Mark 16:9-20 and Speaking in Tongues: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 81-82). It is reproduced here with permission.

This is the only passage in which Jesus is reported as having mentioned glossolalia. In verse 17 and 18 he predicts that:

Signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.

However the manuscript and other difficulties that surround this passage force most Biblical scholars to the opinion that Jesus did not say this, or at least that it is improbable in the extreme that he did.1

Some neo-pentecostal literature uses this verse in connection with tongues speaking, however,2 and without apology, so it is necessary to set out the reasons why the verses are regarded as non-authentic. Basically these are:

(a) After verse 8, at least four different suggested endings are found in early manuscripts. The verses numbered 9-20 and used by the Authorized Version as part of the text (though not by the RSV, NEB, or TEV) are only one of a number of possibilities.

(b) The variety of possible endings suggests that the gospel ended at verse 8, which is rather abrupt, and that later editors compiled various pieces of material to round it off.

(c) Verse 9 to 20 are written in Greek uncharacteristic of Mark’s style.

(d) Although a majority of manuscripts have the verses, several good and ancient manuscripts do not. In this branch of study it is not the number of witnesses that matter, but their age and independence from one another. By these tests, their absence is most significant.

(e) A number of important ancient writers either did not know or rejected these verses. Eusebius and Jerome, for example, reported their absence from almost all the Greek manuscripts known to them.

This adds up to a well-nigh unassailable case for rejection. However, even if they were found to be authentic, it ought to be noted (as does Schep3) that they do not support a neo-pentecostal position, since the baptism in the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. Furthermore the passage promises rather more than is wanted: note the handling of snakes. On this point Harper is silent.4

---

1. So, for example, commentaries by C. E. B. Cranfield (p. 470 f.) and R. A. Cole (p. 257 f.); note also B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964, p. 226 f.); J. A. Schep, Spirit Baptism and Tongues Speaking (p. 99).
2. E.g., M. Harper, Power for the Body of Christ, pp. 33, 37.
3. Schep, op. cit., p. 99.
4. M. Harper, As at the Beginning (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1971), p. 103. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in Tongues: Barnett & Jensen

© Anzea Publishers 1973
This article is an excerpt that was first published in The quest for power | neo-pentecostals and the New Testament by Paul Barnett and Peter Jensen (Sydney: Anzea Publishers, 1973, p. 83-88). It is reproduced here with permission.

Speaking in tongues (glossolalia) as a sign

The fact that on three occasions in the book of Acts (2:4, Jerusalem; 10:44-46, Caesarea; and 19:6, Ephesus) the reception of the Holy Spirit was marked by men speaking in tongues has been adduced by some as evidence that such speech is the sign of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Some suggest that the Spirit-baptized believer should speak in tongues, and if he does not then there is some prejudice or lack of faith in him.

Thus the position appears to be that some neo-pentecostals claim on the basis of the Acts that speaking in tongues is the usual sign that a person has received a ‘subsequent’ baptism in the Spirit.1

However, certain points need to be raised about this teaching.

First, glossolalia did accompany the baptism of the Holy Spirit on several occasions, but this was in the context of men’s first commitment to the Lord Christ.

Second, it is possible to suggest quite cogent reasons for the gift of tongues being given on the occasions when it is mentioned in the Acts. Outward evidence of the Spirit’s coming was very appropriate on each occasion—for example, note the crucial nature of the events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius. The Jewish church had to be told thus that God had received the Gentiles; the Ephesians’ ‘false start’ made it important for them and for Paul to be assured that the Spirit had come.2

Third, historical events are not commands. That men spoke in tongues on three occasions does not amount to a command or a promise. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever command or promise glossolalia.

Fourth, the phenomenon of tongues occurs in other religions and even in non-religious circumstances, showing that it cannot be an infallible sign, if sign it is, of the lordship of Christ or the coming of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, owing to the possibility of self-deception in the area of tongues, interpretation and prophecy, we must be careful before presuming that use of it is evidence of Christianity, let alone a special baptism of the Spirit not commanded in scripture.

