter 10. What is seen during the span of about 10 years are growth, miracles and healings. At this point in Chapter 10, Peter is preaching to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile who was a Centurion with the “Italian Regiment.” In Acts 10:44,Luke records that "the Holy Spirit came upon all who heard the message." He goes further to examine what happened next, that is that all the Gentile believers began "speaking in tongues" (lalountwu glvssaiz) in front of the circumcised believers. It was obvious enough that the Gentile believers were "praising God" during this spectacular event, as it is recorded. Previously, in the opening verses of Chapter 10, Luke weaves the story of how God, through the use of a vision during a trance, showed Peter not to call anything unclean which God had made clean. Peter's prejudices against Gentiles held him and the Church back from world wide expansion. Christ died for all peoples, whether Jew or Greek. Thus, Peter's firsthand experience into the working of the Gentile into the faith was necessary and essential. John Stott notes that, to Peter, this was a "Gentile Pentecost in Caesarea corresponding to the Jewish Pentecost in Jerusalem" (1990: 196). This was the second baptism of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts that was outside the realm of baptism of water. Although, the norm for new converts to receive the Holy Spirit is after a believer “repents and is baptized” in water this event changes due to it’s impact on Peter. Peter immediately recognized this event as what happened to him at Pentecost and he remarked that, "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized (baptism) with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10: 47). Peter retelling his account of the event in Acts 11:16, reveals that this was the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This event raises some very real questions. If this is the same event as in Acts 2, why then did these non-Jews and non-disciples receive the Holy Spirit? Also, does this mean that one receives the Spirit before baptism in water? Both of the aforementioned questions are easily answered, if one looks at the overall context of Acts and the New Testament as a whole.

First, this event is a second Pentecost as Stott noted, but this happening did occur to non-Jews and non-disciples. Those who received the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, being the one hundred and twenty Jewish disciples of Jesus; but now non-Jewish disciples have received it. If the context is examined closely, the barriers between the Jews and the Gentiles needed to be broken down. Reese pointed out that Peter viewed this event as a happening "from God's hand" as proof that the Gentiles were to be admitted to the "same blessings of salvation" that the Jews had received (1976: 401). Second, regarding the pre-baptism experience, again the context or the overall big picture is the normal way to receive the "gift" of the puevma (Spirit). In Acts 2:38, Peter proclaimed to the Jewish crowd from different parts of the empire to "repent and be baptized into Jesus Christ for (eis) the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is consistent with every conversion experience within the New Testament. The outpouring of the Spirit is vastly different from the Spirit one receives through salvation, as in Acts 2:38. It must be stated that baptism in water (through faith in Jesus Christ and a repentant contrite heart) gives the believer the remission or forgiveness of sins and the indwelling gift of the Holy Spirit. Although water baptism is not salvation nor can it stand alone, it is an essential aspect of the salvation process.

What is seen in the account of Cornelius, however, is that outpouring of the Holy Spirit enabling them to speak in other languages without the laying on of hands. Donald Guthrie points to this as the "fullness of the Spirit" that was the "evidence of true Christianity" (1990: 366). Even Peter ordered additionally that the baptism in water must be accomplished for the remission of sins (Reese 1993: 402). It is assumed only in two other references in Acts that tongues may have appeared. One reference is in Acts 8:14-19, when Peter and John were on a preaching tour in Samaria, they laid hands on the people who did not have spiritual gifts. The text does not indicate that they did not have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, but that they did not have the empowering gifts of the puevma (spirit). Simon, who was a magician (mageuw- which is to practice magical arts in sorcery), saw the spectacular event take place and he pleaded for this ability to give people the gifts. It is assumed that glvssia is included in the "gifts" referenced. It is interesting that the "gifts" did not come with water baptism, but with the grace of God as the laying on of hands occurred, as indicated in the text. But this is not the norm as the Corinthian correspondence indicates. Another instance in Acts of the glvssia being included in the referenced "gifts" is in Acts 19:1-6. While Paul was in Ephesus, he found some "disciples of John" who were baptized into John's baptism of repentance for the coming of Jesus. The disciples were re-baptized (in water) and Paul then laid his hands on them. Immediately, they began to speak in tongues and prophesied. The empowering gift of the puevma (spirit) gave these disciples the glossia, which is speaking in tongues. As well, Gaertner says, "the laying on hands seems particularly connected to the reception of spiritual gifts" (1995: 300), but one must conclude that it is not the precedent. Bruce does not linger upon the subject but adds, "There may be an intentional parallel here between the imposition of Paul's hands on these men and the imposition of Peter's (and John's) hands on the Samaritan converts at an earlier date" (1992: 364). But, although in Acts there is a connection, there is not one Apostolic command nor regard in the entire bulk of the New Testament writings. The Apostles and Luke do not give any hint of the Apostolic laying on of hands to receive the gift of tongues as a norm. What is recorded are extreme cases were the Apostle’s do lay hands on someone for a real purpose. If the spiritual gifts where only given by the laying on of hands from only the Apostles, then why do the one hundred and twenty have the gift? In fact it seems that the gift was not so much for the unbelievers, but rather for the Jewish Apostles to realize the inclusion of Gentiles into the Kingdom, as seen in Acts. The laying on of hands is a powerful means to impart a blessing, that is why James 5:14 refers to elders laying on hands upon the sick, due to the powerful nature of laying on of hands, but it is not restricted to only the Apostle’s but the church as a whole for all time. Also, Paul told young Timothy, “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands...” and the connection is made with “and do not share in the sins of others” (I Timothy 5:22).

Luke does not mention the spiritual gift of glvssia any further. In fact, the only other main source in the entire New Testament (aside from Mark 16:17), that we have for this act is in Paul's first letter to the Corinthian Church. Is it not odd that with so much emphasis on the Spirit's workings within the Church, that glvssia is not mentioned more? Perhaps one can find the answer in Paul's writings to the Corinthian Church itself. Luke tends to be a historian, giving the account of an actual event, not an explanation or any more details about the true theological significance of this particular gift. This does not mean that they do not exist nor are in operation or that one cannot gain theological understanding from the Acts account. Luke is not an Apostle, thus he leaves the theological teachings up to those like Paul his traveling companion. In Paul's Corinthian letters, it is evident that the Church in Corinth was abusing all of the various gifts. The Corinthian Church was plagued with a multitude of problems that Paul had to address. One of these was the spiritual gift of glvssia (glossia). Apparently, as one looks at I Corinthians 12-14, this was the case. It is odd that scholarship is divided over glvssia when it comes to the Corinthian passage. It is obvious that no one would doubt the glossia in Acts is another language, but not so with I Corinthians 12-14.

Paul refers to unintelligent utterances in the Corinthian correspondence, yet some lay question to such as the alleged "angel" talk (Reese 1993:110). Even though there is not any evidence for angels to have their own language, being messengers from God, there is not any evidence on either camp. In Chapter 12 of I Corinthians, Paul seems to argue that each person has been assigned a different gift of the Spirit. Many argue that Paul says that the least of these gifts is tongues, (glossais) and interpret or translate ,but that is a misnomer (Rienecker 1980: 430). The Apostle never refers to tongues as a lesser gift nor does he use the word “least”. In fact, Paul does say that tongues and interpretation together are greater than the one who prophesies ( I Cor. 14:5), although Paul would much rather everyone prophesy. Again W. Harold Mare indicates that these two gifts are "of least importance" (1976: 266), yet when they are combined they are greater. Although tongues and interpretation are on the bottom of Paul’s role call of gifts in I Corinthians 12: 7-11, it could be stated that Paul is saving the best for last. In Chapter 13, Paul shows a more "excellent way" (12:31b). This excellent way is agape (agape), unconditional love. Paul says in verse 1 that, "If I speak in tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." Mare infers that this passage means that the, "tongues of men and angels are obviously the language men and angels use" (1976: 268). The phrase Paul uses here, "Ean tais glossais ton anpropon lalou kai ton aggelon," in verse 1, raises an interesting question. Many Pentecostal circles claim here that Paul is referring to "angel talk" which the tongues-speaker can tap into. Is Paul really saying this? Knofel Staton believes not, stating "we read too much into the text to suppose that it suggests that angels have a language all their own," (1993: 66). Is he is right? That is speculative and would take to much time for proper examination, but Paul being inspired may hit on some new Revelation that scholarship can not be certain of. For example angels do historically speak to man, and also sing and praise God as seen in Revelation. Do angels have a praise language that man can only be given by God’s gift of glossia? Perhaps the answer may never be clearly known.

If Paul's proper context is taken into consideration, love supersedes the gifts that will one day pass away when the perfect or perfection comes teleion (teleion). The word Paul refers to, teleion, has caused much debate and wonder over the years. Is Paul alluding to Christ's second return, maturity, completion of the canon, or some unseen event? Carson warns that when dealing with the middle voice -- in this case pausontai: to cease or stop, care must be given to proper context. This is due to the "intrinsic nature" of the middle voice. Carson continues, "It is certainly wrong to rest so much on the middle verb pausontai," (1993: 78). In fact, Carson points out on page 79, that a case against tongues-speaking for today cannot itself rest on a middle verb due to its dependence on the subject. Perhaps if the noun teleion was considered, maybe some light can be shed. The noun teleion is an (acc. singular neuter adjective). Can an adjective refer in the neuter to Christ? Every place where Christ Himself is mentioned, He is referenced in the masculine. Thayer takes the argument further to say that teleion is "the perfect state of all things, to be ushered in by the return of Christ from heaven," (1977: 618). Although Thayer carries more weight, Reese disagrees, saying, "There are indications that tongues are associated with the infancy of the Church," (1993: 115). The term teleion can refer to an end or a time of completion. Some scholars have even suggested a time in history for Christian maturity. Taken into proper context adding the argument in Chapter 14, it is seen that the glossias is not the least of the gifts, but is a gift that God can bless Christian believers with according to His grace. This “perfection” most-likely is a state of Christian maturity within the realm of Christ’s second advent onto the earth. Prophetically, the church will no longer need the spiritual gifts once it has united with Christ in eternal glory. Yet, on the same token, glossia should not be used as a sign of faith or a test of fellowship, due to it’s continual state. But with its proper use (with an interpreter), it would help enable the church into great growth.

