Here are the apparent differences that I see between the general Adventist understanding of what happened in Acts 2 and what Paul said about tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:
1. In Acts 2, the apostles were speaking to men, not to God. 1 Cor. 14:2 says, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God."
2. The whole purpose of the manifestation in Acts 2 was to edify the listeners, whereas Paul said in 1 Cor. 14:4, "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." Tongues are not for the purpose of instruction, revelation, or prophecy to the church (1 Cor. 14:6; 18-19).
3. In Acts 2, no one had to pray to be able to interpret; it happened automatically (cf. 1 Cor. 14:13).
I am quoting the relevant section of 1 Corinthians 14 here for reference:
Now, this is only my opinion, but I think it is possible that the apostles' gift of tongues in the first part of Acts 2 (verses 1-13) is the same thing that Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14-a type of prayer or praise between them and God as a result of the Spirit coming upon them, not words of instruction to their listeners although their words
were interpreted. The reason that they didn't need to pray that their words would be interpreted was probably that the Holy Spirit interpreted them automatically so that their listeners would understand what they were saying. I don't even think that they were actually speaking in all of the languages of the people who were listening; the text says that the audience
heard them in their own languages. After all, how could 12 men speak at least 15 languages-probably more because some of the geographical regions mentioned could have encompassed more than one language or dialect-at the same time without great confusion? It would make more sense for the Holy Spirit to interpret what they said into the languages of the audience.
Also, the fact that some listeners thought that they were drunk seems to imply that they were speaking in some manner other than the calm, rational tone of Peter's sermon. My opinion, based on how Paul describes the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians, is that they were filled with exuberance and were praising God in a different way than they would normally speak and in words that people would not normally be able to understand (whether they were known human languages or spiritual languages is unclear and probably irrelevant).
However, their words were not yet meant to give instruction or revelation to the crowd. In fact, when the apostles began speaking in tongues, it was before they even
had an audience (Acts 2:4-6). The crowd assembled
because they heard the noise (it must have been pretty loud) and came to see what was happening, and then they heard everything in their own languages. It wasn't until Peter stood up to speak that the instructional portion of the program began.
Furthermore, when Peter spoke, I don't believe that he spoke in all of the languages of the people present either. I believe that the Holy Spirit interpreted his words so that everyone could understand him. His sermon was not part of the manifestation of tongues but an explanation of what had just happened because the people did not understand what this experience meant.
Therefore, perhaps the apparent differences are not differences at all:
1. In Acts 2, the apostles
were actually speaking to God, not to men, since they didn't have an audience at first.
2. The purpose of the manifestation of tongues in Acts 2 was
not to edify the listeners. It was to pray to or to praise God for the gift of the Holy Spirit. The edification of others began when Peter began to speak in verse 14. Tongues are not for the purpose of instruction, revelation, or prophecy to the church (1 Cor. 14:6; 18-19).
3. In Acts 2, no one had to pray to be able to interpret; it happened automatically (through the Holy Spirit). The apostles, especially Peter when he preached his sermon, probably were not speaking in all of the languages of the listeners, but they were heard in those languages.
Although the official Adventist position (if there is one) on the gift of tongues seems to be that the only legitimate manifestation would be the ability to speak in other languages in order to be understood by others and not "ecstatic utterances during which the individual loses self-control," I question whether an outpouring of exuberant praise to God in either a human language or a spiritual language (a language of angels, as Paul calls it in 1 Cor. 13:1) should automatically carry the connotation of a loss of control. Could people not praise God ecstatically without acting insane? (Go to
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/Biblequestions/usefulgifts.htm for Angel Manuel Rodriguez's view on tongues.)
The problem that I have with some of the Adventist explanations of this is that Adventists (like Rodriguez) tend to interpret 1 Corinthians 14 based on what they think Acts 2 and some of the other passages in Acts are talking about to make it fit with our idea that the gift of tongues has to be speaking in other languages so that everyone can understand. And I see some inconsistencies in this because the texts, in my opinion, do not seem to reconcile themselves to those explanations, especially 1 Corinthians 14.