Tongues as a gift

1 Corinthians 12-14 contains the New Testament’s only discussion of this subject. It is possible to take various statements by Paul in isolation and build them into a case for glossolalia being normative Christian experience. For instance 14:5, ‘Not I want you all to speak in tongues…’; 14:18, ‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all…’; 14:22, ‘Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers…’; 14:39, ‘…do not forbid speaking in tongues…’

However, this is not fair to Paul’s argument, for the following reasons.

First, in the case of each quotation mentioned above an important modification follows or precedes. This cannot be ignored. Also, it is of more than passing interest to note that when Paul makes what appears to be his strongest statement, ‘Now I want you all to speak in tongues…’ (14:5), it is paralleled in 1 Corinthians 7:7 where, speaking of marriage, he says, ‘I wish that all were as I myself am…’, that is to say, unmarried. Now in 1 Corinthians 7 he obviously does not mean that he wishes all in fact to be single, for not all have that gift as he admits. A man cannot exercise a gift he does not have, and this applies to tongues. It is quite clear that only some Christians have the gift of glossolalia. So in 12:27-31 Paul asks, ‘Are all apostles? Are all prophets? … Do all speak with tongues?’ Here the Greek construction indicates without doubt that the answer ‘no’ is expected. It follows that we cannot demand that other Christians have this gift.

Second, Paul’s discussion taken as a whole leads to a minimal assessment of glossolalia. Tongues are mentioned last in the three lists of Chapter 12.3 The gift does not edify the gathered members (14:6-11), whereas prophecy edifies, exhorts, and consoles (14:3-6). Tongues do not edify the understanding of the speaker: therefore he should pray for the ability to understand what he speaks (14:13-15). Tongues speaking damns the unconverted in church, whereas prophecy converts him (14:20-25). Thus one cannot lovingly speak in tongues without interpretation.

Third, when Paul allows tongues, it is within strict limits. Meetings are not to be tongues dominated; two or three at most, and then only if interpretation is supplied so that it is edifying (14:27, 28). Further, glossolalia must be orderly and in turn (14:27, 40). The total effect of chapters 12-14 is not to condemn but to discourage.

Actually, the possession of gifts is not a matter for praise or blame (1 Cor. 4:7). Nor is it a guarantee of spirituality; the Corinthians were jealous and strife-ridden, arrogant, tolerant or immorality, litigious, insensitive to the weak, compromising with idolatry, self-assertive and unbelieving.

The neo-pentecostals will be quick to agree with this. They will point out that the baptism in the Holy Spirit leads to power for witness and service or other Christians, not sanctification. But by dividing evangelism and ministry from our sanctification they have divided the work of the Holy Spirit and gone contrary to the New Testament message:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35).

The Spirit’s work in sanctification gives power for evangelism and the service of the body of Christ. The use of gifts is the vital thing. Gifts are merely tools at the disposal of love, and are quite useless (and worse) without love (1 Cor. 13). This too provides the criteria by which to judge the usefulness of a gift—does it edify the brethren?

When all this is said we would like to make clear that we agree that this is a gift God can still give his people. We are told that great joy and peace flow from the experience, and again we rejoice that our brethren have been blessed by God.

Further, we wish to say that there is no room for an arrogant faith which coldly excludes those Christians who are of a different temperament, or who have received different gifts from the Lord. We rejoice to see gifted people as an evidence of God’s hand at work.

However, a problem arises with those Christians who seek to make their experience of tongues a norm for others. This is contrary to Paul’s word in 1 Corinthians 12:30 and to the very nature of gifts, which are varied.

Private tongues speaking

Some believe that there is a vital form of glossolalia which is available (or necessary) to every believer and which provides a revolutionary spiritual liberty (perhaps referred to in 1 Cor. 14:2, 4a, 17). However, one must note that it cannot be an experience open to all in the light of 12:30, ‘Do all speak in tongues?’