It must also be noted that the Apostle Paul does give a distinction of uses for tongues, that there are two forms per say, or two distinct features of this gift. Thayer says that, “the gift of men who, rapt in an ecstasy and no longer quite masters of their own reason and consciousness, pour fourth their glowing spiritual emotions in strange utterances” (118). This is what perhaps Paul alludes to in his Roman epistle as the Holy Spirit, “but the Spirit himself interceded for us with groans that words cannot express” (Romans 8:26). It must be dually noted as a side bar that the Holy Spirit must never be referred to as “it” but as He, being the third triune of God. One aspect of the Holy Spirit’s ministry is to lead each and every Christian into a deeper prayer life, in which the Apostle Paul describes as the ministry to intercede. It can also be said here that those with the gift of tongues or glossia are in connection with a vibrant prayer life as Paul alludes to.

Conclusions

F.F. Bruce notes that glossia is to be used in conjunction with "interpreter" and this would be "helpful to an assembled congregation" (1997: 272). All in all, with the evidences in the Acts accounts and the I Corinthians accounts, 1) glossais is an ability to speak in other languages that were previously unknown to the speaker and 2) is given to a Christian to enhance his/her personal prayer life to give it power and authority to win spiritual victories. This prayer use of glossia is evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and bring glory to God and yet edify the speaker (I Cor. 14:4).

Now, the big question remains. Does glossia exist today? Another question must be asked in response, "Can one put God into a box?" Of course not. God can and does allow for things to happen that would blow any theory or theology out of the water. To say this "gift" was given to the Christians only when an Apostle laid hands on an individual is weak at best. Proper context must be given to both the examples in Acts, and Paul’s teachings in the Corinthian correspondence. Due to the abuse within the Corinthian Church, Paul points out that love needs to be sought out, if one desires to seek the gift of tongues (I Cor. 12:31).

Christian history does reveal this gift continued. But, due to the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, much of it was suppressed, when the scriptures where taken out of the hands of the people and put exclusively in the hands of the clergy. We must conclude that by and large tongues did not cease to be active within Christendom as a whole. It does seem prophetic that only within the last 200 years has tongues appeared in mass back into Christendom. In fact, this new outpouring, seems to cross all denominational barriers. A detailed study in Revivalism in America and world wide will provide a useful tool to realize this. Even within the Restoration movement the gift of tongues are on the rise stemming from the Cane Ridge Revival in August 1801 that lasted for one week where twenty to thirty thousand experinced God in a miraculous way. For example Barton W. Stone in his memoirs notes that pious people would fall into various exercises, even tongues. He notes about the Revival, “I heard them agonizing in tears and strong crying for mercy to be shown to sinners, and speaking like angels to all around” (Stone:1847:40).

It must be stated, that what can be seen today within the modern glvssia- speaking world is that what Paul warned the Christians in Corinth about is repeating itself. There are a varity of abuses, but do those abuses rule out the possiblity of the continuation of the gift today? The Acts accounts alone in and of themselves do not give us proper conclusions on the continuation of the gift, rather the Acts accounts give us examples on how the Lord used that gift to grow the early church. But when the Corinthian letters are considered then the big picture emerges. When Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church he was explaining the true meaning behind this and other gifts and how they are to function properly within the Church and in each individual’s life. Therefore, what can be concluded about glossia is that it may not be needed for Christian salvation, but it can enhance one’s faith and prayer life to be stronger Christian and it does accompany the Baptism in the Spirit. So what is taught in most Restoration Movement (Christian Churches/Church of Christ) circles is not equivalent with what has been learned within this paper and more importantly, the Scriptures themselves. Within the Christian Churches it may be easy to criticize those who experience tongues as being radical, crazy and too emotional. In fact, the majority of the gifts including the glossia are often ignored. But, to quote the Apostle Paul, "Love never fails,"( I Corinthians 13:8a), and even though love is not a gift, nor is it ever mentioned as one of the (charisma) in the entire New Testament, this by far is greater than any spiritual gift such as tongues. Paul does not say because of love the gifts will eventually die, but in context love must be sought out in order to use the gift properly, which the Church so desperately needs.

Does this then negate the use of the gifts within the church and by Christians? Paul says to the Corinthian church, “Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong till the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Corinthians 1:7-8), meaning that the church will always have the gifts of the Spirit (all of them), until the Lord’s return. Perhaps that is why Paul gives the Christians at Corinth the continuing command to “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (I Cor. 14:39b). Jesus even said Himself, “And these signs shall accompany thosed who believe: In may name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues...” ( Mark 16:17).

This paper has not sought a certain theological viewpoint, but has plainly looked at the textual evidence for and against the present existence of glvssia. Once the evidence has been weighed, the scripture must speak for itself. But, this paper does conclude that the gift of tongues can and does exist today, based on the scriptural record.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt et al., eds. The Greek New Testament. 4th ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Blumberg, Craig. The NIV Application Commentary: I Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Book Of The Acts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1992.

Bruce, F.F. New Testament History. New York: Doubleday, 1971.

Bruce, F.F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1991.

Carson, D.A. Exegetial Fallacies.N Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.

Gaertner, Dennis. The College Press NIV Commentary: Acts. Joplin: College Press, 1995.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

Kummel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975.

Mare, W. Harold. "I Corinthians." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, pp. 173-297 Ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Metzger, Bruce, M., ed. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament . New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

Neuman, Barclay M. Jr. Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1993.

The NIV Study Bible: New International Version Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985.

Perschbacher, Wesley J. ed. The New Analytical Greek Lexicon. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Pub., 1992

Reese, Gareth L. New Testament History: Acts. Joplin: College Press, 1993.

Rienecker, Fritz and Rogers, Cleon. Linguistic Key to the New Testament Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.

Staton, Knofel. Spiritual Gifts for Christians Today. Joplin: College Press, 1973.

Stott, John. The Spirit, The Church, And The World: The Message of Acts. Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 1990.

Thayer, Joseph H. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

-- Anonymous, December 03, 2000

Answers

Do you have any experience at all in living in a place and culture where more than one language is spoken? In particular, do you have any experience in worshipping in a church where the members speak, as their "home" or "heart" languages a multitude of different languages? I do. Most of my life has been spent in multi-lingual situations, and I have been serving a "poly-lingual" church for over 19 years.

You said, "The glvssia in Acts 2 is different than in I Corinthians." I disagree.

While it might be POSSIBLE, if I Cor. 12-14 stood in isolation, to interpret "tongues" in the ways favoured by Pentecostals, Charismatics, Neo-Pentecostals, etc., one of the MOST BASIC rules of Biblical interpretation is that every passage of scripture must be interpreted in the light of every other passage of scripture (and especially, of course, any others that deal with the same subject). There are only a handfull of scripture passages that deal with speaking with "tongues" AT ALL, and ONLY TWO that have much, if anything, to show us about the nature of the "tongues" that are spoken. These are Acts 2 and I Corinthians 12-14. In Acts 2, where the gift is first given (and that fact is significant in itself) it CLEARLY refers to the speaking of actual human languages (which is what the word NORMALLY meant whenever it was used of languages at all). Therefore, it should be interpreted in the same way in reading the passages in I Cor. unless either the passage says directly that the gift spoken of is different here, or unless there is some reason within what is said that makes it impossible to interpret it that way.

Is there anything in I Cor. that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to understand those references as referring also to known human languages? There is NONE WHATSOEVER. EVERYTHING (!!!) that I Cor. says about "tongues" can be understood just as well (or better!) if the word is taken to refer to actual human languages.

What about the fact that people didn't understand? I understand two languages well and bits of a couple of others, but there are thousands of languages that I don't understand. I have, in my 50 years of life, attended MANY worship services in my life where I didn't understand some or all of what was being said, simply because the speaker was using some known human language that was not one that I understood.

What about the fact that an interpreter was needed? I have attended many meetings where one or more interpreters translated from one known human language into another.

What about the fact that a "gift of interpretation" is mentioned? What about it? If God can (and did) give people the gift to speak with known languages they had not studied, is there any reason he could not also, when needed, give some people a gift to translate from one language (even one they had not studied) to another? I may have a MINOR "talent" for interpretation myself. I find I can often catch the "gist" of a conversation even when I don't know enough of the language to speak it or even to understand every word. (The problem is that this sometimes makes people think I know more of the language than I actually do.)

I've given this challenge before, and I challenge you now: read I Cor. 12-14 again, out loud, substituting the name of some real human language that you yourself don't understand (Japanese? Urdu? Swahili?) and see if there is any part of this passage that doesn't make sense, read this way. If you think there is, come back to the forum and tell me, and I'll show you how it can and does make sense.

As I've said, I serve a multi-lingual congregation. To avoid misunderstandings and confusion, we have had to adopt a "language policy" for the church. I didn't realise this when we first adopted this policy, but I find that our policy is right in line with the recommendations Paul makes to the church at Corinth.

1) Any speaking in the church that is addressed to the congregation, e.g. sermons, announcements, etc., must be done in one of the two languages that almost all in the congregation understand, i.e. English and Tagalog.

2) If anyone uses another language in addressing the congregation, or if there are people present who do not understand the language being spoken (even if it is one of these 2 main languages), we will do our best to provide translation ("an interpreter").

3) Among themselves, in their own small groups, people are free to speak any language they choose, but they are urged to be considerate if anyone joins them who does not understand that language.

4) We have Bible studies (Sunday School classes) in three languages, English, Tagalog and Ilocano, but make sure everyone knows this so that they can join a class in a language they understand.

5) In prayers, even the public prayers, they are free to use whatever language they feel comfortable with, though we do ENCOURAGE them to use one of the two main languages in the PUBLIC prayers.

To reiterate, I find NOTHING WHATSOEVER anywhere in the Bible to support your contention that "the glvssia in Acts 2 is different than in I Corinthians." I think what is said fits MUCH BETTER with the idea that the "tongues" in I Cor. were also known human languages. I find nothing whatever anywhere in the Bible to support the idea that the "tongues" spoken of ANYWHERE in the Bible were ANYTHING BUT known human languages. If this is the case, then most of the other arguments about contemporary "tongues-speaking" rest on a shaky foundation.

-- Anonymous, December 04, 2000

Good material, AKelley.

Accurate, too.

Connie

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2000

Ben, here is where you are wrong... the function in Acts of glossia is different than I Cor 12-14. There is not one indication that glossia was used in the Corinthian church to spread the gospel to those in other regions like in Acts 2. Paul in I Cor 12-14 is trying to quil the abuses in the church of glossia, BUT when he does correct them and give them guidlines, he does not instruct them to find the pagans in the world to confirm the gospel message. Paul rather instruct them for it's use within the Church AND in the use of one's private prayer life... Simple!

The glossia in Acts was a kick start for the early Church, thus the church spread instantly without any of the twelve going to the remote parts of the world... the new babes in Christ did that. Glossia on Pentecost was used for a different reason than we see in it's use for the Church (I Cor 12-14).

As far as the few scriptures, my freind there are more references to tongues than baptism. Do you find three chapters on baptism and its use and function? No. Does that negate Baptism? No. So, just because the word glossia is used a certain number of times, does not mean it is not important.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Connie,

"Good material"? "Accurate, too"?

Well, there is some factual material, and a good portion of the factual material IS accurate. But there are some inaccuracies, as well as a number of things that are stated as fact that are not universally accepted as fact. For example, the statement that "Christian history does reveal this gift continued" is highly debatable.

However, the vast majority of what is said above is a matter of personal interpretation of the facts and references involved, and a highly subjective and emotional personal interpretation at that. EVERY POINT at which he differs from today's standard "Restoration Movement interpretation" is based on his personal OPINION about matters that are debatable and about which many reputable scholars take the opposite view.

A. Kelley,

You still haven't taken up my challenge:

"I've given this challenge before, and I challenge you now: read I Cor. 12-14 again, out loud, substituting the name of some real human language that you yourself don't understand (Japanese? Urdu? Swahili?) and see if there is any part of this passage that doesn't make sense, read this way. If you think there is, come back to the forum and tell me, and I'll show you how it can and does make sense."

Are you afraid to do that? Try it BEFORE you tell me again that the gift in I Cor. can't be the same one as was given in Acts 2. The fact that Paul gives some rules about how to use the gift in their Christian worship and in their private devotional life IF THEY USE IT THAT WAY does not necessarily mean that this is the PURPOSE for which it was given. Even in I Cor., he says, "... tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers ..." (14:22).

You also said, "As far as the few scriptures, my freind [sic] there are more references to tongues than baptism. Do you find three chapters on baptism and its use and function? No. Does that negate Baptism? No. So, just because the word glossia is used a certain number of times, does not mean it is not important."

The fact that the word happens to be used a number of times in the four chapters where this gift is described and discussed, does not really, in my mind, constitute a large number of "references". I have just finished reading the book, BAPTISM, A BIBLICAL STUDY" by Jack Cottrell. (Connie, I would strongly recommend that you read it. I think it would answer many of your questions.) In it, Prof. Cottrell discusses THIRTEEN different passages in ELEVEN different books of the New Testament that have something significant to say about baptism. For tongues there are ONLY TWO passages in the New Testament that discuss it. One (I Cor.) is quite long, but it deals with spiritual gifts (mainly miraculous gifts) in general, and especially with the ABUSES of such gifts, so it can hardly be taken to be descriptive of NORMAL practice.

The passage that must be taken as the "yardstick" for interpreting all the rest is Acts 2 which tells of when the gift was first given and is the passage where WHAT the gift consisted of is described most clearly and least ambiguously. Peter used the Pentecost event as the standard against which he judged similar experiences. (See Acts 11:17.) So should we!

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

AKelley,

What are you smoking anyway?

The references of tongues compared to Baptism is a bold-faced lie (or at least extremely poor scholarship). Glossia and its derivatives is used 26 times in the New Testament. Baptizo and its derivatives is used 96 times in the New Testament - and that is not including the references to a "Baptizer" such as John the Immerser. These numbers are provided by Strong's Concordance by the way - not by me.

If you want to base scriptural ideas on sheer number of references - then "tongues" is blown out of the water by baptism. Interesting that the Bible never says "tongues now saves you" - it only says "Baptism now saves you". Go figure.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2000

Brother Ben:

I haven't much time at the moment because it is late and I must rest before getting up early to go to my work. But, I simply want to say a hearty AMEN AND AMEN to your words. THey are accurate, and very hard for Brother Kelley to answer. This may explain his reluctance to accept your challenge.

His title of his initial post is about "tongues of fire" which is something he maintains continues today. Yet it is something that he has never seen in his entire life. In fact, he has never been able to explain how he "experienced this gift within himself" while simultaneously denying that he even had the gift within himself at all.

It is also something that he is completely unwilling to demonstrate to us or have someone else demonstrate to us. The gift of tongues, especially the "cloven tongues like as of fire" or the tongues of fire that Brother Kelley is talking about on the day of pentecost were evident for all to see and if they continued today they would continue to be as obvious and clear for us to see as they were on the day of pentecost.

He will never be able to show his self contradictory doctine is taught in the word of God. And I predict that he will soon become confused and severely contradict himself even worse that he has when he discussed this subject in the past.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Mark and Ben,

Forgive me, I made a statement and did not check it out properly... about the references of tongues compaired to baptism.

Ben, I understand your argument, but the fact remains there is a difference. You quoted 14:22, but what about 14:4? There is a dual purpose for tongues and a least three functions. One function used to bridge the language gap (cf. Acts 2) and another for within the Church and yet another in one's personal private prayer life. Tongues is still needed for the Church today. No where in scripture has that ever been recended. In fact, it is an assumption of the RM to state that tongues ceased ( a very weak assumption).

Lee, talk to the hand!

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Hey - did anyone else notice that most everyone in this post's Bibliography is either a neo-orthodox or otherwise liberally-inclined scholar?

Things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

And....

Lee can't talk to the hand, because he hasn't been given the "Tongues of Fire" to do so - only the tongue of God's Holy, Spirit-breathed Scriptures.

Keep preachin' it Brother Lee !

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

AKelley, you said,

"Ben, I understand your argument, but the fact remains there is a difference. You quoted 14:22, but what about 14:4? There is a dual purpose for tongues and a least three functions. One function used to bridge the language gap (cf. Acts 2) and another for within the Church and yet another in one's personal private prayer life. Tongues is still needed for the Church today. No where in scripture has that ever been recended [sic]. In fact, it is an assumption of the RM to state that tongues ceased ( a very weak assumption)."

The ONLY place where a "PURPOSE" is stated for "tongues" (languages) is I Cor. 14:22. And 14:4 and the other places where "functions" of "tongues" (languages) are mentioned do not necessarily indicate that these are INTENDED uses for "tongues" (languages) -- only that these are ways in which the gift CAN be used.

Please accept my challenge and DO what I suggested. I think that the main reason you can't or won't accept the other side is that whenever you read the word "tongues" you interpret it to fit your own prejudices and therefore cannot even "see" the other possibility. Reading the two chapters (I Cor. 12 and 14) OUT LOUD, substituting the name of an actual language for the word "tongues" (i.e. making it a gift to speak [e.g.] Hindi rather than unspecified "unknown languages") may help remove your spiritual cataracts.

Besides English, I am reasonably fluent in Cantonese. I don't claim to have been given this as a supernatural gift; I studied in language school. (Though I did ask God to help, and I think He did; I'm told that my pronunciation and grammar are better than that of most foreign speakers.) I actually learned it as much or more for the purpose of "edifying" (training) believers as for talking with unbelievers, but I can only do this when there are people present who either understand or can translate into languages they do understand.

If I, when I go on furlough, use Cantonese to preach to or teach our supporters in mono-lingual U.S. churches, this would only be "showing off", which appears to be one of the things the Corinthians were chastised for doing. No one would be edified or built up -- except it might perhaps build up my pride!

I could still use it in my own personal "devotions", in which case I would edify myself. (And I have found that when I read the Bible in Chinese, I sometimes notice things I had missed in English.) But no-one else would be edified by this, while they would be by me preaching/teaching in a language they know.

Even in my own devotions, I am NORMALLY most edified when I use a language I understand best myself, and Paul concurs. Chapter 14, verses 13 to 15: "Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue (language) should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue (language}, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also."

As for it being, "an assumption of the RM to state that tongues ceased ( a very weak assumption)", the main "assumption of the RM" in this regard is that WHEN "tongues" ceased, it was permanent. THAT "tongues" did cease is a historical fact. You even partially concede this yourself in your original posting -- I think you could hardly deny it completely -- but blame it on the Roman Catholic church "suppressing" it. We simply believe that this was not because of "suppression", but because the time had come for the gift to "cease" or "be stilled" (I Cor. 13:8).

There were sporadic outbreaks throughout church history of various "ecstatic utterances" that were not in known languages, but we should note two things: (1) until about the 19th century, these took place in groups which most people accept as having been clearly heretical in their beliefs (which would make it analogous to similar ecstatic utterances that have always taken place in pagan religions), and (2) there is considerable doubt as to whether the "gift" they exercised was really the same as the gift that prevailed in the first century church.

As you yourself admitted, in the past 200 years or so, there has been a notable resurgence of such practices. HOWEVER:

1) SOME (though I won't say all) of the groups that practice such things are also heretical in their beliefs. Have you ever checked out, in detail, the beliefs about the "God-head" held by some of the main leaders of the "Toronto Blessing" movement. Remember I John 4:1-6.

2) There is considerable doubt that these practices are the same gift as was practiced in the first century church.

3) The fact that the "outbreaks" of "tongues-speaking" in the last 200 or so years (especially in the last 50 or so years) have been so wide-spread and so prolonged MAY have some eschatalogical significance, but does that necessarily prove that God is the author or that the "gift" is "the real thing"?

-- Anonymous, December 07, 2000

Mark, it seems scholarship is not your strongest point. Most of those in the Bibliography are considered some our the world's finest- by some of the RM's finest. Carson, Meztger, Bruce are some required reading in our RM schools. In fact Gaertner requires Carson in his Greek course at Johnson Bible Collge. Plus Reese is a classic RM scholar.

Ben, Perhaps I have already taken you up on your challenge and if I did I still disagree with you. Does that mean I have to tell you? No. Your assumption along with the RM thought that the "perfect" has come is just that a theological assumption that is not fact. You aregument is truly weak at best.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

AKelley,

I may indeed have been premature on some of those authors, but I have in the past read some pretty liberal materials in books that listed some of them in their Bibliographies. That does not make what they say wrong, just makes you want to be a little more careful in what you glean from their writings - Which is good advice to follow no matter who the author is.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

AKelley, you said,

"Ben, Perhaps I have already taken you up on your challenge and if I did I still disagree with you. Does that mean I have to tell you? No. Your assumption along with the RM thought that the 'perfect' has come is just that a theological assumption that is not fact. You aregument [sic] is truly weak at best."

