Tongue Speaking
On "tongue-speaking" in the NT. Maybe I can just spell out some aspects of my understanding on this matter (such as it is) and engage whoever wishes to pursue it further with me. I’ll simply make the assertions, noting the texts, make a few comments and where readers feel the claims need to be justified further I’ll take that up (God enabling).
I’m going to take it for granted that the "tongue-speaking" throughout the NT is a single phenomenon. That is, what we read about in Acts is what we read about in 1 Corinthians. The settings differed. 1 Corinthians speaks of "tongues" as they relate to the assemblies of believers. But the phenomenon was the same.
- Tongue-speaking was a gift from God.
- Tongue-speaking was a miraculous gift of speech and not a gift of hearing
- "Tongue" speaking was speaking in actual languages (Acts 2:8).
- Tongue-speaking was a gift given essentially to benefit non-believers by convicting them that God was present.
- Tongue-speakers didn’t speak to people; they spoke to God.
- Tongue-speaking wasn’t a gift designed for the edification of the believing assembly.
- Tongue-speakers didn’t know what they were saying.
- Tongue-speaking wasn’t a gift given to people who’d go to foreign lands so that they could preach the gospel in the native language.
It seems clear from Acts 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 that what is called "tongue speaking" was a gift from God. It’s the Spirit that enabled them in Acts and Paul claims it is a gift given by the Holy Spirit to the church.
It’s equally clear (to me) that the gift was a gift of speech that affected the speaker and not a gift that affected the hearers. Some have held that the speaker spoke (maybe in his own language or he simply made noises) and the hearers heard it as their own language. That won’t do. We’re told that it was a gift of speech. If everyone heard all the "tongues" or noises in their own language it would have been a gift of "hearing" and not speech. And then, there would have been no one to mock, saying that they were in the presence of drunken babbling. In addition, if the miracle were on the hearer there would have been no need for the gift of interpretation.
I’m guessing that this "hearing" view arose because of the number of languages thought to be listed in Acts 2 and the presumption (correct I think) that there were twelve apostles doing the speaking. But this problem is generated by an assumption that I think isn’t correct—that the only way the apostles spoke all at the same time and only in twelve languages. In any case, we’re expressly told that they spoke in languages, even dialects (so the Greek text).
The words used by Luke to describe what happened are words used for languages and dialects within a major language. They weren’t making noises, "speaking" gibberish that many in this huge crowd thought was their own language. Yes, but didn’t some react that way? Yes, but if a dozen men were speaking (a minimum of twelve) foreign languages, presumably there’d be ten or eleven that each hearer would notunderstand. Paul made that point in 1 Corinthians 14:23.
Supposing a visitor happens to visit, maybe he speaks only Cantonese, one of the worshipers in an English-speaking assembly speaks to God in, of all things, Cantonese. The visitor is convicted! Then more and more stand up and speak in languages from here, there and yonder. The visitor doesn’t understand a word and thinks these people are out of their minds. (I’m not too happy with my illustration but I think you get the point.) In any case, tongue-speakers were language-speakers!
The miraculous gift of "language-speaking" wasn’t given for the edification of believers! Paul says the gift was given with the non-believer in mind (1 Corinthians 14:22). "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers." (From Isaiah 28:11-12, Paul illustrates how foreign languages can bring conviction to people who won’t pay attention to language they can understand.)
This is not to say that tongues could not be utilised; they could be, and interpretation worked to that end (14:5,13,27-28). Prophecy was geared primarily for the believers but under some circumstances could benefit the unbeliever (14:24). Still, the central purpose of language-speaking was not for the assemblies of believers but for situations in which unbelievers were present.
We see this illustrated in Acts 2 and Acts 10. In Acts 2 the apostles were in the temple (they can no longer be in the upper room since thousands are now present), in one of the houses there (compare Luke 24:50-53). The huge crowd does not believe in the gospel about Jesus Christ. The Spirit enables the group of men (2:7) to speak in languages foreign to them, so making it clear that God is in them. This goes on for some time and then the mocking occurs and Peter addresses the vast crowd. He speaks to them the gospel of Christ and apparently speaks to them in a language common to them all (2:14-41). It is only when we reach 2:37 that we discover that non-believers have become believers (2:23,37-41). The point I wish to make is that while the language-speaking was going on it was a crowd of unbelievers who heard what was said in the various languages and dialects. Tongues were being used here to convict unbelievers.
