Which does
not seem to be a good "
sign" for any
claim to apostolic successorship. Bummers.
Apologetic Warrior, I was just reading and noted your comment. Of course when you speak, I listen. You are always worth listening to.
The statement you made above has solid biblical support and I would like to articulate the scriptural support. I dunno if you had all this in mind. It is biblically proper to connect the "sign" of tongues to apostleship. Tongues is a sign gift pointing at the special revelation of the apostles.
Heb 1:2 says "
hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son," Notice the context, in Heb 1:1 the OT special revelation of the prophets is mentioned, and then the NT revelation of Christ is mentioned in verse 2. The Chapter 2 picks up this same theme of revelation. In 2:3 the writer says "
which having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard;" Christ first spoke the New Covenant revelation, the ones who heard were the apostles. They either recorded the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, or they were the sources of the writers (see Acts 1:2
even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,)
In Hebrews 2:4 we read "
God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will." The apostles were to be marked by
signs. Of course Acts talks about tongues, healings, and various signs during the apostolic age. One of the peculiar sign in acts is tongues. Tongues seems to function as a marker of the expansion of the revelatory activity of the apostles. Every time that Tongues is mentioned in Acts, there is an apostles present. The times tongues were spoken in Acts is as follows....
* Acts 2 Obviously the 12 were present, little need for discussion.
* Acts 8:14-17
Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
This passage is interesting about tongues because Philip shows signs, but there is no receiving of the HS until the apostles arrive from Jerusalem. Only then is the sign of tongues given to the new believers. The flood gates of apostolic special revelation is now opened up to the Samaritans.
* Acts 10 of course has the Apostle Peter and the family of Cornelius. The flood gates are opened up the the Gentiles of Apostolic special revelation ministry of the HS of God. One might notice that the family of Cornelius is not the first Gentile salvation. That would of course be the Ethiopian Eunuch. However, the is no record of the Ethiopian Eunuch meeting an apostle, and of course no record of him receiving the HS of God. If the Ethiopian Eunuch has spoken in tongues, it would be the best place to scripturally blow what I am saying out of the water, but its not there. Cornelius is the expansion of the NT apostolic revelation to the Gentiles.
* The last reference in Acts to tongues is Acts 19 and the 12 disciples of John at Corinth. They never spoke in tongues or received the gift of the HS until they meet an apostle, Paul. Here the NT word of the Apostles goes to the diaspora.
---- This includes the NT apostolic word of God to all groups, Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), Gentiles (Acts 10), and Jews of the diaspora (Acts 19). All of this advances in the revelatory activity was with the sign of tongues, and always a revelatory apostle was present.
In 2 Cor 12:12 Paul states... "
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works." Paul speaks of "signs" related to his apostolic ministry.
I would say the key text is this one, due to the fact that it is a direct statement on the purpose of tongues. It is a purpose clause.... 1 Cor 14:22 "
Wherefore tongues are for a sign," Tongues are for a sign. I am not saying that there is not some sort of edification that took place among believers, but the purpose of tongues is for a sign. This verse even states that the sign is not for believers... "
not to them that believe, but to the unbelieving:"
Conclusion--- Tongues is a sign to unbelievers that apostolic special revelation in taking place. This leaves people like John Piper in a catch 22. Either he has to ignore the biblical purpose of tongues, or deny sola scriptura. I think you are totally right when you connected the "sign" of tongues to apostolic succession When another book of the bible is added to the book of Revelation by an apostle, or apostolic successor, then there should be tongues.