They Spoke in Tongues? Not in Acts !!!

[JAL]

Did the early church speak in tongues? Certainly – see 1Cor14. Does Acts mention this gift? NO (see below). Why is this distinction important? Acts introduces Pentecost as a paradigm of “power for witnessing.” If tongues wasn’t part of that paradigm (as I will show), then Pentecostals are incorrect to view tongues as the sign of power for witnessing. After all, clearly the average Pentecostal does NOT have the same power described in Acts (power to heal the sick, raise the dead, perform signs and wonders, and be effective in evangelism).

I will now demonstrate that the “sign” associated in Acts with “power for witnessing” is the gift of prophecy rather than the gift of tongues.

Paul defines the gift of tongues as an utterance incomprehensible to the listeners. Accordingly he counsels the tongues-speaker to abstain from public proclamation unless the gift of interpretation is also present. The gift of prophecy doesn’t need an interpreter because it is an utterance in languages known to the audience.

The gift of interpretation simply isn’t mentioned in the Book of Acts. Pentecost didn’t call for translators because the message was in languages known to the audience. Folks, God never intended language to be a barrier to the gospel. Those who have the gift of prophecy – at least those who have it in the same capacity described in Acts – can witness to the nations in their own languages.

Unfortunately most Bible translations mistakenly suggest, at Acts 2:4, that Pentecost involved tongues, “They spoke in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” The better translation is, “They spoke in languages as the Spirit gave them utterance.”

As a matter of fact, Luke clearly indicates the gift of prophecy because in Acts 2 Peter refers to Joel’s promise as being fulfilled on Pentecost. The promise states, “I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they SHALL prophesy.” Notice it does NOT say, “I shall pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and they MIGHT PERHAPS prophesy.” In other words, anyone who partakes of the kind of outpouring described by Joel SHALL prophesy. If you have never (genuinely) prophesied, you don’t have the gift thematic to Acts and Joel.


Let’s move on to Acts 10. Did Cornelius’ household speak in tongues? The gift of interpretation isn’t mentioned. Furthermore, in Acts 1l Peter described it as “the same gift given to us [on Pentecost].” Since Pentecost was the gift of prophecy, it follows that Cornelius received the gift of prophecy. As early as 200 A.D., the church father Tertullian (the man who coined the word Trinity) concluded that Cornelius’ gift was prophecy rather than tongues.

After all, tongues can be dissociated with Acts hermeneutically. The NT historians who wrote the gospels and Acts followed the tradition of the OT historians. In that tradition, the gift of prophecy was central. There was no clear mention of tongues. Moreover, the gift of prophecy is a self-explanatory concept, whereas the gift of tongues is NOT self-explanatory. Why speak a language no one can understand? Therefore if a biblical historian were going to introduce such an unusual gift, the reader would expect a long-winded explanation (as we find in 1Cor 14). But in Acts we find no such explanation.

The only verse in Acts tempting to be understood as a reference to tongues is Acts 19:6: “They spoke in tongues (languages), and prophesied.” Here Luke is possibly distinguishing two different kinds of gifts, namely prophecy and tongues. Interestingly, the staunch Pentecostal theologian Howard Ervin admitted that Acts 19:6 probably means, “They prophesied in other languages.” Ervin is probably correct because Luke seems to be exhibiting here the same stylistic seen at Acts 10:46, “For they heard them speak with tongues (languages), and magnify God.” In other words, is Luke referring here to two different gifts?
(1) Speaking in languages.
(2) Magnifying God.
I don’t think so. The verse states, “For they heard them speak with tongues (languages), and magnify God.” The word “For” indicates that the phenomena are evidentiary of this special “power for witnessing.” “Magnifying God” in one’s own language is NOT evidentiary of “power for witnessing” (because all the Jews magnified God even without such power). However, magnifying God in an unfamiliar language IS evidentiary of power. In other words Luke isn’t referring to two different gifts. He is really saying, “They magnified God in other languages.” By way of parallel, Acts 19:6 is likewise referring to only one gift, i.e., “They prophesied in other languages.” I realize this is an odd stylistic, but apparently Luke sometimes expressed himself in such odd manner.