Further, private tongues speaking is never held up for praise as a superior form of prayer. We are nowhere encouraged to practise it, and we must therefore conclude that it is not of great value. This is a fair assessment in view of the fact that glossolalia ‘in the spirit’ (14:2) is not ‘in the Holy Spirit’ but in the area of non-rational as opposed to the rational part of the personality (see 14:15). In the light of the New Testament emphasis on knowledge, it is no wonder that Paul commands the tongues speaker to seek understanding (14:15).

‘He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself’ (1 Cor.14:4a) is often quoted in praise of private tongues speaking. It is to be noted that the tongues speaker is instructed to pray for the power to understand (14:13) so that in singing and praying he may comprehend what he says. How can a person be edified if he doesn’t understand what he is saying? Thus we see an apparent contradiction between Paul’s sentiments in 1 Corinthians 14:4a and 14:13-15. But is this really the case? When we return to 14:4a we notice that it is one part of a verse which is being unfavourably compared with the other half:

He who speaks in a tongues edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

We conclude that in 1 Corinthians 14:4a Paul is speaking ironically. Thus his meaning is that the tongues speaker is locked up in his own world; he doesn’t edify the church; he doesn’t fulfil the idea of the previous chapter which is love. His gift terminates on himself; it is useless for the church. 1 Corinthians 14:4a is not therefore to be seen as a commendation of private tongues speaking; it merely puts tongues speaking in an unfavourable light next to prophecy.

It is of interest to note D. W. Burdick’s conclusion in Tongues—To Speak or Not to Speak? (Moody Press, Chicago, 1969): ‘But, if the previous suggested explanation of present-day tongues is reasonably accurate, the glossolalic experience in such instances is abnormal. It is a form of dissociation within the mentality of a person. It is in reality a separation which blocks off the rational function of the brain with the result that action is produced apart from rational control. Temporarily the tongues speaker has entered a pathological condition…’ (p. 84). Unrestrained non-rational religious activity is sub-Christian and apparently open to Satanic influence. It must be tested by allegiance to the lordship of Christ (12:3) and love (chapter 13).

---

1. So, e.g. Harper in Power for the Body of Christ, p. 33 f.
2. This is so, too, if the Samaritans spoke in tongues, as seems likely (Acts 8:16 f.).
3. Some have queried the relevance of the ‘tongues are last’ observation. The problem is resolved by the use of language in 12:28: ‘first… second… third…’; obviously a descending order is in mind. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

The gift of tongues: What 1 Corinthians 14 describes

Pentecostal tongues: Unknowable utterances

Pentecostalism believes that 'speaking in tongues' is a God-enabled prayer language using unintelligable human utterances that have a spiritual effect. Though the Greek word for “tongues” (glossolalia) means “languages,” Pentecostals know that in most instances the tongues-speaking practiced in their movement is unknowable in its nature. Before the revival of 'tongues' at the turn of the nineteenth-century, Christians who later joined the Pentecostal movement were expecting the gift of languages to equip the Church for worldwide evangelism to the unreached millions in their mother-tongues. However after 1906 the movement recognised that the activity in their churches being called 'speaking in tongues' did not involve human languages and was not evangelistic.

Ideas about the nature of tongues developed in these early years. While still acknowledging that the tongues-speaking enabled by the Spirit in Acts 2:4 were known dialects of countries foreign to the speaker, Pentecostals began to view 1 Corinthians 14:2 as identifying another type of tongues. This was based upon the view that if “no one understands him” and his words “utter mysteries with his spirit,” then this tongues-speaking mustn't be actual languages but 'unknown utterances.' Since this passage describes 'praying' in a tongue, speaking to God not men, to praise God and give him thanks, Pentecostalism embraced the concept of tongues as a prayer language with God-empowered unintelligable human utterances that have an impact upon the spiritual realm (as opposed to preaching with foreign identifiable human languages as in Acts 2.)

Before examining the Pentecostal notion of two types of tongues, being the miraculous gift of languages and God-given utterances of unidentifiable meaning, it is important to realise that the practice of both types of phenomenon have been reported throughout history in the secular, religious and Christian world. (See The history of tongues).