FIRST, concerning the argument about "the perfect" (which can equally validly be translated "the complete" -- which presents a quite different picture) -- Although I did argue at some length IN A PREVIOUS THREAD that the most likely meaning of "the complete" is the completed canon of the N.T., I had DELIBERATELY NOT brought up that argument in this thread. And since I haven't, you are, in effect, "putting words into my mouth" in using that to "put down" my argument here!!

Even though you brought up the matter of "the perfect" ("the complete") in your original posting, I deliberately AVOIDED responding to that HERE because (a) it is an argument that easily becomes a distraction, taking up a lot of time but going nowhere, and (b) in a sense it is irrelevant to this thread.

The more I study I Cor. 13 IN THE CONTEXT of the whole argument of chapters 12-14 and of church history, the more convinced I become that it makes perfect sense for "the complete" to refer to the completed New Testament. However, I do recognise that it is impossible to prove this ABSOLUTELY. Two other suggestions that I think are POSSIBLE are that it is some unspecified higher level of Christian maturity on the part of the church in general, or AGAPÉ love itself, practiced at some higher or more general level than was the case in Corinth at that time. Suggestions that it refers to Christ himself at his second coming, the second coming itself, our own resurrection, or some "perfected" state of existence of Christians in heaven have an emotional appeal, based on our use of the English word "perfect" and our feeling that nothing on earth is truly "perfect", but they don't fit the context or the true meaning of the Greek word, especially as used in this context. But, as I said, since Paul did not, in this place, define what "the complete" was, it is hard to prove ABSOLUTELY which is the correct meaning.

However, if I can't prove ABSOLUTELY that "the complete" refers to the completed New Testament, neither can you prove ABSOLUTELY that it is not.

The other reason why I DELIBERATELY did not respond to what you said here about "the complete" is that I think that argument is somewhat IRRELEVANT -- IN THIS THREAD.

I did point out that I Cor. 13:8 says that "tongues" (languages) will cease. And I Cor. 13 does talk about the coming of "the complete". BUT, unlike the case with "knowledge" and "prophecy", the text does NOT link the cessation of "tongues" (languages) with the coming of "the complete". There MAY be a link (esp. if "the complete" refers to the completed New Testament -- since history confirms that the original "gift of tongues" DID cease at around that time), but there is no such link stated in the text. It is a matter of inference, which has to go through several somewhat tenuous steps of reasoning, that the cessation of "tongues" (languages) is dependent on the coming of "the complete."

This is borne out by the words used. For "prophecy" and "knowledge", the Greek word used is KATARGEO, which often carries the idea of something being superseded by something else that is better or more powerful. This fits with the description of "prophecy" and "knowledge" being "incomplete" or "in parts" (EK MEROUS), but "the complete" being just that -- complete. (That sounds to me very much like the idea of partial revelation, given piece by piece to individual churches, being replaced by a completed revelation that is sufficient for all churches and all Christians wherever they are.) But for "tongues" (languages) we are simply told, "they will cease." So WHAT "the complete" is has no DIRECT bearing on the cessation of "tongues" (languages), because WHEN "tongues" (languages) "cease" does not depend on when "the complete" comes. Do you follow?

My belief that the "gift of tongues (languages)" has ceased does not rest on interpreting "the complete" as the completed New Testament, but rather on several OTHER reasons, including the following:

(a) The fact that in EVERY case of "speaking in tongues" that I have either witnessed or studied, what happened did not match what happened in Acts 2, which, as I've said, is the standard against which we should evaluate all other such experiences. I have HEARD RUMOURS of contemporary cases which might fit this standard, but these have always come third or fourth-hand (or worse) and have been impossible to verify.

(b) The fact that many pagan religions practice "ecstatic utterances" of some kind, as do some people who are demon-possessed. This not only shows that we cannot take such "babblings" at face value as necessarily having from God, but it also makes me feel even more strongly that we MUST insist on the Acts 2 standard (and also the I John 4 standard, which rules out the leaders of the "Toronto Blessing" cult) for separating the true gift from counterfeits that come from many sources -- some perhaps even Satanic, others simply from excesses of emotion and faulty teaching.

(c) The fact that in the New Testament records (and early Christian writings) this seems to have been a fairly rare gift, given only in fairly exceptional circumstances, and also, in every case but two, given only at the laying on of the hands OF THE APOSTLES. The two exceptions, the Apostles at Pentecost and the household of Cornelius, were truly exceptional cases, given to confirm specific things, i.e. the coming of the Holy Spirit and the beginning of the church, and the direct inclusion of Gentiles in the church.

(d) The fact that there is good historical evidence that this particular gift DID cease within about one or one and a half generations of the beginning of the church. (Subsequent occurences, until the last century or so, took place mainly in heretical groups, and also cannot be shown to fit the Acts 2 criterion.)

(e) The fact that MOST groups that have practiced this "gift" (or what they self-describe as the "gift of tongues") subsequent to the 2nd century have been either heretical groups or at least groups with questionable theology.

SECOND, with regard to my challenge, my original challenge was NOT ONLY for you to try reading it that way yourself, but then to come back to the forum and tell us any place where that way of understanding the passage does not work.

You said, "Perhaps I have already taken you up on your challenge and if I did I still disagree with you. Does that mean I have to tell you?" No, you don't have to tell me. BUT, you have been trying, repeatedly, to tell us that the gift in I Cor. 12 and 14 cannot possibly be the same gift as is described in Acts 2. But you haven't yet showed us why not.

My call to you is PUT UP OR SHUT UP (to put it "in the vernacular"). IF you will accept my challenge, read it that way, then come back and tell us ANY place where it CANNOT make sense that way, and give me the chance to demonstrate (if I can, as I think I can) how it really does make sense, THEN (if you prove your case -- which I don't think you can) you may have a basis for telling us that the "two" "gifts of tongues" are "different." IF NOT, then *QUIT* saying so! O.K.?

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2000

AKelley wrote, "The traditional view is that no one else had access at this time to the Spirit, other than the Twelve. "

Other comments on the topic to all: I haven't encountered this view very much outside people in the Restoration movement. many Christians have accepted the idea that 'all of them' refers to the 120. It seems to be the most natural way of understanding the text. There were more than 12 languages spoken, and only 12 people speaking in tongues upstairs might not draw a crowd, but 120 speaking in different languages would have made a lot more noise.

I'd like to seesome evidence that the 'traditional view' is that only the 12 spoke in tongues. That may be a 'sacred tradition' with some in the RM, but I don't know that many hold to it outside of the movement.

Btw, it is self-contradictory to hold to the idea that only the 12 spoke, and also that the entirity of the Joel prophecy only referred to that event on that one day of Pentecost approximately AD 33. Why? Because the Joel prophecy Peter quoted refers to handmaidens prophesying, and the 12 were men. Also it is kind of rediculous to argue that 'all flesh' only refers to 12 people, even if you argue that 'all does not mean all.'

Peter also gives a promise of the Spirit to the listeners, their children, and as many as are afar off. He had just quoted an Old Testament prophecy about the Spirit being poured out on all flesh, with the result of people prophesying, seeing visions, etc. Previously this sort of activity was limited to a restricted few. But Peter quoted a prophecy about the Spirit being poured out on all flesh, and then made a promise of the Spirit which could apply to those present, their children, and as many as are afar off.

To Benjamin- about the two types of tongues:

Whether there are two types of tongues that are totally different, we don't know from scripture, but we do see tongues (one or two types) operating in two different ways.

In Acts, those who heard speaking in tongues understood what was being said. The languages were their own. In I Corinthians, believers and unbelievers present in the meetings did not know the languages being spoken unless an interpretation was given.

In I Corinthians 14, the speaker did not even know the message in the language he was speaking without the gift of interpretation. This can be shown from the chapter. We do not know whether the 120 understood what they said. Perhaps they found out later after talking with the others who knew the language.

Whether the Corinthian and Acts gift of tongues are the same or not is a moot point. At the very least, they operated differently. In the Acts case, unbelievers heard the message in tongues and understood it. In the Corinthians case, unbelieversand believers in a meeting could not understand it. In Corinthians, we seepaul discouraging the use of tongues without interpretation. One of the arguments he uses is that unbelievers and unlearned people who hear the tongues will think that the believers who speak in tongues are mad. This illustrates Paul's statement about tongues being a sign to unbelievers, quoting a verse about people hearing God speaking through men speaking other languages and still not believing.

In Acts, unbelievers heard tongues and believed anyway. But keep in mind, even in this case, many reacted with scoffing and unbelief when they heard the apostles speak in tongues. Many repented after hearing Peter preach, not after hearing speaking in tongues. So even in this passage tongues may still have had 'and yet for all that they will not hear me' effect on some of those who heard them- those who scoffed and thought those speaking in tongues were drunk on new wine.

I Corinthians 14 does not fit with the idea of a congregation speaking in regular human languages. Why not?

1. Tongues and interpretation are in a list of gifts RM people often refer to as 'sign gifts.' Most of the other gifts in the list are of the spectacular or revelatory type. Nearly all men are able to speak in their own language. Why would this be listed as a 'gift of the Spirit' along with miracles and healing? This doesn't close the case in and of itself- stronger evidence to come...

2. I Corinthians 14 shows us that the one who speaks in tongues does not understand what he says.

Look at verse 2- no one understands him. Look at verse 3. Tongues require interpretation.

Look at verse 13- let the one who speaks in tongues pray that he may interpret. I spek English and Indonesian. Unless someone is talking about something difficult or technical, I can roughly interpret statements from one language to another. I don't need to pray to have this special ability.

Verses 14 and 15 make it even clearer. Paul said if he prayed in a tongue, his spirit prayed, but his mind was unfruitful. Paul writes of praying with his mind and with his understanding.