 

[Yarddog]

All you've really done is give your interpretation of Acts and Paul's letters but have proven nothing.

 

[Albion]

But the OP is essentially correct. Peter is not recorded as speaking in an unknown language or anything that seemed like a language but was otherwise gibberish. Neither did the disciples in the upper room speak "languages" that were not real languages. And it's true that the modern Pentecostal movement is based upon a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what happened on Pentecost. I am, BTW, less in step with the OP's comments about prophesy,

 

[Stryder06]

All you've really done is give your interpretation of Acts and Paul's letters but have proven nothing.

You think so? I think that he has proven that the tongues spoken were languages and not gibberish. If I'm not mistaken he is contrasting the tongues spoken in the bible against the "tongues" spoken today, which is nothing more than gibberish.

 

[sunlover1]

You think so? I think that he has proven that the tongues spoken were languages and not gibberish. If I'm not mistaken he is contrasting the tongues spoken in the bible against the "tongues" spoken today, which is nothing more than gibberish.

Speaking to God as the Spirit gives power to is "gibberish"?
Yikes!
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.
Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
I can't see how your understanding of tongues fits in with all of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Speaking to God as the Spirit gives power to is "gibberish"?
Yikes!
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.
Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
I can't see how your understanding of tongues fits in with all of Scripture.

But wasn't the OP specifically about 1) the Book of Acts and 2) Pentecost, which is the event that gives "Pentecostalism" its name?

 

[racer]

Hey, is this where I should jump in and get all rude, belligerent and attack those who disagree with or are attempting to discredit my faith?

 

[racer]

I do however understand that what happens at Pentecost in Acts is not that the speakers are speaking in different languages, but that the listeners are hearing in their own language. There is a distinction. I've often wondered at this. Of course, I've never spoken in tongues, though I have witnessed it. When it does occur tthere is also the gift of interpretation.

 

[Yarddog]

But the OP is essentially correct. Peter is not recorded as speaking in an unknown language or anything that seemed like a language but was otherwise gibberish. Neither did the disciples in the upper room speak "languages" that were not real languages. And it's true that the modern Pentecostal movement is based upon a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what happened on Pentecost. I am, BTW, less in step with the OP's comments about prophesy,

If the Pentecostal's are correct in what they teach is not what I addressed. I am talking about his interpretation of Acts and Paul's letters.

 

[Yarddog]

You think so? I think that he has proven that the tongues spoken were languages and not gibberish. If I'm not mistaken he is contrasting the tongues spoken in the bible against the "tongues" spoken today, which is nothing more than gibberish.

I would agree that the tongues were not gibberish but that doesn't make his interpretation of Acts and Paul correct. It is an opinion and not proof.

 

[Stryder06]

Speaking to God as the Spirit gives power to is "gibberish"?
Yikes!
For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God.
Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
I can't see how your understanding of tongues fits in with all of Scripture.

Speaking in tongues the way people do today is gibberish. The bible clearly teaches that it was languages that they were speaking.

 

[Stryder06]

I would agree that the tongues were not gibberish but that doesn't make his interpretation of Acts and Paul correct. It is an opinion and not proof.

So there's no way that his "interpretation" is correct?

 

[JAL]

If my formula “witnessing involves prophetic utterance” is still in question here, allow me to clarify my rationale. What, after all, is witnessing? Testifying about Christ. I can think of only two ways to do this:
(1) In my own words (generated from my slow and laborious efforts to interpret Scripture exegetically).
(2) In words suddenly given to me by the Holy Spirit.
Since Pentecost was an outpouring given for witnessing, option #2 was probably the dynamic at work there. Jesus promised His disciples, “Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Mat 10:19-20).

