Why the fuss about Tongues?

Christian Witness Ministries
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources

By Philip L. POWELL.

A shorter sequel to his previous "Cessationism versus Biblicism" article

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. (2) And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. (3) And there appeared to them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2: 1-4).

Recently I was accused of departing from the faith simply because our publications do not include the Assemblies of God tenet regarding the so-called initial evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. On the contrary I have not denied anything that I believed or taught nor have I changed from my former position in any way. There is no need. Classic Pentecostalism teaches that the initial outward evidence of those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was glossolalia or "tongues speaking."
There were two other "signs" which accompanied the coming of the Holy Spirit on that day _ a great sound from heaven and cloven tongues of fire. However the one (and only one) common "sign" in which those early disciples were participants was "speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance" [lit. `as the Holy Spirit gave them to articulate']. This was something that they actually did, all 120 of them -- BUT and here's the rub, what they did was at the prompting (initiating) and by the sovereign will of the Holy Spirit. It was not something that they decided or were instructed to do.
The words that they spoke were not of their own manufacture or the result of autosuggestion or mimicry. In fact they had no prior idea what was going to happen. Our Lord simply told them to wait in Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high c/f Acts 1: 4-8. He did not forewarn them that they would speak in tongues. There was no instruction about any so-called initial evidence, and probably that is where things started to go wrong, when the early Pentecostals of last century felt that it was necessary to go beyond the scriptures and make some statement about their idea of the INITIAL EVIDENCE.
Isn't that where it always goes wrong? When we either take away from or add to God's Word, the Bible? The end result was that people sought tongues and many ended up with just that -- cold psychological (or worse) glossolalia and there is no excuse for that vain pursuit and false experience. The emphasis of the so called "initial evidence" as it is all too frequently taught leads one to the false conclusion that all who speak in tongues are baptised in or filled with the Holy Spirit. This is patently false. Spiritists and several cults and even witch doctors practise "speaking in tongues". It is no guarantee or evidence of any thing, especially as it has been promoted by modern day Pentecostals and Charismatics. The holiness emphasis of the early Pentecostals was a reasonable safeguard, but gradually as this emphasis faded the tenet itself opened people to wrong and dangerous practices. In the earlier days of the Pentecostal revival godly leaders perceived this and took action to protect their people from men who specialised in leading people into the Baptism. My late uncle, David Powell publicly stopped Frank Houston from doing this during one of Houston's early visits to UK. David Powell and others of us took very seriously the instruction of Paul about the dangers associated with the laying on of hands and the consequent participating in other men's sins as the Bible puts it -- c/f 1 Timothy 5:22.
Another point we need to make is that the incidents of tongues speaking in the book of Acts make it abundantly clear that the gift of speaking in tongues was not for the preaching of the Gospel in foreign languages as Charles Parham one of the early Pentecostals mistakenly affirmed. The first case scenario makes that clear and every other reference in the New Testament supports it. The 120 "tongues speakers" of Acts chapter two spoke in different unlearned languages "the wonderful works of God"--Acts 2:7-11. Peter preached the gospel later in the language of the day viz Aramaic--Acts 2:14-36. In Acts chapter 10 when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the Gentiles they also "magnified God" c/f verse 46. In other words in both cases tongues speaking was God-ward in the first instance. This is in total agreement with Paul's explanation in 1 Cor 14:2 of the purpose of tongues speaking on its own when it is viewed in the entire context:
"Follow after love, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that you may prophesy. (2) For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men, but to God: for no man understands him; however in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (3) But he that prophesies speaks to men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. (4) He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself; but he that prophesies edifies the church. (5) I wish that you all spoke with tongues, but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying" 1 Cor 14: 1-5.

What he says in essence is that "tongues" are meaningless and purposeless as a public manifestation unless they are understood or interpreted. In the Acts 2 case some understood and were benefited by that understanding. Others didn't and falsely concluded that those who spoke in tongues were speaking gibberish as a result of their being drunk. The Acts 10 case implies that at least some of the Jews who accompanied Peter understood the languages being spoken by the gentiles when they were baptised into the Holy Spirit. Acts 11: 15-17 raises a very interesting point for it claims that the household of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit exactly as did the disciples in Acts chapter 2, yet the only identifiable common factor is "speaking in tongues". "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us at the beginning. (16) Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. (17) Therefore as God gave them the same gift as he did to us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; who was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:15-17).
"Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues. (40) Let all things be done decently and in order" 1 Corinthians 14:39-40.
As I pointed out in my previous article "Cessationism vs Biblicism" *1 the nine manifestations of the Holy Spirit listed in 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 are exclusive. There are no others. So the so-called being "slain in the spirit" is not a biblical manifestation of the Spirit, nor are shaking, quaking, jerking, roaring or laughing. The nine "manifestations" are not the full list of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. There are more -- see Romans 12:6-9 & 1 Corinthians 12:28 etc by way of example. The thing about the nine manifestations (a trinity of a trinity) of the Holy Spirit is that they are all supernatural in their initiation and their impact. The word "manifestation" indicates a "shining forth". So what we have with each properly functioning "manifestation" of the Holy Spirit is a divine shining forth of the life and light of the Spirit of God. Correctly operating each is a confirmation that God is present and at work. When procedure becomes unbiblical, things in the local church end up being mundane, drearily repetitive or disorderly. In his epistles to the Corinthians Paul writes to correct wrong procedure and practice in a number of areas, including the area of the "manifestations" of the Holy Spirit. The over-riding safeguard is that each true manifestation will be initiated and motivated by the Holy Spirit Himself. The following are obvious conclusions that we can make from Paul's teaching:

i. Tongues without interpretation

The church that promotes or practises corporate tongues speaking, without those tongues being interpreted, is out of order. In this case the manifestation is not truly that of the Holy Spirit.
"If therefore the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that you are mad? (27) If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. (28) But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God" 1 Corinthians 14: 23 & 27-28.

ii. Purpose of tongues

Biblically tongues speaking served one or more of three possible functions:
a) A sign to unbelievers
"Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that do not believe" 1 Corinthians 14:22.
This is illustrated in Acts chapter 2 where the foreigner Jews heard the Galilean disciples of Christ speak in their tongues the wonderful works of God. As a boy raised in a Pentecostal pioneer family I heard of many such incidents that took place among the early Pentecostals, some of which resulted in the conversion of those unbelievers who witnessed the event.

b) The personal edification of the private speaker in tongues
"He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself; --For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. …But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God" 1 Cor 14:4, 14:14, 14:28.
Paul is not condemning tongues speaking in these verses. He is simply correcting the abuse and the wrong use of the gift. The word "edification" means to "build up" so there is nothing wrong with self-edification. It should not be confused with self-promotion. Paul is here talking about a legitimate spiritual exercise, which should be practised in private and not in the church where everything should be done for the public good and not for personal benefit. Paul's teaching is quite clear and it makes good sense. Don't engage in public "tongues speaking" unless what is said is going to be interpreted. Praying in tongues is a legitimate exercise but if it's personal and private then keep it that way. The only legitimate use of tongues speaking in the church is when it is accompanied by the gift of interpretation of tongues. The two together equal "prophecy".

c) The public edification of the church "I would that you all spoke with tongues, but rather that you prophesied: for greater is he that prophesies than he that speaks with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. --I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all; Yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. Let all things be done to edifying. If any man speaks in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and each in turn; and let one interpret" (1 Corinthians 14:5,18,19,26,27).
Paul's passion is for the church as a whole. Nowhere does he denigrate tongues speaking. Nowhere are we told in scripture that speaking in tongues is the least of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are only told that the person who prophesies is "greater" i.e. more beneficial to the "body" than the tongues speaker unless the latter interprets the message in tongues. The reason and conclusion are quite clear -- understanding is essential to public edification; speaking in tongues accompanied by interpretation of tongues equals prophecy and prophecy is for "edification" i.e. building up "exhortation" i.e. stirring up and "comfort" i.e. cheering up _ c/f 1 Corinthians 14:3.

iii. Tongues will cease

There will come a time when speaking in tongues as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit will cease.
"Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. (9) For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. (10) But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (1 Corinthians 13:8).
The cessationist view that speaking in tongues has ceased is based upon two ideas:
1) That the canon of scripture is what Paul calls "that which is perfect"; and
2) That speaking in tongues being a "sign" has fulfilled its purpose.
In some ways the two arguments complement each other and are quite complicated and complex in their rationale. I would suggest that this alone makes them suspect for they strike at what theologians call the perspicuity of scripture viz the self-evident truth that is contained therein. Let's briefly examine both ideas.
a) Is the canon of scripture the thing that Paul has in mind?
Firstly there is nothing in the context that suggests this. Then, though we agree that scripture is perfect, it is never referred to as "that which is perfect" elsewhere in the
Bible. Furthermore consistency demands that everything that Paul says in this context be subjected to the interpretation that is adopted. If the advent of the canon of scripture ensured the ceasing of the gift of speaking in tongues then it also terminated knowledge ("knowledge shall vanish away") and brought God's people to a place where they no longer "see through a glass darkly" and no longer "know in part" but know as they are known. Does the Bible bring this sort of dramatic change? No it does not!
To maintain their case cessationists say that the "knowledge" which Paul says will pass away is the gift of the "word of knowledge" which is one of the nine manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Allowing for that possibility (though I strongly disagree that this is what is being affirmed) you are still faced with these questions, "How did the advent of the canon of scripture in any way alter those early Christians with regard to their knowledge and perception of themselves and of things around them? Do we not all still "see through a glass darkly"? What is the significance of the phrase "face to face" ?
Failing to adopt a convincing argument for their case at this level some cessationists do what many Bible teachers attempt -- they appeal to the original language for support. I am not a Greek scholar but I know we can derive great benefit from those who are genuine scholars in the original languages of the Bible and that we should consider their arguments, without being overwhelmed by their knowledge -- real or imagined. But I also know that Greek scholars disagree among themselves and furthermore that in this area just as in any other area a "little learning is a dangerous thing"!
Following my previous article on this topic one man wrote to me about tongues ceasing: "Cease is in the middle voice, denoting a willing cessation, they would cease on their own" as distinct from "prophecy" and "knowledge" where a passive verb is used "indicating that the action is from without."
As I pointed out the argument is complex, complicated and quite frankly extremely confusing. One academic who is quoted in our Letters Page claims that the argument is unconvincing, another wrote to me that it is sheer nonsense. It seems to me that one' s presupposition influences one' s conclusion. Greek scholars from the Pentecostal school of thought will differ from their counterparts who are cessationists. One thing that we must remember is that no language is absolute not even Greek. Words take on different connotations based on context and there is room for parallel meanings with Greek synonyms and even verb moods.
However, allowing for the force of this argument from the cessationist camp, which I don' t, we are still faced with the question about the arrival of "that which is perfect." The context suggests that it is this, which causes "that which is in part" viz tongues, prophecies and knowledge to "cease", "fail" or "vanish away". The "perfect" could be one of a number of things each allowing for an abrupt "ceasing" of tongues and a gradual "failing" of prophecies and "vanishing" of knowledge. For the cessationist it is the completion of the canon of Scripture. For the Pentecostal it is the perfect state that Christ will introduce at His second advent. So allowing for the argument based on what is alleged about the original Greek verbs the conclusion that my friend who wrote to me makes is unconvincing.
On balance I will stick with the Pentecostal view for the reasons given in the opening paragraph. This certainly fits with the expression "but then face to face". b) Were tongues and prophecies "signs" only to the Jews of NT Times?

"In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak to this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, says the Lord. (22) Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that do not believe: but prophesying serves not for them that do not believe, but for them which believe. (23) If therefore the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that you are mad? (24) But if all prophesy, and there come in one that does not believe, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: (25) And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth" 1 Corinthians 14:21-25.