Let me ask you, if you pray in a language you know naturally, how can your mind be 'unfruitful.' This verse makes sense if the speaker is speaking in a language he does not understand. In verse 19, we see that Paul would rather speak 5 intelligable words with his mind, than 10,000 in an unknown tongue in the context of a church meeting. Notice the contrast between speaking withhis understanding and speaking in tongues. Those who speak other languages naturally speak with their understanding, don't they? When you speak a foreign language naturally, if you do, do you understand what you are saying? Do only English speakers think when they talk? Do only greek speakers think when they talk?

Tongues without interpretation only builds up the one who speaks in tongues. So Paul said not to speak in tongues without an interpretation in a church meeting. A man who speaks in tongues without interpretation can do so outside of the context of the church speaking 'to himself and to God' building himself up by uttering mysteries with his spirit.

'Utters mysteries with his spirit' from verse 2 doesn't fit well with hte idea of natural languages as well. Furthermore, it is not generally true that those who speak in natural foreign languages speak not to men but to God. That just doesn't fit real life. Look at verse 2. It fits with the concept of a spiritual language, as does the rest of the chapter.

As for whether tongues are natural human languages- some Pentecostals, for example, believe that to be generally true. Keep in mind, though, that Paul does suggest the possibility of 'tongues of angels' in I Corinthians 13. Some holddogmatically to the idea that 'tongues of angels' is a hyperbole, but I feel it is unreasonable to be dogmatic about it. There is nothing in the text to demand that this is a hyperbole. If we continue reading the text we see Paul mentioning other things one might do without love- give ones body to be burned, give all ones goods to fee the poor. These sound extreme, but they are possible, and there are people who have done such things. Based on analogy, 'tongues of angels' could be a possibility.

i read an article on the Internet which claimed that 'tongues of angels' shows up in first century literature- a Qumran scroll if I remember correctly. The passage was supposed to have spoken of a type of ecstatic religious speech. It is possible that this could have been a coincidence. Or perhaps Paul borrowed terminology which was in existence at the time to make a point.

Whatever the case, whether an individual utterance in tongues is a human language or not in the context of a church meeting- such as one Paul describes in I Corinthians 14- is not really important. Whether it is angelic, human, a living language or an ancient language, there needs to be an interpretation. The language is not understood without an interpretation.

The Acts 2 tongues may have been the same type of phenomenon as found in I Corinthians 14. But remember that hte context is different. There, 120 people were speaking in tongues before unbelievers on the day of Pentecost, the day of the celebration of the gicing of the Law, which was also the day the Spirit came. The Law came with great manifestations. The Acts 2 even was a watershed point in history. The I Corinthians 14 instructions deal with the use of tongues in church. So ther eis a difference.

Also, according to Paul, those in the assembly could not understand the message in tongues without interpretation. So while it is conceivable that the experience of the 120 was similar to that of one person speaking in tongues in Corinth- speaking a language he himself did not know- there was a major difference. In Acts 2, others understood the message. In I Corinthians 14 others did not.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Benjamin,

It makes sense to read Corinthians to think of someone 'speaking in tongues' in Japanese. But it doesn't make sense if you read the passage to talk about a natural Japanese speaker speaking in his own language in a meeting.

If Paul knew Japanese naturally, and spoke in Japanese, would his mind be 'unfruitful' when he spokein Japanese? Could he say that he would rather speak 5 words WITH HIS MIND rather than 10,000 words in Japanese? That doesn't make sense. He would be using his mind to speak Japanese if he were speaking the language naturally.

It wouldn't make sense for Paul to instruct those who knew both Greek and Japanese to pray for the ability to interpret. If one knows two languages well, he can interpret. Some do better thanothers, and training would be beneficial. But knowing two languages is generally enough to interpret the gist- at least in my own experience.

Another issue- the fact that various religions have 'ecstatic utterances' do in no way diminish the fact that Paul prayed 'with his spirit' and without his understanding if he prayed in tongues without interpretation.

What if someone said 'There are prophets of Baal. I don't believe they are real Why should I believe the prophets of the LORD?" Think about it. The prohpets of Baal were called 'prophets.' They may have worn hairy garments and culturally acted like the prophets of the Lrod in a lot of ways- filling the same slot in the culture as the prophets of the Lord had in many ways. The fact that there were false prophets does in no way do away with the real gift.

The fact that false religions have 'ecstatic utterances' does not diminish the legitimacy of the gift of tongues.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Link,

I don't have time to respond to all you have written, almost certainly won't have before the middle of January at the earliest, and am beginning to regret that I allowed myself to get drawn into this "debate" in what is always the busiest season of the year for me, and this year is more so than ever.

Just a few very quick observations:

You said, "It makes sense to read Corinthians to think of someone 'speaking in tongues' in Japanese. But it doesn't make sense if you read the passage to talk about a natural Japanese speaker speaking in his own language in a meeting."

The former sense is obviously what I meant. The passage talks about a supernatural ability to "speak in tongues (languages)." The point I've been trying to get across is that this is the exact same gift as was given in Acts 2, i.e. the ability to speak in actual languages without having studied these languages in the normal human ways. Whether or not the person understood the language himself when he spoke it is another question. AKelley has been trying to say that the "tongues" in I Cor. 14 were different to those in Acts 2. I contend that there is nothing in I Cor. 14 to require this. My "challenge" was intended to demonstrate this.

Even though I Cor. 12:30 does APPEAR to include "interpretation" as one of the gifts of the Spirit, it is interesting -- and to me seems significant -- that in ALL the places in chapter 14 where Paul talks about the need to have interpretation and the problems of using the gift of "tongues" (languages) when there is no-one who can understand and/or interpret, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE (at least none that I have ever found) where he says, "you shouldn't speak in tongues unless there is someone there who has the gift of interpretation" or "no-one will understand what you say unless someone is present who has the gift of interpretation" -- or ANYTHING AT ALL like that. It is always simply, "unless someone interprets." To me this strongly suggests that the ability to understand -- and to interpret -- was not limited to those who had this "special gift", but rather was open to anyone who could understand the language being spoken -- which fits with the idea that what is under consideration is actual languages.

If Paul's experience was that when he prayed in tongues his mind was "unfruitful", and if "interpretation of tongues" was a separate gift (though Paul urges those with the gift of tongues to pray that they could also interpret, so clearly the same person could be given both gifts), then it does seem as though there was at least the theoretical possibility of someone speaking words that he/she did not him/herself understand. But that doesn't mean that it was not a known human language that was being spoken, and Acts 2 clearly shows that it was.

I have had the experience, even without any "spiritual gift" and even in English, though it happens more often in other languages that I am less fluent in, that when I am speaking a word or phrase will sometimes "come to me" as I'm speaking, that "feels" as though it fits, but I can't think of the exact meaning at that moment. Sometimes I take a risk and use it, sometimes I don't. I usually try to remember it to look it up later or ask someone later. Sometimes I find it was just the right word for the situation; sometimes I find it would have been wildly inappropriate.

I've often wondered what it would be like to suddenly be able to speak a language without studying it. I would imagine that even if you could understand (or learn to understand) what you were saying, there would be times when a word, phrase, or more would "come to you" without you having any memory (since you've never studied) of what it means.

I think it is worth noting that Paul seems to feel that "praying with the Spirit and with the mind also" is definitely preferable to praying with an "unfruitful" mind, even though he says he can do it. So much for those who teach that praying in "tongues" that one doesn't understand somehow draws one closer to God!!

I once thought, myself, that what was under consideration in I Cor. 14 was, or at least might be, different from what was demonstrated in Acts 2. However, many years of experience in a poly-lingual church, and dealing with problems arise when some people use a language in addressing the congregation which they and their close friends may know well but the rest of the congregation does not understand, have made me more and more convinced that I Cor. 14 fits VERY WELL with the understanding that "tongues" were ALWAYS in the New Testament actual human languages -- just languages that were not understood by any except the speaker (or perhaps not even by him) who was just "showing off", out of pride, that he had this ability.

Regarding the 12 or the 120, I don't think it is only the Restoration Movement that holds the position that it was only the 12 who received the gift on the day of Pentecost. And on the other hand, there are some in the Restoration Movement who think that the whole 120 received the gift -- this isn't part of our "creed". (And it couldn't be, since we have none.)

Anyway, the argument runs like this. The "rule" of grammar in Greek is that a pronoun always refers, in its meaning, to the closest antecedent of the appropriate number and gender. The chapter division in our modern Bibles obscures this fact, but the closest antecedent in Acts, to the "they" in 2:1ff (who were all together in one place and were filled with the Spirit and began to speak in other languages) is in 1:26, where Matthias was "enrolled with the eleven apostles". So "they" would have been "the eleven" plus Matthias, i.e. the "new Twelve". On the other hand, we have the same rule in English and do not always follow it consistently in our ordinary speech. Since Scripture is inspired by God, would God have allowed sloppy grammar on something like this? I don't know. I have never bothered to do any kind of search to see whether there are any parallel passages where the closest antecedent is plainly NOT what is meant.

I personally am not sure that it really makes an enormous amount of difference. Acts 8 and the story of Simon the sorcerer shows that the ability to pass on the gift of "tongues" (languages) was clearly limited, whether or not the ability to use "tongues" (languages) was that limited in its scope.

Counting the number of languages represented is irrelevant. If there were more than 12, there still were not as many as 120. So did some of the 12 speak more than one of these languages? or were most of these languages spoken by several of the 120? The question has to be settled some other way -- if it can be at all -- than by counting the number of languages.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2000

Benjamin Rees You wrote >>>>The former sense is obviously what I meant. The passage talks about a supernatural ability to "speak in tongues (languages)." The point I've been trying to get across is that this is the exact same gift as was given in Acts 2, i.e. the ability to speak in actual languages without having studied these languages in the normal human ways. Whether or not the person understood the language himself when he spoke it is another question. AKelley has been trying to say that the "tongues" in I Cor. 14 were different to those in Acts 2. I contend that there is nothing in I Cor. 14 to require this. My "challenge" was intended to demonstrate this. <<<<<< I think this is a moot point, really. Some believe in 'ecstatic utterances.' Paul does mention 'tongues of angels' which some have tried to historically tried to connect with ecstatic utterances in Jewish circles. I Cor. 13 also mentions the 'tongues of men' and that is what occurred in Acts 2.

Why do I say it is a moot point? Whether or not Acts 2 tongues were the 'same kind of tongues' as I Corinthians 14, there was a significant difference between the type of situation Paul addresses in I Cor 14 and the situation in Acts 2.

In I Corinthians 14, when someone speaks in tongues, NO ONE UNDERSTANDET HIM. He speaks mysteries with his spirit. Since no one understands him, an interpretation is required. In Acts 2, no interpretation was required because people DID understand. Benjamin wrote <<< Paul contrasts praying with his MIND to speaking 10,000 words in a tongue. Paul had just contrasted his practice of praying with the Spirit and with the understanding to the practice of one who blesses with the Spirit and others not understanding. Perhaps Paul's praying with the Spirit and with the understanding refers to praying in tongues followed by an interpretation of the prayer. With that in mind, notice that Paul contrasts speaking 5 words with his mind to speaking 10,000 words in tongues. Now, if he were able to interpret these words in tongues because he knew the language as one knows another language, why would not his speaking in tongues be speaking with his mind also? If Paul were able to interpret his tongues- and those who could interpret tongues understood them as we understand our own language- then why would not speaking in tongues be speaking with his mind as well? I don't have any qualms with the idea that he tongues in I Corinthians 14 could be 'tongues of men' mentioned in chapter 13, or possibly 'tongues of angels' but we can see from the text that this speaking in tongues did not function purely as speaking a natural language. If this were not fairly clear, there would not be so many anti-charismatics that realized that speaking in tongues did not function as speaking in a natural language.

Notice that tongues and interpretation appear together twice in the gifts list in I Corinthians 14, and appear in the list in verse 26. >>>seem as though there was at least the theoretical possibility of someone speaking words that he/she did not him/herself understand. But that doesn't mean that it was not a known human language that was being spoken, and Acts 2 clearly shows that it was. <<<< If, by 'known language' you mean a language known by the crowd, I would disagree with you. The idea of people in the crowd knowing the language doesn't show up in I Corinthians 14. In fact, the passage says 'no one understands him. ' God is sovereign, and I've heard of cases where there seemed to be a mix of Acts 2 and I Corinthians 14 situations- where someone spoke in tongues, another interpreted, and someone in the congregation naturally understood the language. But this type of situation is not what Paul is talking about. If you mean that the languages spoken were human languages, known somewhere in the world- that is a different issue. Paul speaks of tongues of men in I Corinthians 14, but also mentions tongues of angels. So the idea that the language is one spoken by angels and not merely humans is a possibility. Some think 'tongues of angels' was almost idiomatic for a type of possibly ecstatic speech. I don't know. Maybe that's a possibility. I don't think 'ecstatic speech' is a good term, because of the connotations of the word 'ecstatic.' Some liberal Bible scholars say that prophecies were given in ecstasies. The evidence for ecstacy among Biblical prophets, even in the story of Saul and the prophets, seems thin to me. Many people read in the idea of ecstasy into the Saul story, perhaps using their imagination, or perhaps based on the fact that pagans were ecstatic, and they don't make a difference between the profane and the holy, and so think Hebrew prophets were just like their neighbors. I see a case for some cases of ecstasy in scripture. Some of this depends on what one means by 'ecstasy.' If one is automatically considered to be in an ecstasy for having a vision while in a trance, then there is plenty of ecstasy in the Bible. If one gets the idea of emotionalism, I don't think all prophets were emotional or lost control of their senses when they prophesied. For Christian prophets we know 'the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.' Since tongues is/was not categorically done in an emotional frenzy, either in the NT or among modern Christians, I find 'ecstatic utterances' to be a misleading. >>>>>I think it is worth noting that Paul seems to feel that "praying with the Spirit and with the mind also" is definitely preferable to praying with an "unfruitful" mind, even though he says he can do it. So much for those who teach that praying in "tongues" that one doesn't understand somehow draws one closer to God!! <<<<

Positionally, we are brought near to God because of Christ's work on the cross. People also say "My brother and I are close" meaning in terms of emotions and relationship. Praying can bring one closer to God in a sense. I disagree with those who say just to pray in tongues and not with the understanding, since if you pray in tongues you pray according to God's will. But we do see in this chapter that the man who prays in tongues, with or without interpretation, builds himself up. His spirit prays. He gets a spiritual benefit from it. But people don't get a spiritual benefit just from LISTENING to tongues. They only benefit if they hear the language interpreted. So speaking in tongues is one of many things that can bring a believer close to God- in a particular sense of the word 'close.' >>>>Regarding the 12 or the 120, I don't think it is only the Restoration Movement that holds the position that it was only the 12 who received the gift on the day of Pentecost. And on the other hand, there are some in the Restoration Movement who think that the whole 120 received the gift -- this isn't part of our "creed". (And it couldn't be, since we have none.) <<<< Not a written one anyway.  This Greek rule sounds a little fishy. I suspect it might be being used in the wrong place here. Let me show you another case with 'they.' This is a little different grammatically, but it points out that we should sometimes just go with the 'sense' of a passage rather than applying grammatical rules strictly. 11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

In this passage 'they' refers to more than Jeconias' brethren. I wonder if Matthew has all of Israel in mind when he says 'they.'

Here is perhaps a better example: Matthew 8:14-16 14. And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. 15. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them. 16. When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: Who are the 'they' in the passage? The 'them' that the mother-in-law ministered to? Maybe, but couldn't it have been the same 'they' in chapter 4- the people? 'Them' would be one of those objective cases (Dative maybe?) wouldn't it, so would a dative 'them' be referred to as a 'they' in the next verse? Come to think of it 'with the eleven apostles' in Acts would be a dative or accusative- or something corresponding to an English prepositional phrase, rather than a nominative noun. Here is another example, Matthew 11:16-18 16 But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, 17 And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. 18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

Who does 'they' in verse 18 refer to? The 'children sitting the markets' right? But the last plural noun before it was 'their fellows.' Their fellows would have been in some sort of dative Accusative, Genitive- or non-nominative case- like our English prepositional phrase. (I obviously don't know Greek.) But 'they' refers to the children, not the fellows. 'Among the apostles' would also probably be in one of these prepositional phrases.

Btw, I hear that II Peter uses some 'bad' grammar. The New Testament is written in Koine. If elegant grammar were a concern, why wasn't it written in the proper classical Greek with dual forms and all that stuff? I hear that Mark's translations of Hebrew passages with 'and' come off strange in Greek. One prof of mine says it reads as if Jesus were riding both upon and ass and the foal of an ass. 'Va' (wa) shows up in the Hebrew Mark quotes there, and Mark translates the 'va' as 'and' in Greek (kai?) I hear that 'kai' shows up a lot in Mark. Maybe he wrote in a Hebrew accent dialect. Linguists have a philosophy that all dialects are themselves valid dialects. Later stages of Greek would be considered 'incorrect' by some grammar pundit who had his own rules of what was proper Greek. Who decided that it was okay to say 'who' now instead of whom? Who ever got rid of all that 'shall v. will' stuff that I never even had to learn much of in school because it was already being phased out? Why do we say 'If this is treason, I am guilty' instead of 'If this be treason…' What is right and wrong in grammar is somewhat arbitrary. I hear the queen of England says 'et' for 'ate.' All this time we thought only backwoods people said that, and it turns out that that is the 'right' way to say it.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Benjamin Rees wrote, >>>I personally am not sure that it really makes an enormous amount of difference. Acts 8 and the story of Simon the sorcerer shows that the ability to pass on the gift of "tongues" (languages) was clearly limited, whether or not the ability to use "tongues" (languages) was that limited in its scope. <<<

I don't see how you can get from Acts 8 that the ability to pass on tongues was clearly limited. For one thing, the passage doesn't even say anything about tongues. In Acts 8, Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of the apostles hands. When he offered to buy it, peter didn't tell him the power was only for apostles.

He told Peter that he had no part or lot in that ministry BECAUSE his heart was not right before God. The reason someone like Simon could not partake in that sort of ministry was not because of his not being one of the 12, but because his heart was not right before God.

IMO, a lot of RM people are inconsistent when it comes to saying what could only be passed on through apostles hands. 'Tongues' gets put in that category. But what about the ministry of evangelist? Is anyone in scripture described as an 'evangelist' who did not have hands laid on him by an apostle? (Maybe Paul used the Greek word for himself- I don't know- but he was an apostle himself.)

Think about it. Many RM people say that Philip could do miracles because the apostles laid hands on him. But they laid hands on him in connection with his deacon work, and it doesn't say anything about laying hands on him to do miracles in that passage. Well, Philip had apostolic hands laid on him, and then was later called an 'evangelist.'

Timothy is not directly called an evangelist, but was told to do the work of an evangelist. We see that he had a gift in him through the laying on of Paul's hands. So all the people called evangelists in the Bible had apostolic hands laid on them, right? I can show you an example where people spoke in tongues most probably without the laying on of apostolic hands (Cornelius.) But you can't show me one called an evangelist in NT scripture who did not have apostles hands on him at one time or another.

What about elders? Was there ever a case of elders in the church who were not appointed without apostolic authority in scripture? Timothy may have been an apostle (I Thes. 2:6-7.) At the least, one could say of Titus and Timothy that they had Paul's authority and endorsement. Paul left Titus to appoint elders, etc. Titus seems to have been acting as an extension of Paul's ministry. Otherwise, we have apostles appointing elders.

Where does the Bible say that elders can be appointed without apostles being involved? When we look at Philip's ministry, he left them without seeing that they received the Holy Ghost, much less sticking around to appointing elders. Where do RM people get the idea that evangelists can appoint elders without apostles being involved? (Here my argument out before drawing conclusions.)

Before we go to far with this, notice that Paul and Barnabas were sent out as actual apostles through the laying on of hands of prophets and teachers (rather than apostles or elders.) Notice how God didn't seem to care too much about later traditions of apostolic succession and just did what He wanted to do.

If we want to be really scrict and biblicist about this, we could say that if we want to follow Biblical patterns, in order to have legitimate elders and evangelists, we need for apostles to be raisedup by this loophole- God speaking through regular prophets and teachers in the assembly, to appoint an apostle. Then that apostle could appoint evangelists or elders.

Or we could try to see the principle at work here. God is able to work now in the church. While He is consistent with what he has revealed in the Bible, he doesn't have to fit into our concepts of patterns, and is free to interact in the church. He can even reveal to men that they are 'called' to be evangelists and confirm that calling through church elders. If you think about it, getting an 'extra-Biblical' revelation that you are supposed to be an evangelist sounds pretty charismatic. Think about it. The Bible talks about evangelists, but it doesn't say that YOU are supposed to be one, and not everyone else in the world. But plenty of anti-charismatic preachers claim an extrabiblical revelation that they are supposed to be preachers. Interesting, huh?

