A very important issue today is the question, "Are the tongues in 1 Corinthians chapter 14 the same as those in Acts 2?" If that answer is yes, then the modern practice of "speaking in tongues" unfortunately would not fit the Biblical definition. I say unfortunately because I have no desire to start arguments, generate division, or stir up hard feelings against anyone. But if this is what I have found and believe that it is what the Bible truly teaches, then I must have my say. To start, it would be helpful to look at Acts 2:1-11:
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man IN OUR OWN TONGUE, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Next, it is interesting to note that the tongues spoken of in 1 Cor.14 is the same as those in Acts! Notice the language, it says different kinds of languages were used:
1 Corinthians 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another DIVERSE KINDS OF TONGUES; to another the interpretation of tongues:
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, DIVERSITIES OF TONGUES.
It is also interesting how Iranaeus, who was one of the earliest defenders of the Christian faith and a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John, referred to Paul and others as speaking in many foreign languages by the spirit. Irenaeus (A.D. 115 to 202) a pupil of Polycarp (A.D. 70-155), who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote:
"[T]he perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the soul receiving the spirit of the Father… For this reason does the apostle declare, 'We speak wisdom among them that are perfect,' terming those persons 'perfect' who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used [h]imself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages… whom also the Apostle terms 'spiritual,' they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.6.1, ANF, I, 531.) The brethren Irenaeus refers to are apparently people speaking in languages during Paul's day.
It is amazing to see how the earliest church documents referring to the nature of tongues in Acts and Corinthians refer to tongues as the miraculous ability to speak a real, previously unlearned language. Apparently this understanding has been the majority view of the commentators since the beginning of the church. St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), who was Archbishop of Constantinople, wrote: "Whoever was baptized in apostolic days, he straightway spake with tongues... and one straight way spake in the Persian language, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other tongue, and this made manifest to them that were without that it was the Spirit in the very person speaking." (John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, 29, NPNF, 1st ser., XII, 168.) Note well that this discussion by Chrysostom was concerning tongue speaking in 1 Cor.12 and there is no intimation at all that he thought tongue speaking was speaking in a non-language. To him there was no difference between the tongues in Acts and those in 1 Corinthians. St. Augustine, (354-430A.D.) wrote: "In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues, which they had not learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance." These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth." (Augustine, "Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John," Philip Schaff, ea., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 497)
It is also a well known fact of history that pagan religions during the time of the early church spoke in a non-language and thus claimed communication with a higher deity. The Encyclopedia Britannica states, "The gift of tongues and their interpretation was not peculiar to the Christian church, but was a repetition in it of a phase common to ancient religions". This statement of the encyclopedia is a secular one, and the intent of it is to discount Christian claims of having contact with God. They are saying that what was done in Christianity during the days of the apostles proves nothing, for that very same practice was done by pagan religions also. However, there are no references in the writings of the early church fathers that show that they believed speaking in tongues consisted of unintelligible speech, for the real gift was nothing like the speaking of a non-language common in paganism, which can be found in Greek pagan religion such as the Thyracian Dionysus, the Delphic Phrygia, and the Sibyls. (Behm, "glossa" TDNT, 1:722.) Also, Plato said that men attain prophetic truth only when the "intelligence is enthralled in a deep sleep, or he is demented by some distemper or possession." (Plato, Timaeus, 71-72.)
The interpretation that 1Cor.14 is referring to a non-language became popular with the liberal "higher criticism movement" of the 18th and 19th century, (I have not been able to even find any statements in church commentators prior to this time that say tongue speaking occurred in a non-language.) because they wanted to remove supernatural elements out of the Bible. (Joseph Dillow, "Speaking in Tongues" Zondervan, 1975). Speaking real, previously unlearned languages was just a little too miraculous for them, but the non-language used by pagans required no miracle. Thus Paul's speaking in other tongues was equated with the vain babbling of pagan shamans. And so the way was paved for the Pentecostal movement, which began by a group of people who had a "second blessing" theology. They wanted a physical sign so they could know they had a second blessing (second blessing is referring to reaching a special state of perfection or sanctification) and this interpretation is what shaped their thinking on the physical sign of speaking in a non-language as evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus modern Pentecostalism was born in the early 1900's at Azuza Street.
To sum it up, I believe there is a very strong case that the tongues in the book of 1 Corinthians 14 are not different from those in Acts 2, and that they were the miraculous ability to speak in a previously unknown language and are not like the non language that we see today, as that has more similarities to some pagan practices of that day.
Chatboard (0)