Corinthian tongues: foreign languages

There are at least several reasons from the text why the type of tongues spoken by the Corinthians were identifiable human languages:

Different kinds

The passage in 1 Corinthians 12 first listing tongues as a manifestation of the Spirit describes the activity as “speaking in different kinds of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:10, 28). The fact that there are different kinds of tongues suggests that languages are in view. 'Different' tongues are the 'other' tongues of the nations given on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4), where after the crowd of foreign speaking Jews heard them praising God in each of their own native tongues. (Acts 2:11).

Speaking a tongue

Although the Spirit is described as generically giving different kinds of "tongues," (plural) or enabling people to speak in other "tongues" (plural), 1 Corinthians 14 does not describe individual persons speaking in "tongues." Every reference in 1 Corinthians 14 to an individual with this ability describes them as one who speaks in "a tongue" (singular). This activity is speaking a singular language with a specific identity.

None without meaning

The passage in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that Paul thought of ‘a tongue’ as actually conveying meaning: In reference to tongues he says, “there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.” (1 Corinthians 14:10) This is why they were capable of being interpreted.

Speaking words

When refering to tongues the Apostle implies that this activity involves communication. He describes it as “speaking” (1 Corinthians 14:13) and describes the utterances as actual “words,” (1 Corinthians 14:18) which by definition are units of language that communicate meaning. They are not merely sounds produced with the tongue. Paul describes the activity as 'speaking to God,' 'praying' to God, 'praising' God, 'thanking' God and speaking 'to oneself' (1 Corinthians 14:2, 14, 16-17, 28).

Saying “Amen”

Paul implies that someone who speaks in a tongue has an idea of the meaning of his words. He says, "If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.” (1 Corinthians 14:16-17) Paul implies that the speaker has the ability to say “Amen” to his prayer as opposed to those who cannot because they do not know what he is saying. If the speaker himself was also among those who do not understand then he also would not be able to say "Amen" to his thanksgiving and would therefore also not be edified. Although the speaker does not have complete understanding of what he is saying, the Apostle does not include the speaker among those who do not understand at all.

Speaking to oneself

Paul clearly says that a tongue edifies the speaker (1 Corinthians 14:4) and that the he speaks to himself as well as to God (1 Corinthians 14:28). He implies then that the speaker is himself encouraged by the meaning of his message. (1 Corinthians 14:16-17) He is praising and giving thanks to God, saying "Amen" to the prayer and being edified by it, but the other man is not edified because he does not understand its meaning.

Speaking a message

In 1 Corinthians 14:26, Paul lists “a tongue” together along side “a hymn”, “a word of instruction”, “a revelation”, and “an interpretation,” all of which are capable of strengthening the church. All of these activities involve word-based messages. The fact that Paul insists that a tongue given in a church must be interpretted does not suggest that the original utternance was without meaning. Quite the opposite, to 'interpret' is literally the activity of explaining the meaning of a message given.

Is it possible that Pentecostal tongues have the same nature as those practiced by the Corinthians, as described in 1 Corinthians 12-14? These were not unknowable utternances, for they were not without meaning; this activity was not merely making sounds with the tongue, but speaking words of thanks to God; these speakers were not all-together ignorant of what they were saying, for they were at least edified by their words. The only similarity between the ‘tongues’ practiced in Pentecostalism and those described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is that in both cases the mind of the speaker can be described as being 'unfruitful’. This is not an adequate basis for concluding that their identities are common.

Corinthian tongues: unknowable utterances?

There are other reasons in the text of 1 Corinthians 14 that leave open the possibility that the nature of the tongues spoken by Corinthian Christians were not miraculous gifts of foreign languages (that can be compared to those in the Acts narratives).

The mind unfruitful

Paul says in regard to the one in Corinth who spoke in tongues, "no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” Paul is likely generalising the audience to say that no one present understands the speaker; He seems to be implying that his words are a mystery to his audience, though not necessarily to the speaker. However, Paul describes the mind as “unfruitful” when he prays in a tongue (1 Corinthians 14:14). He may mean that the speaker it not thinking through his words before he speaks; he is not deliberately choosing his words as a bilingual speaker would, but instead is being given in a foreign tongue words from the Spirit to speak and only retrospectively being aware of what he has said.

If however Paul means by 'unfruitful' that it is impossible to understand the meaning of a tongue by listening or speaking it (without God-given interpretation), his words may be a complete mystery to all except God alone. This would allow the possibility that the tongue-speaking is not referring to an actual language at all.

In the first-century Hellenistic world and earlier, ecstatic utterances in unknown or unintelligible speech were commonly practiced by pagan prophets, magicians and sorcerers. [1]. It is possible that the nature of the tongues spoken by Corinthians were actually this very human activity that the Corinthians brought into their Christian lives from this type of pagan past.

Stop thinking like children

Paul acknowledges that the Corinthian practice is from God, in the sense that everything is from God, whether good or bad, human or miraculous. (Romans 11:36) All things ultimately come from him and he uses all things to work for the Christian their good of conformity to Christ's image (Romans 8:28). Rather than simply instructing the Corinthians to stop using tongues, he sympathises with them and reframes their behaviour in the light of the gospel and God’s purposes for the church. Since this is Paul's approach, it should be ours also.

Paul's message to the Corinthians is nonetheless a rebuke for immaturity. They are like a two-year-olds who do not know how to do things for others. He portray tongues as an undesirable gift because it doesn’t achieve God’s goal for the church, which is mutual edification. Edification comes by prophesying to one another, by which God speaks his word through Christians to other Christians to encourage and comfort them. He instructs the Corinthians to cease speaking in tongues in the church unless they can interpret their messages. Without interpretation a tongue only encourages the speaker. Only with interpretation can a tongue work for the common good.

Since the Corinthian and Pentecostal tongues do not likely share the same identify, Pentecostalism should be more careful when applying verses such as 1 Corinthians 14:4 to their own practice: “he who speaks in a tongue edifies himself”. The great danger of the Pentecostal emphasis on tongues is that this activity does not bring edification as Paul explains it. The point of 1 Corinthians 14 is that Christian strengthening and Christian encouragment comes from mutually understanding God's word.

A sign for unbelievers

The tongues spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12-14 were a ‘sign’ for unbelievers: “Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers.” (1 Corinthians 14:22) In its context 1 Corinthians 14:22 is preceded by a quotation from Isaiah 28:11-12 where unbelieving Israel are told they'd soon hear the foreign tongues of the Assyrians coming to destroy them. Here ‘tongues’ were given to unbelieving Israelites as a sign of their judgement. Paul uses this quote to warn the Corinthians that similarly if they speak with tongues that listeners do not understand it is a sign to them that they are under God’s judgement. People become Christians when they come to understand God’s word; a sign of being a Christian is understanding God’s word when it is heard. And so Paul says, “tongues are for unbelievers” who are under God’s judgement, for they are the ones to whom God’s word comes without meaning.

How do Pentecostal tongues function as a sign of judgment against unbelievers? The lack of explanation in Pentecostalism of 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 is telling. The tongues described in the Corinthian church were a sign to any listener not understanding their content that they were under God's judgment. Similarly, modern day tongues practiced by Pentecostals in churches, if they are indeed unknowable utternances, are a sign to any listener of God's judgment in the church on unbelievers. For these tongues divert attention from God's word and so deprive listeners of the only message that can save them.

Theological confidence

It is hard to believe how anybody could claim perfect confidence in her or his own reading of 1 Corinthians 14, for this passage contains so many difficulties. However, the meaning of the passage is clear enough. Much of what has been read into this passage and brought to it from personal experience can not justly be read out of it.

The Pentecostal practice refered to under the title of ‘tongues’ is given by God, as all things are. (Romans 11:36) Something that helps Christians maintain a focused adoration on God and brings no mutual or individual harm is a good thing. However, this is not reason enough for a theological position claiming that the present day exercise of Pentecostal tongues have the same identity as those described in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 or the Acts narratives.

More on this topic

How Pentecostalism developed over time

Tongues and Spirit-baptism: What Pentecostals believe

The history of tongues

- -

[1] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1206. talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in tongues: Why tongues were given

Why were tongues given? Why did God's Spirit, in all his sovereignty, enable his first recipients to speak these strange languages? This is the right question to be asking because it's one that the Scriptures answer.

The Spirit's demonstration

"God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us." (Acts 15:8)

Luke, the author of Acts, explains the purpose of tongues within his narrative. In Acts 15:8, within the context of the conversion of Cornelius' Gentile relatives and friends (Acts 10-11), Peter addresses believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees. They were insisting that "the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). They were shocked by Peter's acceptance of the Gentiles. In the Samaritan case (Acts 8), Phillip’s activity would similarly have caused tension.

Peter's explanation to the Jewish Christians who had criticized him was simple: "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning...if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?" (Acts 11:15-18). Sometime later, when the matter came up again in Jerusalem, he argues similarly: "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us". (Acts 15:8)

Peter replies to this situation by explaining the function of 'tongues' in the spread of the gospel. He says that the Spirit showed (that is, 'demonstrated') his acceptance of Gentiles by providing the outward sign of speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-46): the Holy Spirit came on them "as he had come on us"; he gave them the Holy Spirit, "just as he did to us." That is, God showed he had given his Spirit to these groups of half-Jews and Gentiles by giving them 'tongues' – the same sign given to the Jews.

It was not immediately clear to the Jewish Christians that God did accept Samaritans, much less Gentiles. But God gave the Gentiles the same sign he had given the first Jewish disciples in the beginning (Acts 2) to show them his acceptance of them. (It had to be the same sign, for otherwise, it would not have conclusively shown that God had accepted them in the same way (by giving his Spirit to them) and upon the same basis (through faith in Jesus alone) as the Jewish believers.)

Therefore, the reception of tongues was the Spirit's demonstration of his own reception of different cultural groups into the Christian community: Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles. In this way, God "showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them" (Acts 15:8).

The Apostles witness

It also seems that God wanted the reception of the Spirit (as evidenced by the sign of tongues) to be witnessed by the Apostles. We often forget how different this time in salvation history is from ours. At this time Christians would have automatically doubted the authenticity of the conversions and the reception of Samaritans into the Church. But to stop the segregation between Jews and Samaritans infiltrating the Church, God provided them with an unmistakable sign. And in this way, God was also fulfilling his plan in a special way of making the Apostles the first-hand eye-witnesses of the gospel's progress from Jerusalem (Acts 2-7), to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8-11:18) – as in this case – and to the ends of the world (Acts 11:19 – 28:31), as foretold by Jesus (Acts 1:8).

Their written accounts

Because of this progressive demonstration as the gospel penetrated across people groups, we now know that any people group, without distinction, who turns to the Lord in faith and repentance, will be be given God's Spirit as God's people. As witnesses, the Apostles recorded these events and their meaning in Scripture, so that by them the Spirit continues to teach this vital lesson to every generation of Christians. Today, new cultural groups who turn to Christ do not require the sign of tongues to prove their reception of God's Spirit, for the Holy Spirit makes clear their acceptance through these narratives in Acts.

The conclusion on Spirit-baptism

Baptism in the Spirit is not a special experience of the Spirit promised for Christians subsequent to their conversion. Tongues are not evidence of its reception. Spirit baptism is given by Christ when he includes individuals into God's people through faith and repentance. The Scriptures maintain that every Christian has received baptism in the Spirit; this is what it means to be Christian. The basis of Christian unity – that all of God's people have an equal status in his Church – relies on the truth that all are given one baptism in one Spirit. Tongues were given as a sign to prove this. When God first gave his Spirit to different people groups he gave them all the same sign of tongues to demonstrate his acceptance of them all in the same way and upon the same basis.

Coming up

We'll be talking more about speaking in tongues (especially the teaching of 1 Corinthians 12-14) in the context of gifts of the Spirit.

More on this topic

The gift of tongues: What the Scriptures describe

The day of Pentecost: Part III - The meaning

Speaking in tongues: The pattern in Acts

talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in tongues: The pattern in Acts

What is the basis for the Pentecostal belief in tongues as the initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit, outlined previously. Is their basis sound? Does it hold water?