Also, just look at Peter’s speech on Pentecost – it’s full of remarkable insights and revelations, just like we find in the Book of Hebrews. It suggests inspiration. It doesn’t seem to be the sort of speech that Peter could have made up himself. And Peter wasn’t the only one in Acts who made such long speeches. Moreover there are also several short statements equally inspired, for instance when Paul looked at Elymas and said, “God is going to strike you with blindness right now”, or when Peter said to Ananias, “God is going to strike you dead right now.” In large part, then, Acts is a series of fireworks after the fashion of the prophets Moses and Elijah.

The premier evangelist identified in all four gospels is John the Baptist, but he is clearly identified as a prophet. This confirms that witnessing is supposed to be prophetic utterance. Moreover the prophetic motif is stronger in Luke’s writings than in the other gospels, as redaction critics have shown. For instance Luke is the only one who mentions the angel’s statement that John the Baptist would go forth in the power of the prophet Elijah.


Further, let’s keep in mind that Luke’s technical term for evangelism is “witnessing”. Therefore the following statement is significant: “To [Christ] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”



However, witnessing is more than just “testifying”. If you trace this word throughout the NT, you’ll find that it has the sense of a witness in court who testifies to what he has seen and heard. (You cannot be a court witness to a crime that you haven’t seen and heard). An excellent witness is one who has both seen and heard the phenomenon in question, in face to face proximity, at a volume perfectly loud and clear. That’s precisely what Luke has in mind – someone who has seen and heard Christ face to face. That’s why Ananias defined Paul’s job like this: “The God of our fathers hath chosen thee [Paul], that thou shouldest know his will, and SEE that Just One, and shouldest HEAR the voice of his mouth.
Act 22:15 For thou shalt be his WITNESS unto all men of what thou hast SEEN and HEARD.”

In two other verses Luke refers to “witnesses of His resurrection.” If you haven’t seen the resurrected Christ you aren’t a witness of His resurrection (unless God gave you a vision of the resurrection). In the OT, face-to-face encounters with God were far more common among prophets than regular pew members.

In sum, the endument for witnessing as described in Acts is a superlatively supernatural phenomenon after the fashion of the great OT prophets.

Now if someone is asking whether I’ve “proved” this point, realize that no one can really “prove” anything from Scripture. I’ve merely tried to show where the weight of the evidence falls and, if I have succeeded, then you, as a responsible exegete, will be sure to revise your opinions accordingly.

 

[Yarddog]

So there's no way that his "interpretation" is correct?

It could be, but I would disagree, based on my interpretation, which could be wrong.

 

[Stryder06]

It could be, but I would disagree, based on my interpretation, which could be wrong.

Not agreeing doesn't make his interpretation any less correct. Is scripture relative?

Many people who had studied the scriptures didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, didn't make them any less wrong.

 

[zeke37]

the word(s) diverse kinds/diversities show the meaning...

different kinds of langauges....that of men.

1Cor12:1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14For the body is not one member, but many.
15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

 

[sunlover1]

But wasn't the OP specifically about 1) the Book of Acts and 2) Pentecost, which is the event that gives "Pentecostalism" its name?

Hi Albion, but i was answering his statement which did not specify pentecost but
rather "tongues in the Bible" compared to today's tongues.

Hey, is this where I should jump in and get all rude, belligerent and attack those who disagree with or are attempting to discredit my faith?

Some have since jumped on that bandwagon.
:O Are you a prophet?

I do however understand that what happens at Pentecost in Acts is not that the speakers are speaking in different languages, but that the listeners are hearing in their own language. There is a distinction. I've often wondered at this. Of course, I've never spoken in tongues, though I have witnessed it. When it does occur tthere is also the gift of interpretation.

I had often wondered at that too!
Will try to get back to that if someone else doesnt.

I would agree that the tongues were not gibberish but that doesn't make his interpretation of Acts and Paul correct. It is an opinion and not proof.

Certainly it can be nothing more than one opinion.

the word(s) diverse kinds/diversities show the meaning...

different kinds of langauges....that of men.

.

Scripture says "that of men" or is that your addition?
I didnt see that in the passage you quoted.

 

[Yarddog]

If my formula “witnessing involves prophetic utterance” is still in question here, allow me to clarify my rationale. What, after all, is witnessing? Testifying about Christ. I can think of only two ways to do this:
(1) In my own words (generated from my slow and laborious efforts to interpret Scripture exegetically).
(2) In words suddenly given to me by the Holy Spirit.

Hello JAL,
I would say that any of us can witness by simply being honest about how we feel about Jesus, to another person. You may say that this is included in your #2, but I would disagree. Certainly, it would be the Spirit of God that makes us feel his presence but we can generate the words to describe this through our own spirit.

Since Pentecost was an outpouring given for witnessing, option #2 was probably the dynamic at work there. Jesus promised His disciples, “Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Mat 10:19-20).

No doubt that what occurred at Pentecost was an outpouring given for witnessing, but to say that it was prophetic in nature without knowing exactly what was spoken is only a personal opinion. Jesus also said: Mark 16:
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages.Some look at this as being the Apostles speaking in known languages but there nothing to indicate exactly what is meant. People interpret this in their own manner.

Also, just look at Peter’s speech on Pentecost – it’s full of remarkable insights and revelations, just like we find in the Book of Hebrews. It suggests inspiration. It doesn’t seem to be the sort of speech that Peter could have made up himself.

Much agreed. The Holy Spirit is moving Peter to make this speech.

The premier evangelist identified in all four gospels is John the Baptist, but he is clearly identified as a prophet. This confirms that witnessing is supposed to be prophetic utterance.

John is considered a prophet because he spoke of future things. Jesus, who had not yet been revealed. This does not mean that witnessing is restricted to prophetic utterances or that the main reason is prophetic in nature. Witnessing for the Apostles and other believers was about telling the Gospel. Prophesying and other miracles are Spiritual aids to help those witnessing.
​

Further, let’s keep in mind that Luke’s technical term for evangelism is “witnessing”. Therefore the following statement is significant: “To [Christ] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

Why wouldn't he use the same word for both? He uses euaggelistou to describe Phillip in Acts 21:8 but uses marturousin as witness in the verse that you give us from Acts 10:43.

Now if someone is asking whether I’ve “proved” this point, realize that no one can really “prove” anything from Scripture. I’ve merely tried to show where the weight of the evidence falls and, if I have succeeded, then you, as a responsible exegete, will be sure to revise your opinions accordingly.

From what I have read, you seem like a very sincere person trying to do what you believe is right but that doesn't mean that it is correct. We can all read scripture and get our own interpretation but unless we have had that experience which you describe, we cannot know for sure.

I personally won't tell a person, who says that they have experienced speaking in tongues, that they haven't. I don't believe that actual God given tongues is speaking gibberish. I don't believe that it means that one has to speak in a known language. I do believe that God can give tongues in any manner that he wishes and is not bound by how anyone wishes to interpret scripture. I do believe that tongues can be either a known language or an unknown language which may include a heavenly tongue.

 

[Yarddog]

Not agreeing doesn't make his interpretation any less correct. Is scripture relative?

Scripture is relative, but that doesn't make his interpretation of that scripture correct.

Many people who had studied the scriptures didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, didn't make them any less wrong.

And many people have studied the scriptures and denied the nature of speaking in tongues, that doesn't make them correct. If you haven't experienced speaking in tongues and another person has, which of you makes the best witness? According to JAL, the person speaking in tongues is the best witness.

 

[Stryder06]

Scripture is relative, but that doesn't make his interpretation of that scripture correct.

If scripture is relative, and God is the Author of the scriptures, then doesn't that make God relative?

And many people have studied the scriptures and denied the nature of speaking in tongues, that doesn't make them correct. If you haven't experienced speaking in tongues and another person has, which of you makes the best witness? According to JAL, the person speaking in tongues is the best witness.

No one had experienced the Advent of Christ before, but certain people knew what to look for. I've never been pulled over for trying to evade an officer, that doesn't mean I don't know the outcome of that pursuit. Someone that says they are speaking in tongues, if it isn't according to what the bible says it is, then they are experiencing something, but it isn't from God.