We have a similar situation (with differences) in Acts 10:1—11:18. Up to then Messianic Jews had kept the gospel message for the circumcised (note the instruction by Christ in Acts 1:8 and compare 13:46) but a change was coming.
While Peter spoke of the Messiah the Spirit of God came on an uncircumcised Gentile and his household. These Gentiles spoke in languages they didn’t know—shouldn’t have known. Peter and his strongly Jewish companions were astonished (10:45-46). Up to this time they did not believe that the blessings of the Messiah were open to people other than Jews or Jewish proselytes and now they did. The astounded Peter had come to believe that God had regard to people of any nation that lived righteously (10:34-35), Jews or not! But now he believes something else—you didn’t have to be a Jew to share in the salvation and blessings of the Messiah. He challenges anyone to forbid baptism to Cornelius, there were no takers so he baptized him into the name of Jesus Christ (10:47-48 and compare 2:38-39). When called on the carpet for his conduct Peter rehearsed the whole thing and non-believers became believers (11:1-3,18).
In both these case miraculous language-speaking convicted non-believers. That’s what they were for!
A close look at all the texts makes it clear that those who "spoke in tongues" didn’t address men! Tongue-speakers spoke (or sang) to God and not to people (1 Corinthians 14:2-3). "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God...but everyone who prophesies speaks to men..." And note 14:28. The text is plain enough even though it generates a few wrinkles that need to be ironed out.
Those who spoke in tongues might pray, offer thanks or sing (14:14-17). This was all addressed to God. This is what we find in the two actual cases that are developed. In Acts 2:11 God’s glorious works were rehearsed in the hearing of unbelievers (compare Luke 24:53). It’s important to note how the unbelievers described the content of the apostolic tongue-speaking. Though they did not as yet believe the gospel about Christ they did confess that the wonders of God were being proclaimed in foreign languages (2:11). The same is true in Acs 10:46 where Jews that need to be dragged to truth hear Gentiles "praise God". In Acts the multitude heard a prayer meeting. In Acts 10 we have the same thing.
Some have held that the gift of languages was given so that preachers could go to various parts of the world and not have to learn the language. They would be able to preach the gospel right away. I don’t think that’ll work. Tongue speakers didn’t address people! Furthermore, tongue speakers didn’t know what they were saying (1 Corinthians 14:13-19). That was the nature of the gift, don’t you see! If the tongue speaker knew what he was saying why would he need an interpreter? If every tongue speaker knew what he was saying he wouldbe an interpreter, and that would mean he had two miraculous gifts. One, to speak sense in a foreign language he hadn’t learned and, two, to understand the foreign language he hadn’t learned.
This in turn would generate difficulties for a wide-ranging evangelist. He speaks a language he doesn’t know. When the people he’s preaching to respond he wouldn’t know what they were saying. In other words, tongue-speaking alone would be useless for bringing the gospel of Christ home to foreign speakers. Then again, we need to remember that we’re told, "tongue speakers don’t speak to men."
I think that tongue speaking is listed down at the bottom of gifts along with interpretation because of its limited value especially relative to the house of faith. But its central function was to startle non-believers and act as a sign that God was making himself present. In an assembly of believers it wasn’t to be used alone (14:28).
Some closing remarks. Tongues weren’t given to believers for the believer’s benefit (14:22). To claim it is given to believers as a part of their equipment, as "a private prayer language," is to completely misconstrue 14:28. That text doesn’t tell us of the positive nature or purpose of the gift. It says that if you have the impulse to pray in a foreign language that doesn’t help the assembly you are not to do it—keep it to yourself. The passage regulates the use of the gift in an assembly and tells us nothing about its purpose. Other texts have to tell us those things.
It’s been demonstrated again and again, in a host of places, that what was called "language speaking" wasn’t "language" speaking. Countless recordings have been made and shown to be "noises" with a few foreign phrases thrown in here and there. When I was younger the defence was that the languages were "pre-Adamite" or long dead languages or angelic languages (compare 1 Corinthians 13:1). In more recent years the stock answer is that it is a "private prayer" language. Perhaps. But all those responses insist that tongues are for believers when Paul says they aren’t 14:22. And how literally unknown languages could convict an unbeliever is another difficulty.
I worked with this topic a bit in a little book on 1 Corinthians (In the US call 877-792-6408 if interested). Maybe I did a bit better there than here. I’m not sure.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment