Sunday Sermons
Speaking in Tongues - Part 1
“The roots of Pentecostalism can be traced back to John Wesley and the beginnings of Methodism in the 1780's. Wesley placed great emphasis on an experience that every Christian should have after conversion. He called it ‘perfect love, and meant by that term what today is called ‘sanctification’ or ‘a second work of grace’. Charles G. Finney (1792-1876), a famous revival preacher, took Wesley's idea and modified it a bit. He was the first to say that the 'experience after conversion', is the same as 'baptism of the Holy Spirit'. The Holiness people had difficulty deciding on a criterion by which to judge if a person was 'holy' or not. This was where the peculiar emphasis of the Pentecostals came. Pentecostals, once the movement was born, began to teach that “speaking in tongues” is evidence a man has been baptized of the Holy Spirit (experienced the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit after conversion)” (New Testament History. Acts. Reese pg. 102). Common to all Pentecostals is the one basic belief that "the baptism of the Holy Spirit' is an experience subsequent to conversion, all believers should have it, and the initial physical evidence for this baptism, or infilling, is the speaking in tongues. Most charismatics make a distinction between two kinds of tongues. One kind of tongue is for private devotions. This is likely to be a "heavenly language", and is used when men speak supernaturally with God. The other kind of tongues is for public use, and is more likely to be a ‘foreign language’, such as was the case on the Day of Pentecost”. Modern day professed “tongue speaking” (speaking unintelligible sounds that do not fit any known human language) stems from when Anges Ozman (January 1, 1901), a student in a Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, professed to speak in tongues. Speaking in unintelligible sounds goes all the way back the Greek religion, where it was practiced by the cult of the Thracian Dionysus as well as the Delphic Phyrgia, the Bacides, the Sybils and others. Unintelligible speaking has characterized many religious sects of the past two hundred years. Among the Huguenot peasants of Southern France (1685 to the early 1700’s) were the Camisards who claimed to speak in tongues. Many of these were children, who also predicted the imminent return of Christ to establish an earthly kingdom. The Jansenists, also of France c. 1731, were said to have uttered unintelligible expressions in an unconscious state. Such speaking was characteristic of the so-called Catholic Apostolic Church, founded in the early 19th century in England by Edward Irving. Furthermore, the Shakers and early Mormons claimed the same.
Mark 16:17-18
“And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover”
The English word “new” can have the implication of “new in time, never existing before”; whereas the Greek word translated here “new” for simply means, "fresh, recently made, unused'. Therefore the “new” tongues would be a language unused by the speaker before. These languages were new and different, not in the sense that they had never been heard before, or that they were new to the hearers, for it is plain from Acts 2:8 this was not the case; they were new languages to the speakers, different from those in which they were accustomed to speak.
To those that apply this verse to all Christians (or claim that “speaking in tongues”, is proof of conversion), must also admit that these other “signs” must be present as well! Everywhere the apostles and early Christians went (Acts 2,8,10,16) these signs did follow (Acts 2:4,43; 3:1-8; 4:33; 5:12 and so on). The term “everywhere” also demands that the tongues mentioned in Mark 16:17, Acts 2,10,19 and 1 Corinthians chapters 12-14 are the same gift! Even in the First Corinthian letter, Paul makes it clear that every Christian did not speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:29 “do all speak with tongues?; 14:5 “Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues”). Which makes it very clear that they all did not, as opposed to those who regard tongues as the indispensable mark of having received the Spirit or spiritual maturity.
Acts 2:1-13
Acts 2:1 “they were all together in one place”: The last group mentioned is the “eleven” (1:26); in addition the text specifically states that “Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice' (2:14), and when the audience asked their question they addressed it specifically to Peter and the rest of the apostles (2:37). This proves that only the Apostles received the Holy Spirit and were speaking in tongues on this occasion.
Acts 2:6 “because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language”: Clearly the tongues were languages that men could hear and understand. Some have suggested that the miracle took place in the ear of the hearers. Then why would it be called ”tongues” rather than “ears” or “hearing”? If this were true, the gift would not belong to the disciple; it would belong to the listener. And finally, if it were true, there would be no need for an interpreter or the gift of interpretation (1 Corinthians 12:10, 14:28).
Acts 2:8 “And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born?” Acts 2:11 “Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God”. Some argue: “What need was there for the Apostles to speak in unlearned foreign languages? The whole world was bilingual? Everyone knew Greek?” It is true that Greek was a universal language in the early days of the church, but it is also true that many would understand their mother tongue better than Greek. Many districts also held on to their own dialect, see Acts 14:11. In addition, what surprised these Jew's from outside of Palestine is that the people speaking in the language of their homeland, were Galileans! (2:7). Galilean men came from a despised district, where education was scanty, the standard of culture low, and the spoken dialect peculiar. In addition, the apostle’s clothing would have aided in their identification. “They are Galileans! How can they be doing that?” “The mighty works of God”: They definitely understood the subject matter. Acts 2:13 “But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine”: Some try to use this verse as proof that the speaking was a “language of heaven, not known to men”. But such an interpretation would accuse the people in verses 6-11 of lying. Please note who made this accusation, people who were mocking or scornfully jeering what the apostles were saying. Since the apostles are all speaking in various languages, the people would begin to gather around the speaker that spoke their dialect, but like all situations, some people are not interested in truth.
Acts 10:44-48
“While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.”
Again, the tongues here were understandable: “For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (10:46). Note that in this case the baptism (out-pouring) of the Spirit came prior to conversion and not after it. These people received an out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, and yet were not saved! Rather than speaking in tongues, being a proof of conversion, this was a proof that God approved of Gentiles being baptized (Acts 10:47).
Acts 11:15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning”. “Even as on us at the beginning'”: “Just as He fell upon us at the first” (Wey) “As he did originally on us” (Rieu). The “us” in the passage refers to the apostles and the “beginning” is Acts chapter 2:1ff. It is strongly implied that there had been no common reception of the baptism with the Holy Spirit since Pentecost, for if it were something that all Christians were expected to receive and did receive, Peter could have simply pointed to the numerous other incidents, and not have had to go all the way back to Pentecost to find a similar incident.
Acts 19:1-7
“And it came about that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found some disciples, 2and he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." 3And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." 4And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7And there were in all about twelve men.”
The Holy Spirit here came on them when Paul laid his hands on them. Note: There as no outpouring of the Spirit here. This agrees with Acts 8:17-18. People did not automatically receive miraculous powers upon baptism. It took the hands of an apostle to impart those powers. This also proves that the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38, is not miraculous. Since we have two examples 8:12 and 19:5 of people being baptized, and yet requiring the hands of an apostle to impart to them spiritual gifts! We must note that before we move to the Corinthian letter, that Luke has already fully described what the tongues were while Paul takes for granted that his readers know this and therefore does not offer a detailed description.
1 Corinthians 13:1
“If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels”: Some have used the expression “and of angels” to prove that the tongues were angelic languages. But consider the following. Paul here says “If I”. We know that Paul spoke in tongues (languages of men) more than any member at Corinth (14:18), but Paul did not claim to speak in every tongue. In verses 1-3 Paul is presenting three supposed cases, notice the repetition of the word “if”. Paul here is saying, “If I could speak in every human language, yea, even of angels, if I were to have the highest degree possible of tongue-speaking ability”. That is, tongue-speaking at its most marvelous point (exhausting the languages of man and angels). Actually this proves that the tongues were not angelic languages. For if a person claims to be able to speak in a “heavenly language”, they should first be able to exhaust every human tongue. The statement, “and of angels” is a degree beyond speaking in human languages. Each “if” in this section of Scripture is attached to the highest degree in that particular category. That is, tongue-speaking that exhausts every human and angelic tongue, prophecy that reveals all mysteries (even though all mysteries were never revealed through a single prophet, and mysteries still do exist (Deuteronomy 29:29; Philemon 15; 1 Thessalonians 5:1). When angels did speak in the Bible, they used human language (Luke 1:13, 1:26ff). They always used intelligible speech. To claim that modern day babbling is some angelic language is clearly an insult to angels. Thus it is not necessary to infer that Paul claimed to speak in the tongues of angels any more than it is necessary to infer that he possessed all prophetic powers and knowledge, that he had all faith, and had given away all his possessions or delivered his body up to be burned.