Pentecostals argue for the reception of tongues as an initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit partly upon the basis that this phenomenon is described in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, which they believe to provide a biblical precedent. However, speaking in tongues cannot on this basis form a universal pattern, for in this case the precedent includes the presence of wind and tongues of fire on heads of the recipients of baptism in the Spirit.

The pattern of tongues

Pentecostals argue that the phenomenon of tongues-speaking in Acts 2 provides a precedent because it is part of a pattern revealed through out the Acts narrative. This pattern is apparently present in the set of narratives described in previous artices on the examples in Acts (Part I and Part II) (The first disciples, Acts 2:1-42; The Samaritans, 8:4-24; Saul, 9:1-19; Cornelius' household, 10:1-48; The Ephesian disciples, 19:1-7). Pentecostalism maintains that these five narratives consistently feature tongues as the common sign of the reception of Spirit-baptism.

Although Pentecostals admit that historical events are not commands, and that neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever commanded or promised tongues-speaking to the recipients of baptism in the Spirit. They argue that Luke, the author of Acts, intends in his narrative to teach that tongues-speaking is the universal sign of Spirit-baptism.

However, if Luke intended in his narrative to demonstrate that tongues were always present at the reception of Spirit-baptism to provide initial evidence, then why would he omit this detail in two out of five of the narratives being discussed: In the case of the baptism in the Spirit of the Samaritans (Acts 8) and Saul (Acts 9) he does not point this out. Therefore the Pentecostal view is an inconsistent reading of Luke; he does not intend to show that tongues are always present at the reception of Spirit-baptism because he does not always record that it is present.

The pattern of Apostles

There are more common elements in these accounts than tongues-speaking alone. However, Pentecostalism does not maintain that all of these elements are necessary for the reception of baptism in the Spirit; they place importance only in the predominance of tongues within the narratives. The presence of Apostles in each of these cases is a stronger common element than the phenomenon of tongues: in every one of these narratives used as a basis for teaching that tongues-speaking is the initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit, the reception of the Spirit and the reception of tongues occurred in the presence of Apostles (Acts 8:14, 10:46, 19:6); that is, Apostles were witnesses to each of these events. Pentecostalism cannot escape the conclusion that they seek an experience based upon on a pattern in the Scriptures that involved the presence of Apostles, without exception.

The pattern of new groups

In all four cases where the reception of the Spirit and the reception of tongues come together in the New Testament, tongues came to whole groups, not to individual seekers to the exclusion of non-seekers. Similarly, reception of tongues to recipients of the Spirit came to those who were not seeking either the Spirit or tongues. In addition, in each of the cases, the narratives record baptism in the Spirit and the sign of tongues being given to a new group, geographically and/or racially: Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 2); Half-Jews in Samaria (Samaritans, Acts 8); Gentile God-fearers in Caesarea (Cornelius was Italian, Acts 10); Gentiles, formerly Pagans, in Ephesians (Acts 19). These narratives must have something else to teach us than what Pentecostalism has maintained.

The pattern of Paul's teaching

If Pentecostals hold that tongues is a universal sign of ‘baptism in the Spirit’, then this seems to go against Paul’s entire argument in 1 Corinthians 13. For if ‘baptism in the Spirit’ is available to all, and tongues is a sign of ‘baptism in the Spirit’, then we must hold that all should speak in tongues, or at least that all can speak in tongues. However this would contradict Paul’s rhetorical question “Do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor 12:20) which is asked within the context of God’s deliberate distribution of gifts within the church as a whole. No doubt Paul implies that God has intended that all do not speak in tongues.

The secular pattern

The phenomenon of tongues speaking occurs in other religious and non-religious contexts completely divorced from Christianity (See What is the history of tongues?). Clearly tongues simply cannot serve as an infallible sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in a person within his new covenant ministry. In addition, owing to the ever present possibility of self-deception and counterfeit, surely this warning should be heeded, and the greatest amount of care taken before condoning the use of an evidence for Christianity (let alone an external one such as this) that was never commanded by Jesus or his Apostles, nor anywhere else in Scripture.