Here are the other texts in Acts that mention speaking in tongues:
Here is a link to a 1965 publication by Harry W. Lowe, entitled
Speaking in Tongues: A Brief History of the Phenomenon Known as Glossolalia, or Speaking in Tongues (nice redundant title), from the Biblical Research Institute web site:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/speaking%20in%20tongues.pdf
Lowe speculates that when the Gentiles in Acts 10 spoke in tongues, they were likely speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew although there is no textual evidence to indicate what language they were speaking. This could be true, though, since it would eliminate the need for an interpreter, or I suppose the Holy Spirit could have interpreted here as well, but it doesn't say that. Lowe also says that the Holy Spirit gave Cornelius and his friends and family this gift as a sign to prove to the Jews that even Gentiles could be granted "repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18).
While I agree that the Jews did interpret this as a sign of that very thing, I don't see that this contradicts the idea that the Gentiles could have been praising God exuberantly through the manifestation of tongues (regardless of whether it was a known or unknown language). In fact, the text itself says that they were speaking in tongues and praising God (10:46). The whole idea I get from all of these passages is that speaking in tongues, although not a gift given to everyone, involves praising God in a different language than one would normally speak, one that would most likely not be understood by observers-hence the need for interpretation.
On the text in Acts 19 regarding the Ephesian believers who spoke in tongues, Lowe's comment is that the Greek word
glossa always refers to known tongues. I am not a Greek scholar, so I don't know if that is true or not, but I did notice that in 1 Cor. 13:1, where Paul refers to the tongues of men and angels, the word
glossa is used for both. Apparently, the language of angels is also a known language although not humanly known.
Thus, I agree that the gift of tongues is a gift of speaking different languages than one would normally speak or even know, but the question is can these languages be spiritual as well as human (which would seem so from 1 Cor. 13:1 and also from 1 Cor. 14)? Also, what is the purpose of them? It seems to me that the traditional Adventist view would contradict what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14 about their purpose not being to edify or instruct the church. If the gift of tongues meant simply speaking in other languages so that others could understand, how does that relate to the idea of tongues as speaking to God rather than to men? I don't believe that the apostles started out speaking in tongues before an audience. I don't believe that Cornelius and his family were instructing Peter and his companions about anything; they were simply praising God. I don't believe that the Ephesians spoke in tongues to teach anyone anything but to show that they, too, had received the Holy Spirit. The gift's manifestation of the ability to speak in other languages is so that it is evident that it is supernatural, not primarily so that other people (or even we ourselves) can understand it.
Another thing that bothers me is that many interpretations of 1 Corinthians 14 associate the gift of tongues spoken of there as a bad thing. Here is how Thayer's lexicon puts it (in its discussion of the word
glossa and related terms):
Rodriguez mentions this idea (in somewhat less descriptive language) in his article as well, but I do not get this impression at all from 1 Corinthians 14. Paul's advice on tongues indicates that it is a good thing but must be done in an organized fashion in the church and that the other gifts are more to be desired because they build up the church. I don't get the idea at all that Paul thought that people were not able to control themselves while speaking in tongues because of the facts that they could choose to remain silent if others were doing it and that they could pray that their words would be interpreted. What I think Paul is saying is that speaking in tongues is good but that other gifts are more practical for the church, because tongues are normally only between a person and God. I think Paul would even prefer that people not speak in tongues at all in church, not because it's a bad thing but because the other gifts are more useful (1 Cor. 14:18-19), but he gave them guidelines so they would not misuse the gift of tongues.
My opinion is that our fear of the counterfeit gift of tongues has led us as Adventists to reinterpret what the biblical gift of tongues actually was. I once attended a service at a charismatic church, where people were speaking in tongues. It made me very uncomfortable because I knew that they were not following the biblical guidelines for orderly worship. It also would have fit Thayer's description above; in fact, that's what I thought of when I read it. I think people who believe that Christians who do not speak in tongues have not really received the Holy Spirit are deceived. On the other hand, we seem to have left little room in the Adventist Church for a true manifestation of the gift of tongues or, for that matter, for the kind of indwelling of the Holy Spirit that the early Christians experienced.
How many people would ever accuse us of being drunk when we are praising God?
:
