- What is, actually, the gift of tongues?
I think in Acts chapter two,
that's the first example we see on the day of Pentecost
of people speaking in tongues.
And those who speak in tongues,
I think, clearly speak in other languages.
Luke lists all these different regions
from which people come
and he says they heard them speaking in their own language.
There's a few people out there
that say the gift was in the gift of hearing,
but I think when you actually read the text,
it's much more likely that the gift
is in the gift of speaking.
So they spoke in a different languages,
people who were in Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost
from all around the world, they heard,
the apostles and their friends,
speaking in their own languages.
So what is the nature of the gift of tongues in Acts 2,
I think it's clearly speaking in foreign languages.
The next clear example, speaking in tongues,
and it's in Acts chapter 10
when Peter preaches to Cornelius and his friends.
And Peter's preaching to them,
he doesn't give an invitation,
but the Spirit suddenly falls on them
and they speak in tongues.
Now, I think the burden of proof is on anyone
who would say the gift is different
from what it is in Acts 2.
Secondly, the Gentiles, 'cause Cornelius was a Gentile.
The Gentiles speaking in tongues
proves to these Jewish believers
that these Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit.
Which the Jews would wonder about
since the Gentiles were not circumcised.
And thirdly in Acts chapter 11,
Peter says they got the same gift as us.
So I think that seals the deal.
It's the same gift.
So, again, I think it's quite clear
they were speaking in other languages.
Luke gives us no indication that the gift
is of a different nature
than what we see in Acts chapter 10.
The third example is in Acts chapter 19,
when Paul goes and speaks to the Ephesian 12,
and they've only heard about John's baptism,
and he tells them about Jesus and the Holy Spirit
and they receive the Spirit and they speak in tongues.
I mean, again, there's no reason to think,
we've had two examples now that the gift is any different
from what we've read about in Acts 2 and Acts chapter 10.
So I think there's good reasons to think
that the gift of tongues,
they are speaking in other languages.
What about 1st Corinthians?
1 Corinthians 12 through 14.
So many people argue,
"Yes, the gift was speaking in other languages in Acts,
"but in 1 Corinthians, it's speaking
"in a private prayer language or ecstatic utterances."
When I say ecstatic utterances,
I'm not criticizing the term.
But it's not a discernible language any longer.
And so they'll say, you know, "Tongue speaking today,
"it's not speaking in foreign languages,
"but it's like the ecstatic utterances we read about
"in 1 Corinthians 12 through 14."
That's possible, but I'm not convinced.
I think there's several arguments against it.
First, I think the burden of proof, again,
is on someone who would say, "The gift is different in Acts
"from what it is in 1 Corinthians."
The most natural way to read it is it's the same gift.
Second, Christopher Forbes, who is himself a charismatic
and has written on inspired speech, argues
that the Greek word, glossa,
doesn't refer to ecstatic utterances
but speaking in a language.
So the actual meaning of the term,
I don't think points to ecstatic utterances.
Thirdly, though, people point to verses
like 1 Corinthians 14:2, and they'll say,
"Well, it's clearly a different gift
"because in Acts they speak to men and men understand.
"But in 1 Corinthians,
"Paul says you're not speaking to men,"
This is 1 Corinthians 14:2.
"You're not speaking to men but to God
"and no one understands
"but he speaks mysteries in his spirit."
And so they say, "Look how different that is,
"it must be a different kind of tongues
"in 1 Corinthians 14:2."
But my response to that is I just don't think
that's persuasive because the key is to recognize
the situation is different.
In Acts, why is it that those who are speaking in tongues
were speaking to men and not speaking mysteries?
Because the people who knew the languages were there.
If, and in 1 Corinthians 14,
Paul is addressing a specific situation in the church,
where the Corinthians are speaking in tongues
and no one understands what they're saying.
So it's not that the gift is different,
it's the situation is different.
If you're in a situation
and you're speaking in another language
and no one understands you,
you're basically speaking to God, aren't you?
And it's a mystery to everyone else that is there.
So, honestly, I don't think the differences
between the two texts are very, very significant
at the end of the day.
We just have to recognize we have a different circumstance
that underlies these two texts.
Does Paul speak of a private prayer language
in 1 Corinthians 14?
He absolutely does.
He says that one can speak it in private.
But we are not to make the mistake of saying,
"Well, if the language is private,
"it must be ecstatic utterances."
I don't think that follows.
I think Paul says it's fine to speak it in private,
but that doesn't prove that the nature of the gift is there
for speaking in ecstatic utterances.
You can speak in another foreign language
in private as well.
Of course, Paul doesn't think such private tongue speaking
is important to ones spiritual life.
Paul emphasizes that the purpose of gifts
is to edify the body.
So he doesn't give any essay
on what it's like to speak in tongues in private.
Because that is not even his concern.
What about "the tongues of angels"?
Maybe we don't speak in foreign languages only
but we also speak in the tongues of angels.
1 Corinthians 13:1
Again, that's possible.
But I'm not persuaded.
I actually think Paul is speaking rhetorically
and hyperbolically in that passage.
I mean, he's talking about what love is,
he's not really trying to explain
the nature of the gift of tongues.
My support for this really comes as well from the next verse
because Paul says, "If I have the gift of prophecy
"and know all mysteries and all knowledge,"
do you hear the rhetorical nature of that?
Clearly, it's hyperbolic.
Nobody who has the gift of prophecy
knows all mysteries and all knowledge.
But I think that matches up very well
with 1 Corinthians 13:1.
"If I speak in the tongue of man and even of angles."
So I don't think we ought to read into that,
that yes people speak in the tongue of angels,
I think he's just extending out the argument to say,
"Even if that were possible,"
and I think Paul's saying we don't do that,
"but I don't have love,
I'm just a sounding gong, an irritating noise."
So I don't think the argument from the tongues of angels
is a persuasive argument in favor
of a different kind of tongue.
One other question,
is speaking in tongues the baptism of the Spirit?
I mean in Acts 2, it takes place right on Pentecost,
you could say Pentecost is the birthday of the church.
Those who believe speak in tongues.
In Acts 10, Cornelius and his friends,
when they become Christians, speak in tongues
and Acts 8, perhaps the Samaritan spoke in tongues,
the text doesn't say they did, but perhaps they did.
Acts 19, the Ephesian 12 speak in tongues.
I would argue what we have in Acts, though,
is we have a purpose in all those passages
for the speaking in tongues,
and it ought not to be equated necessarily,
that's my key word.
It ought not to be equated necessarily
with the baptism of the Spirit.
So Acts 2 is the inauguration of the church.
It's the inauguration under the new covenant.
It's the coming of the new age.
Yes, is it identified as the baptism of the Spirit?
Absolutely.
Because of Acts 1:5,
Jesus says you're going to be baptized,
you're going to be immersed with the Spirit in not many days
Obviously that took place in Acts chapter two.
So, yes, the baptism of the Spirit
can be accompanied by speaking in tongues.
The question is, does it have to be?
My answer to that is no, but let's go to the next passage.
Did they speak in tongues
in Acts chapter eight with the Samaritans?
Let's say they did.
We're not sure, the text doesn't say.
It says Simon saw the Spirit being given to them.
Maybe he saw them speak in tongues.
But why did the Samaritan speak in tongues?
Well there's this long cultural breach,
this long cultural separation
between the Jews and the Samaritans.
The Samaritans had even built a separate temple,
although the Jews had burned it down.
The Samaritans, if they spoke in tongues
and I think they probably did,
it would demonstrate to the Jews,
"Yes, the Samaritans have really become Christians."
So, were they baptized when they spoke in tongues?
Yes.
Was it the baptism of the Spirit?
Yes.
But the function of them speaking in tongues,
I think was to demonstrate to the Jews,
who would hold the Samaritans in suspicion,
"Look, these Samaritans are really Christians."
Acts chapter 10, Cornelius and his friends are Gentiles.
Peter preaches, they receive the Spirit,
and they speak in tongues.
Is that their baptism of the Spirit?
I think it is.
But why do they speak in tongues?
Not because you must speak in tongues,
to be baptized of the Spirit.
They speak in tongues to demonstrate
to the Jewish believers,
"Yes, these Gentiles are really saved.
"They're really Christians
"without being circumcised and keeping the law."
So again, speaking in tongues demonstrate
the Gentiles are truly part of the people of God.
Fourthly, what about the Ephesian 12?
The Ephesian 12 in Acts chapter 19.
The Ephesian 12 are disciples of John the Baptist
and they speak in tongues.
Now, it's very interesting to note,
this is not a second experience for them in Acts chapter 19
because I don't think they were Christians yet.
They only believed in the baptism of John.
So we're not getting a second experience here,
what we're seeing here is we're seeing that the Ephesian 12
for the first time enter the new period
of redemptive history.
They live in kind of a redemptive, historical time warp.
They're stuck on John's baptism.
So they hear the good news about Jesus
and the gift of the Spirit, they believe
and they receive the Spirit and they speak in tongues.
Was it the baptism of the Spirit?
Yes.
But it's a baptism of the Spirit that came at conversion.
So I would argue,
when you look at all four of those passages,
Pentecost, Samaria,
Cornelius and his friends, the Ephesians 12,
in every case the tongue speaking came at conversion
as accompanied by the baptism of the Spirit.
But there were good reasons in every one of those cases
why they spoke in tongues.
The Ephesian 12, why do they speak in tongues?
To show that Jesus' message
is more important than the Baptist.
That Jesus is the fulfillment
of everything the Baptist taught.
Remember, they were disciples of John the Baptist.
And in the first century, some people actually thought
the Baptist was more important than Jesus.
So this shows that Jesus is more important than the Baptist,
he's the fulfillment of all the Baptist taught.
Finally, Paul mentions the baptism of the Spirit
in 1 Corinthians 12:13.
And Paul emphasizes every Christian
is baptized by the Spirit.
I mean read it, we're all baptized, he says.
Whether Jew or Greek, whether slave or free.
So the baptism of the Spirit
is something all Christians experience at conversion
and, what else do we see in 1 Corinthians 12 through 14
that's very helpful,
Paul says, "Not all speak in tongues."
Very clearly.
Not all have that gift
but all Christians are baptized
with the Spirit at conversion.
"They enter the body of Christ," 1 Corinthians 12:13.
So you put those two things together.
All Christians are baptized by the Spirit at conversion.
In Acts, right, we saw that in all four cases.
Yes, in those passages,
for particular reasons it was accompanied
by speaking in tongues,
but when we come to 1 Corinthians, it's very clear
that the baptism of the Spirit takes place at conversion
and it isn't necessarily accompanied by speaking in tongues.
In fact probably for most
it was not accompanied by speaking in tongues.
So my final word is this.
If speaking in tongues is speaking in foreign languages,
I think most tongue speaking today,
what people call tongue speaking,
is not the same thing as what was taking place in the Bible.
Does that mean I think it's of the Devil,
what's happening today?
I'm not saying that.
I think people do it out of good will.
But I don't think it's the same thing
as the gift that is talked about in the Scripture.
And in fact, I lean towards the view
that gift is no longer operative today, although, perhaps,
God might be willing to grant that gift
in cutting-edge, missionary situations,
such as we see on the day of Pentecost.
But I don't think that's a regular feature
of church life today.
So that's a very controversial issue, isn't it?
Good Christians who love each other, disagree on this.
We're still brothers and sisters in Christ.
The main thing is we all have the Holy Spirit,
we worship the same Christ, we belong to the same Lord.
So we give ourselves to Him and we pray for one another,
and we love one another,
and we spread the good news to the world.
- [Narrator] Thanks for watching Honest Answers.
Don't forget to subscribe.
(music)