Tongues as Private Prayer Language

SPF said:

I'm pretty sure that I agree with you. I know that Irenaeus and Tertullian made reference to speaking in tongues, but they both acknowledged that it was people speaking or interpreting foreign languages.

Aquinas actually wrote that he understood the gift of tongues to be the super naturally given ability to speak foreign languages, though specifically for missionary work. That makes sense as tongues was a sign for unbelievers.

Click to expand...

It is also a sign given to the truly repentant from sin. (Acts 2:38, 19:6)

SPF said:

Thanks Phil, though it's not very useful, beneficial, or helpful to just quote a passage and not provide any commentary. Those passages have already been discussed, and there is no reason to think that Paul was not referring to a real foreign language.

In fact, as Paul was specifically the missionary to the gentiles, we would expect that he would speak in tongues more than anyone as he was reaching more than anyone!

I just don't see anything in Scripture that makes the jump from foreign languages as outlined in Acts to a private prayer language that you don't understand and don't have interpreted.

I don't doubt for a moment that you feel like it's meaningful, but I also suspect it was a learned behavior that you got better at over time, and I bet that if you've done it long enough, you could probably start "speaking in tongues" on the spot if you wanted to.

Click to expand...

As long as my repentance from sin remains true, I will have the gift of tongues associated with the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost.

SPF said:

Are you suggesting that if someone doesn't speak in tongues that they aren't truly repentant?

Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing in this passage that indicates that what Peter is referring to is the gift of speaking in tongues. Here's a useful quote from Barne's commentary:

The gift of the Holy Spirit here does not mean his extraordinary gifts, or the power of working miracles, but it simply means, you shall partake of the influences of the Holy Spirit “as far as they may be adapted to your case” - as far as may be needful for your comfort, peace, and sanctification. There is no evidence that they were all endowed with the power of working miracles, nor does the connection of the passage require us thus to understand it. Nor does it mean that they had not been awakened “by his influences.” All true conviction is from him, Joh_16:8-10. But it is also the office of the Spirit to comfort, to enlighten, to give peace, and thus to give evidence that the soul is born again. To this, probably, Peter refers; and this all who are born again and profess faith in Christ possess. There is peace, calmness, joy; there is evidence of piety, and that evidence is the product of the influences of the Spirit. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,” etc., Gal_5:22, Gal_5:24.

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

The Pentecostal event with the Ephesians was really neat because it showed that the Holy Spirit had also come to the Gentiles. It was proof that the new Covenant extended to all mankind. The 4 Pentecostal events in Acts were unique, powerful moments where the Spirit was intentionally showing how He had come to all people. This passage does not teach that when all people come to faith that they will instantly start speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Click to expand...

The sinners get nothing from God, so repentance from sin is indeed necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and its associated gift of tongues.

SPF said:

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

Click to expand...

My only experience was in a very vivid Spiritual Dream. If you ever have one, I don’t think you will forget it. I was lifted up with great Joy praising God The Father. I felt like I was going to lift off. I was praising Him in what I think was ancient Hebrew. The language then changed to another seemingly recognizable language.

I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. Speaking in tongues is speaking in another language. One could argue that it is the 'tongues of angels' whatever that is, but I think that has been used to justify silly repetitive 'phrases' that don't mean an awful lot.

The other thing is that tongues are languages not naturally known to the speaker. I have a friend who is fluent in 4 languages and can communicate fairly well in two more (that is five languages more than me). But if he speaks in a language that I don't understand then it is not the spiritual gift but a natural one. So with the speaker they shouldn't automatically know what they are saying, but should pray for the gift of interpretation.

TONGUES, GIFT OF. Ecstatic utterance associated with possession of the Holy Spirit. With this meaning, the Greek glōssa, which otherwise in the NT refers to the physical tongue (Luke 16:24), speech (1 John 3:18) or human language (Rev 5:9), is found in Mark 16:17; Acts 2:3, 4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; and in 1 Corinthians 12–14. It is often called glossolalia, from glōssais lalein.

A. Nature of the Phenomenon
1. Angelic Language
2. Unknown Human Languages
3. Ecstatic Utterance
B. Prevalence and Importance
C. Evaluation of Glossolalia by NT Writers
1. Acts
2. 1 Corinthians 12–14

A. Nature of the Phenomenon
What was glossolalia? The NT evidence is sparse and is not entirely consistent. In Acts tongues are treated as real languages (Galileans speak “other tongues,” Acts 2:4), each heard and understood as such (2:6–8). Tongues are also identified as a form of prophecy (2:16–18). In contrast, Paul emphasizes the unintelligibility of tongues (1 Cor 14:2, 6–11), and carefully distinguishes this practice from prophecy (14:3–5).
Resolving the obvious conflicts between the sources requires a series of decisions concerning proper method. A first question concerns the assumption that tongues must be a single uniform phenomenon with clear characteristics. If this is our assumption, we may want to give greater credit to one source than another. Often, for example, Paul’s report is regarded as firsthand and unadorned (and therefore more reliable), whereas Acts is taken as an interpretation which may camouflage the “real” event. On the other hand, even in the NT period itself, glossolalia may have appeared in several forms, not as one phenomenon but as several. In this case, both Acts and Paul could be read as witnesses to a diversity of practice as well as understanding.
Another decision concerns which evidence counts in clarifying the nature of NT glossolalia. What weight should be given to similar phenomena in the ancient world, such as early Hebrew prophecy or Hellenistic mantic prophecy? How seriously should the experiences of modern glossolalists be taken, or their claim that they represent the same “gift of the Spirit” as described in the NT? Can the extensive studies of contemporary practice by linguists, ethnographers, and psychologists be used to clarify the NT texts?
If there were a consensus on the nature of ancient and modern phenomena the helpfulness of such information would be obvious. In fact, however, research into modern glossolalia is not unanimous in its judgment on a number of critical issues, including whether glossolalia is “one thing” or several (Samarin 1972: 129–49), and whether it is invariably accompanied by or even to be identified with states of psychological dissociation (Goodman 1972: 124). Nor is there agreement on what parallel phenomena such as the speech acts of shamanism can even be considered glossolalic. Concerning the evidence from antiquity as well, debate continues on the ecstaticism of the Hebrew prophets and the manifestations of mantic prophecy (Williams 1974: 328–38; Aune 1983: 36–48).
Given this state of affairs, any definition of glossolalia in the NT must necessarily be more tentative than even in the mid-20th century. In the present discussion, current research into both ancient and modern phenomena are used, but largely as a means of excluding certain possibilities rather than providing a definitive understanding.
It is generally assumed that glossolalia is a single phenomenon. Three definitions have been suggested.
1. Angelic Language. A rather odd hypothesis is that tongues are, literally, heavenly language. The basis of this position, which is patently folkloric rather than scientific, is Paul’s phrase “If I speak with the tongues of angels” in 1 Cor 13:1, his references to revealing mysteries (14:2) and speaking with God (14:28), and his cryptic mention in 2 Cor 12:4 to heavenly visions which he is incapable of expressing in human terms. Perhaps surprisingly, there is supporting evidence for the concept of angelic language in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and even for the speaking of it by a human in ecstasy (cf. especially in the Testament of Job 48.1–50.3). The obvious problem with this hypothesis is that it is unhelpful for determining the linguistic or psychological dimensions of the speech as it was practiced by early Christians.

2. Unknown Human Languages. A second explanation is that tongues refers to the speaking of actual but unknown human languages. This is technically known as xenoglossia. The report in Acts 2:4–11 is here taken as determinative. The disciples speak “other languages” and were understood by the visitors to Jerusalem from the Diaspora who spoke those languages. Appeal is also made to Mark 16:17, which refers to the “new tongues (or: languages)” which will be spoken by believers. Some aspects of Paul’s discussion are also isolated to support this hypothesis. He appears to compare tongues with known human languages of the earth, for example (1 Cor 14:10–11) (Gundry 1966: 306). Most of all, Paul lists with “tongues” another spiritual gift called “interpretation of tongues” (hermēneia glōssōn, 1 Cor 12:10). In light of 1 Cor 14:13, and especially 14:27–28, interpretation is taken to mean “translating” (Davies 1952: 231). Modern glossolalists sometimes consider their speech to be a language unknown to them. A substantial oral tradition contains cases in which these languages are spontaneously identified by witnesses who recognize in them languages which they themselves speak (Samarin 1968: 55–57).

The weight of evidence, however, does not support this position. Even though the Pentecost story in Acts emphasizes the intelligibility of the tongues, a careful reading indicates that the miracle consisted precisely in the hearing, not the mode of speaking (pace TDNT 1:725). The bystanders do not ask, “how can they all be speaking our own languages,” but rather, “since all who are speaking are Galileans, how is it we hear them in our own native languages?” (2:8). This perception was also not given to all the bystanders. Some who did not hear that way concluded that the tongues were a drunken raving (2:13). According to the pattern of “tongues, then interpretation,” furthermore, Peter’s “clear statement” (apophthengomai, Acts 2:14) on that occasion ought to have “translated” the “great things of God” expressed by the tongues. What he interprets, however, is the ecstatic state of the speakers, not their discourse (2:14–16). Finally, Acts’ other accounts of tongues make no mention of their intelligibility. The isolation of the Pentecost event suggests that the element of communication was emphasized by Luke to suit his narrative purposes.
The reference to “new tongues” in Mark 16:17 is too obscure to be helpful in defining the nature of the phenomenon. The “longer ending” of Mark in which it occurs is certainly not part of the original gospel. At best, the phrase provides another witness to the perception that tongues were practiced by Christians, but it is impossible to date the text before the middle of the 2d century. The textual evidence for the adjective “new,” furthermore, is weaker still.
As for Paul, he could hardly make clearer his conviction that tongues are an intrinsically noncommunicative form of utterance (1 Cor 13:1; 14:2, 4, 7–9, 16–17, 23). What, then, does he mean by “interpret”? Recent research into the contemporary use of Paul’s term diermēneuo by Philo and Josephus suggests that the term often means simply, “to put into words,” or “bring to articulate expression.” When Paul tells the tongue-speaker to pray that he might “interpret,” therefore, he does not mean “provide a translation,” but that the tongue-speaker make the transition from glossolalia to a mode of speech intelligible in the assembly (14:13) (Thiselton 1979: 15–36).
The evidence from modern glossolalists that their speech is real language, finally, is spurious. Careful linguistic study has demonstrated that glossolalia is not a “real but unknown” language, but rather “language-like” in its patterning of sounds (Samarin 1972: 74–128). Observation of the “interpretation of tongues” in practice, furthermore, shows that it is not the translation of a language but a separate utterance altogether. The stereotypical character of the reports of real languages being heard by native speakers, and the impossibility of verifying these reports, suggest that they are simply folklore (Christie-Murray 1978: 248–52).
3. Ecstatic Utterance. The textual and comparative evidence supports the definition of tongues as an utterance which is a form of ordered babbling. As we have seen, Paul does not consider tongues to be intelligible, and he clearly contrasts speech which is “in the Spirit” (en tō pneumati) but does not use the mind (nous), with speech which does use the mind and therefore can build up the community (1 Cor 14:14–15, 19). Glossolalia is private and noncommunicative. God is praised and the person who prays edified, but neither the mind nor the community bear any fruit from this activity (14:2–3, 14, 17, 28).
This definition of glossolalia also corresponds to the greater part of the ancient and contemporary parallel phenomena. In at least the older manifestations of Israelite prophecy, we find a combination of “inspiration” by God’s Spirit, trance-like states with the physical signs of dissociation, and the uttering of inarticulate cries (cf. 1 Sam 10:5–13; 19:18–24). There remains considerable debate on the question of whether classical prophecy was also accompanied by such ecstatic states (Wilson 1980: 21–35). Something akin to glossolalia is also found in the Hellenistic popular religious phenomenon known as mantic prophecy, usually distinguished from “technical” prophecy, which was nonecstatic (cf. Cic. Div. 18. 34). The divine spirit was thought to possess the prophet (mantis) taking over his or her mind (enthousiasmos) and directing the utterance of oracles. Sometimes, as at the shrines of Dodonna and Delphi, the oracles were linguistically clear, if ambiguous in meaning. Even these, however, often required “interpretation” by qualified cultic personnel, called “prophets” (prophētai). Such prophecy was highly esteemed, even by the sophisticated (cf. Plato, Ion 534 A–D; Phdr. 244A, Ti. 71 E–72B and Plut. The E at Delphi 387 B). It is not certain how inevitable was the state of trance or ecstasy (furor, mania) in such prophecy, although it is frequently mentioned (cf. e.g. Plut. De def. or. 417C; Cic. Div. 32. 70). Still less certain is the presence of glossolalia-like speech (Aune 1983: 30–35). There are scattered reports of strange sounds and garbled or foreign words (cf. Herodotus, History 8. 135; Plut. De def. or. 412 A), but these tend to be associated with wandering prophets (especially the priests of Cybele) and soothsayers (cf. e.g. Dio Chrysostom, Oration 10.23–24, Apuleius, The Golden Ass 8.27) or with those attacked as charlatans (cf. esp. Lucian’s Alexander the False Prophet 13, 22, 49, 51, 53). It is obviously in the nature of the phenomenon (ecstatic oral babbling in a cultic setting) that accurate literary transcriptions of the speech for comparative study would rarely if ever be carried out. That Paul himself saw tongues as equivalent in appearance at least to such mantic prophecy seems certain from his word-choice in 1 Cor 14:23. He proposes the hypothetical case of the whole church speaking in tongues, and their being observed by “ignorant and unbelieving” people who would conclude, “You are raving” (hoti mainesthe). In context, this can only mean, “you are prophesying the way all other cults do, in a frenzy.”
The understanding of glossolalia as a structured babbling, furthermore, corresponds with the best evidence derived from the linguistic study of modern tongue-speaking (Samarin 1968: 55–73). There is less agreement concerning the degree of ecstasy involved in the contemporary phenomenon. Problems of definition here are obvious. Some observers define glossolalia in terms of psychological dissociation, virtually making it the oral expression of trance (Goodman 1972: 26–34). Others deny the necessary precondition of trance for the use of tongues, or point out that the initial experience is frequently accompanied by dissociation, but that subsequent tongue-speaking often is without any visibly altered state (Samarin 1972: 26–34). Psychological studies reject the older view that glossolalia is intrinsically connected to psychopathology (Richardson 1973: 199–207). Nor is there any psychological type which appears to be predisposed to the experience. On the other hand, it appears that the ability to be hypnotized, and to submit to authority, are positively correlated with the experience (Kildahl 1972: 50–53). In this light, the divided allegiances of the Corinthian community (cf. 1 Cor 1:12) could be correlated with the experience of tongues, since both Cephas and Paul were also glossolalists, Paul by self-acknowledgment (1 Cor 14:18), Cephas by reputation (Acts 2:4–11). Glossolalia has for the most part a positive integrating effect for the individuals who experience it, although (as also in Corinth) it tends to foster a sense of elitism among those who have had the experience which proves disruptive in communities (Kildahl 1972: 66–75). First person accounts of the experience of glossolalia emphasize—especially for the first occurrence—positive feelings of release, freedom, and joy (Goodman 1972: 24–57). Glossolalia can be characterized in shorthand, therefore, as the linguistic symbol of spiritual release.
Although some modern glossolalia occurs in private (Hutch 1980: 255–66), it is ordinarily a public, cultic, phenomenon. It is connected above all to experiences of conversion (the connection with Acts 10:46 and 19:6 is clear), and to the practice of prayer (as in 1 Cor 14:2, 28). The understanding of glossolalia as a form of prophecy is rarer (Acts 2:4–11), as is the interpretation of tongues.

B. Prevalence and Importance
How prevalent was the practice of glossolalia in earliest Christianity? Estimates must be modest. All the evidence supports is that tongues were spoken by some members of the Corinthian congregation in the early 50s of the 1st century (Clement makes no mention of it writing to them 40 years later), and was thought by the author of Luke-Acts to have been a feature of some early conversion experiences.
Other NT texts sometimes cited as referring to glossolalia probably do not. Apart from Mark 16:17 there is nothing in the gospel tradition about tongues. Indeed, Jesus’ condemnation of the “babbling” of gentiles in prayer could only be read by Christians as an implied criticism of any such practices among themselves (Matt 6:7). Paul speaks of “spiritual hymns” by which Christians could praise God “in their hearts” (Col 3:16 and Eph 4:19). He says that the Spirit helps Christians when they do not know how to pray, with “unutterable groanings” (stenagmois alalētois, Rom 8:26). He tells the Thessalonians not to “quench the Spirit” (1 Thess 5:19). All these are too general or vague to conclude that they refer to glossolalia.
More significantly, Paul does not list “tongues” or the “interpretation of tongues” among the spiritual gifts in two other lists outside 1 Corinthians (Rom 12:3–8 and Eph 4:11). He does not mention tongues in connection with his own conversion experience or that of others (cf. e.g. Gal 3:1–5). In fact, as we shall see, Paul is ambivalent in his attitude toward glossolalia. But not even Luke connects tongues to his account of Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:3–8), although a bright light figures prominently in that event, as it does also in many modern accounts of initial glossolalic experiences. Nor is tongues ever connected with the “laying on of hands” (as in modern practice), except in Acts 19:6 (cf. in contrast Acts 9:12). Finally, there is no hint of the practice of glossolalia in any other Christian writing before the middle of the 2d century.
Even for the earliest period of Christianity, therefore, glossolalia appears to be at best a sporadic and ambiguous occurrence. Two inferences about that first period are therefore inadequately supported by the data: that tongues was a normal and expected accompaniment of the Spirit (and therefore, by implication, an essential component of authentic Christianity), or that tongues demonstrates how the first Christians lived in a charismatic fog of trance or dissociation.
In the 2d and 3d century, glossolalia is mentioned by several Christian writers. The most noteworthy outburst is associated with Montanus (ca. 160) and the two women prophets who accompanied him. Montanus was a former priest of Cybele, a goddess whose worship also involved mania (cf. Apuleius, The Golden Ass 8.27). He apparently regarded himself as a passive instrument of the Holy Spirit, “like a lyre struck with a plecton” (Epiphanius, Panarion 48.4.1). His “strange talk” (xenophonein) was understood by him to be a form of prophecy, and his speech was accompanied by the frenzy associated with mantic prophecy (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.16. 7–10). Even in Montanism, such inspired utterance did not seem to survive the founders (5.17.4), although Tertullian could refer to the presence of ecstatic utterance in his group as a proof of its truth, against Marcion (Tert. Adv. Marc. 5.8). Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 200) also claims to be acquainted with the phenomenon of tongues, although his report is succinct: “We have heard many brethren in the church having prophetic gifts and speaking through the spirit in all tongues and bringing to light men’s secrets for the common good and explaining the mysteries of God. Such persons the apostle calls spiritual” (Haer. 5.6.1; cf. also Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5. 7. 6). Irenaeus appears to understand tongues to be the speaking of “different languages.” He also reports, however, on the activity of a Valentinian Gnostic called Marcus, whom Irenaeus regards as a magician and charlatan, but whose repertoire includes prophecy. He also seduces women and coaxes them to prophesy, and the manner of their speaking again suggests glossolalia or mantic prophecy (Haer. 1.14–16). There are occasional passages in gnostic writings, furthermore, in which a series of such syllables strung together looks very much like transcribed glossolalia (cf. Pistis Sophia 4.142). The Paris Magical Papyrus also contains concatenations of numinous “names.” In these cases, however, it is impossible to say whether glossolalia generated the literary product. At least some Christian preachers used babbling speech even in public, according to the anti-Christian polemicist Celsus (ca. 180), who characterized their utterances as being “without form or meaning” (Or. Cels. 7.9).
Arguments from silence are notoriously suspect, but the paucity of evidence for glossolalia in the second 200 years of Christianity suggests that it became an increasingly marginal activity. Most of the occurrences come from Montanists or Gnostics, groups which were rejected by the Orthodox party. The silence itself, however, can variously be weighed. It may indicate that tongues was practiced rarely and then by dissident groups. Or, it may suggest that the orthodox writers, suspicious of charismatic activity, ignored manifestations of popular religion such as glossolalia which did not meet their increasingly high standards (Eus. Hist. Eccl. 5.17. 2–4). In either case our information comes from the orthodox side, and the historian can at this distance only observe that by the 4th century, John Chrysostom confesses himself at a loss to interpret the passages about tongues in 1 Corinthians, guessing that Paul must be referring to the ability to speak different languages (Hom. in 1 Cor. 29, 32, 35). In the 5th century, Augustine dismisses tongues as a special dispensation of the primitive church which is no longer of pertinence (Hom. in 1 John 6.10).

C. Evaluation of Glossolalia by NT Writers
1. Acts. Luke gives a completely positive valuation to glossolalia. As the tongues of fire at Pentecost are the visual sign of the Spirit’s presence, which transforms followers into ministers of the word (cf. Luke 1:4), so the speaking in tongues is the auditory sign. It is the Holy Spirit who “gives them utterance” (2:4). In the Pentecost account, the first experience of tongues is an expression of praise: the disciples tell the “great things of God” (2:11).
As so often in Luke-Acts, the speech following this scene gives Luke’s own interpretation of the phenomenon. Peter’s “open declaration” (2:14) does not translate the tongues, but interprets the ecstatic event itself. He begins by citing Joel 2:28–32 (LXX 3:1–5), thereby indicating that this gift of the Spirit is in fulfillment of prophecy. In the Joel citation, Luke changes the LXX “after these things” to “in the last days,” making Pentecost an eschatological event. He also alters the citation in two further ways. In 2:18 he adds the phrase, “and they shall prophesy,” which makes the promise of 2:17 explicit, and also identifies tongues as a form of prophetic utterance. He also adds the words “signs on the earth below” to the Joel citation (2:19), further emphasizing these visible manifestations of God’s Spirit.
All these touches serve to make Pentecost a programmatic statement for the rest of the Acts narrative, in which the apostles are depicted as the prophetic successors of Jesus, filled with the same Holy Spirit that he was, and working signs and wonders among the people. By making the diverse tongues intelligible to Jewish pilgrims from all over the Diaspora, furthermore, Luke indicates that the prophetic spirit is the fulfillment of the promises God made to Abraham, extended first to Abraham’s descendants and only then to the nations of the earth (cf. 2:39).
Glossolalia functions as a sign of the Spirit in the two other Acts passages as well. Each time it marks a new stage in the mission. When the Spirit falls on the household of the gentile Cornelius, the Jewish Christians present at the scene can hear the tongues and conclude that the gentiles had received the same gift they had (10:45). Likewise when Paul lays hands on the former followers of John the Baptist in Ephesus, and they begin “to speak in tongues and prophesy” (19:6), it shows both that people in Asia have also received the Holy Spirit, and that this baptism in Jesus is greater than that of John’s (19:2–3; cf. also Luke 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16).
In short, Acts treats glossolalia as a nonambiguous symbol of the Spirit’s presence and a sign of the mission’s success. Precisely the same function is suggested by Mark 16:17.
2. 1 Corinthians 12–14. Paul’s attitude toward glossolalia is more complex. At least in part, this is due to the problems it caused in the Corinthian congregation. The elitist tendency of that church led some of them to regard all spiritual powers (ta pneumatika, 12:1) as a means of self-aggrandizement. Just as they used “knowledge” and “liberty” in ways careless of community identity (8:1–2; 10:23), so the spectacular gift of tongues seems to be claimed as a superior “sign of the Spirit.” Indeed, some may have been claiming that only tongues truly certifies the presence of the Spirit: “tongues is a sign for believers” (cf. 1 Cor 14:22).
Paul typically finds as much common ground as possible between himself and those he must correct. But he broadens their perspective by placing all the gifts in the context of community service. Already in the letter’s Thanksgiving he agrees that they have been “enriched with all speech and all knowledge” (1:5), but he also reminds them that this is a gift from God “in him” (i.e., Christ), and in “fellowship” with him, as well as the fact that their exercise of the gifts stands under God’s eschatological judgment (1:7–9).
When he turns to an explicit discussion of spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12–14), he continues to adjust their perspective. He reminds his readers that there is a great difference between ta pneumatika (spiritual powers in general), and ta charismata (spiritual gifts from God). The former are real enough but are also ambiguous: their pagan past should have taught them that ecstasy can lead to disastrous results (12:2). The gifts of the Holy Spirit, in contrast, lead to the confession, “Jesus is Lord” (12:3), and their use must be shaped according to the messianic pattern, that is, in service to the messianic community (12:4–11). Each part of the body works toward the common good rather than to the benefit of the individual member (12:7). Although he acknowledges “tongues” and the “interpretation of tongues” as gifts (12:10), therefore, he relativizes their importance by listing them last, after the more essential and “foundational” gifts which build up community identity (12:8–10), and by emphasizing that private experience is secondary to the good of the whole body (12:12–31).
In chap. 13, Paul relativizes tongues even further—as indeed, he does all the gifts—by asserting the supremacy of agapē as the most fundamental expression of God’s Spirit. Agapē is defined in terms of service to others rather than in terms of individual gain. Using himself as an exemplar, Paul asserts that “the tongues of men and the angels” are meaningless without agapē (13:1). Tongues is a gift that will cease (13:8), and Paul clearly suggests that it is among the “childish” things that must be put aside if maturity is to be reached (13:11). He returns to this estimation in 14:20.
When Paul discusses the “higher gifts” which the community should pursue (12:31), tongues becomes the foil for the more important gift of prophecy, which Paul considers in every respect superior (14:5). Prophecy uses the mind, whereas tongues does not (14:14–15). It builds up the identity of the community, whereas tongues improves only the speaker (14:3–4). It is intelligible, and tongues is not (14:6–10). Paul sees tongues as an optional mode of prayer, but one which may need to be outgrown. Although he speaks them himself, he would gladly give them up for the sake of the edification of the community (14:18–19). He can leave the impulses of prophets to the prophets themselves, since they are under rational control (14:31–32). But tongues he restricts to its role as private prayer (14:13–16). The only time it can come to public expression is when it is followed by “interpretation” (14:27–28; cf. above). Tongues also escapes the discernment of the entire community, which Paul considers essential for the healthy working of the spiritual gifts (12:10; 14:29).
Paul’s perception of glossolalia is best summarized in 14:20–25. He reverses the glossolalists’ claim, by showing that tongues are not an unambiguous sign of belief: they can mean anything, can come from anywhere. If the assembly has glossolalia as its dominant form of expression, outsiders can legitimately conclude that this assembly is simply another cult like every other (14:23). Only if prophecy is active can they be brought to see that God is at work here (14:25). To make tongues more than an interesting variety of private prayer is to think like a child and not like an adult (14:20).

Joh 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him MUST worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
new test command...eg :Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Corinthians mentioned ,is how to operate "IN THE CHURCH" (the people not a building)
Jesus already told you to pray in private !
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that [by my voice] I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.
he goes on to show how a church is correctly operated..no more than 3..tounges,then corresponding interpretation, no more than 3 prophecy ;ALL done decent and in order !! still done the same today !
1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
this is the first identifier that a person has received the Holy Spirit...
Jesus said..
mark 16v17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
not those who do there own ways no matter how zealous after there own ideas (same happened to Israel ) !! package deal all of them.
Eg of how the church began and still does...Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (even Mary mother of Jesus )
Acts 10v45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19v5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
even a con-artist (magician etc) was willing to pay !!! he saw and heard !!!!
acts 8v14 ¶ Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
just sign a card !!?? give heart lungs etc to the Lord !!?? its do it Gods way or make up your own easter bunny religious idea !!
Repent (babys cant ) be baptised (full immersion) ask God for his spirit to receive...for the promise is unto you,your children...……….

SPF said:

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

Click to expand...

Acts shows us an indescriminate outpouring of tongues from the "gift" of the HS (Greek "dorea") Where 1 Cor 12-14 shows us a discriminate giving of "gifts" (Greek charisma) by the HS. So right away tongues in Acts violates the explicit instructions of tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 suggesting this manifestation of the HS might not be for a single application. Acts appears to be more evangelistic with some sort of connection tied with the baptism of the HS and all receive where 1 Cor 12-14 seems to be more about the edification of a body of believers where the HS is selective.

Does this show us a personal prayer language? Not quite, but it starts a conversation that the biblical use of tongues does not have a strict single method since tongues the way Paul taught goes against the way tongues is manifested in Acts.

SPF said:

I'm having trouble seeing how Scripture teaches the idea that there is such a thing as praying in tongues as some sort of private prayer language where Christians speak non-sensical syllables that is the result of the Holy Spirit.

Before I get into why, let me make a quick disclaimer. I've spent a good bit of time, on and off over the past few months reading and studying on this issue. I've done this at work, where I don't have dedicated time, nor was I meaning to share my thoughts with others. Therefore, the notes I took, I took on a Word document, and a lot of times I copy/pasted from websites. Therefore, there is a good chance that things I copy/paste from my notes are not my words. So i'm sure i'll be plagiarizing thoughts in this post.

I think the best thing to do is look at Acts as a starting place for this issue. In the book of Acts, we have the primary Pentecost event, which takes place in Acts 2. This particular section actually makes it really clear that the speaking in tongues is, without a doubt, speaking other known languages.

What I do find interesting is that some people attempt to claim that the miracle wasn't actually a miracle of speaking, but a miracle of hearing. I disagree with this interpretation, as I don't think it accurately accounts for verse 2:13 where some people accused them of being drunk. I like to play things out. So let's play it out.

If this were a miracle of hearing, and everyone present (people who spoke different dialects of Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic, potentially Asian languages), all heard anything any of the apostles spoke in their own language - that would sound normal. By normal, I mean it wouldn't be confusing. There would be no reason to accuse them of being drunk.

However, if it was a miracle of speaking, then verse 13 makes sense. If the Spirit gave to some the gift of speaking Arab, and some the gift of speaking Latin, and some the gift of speaking an Asian language, then while it may have been the case that everyone present was able to hear speaking in their native language, it would still seem potentially confusing because they also heard someone like Peter speaking Arabic, which would be odd. That would make sense then why some people would accuse them of speaking non-sense and being drunk.

So what I think we have in Acts 2 is the Holy Spirit making Himself known, indwelling the Believers, and giving them the gift of speaking tongues. All present heard about the "mighty deeds of God" in their own language, by the people that were gifted to speak their own language.

Thus, we have the first instance of speaking in tongues, which is done primarily as a sign to unbelievers.

Moving on from there, we essentially have 3 other Pentecostal events that take place in Acts. What stands out to me about these is how they line up with what Jesus said in Acts 1:8 about being His disciples in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest parts of the earth.

So what we have at the first Pentecost is that it takes place among the Jews. Then if you look at the other 3 Pentecostal events, you'll see that one takes place with the Samaritans, one takes place with the God Fearers (converted Gentiles), and finally one takes place in Ephesus with Gentiles.

Thus, what we have in Acts in relation to the gift of speaking in tongues is that God is demonstrating that the new Covenant has expanded to include all people. Furthermore, when the Holy Spirit came and people spoke in tongues, it was always in another known language of the people.

For me, that's the foundation of speaking in tongues. The question I then have is how do we make the leap from what we see in Acts to the notion that tongues becomes some sort of private prayer language for the edification of the person praying, when that isn't what we actually see take place.

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered..

Romans 8:26 is interpreted by many to support the belief that “praying in tongues” is an experience where a person prays in an otherwise unknown language that the speaker does not understand. This passage is used to support this belief by arguing that this passage describes what happens when we pray in tongues. This interpretation is problematic for two reasons:

1) It is the Spirit that groans, not Believers.

2) The groans of the Spirit cannot be uttered. Speaking in tongues is uttering words. Words are expressed and uttered.


A better interpretation would be that the reason we do not know what to pray and require the Spirit to intercede can be because:

1) We do not know what would be really best for us.

2) We do not know what God might be willing to grant us.

3) We are to a great extent ignorant of the character of God, the reason of his dealings, and our own real needs.

4) We are often in real, deep perplexity. We are encompassed with trials, exposed to temptations, feeble by disease, and subject to calamities. In these circumstances, if left alone, we would neither be able to bear our trials, nor know what to ask at the hand of God.

The word used for intercession here is found nowhere else in the NT. However, a similar word is used several times, and it means to be present with anyone for the purpose of aiding, as an advocate does in a court of justice. This is what the Spirit does for us. It means that the Spirit greatly assists or aids us, not by praying for us, but in our prayers.

With regards to cannot be uttered, perhaps, which is not uttered; those emotions which are too deep for utterance, or for expression in articulate language. This does not mean that the Spirit produces these groanings; but that in these deep-felt emotions, when the soul is oppressed and overwhelmed, he lends us his assistance and sustains us. The phrase may be thus translated: “The Spirit greatly aids or supports us in those deep emotions, those intense feelings, those inward sighs which cannot be expressed in language, but which he enables us to bear, and which are understood by Him that searcheth the hearts.”

I think that is enough to start a conversation. Thoughts are more than welcome on this.

Click to expand...

In terms of tongues being a prayer language, I find the understanding of this comes from 1 Corinthians 14. This stands out best to those who have experienced the below highlighted verses, so I have highlighted them below in context of the whole passage.

2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

39 Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 But let all things be done decently and in order.

In applying the highlighted verses, I find a quality similar to the original auto-translate wonder post-pentecost where the Holy Spirit would auto-translate what was uttered into a language everyone could understand in their own language or tongue.

The similarity in the application I experienced was that I would indeed speak in tongues in prayer and "be edified in my spirit"

I would then have "thoughts come to me" afterwards and I would use scripture to help translate and they became messages, in a sense "mysteries in the spirit"

Over time, the tongues part stopped being necessary, and the translation became automatic.

Since this is not a common application, I understand the common objection since most tongues go without translation, missing the chance to edify others - which is the point of spiritual gifts and any gift from God for that matter.

‎The first human duty which presented itself to the apostles in that divine isolation wherein they were left by Christ’s departure, was the selection of a successor to Judas, the restoration of their number to the original twelve. After much consideration, they chose from among the many devoted disciples of the Master, Matthias, selecting him finally by lot.
‎Then they awaited in quiet the visitation He had promised them, the coming of the Holy Spirit. This came upon the feast of Pentecost, nine weeks after Easter. While the twelve were seated in a secluded room, “suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” Tongues of fire shot down upon each one of them. They became inspired by the “Holy Ghost” not only with wisdom and courage to go forth and preach but also with that strange “gift of tongues” whereby each man who listened to them understood as though they spoke in his own language. Believers born in many different lands were there around them; and these believers recognized at once the miracle that sounded in the apostles’ speech.

I find the only time experience lends to interpretation in an edifying way is when you have a gift and another person does not, certain verses will be highlighted to you in terms of how to apply it when the Holy Spirit brings these things back to remembrance.

If you do not have the gift of tongues, it is possible these verses will not be highlighted in the same way, since the application is not relevant to your walk.

The second chapter of Acts marks a turning point in the history of God’s kingdom. A new phase of His redemptive plan unfolds as the church is born. In chapter 1 the disciples were to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit; in chapter 2 He comes. In chapter 1 the disciples were equipped; in chapter 2 they are empowered. In chapter 1 they were held back; in chapter 2 they are sent forth. In chapter 1 the Savior ascended; in chapter 2 the Spirit descends. The promises of the Lord Jesus Christ given in chapter 1 (1:5, 8) come to fulfillment, as the believers gathered in the upper room receive the wonderful promise of the Father.
God’s eternal redemptive plan began to unfold in human history in the Garden of Eden after man’s sin. In Genesis 3:15, He promised a savior, who would one day redeem the human race from the effects of that sin. The unfolding continued throughout the patriarchal age, past the giving of the Mosaic Law, to a small hill outside Jerusalem called Calvary. There the incarnate Son of God gave His life for the sins of the world. After rising victorious over sin and death, He promised to send the Holy Spirit to indwell believers. As we have seen, that event of necessity had to wait until Jesus’ ascension to the Father. John 7:37–39 reads,

Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Though the assembling of the redeemed in God’s kingdom has gone on since the Fall, the coming of the Spirit marks the beginning of the unique church age. That there would be an intervening age between the two advents of Messiah was not foreseen in the Old Testament. Nor was the unity of Jew and Gentile in one body. Paul called that concept a mystery in Ephesians 3:3–10. The word “church” translates ekklēsia, which means “called-out ones.” The church is the bride of Christ; the branches of the Vine; the flock of the Good Shepherd; the kingdom of God’s dear Son; God’s household, consisting of His adopted children; a spiritual temple, of which Jesus Christ is the cornerstone; but, uniquely, the body of Christ.
Within the body, there is a unity, since all are indwelt by Jesus Christ, and all possess the same Spirit (Rom. 8:9). In Galatians 3:28 Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:13).
This passage describes the birth of the church by the coming of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. It is summarized in the evidence of the Spirit’s coming, the effect of the Spirit’s coming, and the explanation of the Spirit’s coming.


THE EVIDENCE OF THE SPIRIT’S COMING

And when the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. (2:1–4)

The events of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, according to Paul, were not held in a quiet corner (Acts 26:26) but out in the open before all the people. The same could be said of the birth of the church. It did not begin in an obscure manner in some out of the way place. Rather, it was born with a startling, dramatic event in the very heart of Jerusalem.
The coming of the day of Pentecost found the believers all together in one place, undoubtedly the same upper room described in 1:13. As already noted, that room was located just inside the Eastern Gate, probably in the vicinity of the temple. There is no reason to restrict all to the twelve apostles. It encompasses the entire gathering of 120 believers (1:15).
It was on the day of Pentecost that God’s sovereign timetable called for the Spirit to descend. It should be noted that the Spirit was not induced into coming because the believers prayed, tarried, or met certain spiritual requirements. Luke’s account points only to the sovereign timing of God as the cause of the Spirit’s descent.
Pentecost means “fiftieth.” It is the New Testament name for the Feast of Weeks (Ex. 34:22–23), or Harvest (Ex. 23:16), which was celebrated fifty days after Passover. In post-exilic Judaism, it also celebrated the giving of the Law to Moses. The Spirit’s coming on that day was linked to the pattern of feasts in the Old Testament.
God’s redemptive New Testament timetable is pictured in the feasts of Leviticus 23. The first great feast mentioned in that chapter is Passover. The killing of the passover lamb pictured the death of Jesus Christ, the ultimate Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). A second feast was the Feast of Unleavened Bread, celebrated on the day after Passover. During that feast, an offering of the first fruits of the grain harvest was made. Leviticus 23:15 commands that offering to be made on the day after the sabbath. The Sadducees and Pharisees differed on what that sabbath was. The Sadducees interpreted it as the weekly sabbath, and hence the grain offering would always be on a Sunday. The Pharisees interpreted the sabbath as the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. According to that interpretation, the grain offering would always fall on the same day of the month but not the same day of the week. Until the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, the Sadducees’ interpretation was normative for Judaism (F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971], 53 n. 3). Hence, the day the first fruits were offered would have been on Sunday. That provides an apt picture of the Lord Jesus Christ’s resurrection as the “first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20).
Fifty days after the first Sunday following Passover, the Feast of Pentecost was celebrated (Lev. 23:15ff.). At Pentecost, another offering of first fruits was made (Lev. 23:20). Completing the cycle of the typical fulfillment of the feasts, the Spirit came on Pentecost as the first fruits of the believers’ inheritance (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14). Further, those gathered into the church on that day were the first fruits of the full harvest of believers to come. God sent the Spirit on Pentecost, then, following the pattern of Leviticus 23, not in response to any activity of men.
Luke describes this sovereignly designed event by taking us to the upper room, where the believers were gathered. Suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind. Luke’s use of the word suddenly emphasizes the element of surprise. Even though the believers knew the Spirit’s coming to be imminent (cf. 1:5), they were nevertheless caught by surprise. The same will be true when the Lord returns to earth. Believers will know from the signs that His coming is imminent. Yet He will still come unexpectedly, like a thief in the night (1 Thess. 5:2; cf. Matt. 24:44). Those gathered in the upper room could not have expected the dramatic signs that accompanied the Spirit’s coming.
By describing the noise as emanating from heaven, Luke emphasizes that this was a supernatural action. That it was not a weather phenomenon, a physical violent, rushing wind is evident from the use of the term like. The supernatural activity of God is so utterly beyond the grasp of humans that the Bible writers have to employ similes to describe His manifestations to men (cf. Ezek. 43:2; Rev. 1:15).
In both Hebrew and Greek, the words for wind and spirit are the same. Wind is frequently used as a picture of the Spirit (cf. Ezek. 37:9ff.; John 3:8). Although the sound of the heavenly wind may have attracted the crowd that soon gathered, the Spirit’s presence filled only the whole house where the believers were sitting. They alone received the promised baptism with the Spirit (Acts 1:4–5; 11:15–17). That they were sitting offers further proof that they were not praying for the Spirit’s coming. Standing and kneeling were the postures for prayer.
After the auditory manifestation of the Spirit’s arrival came a visual one (cf. Luke 3:22). There appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. That these were not flames of literal fire, any more than the wind was moving air, is clear from the use of the phrase as of.
Some have tried to link the fire here with that of Matthew 3:11. As the context of that passage indicates, however, the fire in view there is the fire of eternal judgment (cf. Matt. 3:12). That the tongues rested on each one of them shows that all who were present received the Spirit in that moment. It was a uniform, sovereign work of God on all collectively, not something sought individually. At this point, by the baptism with the Spirit, they were all made into one spiritual body—the body of Christ.
Being filled with the Spirit must be distinguished from being baptized with the Spirit. The apostle Paul carefully defines the baptism with the Spirit as that act of Christ by which He places believers into His body (Rom. 6:4–6; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27). In contrast to much errant teaching today, the New Testament nowhere commands believers to seek the baptism with the Spirit. It is a sovereign, single, unrepeatable act on God’s part, and is no more an experience than are its companions justification and adoption. Although some wrongly view the baptism with the Spirit as the initiation into the ranks of the spiritual elite, nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the baptism with the Spirit is not to divide the body of Christ, but to unify it. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, through the baptism with the Spirit “we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13; cf. Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 4:4–6).
Unlike the baptism with the Spirit, being filled with the Spirit is an experience and should be continuous. Although filled initially on the Day of Pentecost, Peter was filled again in Acts 4:8. Many of the same people filled with the Spirit in Acts 2 were filled again in Acts 4:31. Acts 6:5 describes Stephen as a man “full of faith and the Holy Spirit,” yet Acts 7:55 records his being filled again. Paul was filled with the Spirit in Acts 9:17 and again in Acts 13:9.
While there is no command in Scripture to be baptized with the Spirit, believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). The grammatical construction of that passage indicates believers are to be continuously being filled with the Spirit. Those who would be filled with the Spirit must first empty themselves. That involves confession of sin and dying to selfishness and self-will. To be filled with the Spirit is to consciously practice the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ and to have a mind saturated with the Word of God. Colossians 3:16–25 delineates the results of “letting the word of Christ richly dwell” in us. They are the same ones that result from the filling of the Spirit (Eph. 5:19–33). As believers yield the moment by moment decisions of life to His control, they “walk by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:16). (For a further discussion of the filling with the Spirit, see Ephesians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1986].) The baptism with the Spirit grants the power that the filling with the Spirit unleashes. (For a further discussion of the difference between the baptism and the filling with the Spirit, see my book Charismatic Chaos [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], 191–93.)
After being filled with the Spirit, they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. There has been much dispute in recent years over what it meant to speak with other tongues. The text, however, is not ambiguous. Far from being ecstatic speech, the tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost were known languages. The term glōssa is the word for languages, and the context allows for no other interpretation (cf. the discussion of verses 8–11 below).
In contrast to much teaching today, being given the ability to speak in languages is associated not with the baptism with the Spirit but here with the filling with the Spirit. Nor is speaking in languages the normal response to being filled with the Spirit. Acts 4:8, 31, 6:5; 7:55; 9:17; and 13:9 all record instances where speaking in tongues did not accompany the filling with the Spirit. Paul taught that the filling of the Spirit should result in many things, such as worship, thankfulness, love, submissiveness, and obedience—but not speaking in tongues (Eph. 5:18ff.).
Paul states the purpose of speaking in languages in 1 Corinthians 14:21–22: they were to be a sign to unbelieving Israel. While that was true on the one hand, on the other they were the links given to show that Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans were all equal in the church (Acts 15:8–9). The Samaritans received the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:14–19. Although there is no reference to languages, that there was likely that supernatural sign is evident from Simon’s reaction (cf. verses 18–19). Acts 10:44–47 describes the receiving of the Spirit by the Gentiles of Cornelius’s household. That they spoke in languages convinced the Jewish believers, as well as Peter, that the Gentiles had received the Spirit too (cf. verses 45, 47). The last group to speak in tongues were John the Baptist’s disciples whom Paul encountered in Ephesus (Acts 19:1–7). They were among the last remnants of Old Testament saints, now coming to faith in Christ. They were given the ability to speak in languages in order to demonstrate their full equality with Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles in the church. Each case describes a unique, historical transition. No doctrinal teaching for today can be established from those incidents.
That the true biblical gift of languages no longer exists is clear from the following lines of evidence. First, it was a miraculous gift, and the age of miracles ended with the passing of the apostles (Heb. 2:3–4). It is significant that outside of Acts the miraculous gifts of the Spirit are mentioned only in the early epistle of 1 Corinthians. Later epistles, such as Ephesians, Romans, and 1 Peter, discuss spiritual gifts but make no mention of miraculous ones.
Contrary to much teaching today, the purpose of the gift of languages was not the edification of believers. As noted above, they were a sign of judgment to unbelieving Israel (1 Cor. 14:21–22), showing that the church would encompass people from all nations and languages. The gift of languages was therefore a sign of the transition between the Old and New Covenants—a transition completed nearly two thousand years ago.
Having thus fulfilled its purpose, the gift of languages passed from the scene, just as 1 Corinthians 13:8 said it would. That fact is confirmed by church history. Speaking in tongues was unknown from the close of the apostolic era until the beginning of this century, except in heretical groups. (For a further discussion of speaking in tongues, see my book Charismatic Chaos [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992], and 1 Corinthians, MacArthur New Testament Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1984].)
Those who spoke the languages at Pentecost did not have to be taught how to do so by reading a book, attending a seminar, or being coached by other people. Nor did they have to develop the gift through repeated practice on their own. Rather, they spoke as the Spirit was giving them utterance. He was in total control of the situation. They simply received what He gave.
The evidence of the Spirit’s coming was unmistakable. He manifested His presence to the ears, eyes, and mouths of the believers. But it didn’t stop there. His coming had a profound effect on the people of Jerusalem as well.

THE EFFECT OF THE SPIRIT’S COMING

Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because they were each one hearing them speak in his own language. And they were amazed and marveled, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God. (2:5–11)

Pentecost was one of the three major feasts of the Jewish calendar, and all Hebrew males were expected to celebrate it in Jerusalem. Consequently, there were Jews living in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost, devout men, from every nation under heaven. Those who went to the trouble to make the pilgrimage were obviously devout men. The phrase from every nation under heaven is an idiomatic expression meaning “from many lands,” or from all of the nations where Jews had been dispersed.
When they heard the sound of the rushing wind (rather than the sounds of the languages), the multitude came together in the vicinity of the upper room. What they found when they arrived astonished and bewildered them, with each one hearing his own language being spoken.
The supernatural signs had their desired effect, and the attention of the crowd was riveted on Peter and the others. What amazed them the most was that all those who were speaking were Galileans. That was shocking to the sophisticated city dwellers, who viewed rural Galileans as ignorant and uneducated.
When Philip excitedly told Nathanael that he had found the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (a city in Galilee), Nathanael replied in disdain, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:45–46). Nicodemus’s attempt to defend Jesus met with the scornful reply, “You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee” (John 7:52).
The sight of the supposedly ignorant Galileans speaking so many languages caused the astonished crowd to exclaim, how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? That this supernatural communication was known human languages, not ecstatic speech, becomes clear as the list of the specific tongues is enumerated. Parthians lived in what is modern Iran. They had never been conquered by the Romans and remained their bitter enemies. Medes, partners in empire with the Persians in Daniel’s time, were now part of the Parthian Empire. Elamites lived in what is now southwestern Iran. They, too, were part of the Parthian Empire. The residents of Mesopotamia lived between the two great rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates (Mesopotamia means “between the rivers”). Great numbers of Israelites had been deported to that region by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Not all had returned to Palestine at the time of Cyrus’s decree (2 Chron. 36:22–23). Judea should probably be construed in the broadest sense as all the region once controlled by David and Solomon. That would explain the absence of Syria from the list. Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia were all regions in Asia Minor. They had a large Jewish population, as did Egypt, particularly in the city of Alexandria. It was in that city that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, had been produced. The districts of Libya around Cyrene were west of Egypt on the African coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Josephus mentions a Jewish population there. That there were Jews in Rome, as well as Gentile proselytes, is obvious from the Emperor Claudius’s expulsion of them some years later (Acts 18:2). Cretans were from the island of Crete, off the southern coast of Greece. Arabs were Jews living in the kingdom of the Nabatean Arabs, located south of Damascus (cf. Gal. 1:17).
The content of these languages is identified by Luke as speaking of the mighty deeds of God. Such rehearsal was an essential element of Jewish life and worship. Exodus 15:11 says, “Who is like Thee among the gods, O Lord? Who is like Thee, majestic in holiness, awesome in praises, working wonders?” (cf. Isa. 25:1). Such praise was also a frequent theme of the book of Psalms. Psalm 40:5 reads, “Many, O Lord my God, are the wonders which Thou hast done,” while Psalm 77:11 adds, “I shall remember the deeds of the Lord; surely I will remember Thy wonders of old” (cf. Pss. 26:7; 78:4; 89:5; 96:3; 107:8, 21; 111:4).
Having used the sound of the wind to gather the crowd, the Spirit now convinces them that these believers in Jesus Christ were devoted to praising the one true God. Blasphemers, as many thought them to be, could not be extolling the greatness of God. All that recitation of what God had done prepared the way for Peter’s proclamation of the gospel beginning in verse 14. The good news of salvation in Jesus Christ was the climax toward which the Holy Spirit was building.


THE EXPLANATION OF THE SPIRIT’S COMING

And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.” (2:12–13)

As is regularly the case when God’s truth is presented, some in the crowd accepted it, while others rejected. The former continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” They would soon understand when Peter proclaimed the gospel in his sermon.
At the same time the others were mocking and saying, “they are full of sweet wine.” Like the Pharisees who heard Jesus’ claims and saw the confirming miracles, but concluded He was of the devil (Matt. 12:24ff.), these scoffers rejected the evidence that this was a work of God. Instead, they proposed the ridiculous hypothesis that the apostles were full of sweet wine. They tried to explain away the miracle of speaking in languages as a drunken frolic. Tragically, their skepticism was to harden into full-fledged opposition toward the message and the messengers (cf. 4:7ff.; 5:17–18, 40; 7:58–60). However, no amount of opposition could stop the work of God that began at Pentecost.

Michael Collum said:

I find the only time experience lends to interpretation in an edifying way is when you have a gift and another person does not, certain verses will be highlighted to you in terms of how to apply it when the Holy Spirit brings these things back to remembrance.

If you do not have the gift of tongues, it is possible these verses will not be highlighted in the same way, since the application is not relevant to your walk.

Click to expand...

What about Cessationism ?

SeamusDelion said:

What about Cessationism ?

Click to expand...

Neo-Saduceeism, it means Jesus is that much closer to returning.