Back to the subject about tongues, etc. You feel that Acts 8 indicates that this has to come through the apostles. I think that the case that evangelists and elders can only be appointed through apostles is stronger. Why? Because the scriptures are explicit that tongues and others gifts in I Corinthians 12 are given as the Spirit wills. It doesn't say this about being an elder.

But you know what? The Bible doesn't say anywhere that only apostles or their delegates can appoint elders. That is an assumption on the part of the reader. The Bible doesn't say that only the apostles could impart speaking in tongues or the Holy Spirit. That is a prejudice the reader brings with him into the text. In fact, the Bible teaches that tongues are given as the Spirit wills.

You know, the Bible doesn't tell us the names of all the Corinthians who spoke in tongues or prophesied. Yet they did these things. Even though who got what gift is not listed in the Bible, God still gave out gifts. He worked outside of the exact words written in scripture- working within the principles described in scripture. If someone speaks in tongues today by the Spirit of God, it is no more a threat to the Bible than the speaking in tongues of Corinthians, whose names and utterances are not recorded in scripture.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Link,

I imagine you are thankful that you memorized all that Scripture without an RM filter when you were a teenager.

You were given a gift.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Connie,

Regarding your statement to Link -- ("I imagine you are thankful that you memorized all that Scripture without an RM filter when you were a teenager. You were given a gift.") -- I don't think Link claims to be a part of the "RM" even now (unlike AKelly who, I think, does).

However, what makes an "RM filter" any worse than a "Pentecostal filter", a "Charismatic filter", a "Calvinist filter", an "Evangelical filter", or whatever? Sometimes it is harder to remove the "majority" filters (e.g. that "all Evangelicals believe") than the minority ones, because with everyone else seeing things the same way, you don't even realise that you are "filtering" things -- as EVERYONE does, since that is a part of how human beings think. Everything new that we see is interpreted in the light of past learning and past experiences.

I don't know if you are including me among those that you feel have "RM filters" or not. I may have some -- as I said, EVERYONE has filters of some kind. But I count myself fortunate that I probably have fewer with regard to traditional "RM" positions than most, for a lot of reasons that I don't have the time to go into here. Every position that I have argued for strongly in various threads of this forum has been arrived at through careful, painstaking study, looking carefully at all sides of the issue.

Back to Link: He may not have an "RM filter", but he plainly has some kind of "Pentecostal filter" or "Charismatic filter." I'm not sure if these "filters" make him incapable of understanding the points I make, or if he just likes arguing.

By the way, you MAY just be using this as an abbreviation, but in a number of your recent postings the way you have been using "RM" comes across as pejorative and is starting to irritate.

Link,

In your last couple of postings you sound upset and angry. Are you? Why?

I won't try to answer much of these last two postings right now. First, I don't really have the time. Second, if you are as upset and angry as you sound, I think you need to "cool off" before we continue.

I think the only thing I will say at this time in response to these last two postings is concerning the use of the "nearest antecedent" to determine whether the gift on the day of Pentecost fell on 12 or 120. Please don't shoot the messenger!! You (I think, or perhaps AKelley -- I can't remember and don't have time to check) said you/he couldn't understand what basis people had for saying it was only 12. I simply supplied that information. I didn't say whether I agreed or not. In fact, I think I implied that I felt this evidence was a little weak. I did say I thought the argument is not particularly relevant. I still feel that way and therefore don't want to waste time on it. For the record, however, this is a standard rule of grammar in both Greek and English, even if it isn't always followed consistently in either language, and there are times when remembering this rule does clarify who is being referred to. This may be one of them -- or it may not! But I don't propose to argue this further, so if you want the "last word" on this particular point, go ahead and take it.

I will make a quick -- as quick as I can -- comment on one other point from your earlier message.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make about "ecstatic utterances" being fairly common in pagan religions. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough. Perhaps I was in too much of a hurry to explain it sufficiently and thought you would be able to make the connections on your own.

Certainly the fact that there is some feature of pagan belief or practice that is parallel to Christian beliefs and practices does not, especially in and of itself, show that this particular feature is not from God. For the most part Satan deals in "counterfeits" rather than things that are totally different. However, I think there are two important points we need to make from this:

1) "Pentecostals"/"charismatics" tend, for the most part, to be very subjective and to argue very subjectively. "How can you deny that God gave me this gift? I'm the one who received it! I KNOW what happened!" Or, if they have never experienced this directly themselves*, they argue, "But I've SEEN it happen. I KNOW it happens. Therefore it must be a true experience and MUST be from God." (*I'm pretty sure Connie only claims the latter, second-hand, experience, through her son and a visit to his church. I'm still not absolutely clear what the extent of AKelley's "personal experience" is -- or yours.) My point is that YOU CAN'T RELY on that fact in and of itself, because this particular experience is VERY WIDELY COUNTERFEITED in other religions and also occurs frequently simply as a psychological phenomenon.

2) That being the case, we need to look for some objective standards by which to evaluate what is happening. You mentioned prophecy as something that can be given by God or can be counterfeited. Deuteronomy 18:21-22 and Deuteronomy 13:1-5 give two tests for distinguishing a true prophet from a false one. I John 4:1-3 gives one test for evaluating people in general, whether prophets or teachers, who claim to be disseminating God's messages -- and some of the main leaders of one of today's leading Pentecostal/Charismatic movements, the "Toronto Blessing" movement fail that test.

Another test is whether or not some claimed "sign" or "power" fits with what the Bible says about that sign. My contention is that the so-called "speaking in tongues" today is NOT the same gift as the New Testament talks about. Therefore, taken together with all the other factors I have mentioned, including the fact that it is a "gift" that is often counterfeited, I think it must be suspect.

I am willing to admit -- I don't think I have ever denied -- that a few of the verses that the two of you quote to support the idea that the "tongues" in I Cor. 14 were "different" to those in Acts 2 (in the sense that they could not be understood BY ANYONE using normal human means) COULD be taken to mean this kind of "utterances" -- ESPECIALLY WHEN THESE VERSES ARE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. However, I contend --

(a) These same verses make just as much sense if the "tongues" are taken to mean "real" human languages. (I'm searching for some way to convey what kind of languages I mean without Link "poking holes" in the way that it is worded.) This is what is behind my "challenge" -- to try to get AKelley, and now Link, to see that this is so -- that every verse makes just as much sense if it is taken to refer to a "real human language" that is "learned" by supernatural means, as if it refers to some king of babbling that has no meaning in any human language.

(b) When the passage is read as a whole, with every verse in its context, the whole makes MORE sense if it is about real human languages that could be understood if a speaker of that language was present, than if it is about some kind of "utterances" ("ecstatic" or otherwise) that have no human meaning.

(c) One of the primary rules of hermeneutics, which is confirmed by what the Bible says about itself, is that every passage of Scripture must be understood in the light of every other passage of Scripture, and particularly those that are about the same subject. The other main passage about "tongues-speaking" is Acts 2. This is also the passage where the nature of the "tongues" is most clearly seen. Therefore, I Cor. 12-14 MUST be interpreted in the light of Acts 2.

(d) Since the gift in Acts 2 was plainly the gift to speak in "real" languages, and since there is NOTHING in I Cor. 12-14 that is NOT consistent with understanding it this way there as well, this is the way we MUST interpret it.

Link, you, like many on your side, try to get mileage out of the phrase in 14:2 that "NO ONE UNDERSTANDET [sic] HIM". Paul makes it plain that whenever this is the case -- that "no one understands him", or even when some do understand, but most don't -- the speaker should keep silent. But it is plain, within I Cor. 14 itself, that he DOES *NOT* MEAN by this that the "tongue" (language) CANNOT be understood. The consistent message is, *IF* NO-ONE understands, keep silent. ONLY speak when there is an "interpreter" present. Yet what is an "interpreter" but someone who DOES UNDERSTAND (whether by human means or supernatural) and can translate for the rest? And, as I pointed out last time, Paul never requires this to be someone with the "gift of interpretation" -- only that it be someone who can give the translation. His instructions on this sound like the policy we have in the congregation I serve regarding people who speak (human) dialects that the majority don't understand for addressing the congregation as a whole.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2000

Brother Benjamin,

Sorry if I cam off as angry. I wasn't. If I recall correctly, I was really in a hurry to write that message, so maybe I got a little heavy on the rhetoric and it came off as angry. I'll try to watch that.

I'll respond breifly to a few points.

I agree with you that some Charismatics argue from experience. But I also find that Fundamentalists, Pentecostals included, often use arguments with weak logic. For example, some Fundamentalists will argue that you have to believe all of the Bible or none of it, and if you don't believe the Bible, there is no firm foundation. Therefore you should believe the Bible. The last bit of that argument is an appeal to fear. I believe the Bible, but I just think those type of arguments are not food apologetics to use with intellectual types who aren't already inclined ot believe the Bible in the first place. Some Charismatics argue from experience. That doesn't make their experience invalid.

If someone claims there is no healing, and charismatic has seen healing, then his experiences are a valid thing to point to in a debate on miracles. The cessationist who argues against miracles probably arrived at his view partly because he had never seen miracles.

I don't believe a lot of teachings taught by charismatics. The early chruch was charismatic, practicing spiritual gifts, and false ministers rose up among them, and also sincere people sometimes believed error. It seems like it is a lot easier for a sensational false prophet to trick people if they believe in the existence of prophets. There are many things in Charismatic culture that I don't agree with either.

I'm not saying you should start going to Prosperity, Wealthy, & Positive Confession conferences or anything. But the scriptures do teach that God gives gifts of the Spirit, and the idea that these gifts still continue should be treated as the 'default' doctrine.

About tongues- you point out that the chapter does not say that the interpreter interprets without understandingthe tongue. I can see what you are saying. I can see where you can debate the point. I do believe the charismatic view (and experience) of tongues is consistent with the chapter. What I am saying is that you do not have any evidence that interpretations are understood. I believe there is some evidence arguing agianst your view and in favor of the Charismatic view.