In Corinthians Paul is addressing a Gentile church as the apostle to the Gentiles -- c/f Acts 13:46 and Romans 15:16. The fact that he quotes from Isaiah 28:11 & 12, which relates to the Jews does not preclude the Gentiles whom Paul addresses. We readily acknowledge that the sign miracles that Jesus performed both vindicated Him in His person and validated His claims and therefore need never be repeated. They were signs of His true identity and His great mission and purpose in His first advent. However that does not mean that the "sign" of tongues speaking and by implication that of prophecy is to be understood in the same sense, which some cessationists argue. Take a careful look at Isaiah chapter 28 in its full context. In 1 Corinthians 14:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 & 12 and applies it to his teaching about tongues speaking in Corinth. Now some are very quick to point out that the Isaiah reference is that of judgement and therefore they say the "sign" that Paul alludes to is also one of judgement? But is that really the case? The judgement spoken of in Isaiah is the result of refusing the message -- "We have made a covenant with death --" verse 15 -- but hot on the heels of the pronouncement of judgment comes the promise of salvation -- "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled--" verse 18. The message of Isaiah 28 alternates between judgement and blessing, as does 1 Corinthians 14:21-25, where the "sign" is made to apply equally to Jew and Gentile
To ignore this is to ignore the sense of Paul' s teaching, which quite clearly had application to the Christians -- Jews and Gentiles -- at Corinth. What happened at Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2 is essentially an illustration of what Paul is maintaining here. Tongues speaking that is initiated and motivated by the Holy Spirit will have a dual impact. To those "unbelievers" who recognise the language and are open to receive from God it becomes a sign that God is truly at work. Conversely those who do not understand the language and are mere "mockers" (c/f Acts 2:13) are candidates for judgement, though they may be rescued through the preaching of the Gospel in the known common tongue, as were 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. By applying the scripture in a national corporate sense you miss the individual application. Some see corporate "baptisms", corporate "judgements", and corporate "signs" while others see it all more from an individual perspective. It really does depend on what is your basic presupposition.

iv. Tongues speaking is not to be forbidden

"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all: (39) therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues" 1 Corinthians 14:18, 39
From a very early age I had a passion for God, for truth and for reality. For example I can vividly remember the first AoG General Conference that I attended in Britain as a boy just before we as a family left for New Zealand back in 1950. Some meetings were viewed as sort of obligatory but the 7am Bible study and prayer time was definitely optional. As a boy of 11, I was there morning by morning all week. One thing that stands out was a personal encounter with several bible college students. They seemed to me to be mocking the Holy Spirit, maintaining that they could speak in tongues whenever they wanted and even putting on a demonstration. I was repulsed and recoiled from them and the practice notwithstanding the fact that they were many years my senior. I protested at what they were doing. It was as if "tongues speaking" was a sort of toy -- a plaything. But it' s not. Like all the manifestations of the Holy Spirit the safeguard -- the only safeguard -- is in the fact that genuine tongues speaking only operates as HE wills, which means that it must be the Holy Spirit who initiates and motivates the activity. I think this is where Pentecostals started to go wrong and I think this completely answers the problems --
theological and practical -- with respect to tongues speaking and all of the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit. Let them operate only as HE sovereignly determines. Let us not talk about "practising the gifts." (How can you practise gifts?)

*1 [ See CETF Issue 22 available at www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2000/cess62_1.html ]

Disgraced pastor sets up church

WAS the headline appearing in Saturday's Courier Mail (Brisbane) -- 26 May 2001. Journalist Glenis Green wrote of Clark Taylor's admitted multiple acts of adultery for which he resigned in April 1990 and most remarkably the fact that senior pastors had merely "cautioned" him about similar acts in 1979.
Now Clark Taylor is back with an alleged 750 strong congregation in Brisbane and a new church plant on the Sunshine Coast and all the claims about miracles that accompanies his type of "ministry". As I read the newspaper article I felt a sense of shame regarding the so-called church and the image that this presents to a world that needs Christ and His pure gospel. I was reminded of the verse which states: "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13).
Sadly church leaders don't seem to care and so why should ordinary members - all 750 of them? More next CETF, God willing.

Appeared in Issue CETF 7.1 June 2001
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3