ONe piece of evidence is that Paul seemed to think it was a good thing to interpret. I think it likely that he could interpret tongues. Yet, when he spoke in tongues, he did not understand it. His mind was 'unfruitful' and he contrasts speaking in tongues with speaking with his mind. The initial verses of the chapter say that when a man speaks in tongues, no one understands him, and then continues on to say that the one who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues unless he interpret.... This man speaks mysteries with his spirit- not his mind (as we see in later verses) yet the ability exists that he may interpret.

Verse 13 is an area where knowing Greek might be useful. He that speaks in an unknown tongues should pray that he may interpret. What is the sense of 'speaks.' Can it have this sense- if a man prays out in a tongue, he should then offer up a prayer so that he may interpret? I don't know. This may be a deadend.

If a man interpret his own tongue, but yet when he speaks in tongues, his mind is unfruitful, wouldn't that argue for the Charismatic view of interpretation of tongues?

Do you have any evidence to argue against the Charismatic view of how the gift of interpretation works? If not, this isn't a good argument against the occurance of tongues and interpretation today.

As for if someone speaks in tongues, and someone does naturally understand- that is not a situation Paul addresses in this chapter, but I believe God could do such a thing- would it be good for a brother who naturally understood the language to interpret it? I don't see a problem with that, supposing that no one in the congregation receives an interpretation spiritually. I wouldn't see a problem with someone giving an itnerpretation gained through spiritual means, and someone who understands naturally saying yes it was the same interpretation. As long as his comments on the interpretation were in line with the working of the Holy Spirit in the meeting, and were edifying. I believe in meetings for mutual edification.

Could Paul's rules work for natural human languages? But if Paul is limiting the number of messages in tongues (rather than the number of utterances before an interpretation is given) these instructions would seem out of place in a congregation that was divided among speakers that did not understand each other. If 'two or at the most three' referrs to utterances in tongues, like one retired classics prof on the 'net suggested, then the instructions might fit well with this type of situation as well.

But I believe there is enough evidence in the chapter to indicate that he speaker of the language does not understand what he is saying without the gift of interpretation. The Pentecostal/Charismatic view of how interpretations fits with the chapter. Also, I believe the evidence weighs in that direction since the speaker in tongues, it would seem (including Paul) speaks with his spirit rather than his mind, and we also read of the potential for speakers in tongues to interpret their own utterances.

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2000

Some people have been having dreams abotu Jakarta an dthe surrounding areas flooding. Some preachers have been predicting it. If there are floods in the next couple of months, I'll give you more details.

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Link,

Someone said something in the "Santa Claus is a Woman" thread suggesting that you have too much time on your hands. I think the idea was that you like to turn anything and everything into an argument and go on endlessly about it. I don't know if that's true or not. You do make some good points now and then, but a lot of what you say is just going over the same ground over and over again, without, it seems to me, taking seriously the points made by "the other side."

Be that as it may, time is something I DON'T have on my hands right now. The rest of this month and the first half (at least!) of January will be extremely full for me. I may not even have time to check on what is being said in the forum, much less respond to any of it. So if I don't respond specifically to what you've said most recently, or to anything else you may say in the next month, it doesn't mean that I think your arguments are unanswerable. (I think I've already given good answers to some of them but that you either are not understanding or are ignoring what I've said.) It simply means that I haven't had time to answer them -- and may not even have seen them yet.

Perhaps someone else could take over. I'm sure there are others who have views similar to mine and are just as capable as I am of carrying on this debate.

P.S. I will look forward with interest to any follow-up on the dreams about the flooding. However, even if it happens, I think it would be good to look into the situation a little more closely before assuming that this "proves" it is real prophecy from God.

If someone predicted flooding in Bangladesh, I'd say, "So what!" It happens there virtually every year. And I still think that the riots, factional fighting, persecution of Christians, etc., in Indonesia that you said someone had given a "prophecy" about before it happened is something that could easily have been "guessed" without having a message from God. I certainly was not at all surprised when it happened, given Indonesia's history, its ethnic and religious makeup and a host of other widely known factors. Perhaps these things are sometimes easier to see from the outside looking in than from the inside where you "can't see the forest for the trees".

-- Anonymous, December 17, 2000

Ben,

I haven't been spending that much time on this forum recently. I've been a little bit busy.

I haven't answered every argument of yours on this thread as to whether I agreed with it or disagreed with it. I think I've addressed the gist of your arguments addressed to me. If I addressed everyone small argument building up to the case, messages would be to long. Frankly, I don't see where you get that I ignore your arguments. Sometimes we disagree, and there is nowhere else to go. On your last points, I already answered. I can see where, based on chapter 14, you could hold to the possibility that 'interpretation' could be done aside from a supernatural gift. And I just asked you to show me your reasoning for why this was more likely. I showed you my reasons for why I thought the context of this and other chapters favored interpreting by means of a gift. I don't see where I ingored what you wrote to me. Could you give me an example?

As for the way I discuss issues on this forum, I like serious conversation, especially on a forum like this. It's just the way I am. I think people can learn a lot by discussing things like this seriously.

Benjamin, could you give me your reasoning why it is so unlikely that God might show someone something that might occur by means of a dream? There is plenty of evidence to show that this sort of thing is Biblical. Acts 2 mentions it. Pharoah and Nebucadrezzar had dreams like this. So did many prophets and other saints in the Bible and throughout history. Why wouldn't God speak to people to prepare them for persecution or whatever.

The woman I told you about who just said God kept pointing her to a certain chapter in the OT which fit with mass rioting and destruction told me this in a peaceful Chinese enclave about 40 miles out of Jakarta. This wasa peaceful place with money. Peple weren't suspecting riots or anything like that. The rupiah was fluctuating a bit. if I remembercorrectly, it was still at around 3000 to the dollar. It hadn't fallen to 10,000 yet. People weren't calling for the resignation of the 32 year-reign-president year. Things were peaceful. Several months down the road, Jakarta, and many other cities were full of civil unrest.

Do you find it surprising that before persecution or rioting that the Lrod would prepare people's hearts, and that ministers of the Gospel would begin to preach things to prepare people? If not, then why is it such an unbelievable step to believe that some of these people might be consciously aware that they are being prepared for certain things?

Scripturally, what reason is there to believe that God wouldn't give a dream or some other way of knowing when persecution is going to come?

-- Anonymous, December 19, 2000

I'm off to the Medan area tomorrow (Thursday Dec. 21) until around the end of the first week of January. 'Selamat Natal' (Merry Christmas) and 'Selamat Tahun Baru' (Happy New Year.) Chances are slim that I will be able to post from the mountain villages I'll be in. I plan to visit my wife's parents, and other relatives who live out in villages. I may go to Lake Tobah. That's pretty cool for the tropics, I hear, but no snow.

God bless you all,

Link

-- Anonymous, December 20, 2000

To Link, whenever you get back,

You said, "Frankly, I don't see where you get that I ignore your arguments."

I didn't quite say that you "ignore" my arguments, and didn't exactly mean that you do either. But I was rather brief in what I did say, so I see how you could have interpreted it that way.

What I see happening, repeatedly, is two things:

You will contribute point "A", perhaps in beginning a new thread, or perhaps in responding to a thread someone else has started. I will respond with point "B", to which you answer with "C", and so on. Before we have gone through too many more "letters of the alphabet", things peter out, either because of lack of time on one or both sides, or because we are getting more and more into the area of unprovable opinions. That's fine. That happens all the time both in fora like this and in face-to-face discussions. But it isn't very long before the same subject comes up again. And when that happens, you start again with point "A" -- usually almost exactly as it was presented the previous time, and without any allowance for the fact that some aspects of the argument have already been answered or even "thrashed to death." So, since the same question has come up again, I respond with the same answer from my side, to which you gave the same answer you gave previously, etc., etc.

The above is the main thing I had in mind when I wrote what I did, but I also had in mind a second thing which often happens. You have made point "A", to which I respond with point "B". When you answer, it is with "C", BUT not only with "C", but also with "P", "Q" and "R". (I don't know if this is deliberate or not, but this often seems to happen when point "C" is a rather weak one.) So sometimes point "C" doesn't really get an answer, because I or others are busy answering "P", "Q" and "R" with "S", "T" and "U." It's natural, when you think you have a lot of evidence on your side, to want to pile argument upon argument, and I sometimes do the same myself, but it seems to happen so often with your postings that I feel overwhelmed -- not by being convinced by your arguments, but by sheer lack of time to respond to them, and especially when all of them have come up previously, and they have mostly already been answered at some time previously.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Benjamin,

I realize I have a tendancy to be long-winded. On a thread like this, I realize that not everyone who reads the thread will have read our previous conversations, so I tend to go over a lot of details.

If you get some time, I'd like to know if we have come to some common ground on the isue of tongues. Would you say that the typical Charismatic or Pentecostal idea about tongues is a feasible interpretation of the passage- that one receives a message in tongues without knowing what it is, and another receives an interpretation of the message? Is it a possible explanation, in your opinion, which fits with the passage.

There is another question I'd like to ask you about, that I mentioned above. Do you think God might choose to speak to someone about a future event or present situation through dreams. There are many examples of God showing the future to people, prophets and even pagan kings, through dreams. Pilate's wife got a dream. A Midianite received a dream that confirmed to a judge that he should lead the people into battle. In the New Testament, we still see God using methods like this and a prediction that old men would dream dreams. Since it is very scriptural that God can reveal things through dreams, do you believe it is possible that God could commicate with the saints through dreams today? If not, why would the way God operates today be different from the way He operated in the Bible?

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

Link,

Just a very quick note, mainly written because it looks as though this thread is about to "expire", and I'm not sure if I can find it again if it does.

I read your last message. I'd like to respond to at least some of the points you raise, but the past month has been extremely full for me, and most of what time I have been able to spare for visiting this forum has been spent in a rather pointless debate about gun control.

I've vowed several times not to waste any more time with that, but then I get curious, take "one more look" to see how they took my last posting, and then get sucked into responding to their responses. It is a subject I feel strongly about, but obviously not one where I'm likely to have much effect on people's thinking, and not one that is vital to the Kingdom of God.

Back to the theme of this thread -- or rather to what you asked in your last message, which is slightly "off topic", but obviously related -- I do have some thoughts about responses, and will TRY to submit them soon, but it unfortunately can't be today.

-- Anonymous, January 17, 2001