Why were tongues given?

The reception of tongues were given by God as a ‘sign’ to the early church to confirm his new covenant work of salvation to new groups of people; not as an evidence of an experience subsequent to conversion for all Christians today.

More on this topic

Speaking in tongues: Why tongues were given

Tongues and Spirit-baptism: What Pentecostals believe

Filled with the Spirit

talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Tongues & Holy Spirit Baptism: What Pentecostals believe

Speaking in tongues is a characteristic of Pentecostalism. What do Pentecostals believe about speaking in tongues? In particular, what is the relationship between their beliefs about baptism in the Spirit and their practice of speaking in tongues?

Evidence of baptism in the Spirit

After teaching that baptism in the Spirit is an experience of the Spirit for Christians subsequent to their regeneration/conversion, Pentecostalism maintains that the reception of tongues is the initial (physical) evidence of the reception of baptism in the Spirit. This teaching would give Christianity a doctrinal priority for the practice of speaking in tongues.

The initial evidence

Within the Charismatic movement some insist that the reception of tongues is not the only initial evidence of baptism in the Spirit; other evidences include the manifestation of other spiritual gifts; an increased level of power in life; an increased sense of joy; a greater experience of God’s love. However, traditional Pentecostalism insists that the act of speaking in tongues is an initial special evidence of Spirit-baptism that is always given by God to individual recipients.

The pattern in Acts

This emphasis is partly due to the Pentecostal view that in the book of Acts God has revealed a very close relationship that exists between the reception of tongues and baptism in the Spirit. This belief originated from a characteristic reading of the five narrative accounts in Acts previously described, in which Luke records examples of people being Spirit-baptised.(The first disciples, Acts 2:1-42; The Samaritans, 8:4-24; Saul, 9:1-19; Cornelius' household, 10:1-48; The Ephesian disciples, 19:1-7).

Three of these narratives describe the speaking in tongues of the recipients of baptism in the Spirit (The first disciples, Cornelius' household and the Ephesian disciples). In the case of the Samaritans it is certainly possible that they also spoke in tongues. In the case of Saul it is evident that he did speak in tongues after this event (Paul writes in 1 Cor 14:18, "...I speak in tongues..."), though it is unknown as to whether or not he did this when Ananias laid his hands on him.

The nature of 'tongues'

It is important to note however that in Pentecostalism tongues are generally viewed as a God given ‘prayer language,’ used mainly for prayer or praise in a private devotional sense (It is believed however that these tongues can serve other purposes, such as to ‘prophesy’ when used in conjunction with the gift of interpretation). By ‘prayer language’ it is meant that ‘tongues’ are not an actual language with definite structure and words that convey meaning in the same way that a normal language does; rather, they are ‘miraculous’ and ‘spiritual’ utterances - unitelligible to a speaker or hearer directly - and given by the Spirit for the purpose of edifying one’s spirit.

More on this topic

Speaking in tongues: The pattern in Acts

Baptism in the Spirit: The examples in Acts - Part II

Speaking in tongues: Why tongues were given

talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.

The history of tongues

Tongues-speaking [1] has occurred since ancient times in both the non-Jewish and non-Christian world.

“In the ancient world, ecstatic utterances, trances, and frenzied behavior were commonly associated with pagan prophets. Eleventh-century B.C. documents record occurrences of ecstatic speech and the like in Egypt. In the Hellenistic world the prophetess of Delphi and the Sibylline priestess spoke in unknown or unintelligible speech. Moreover, the Dionysian rites contained a trancelike state as well as glossolalia. Many of the magicians and sorcerers of the first-century world exhibited similar phenomenon, as is the case of the “spirit of divination” (or possibly ventriloquism) at Philippi in Acts 16:16-18.” [2]

Tongues-speaking has also been reported throughout Church history. In 150 AD, Irenaeus, a Greek father of the early church, wrote “...we hear many of the brethren in the church who have prophetic gifts, and who speak in tongues through the Spirit, and who also bring to light the secret things of men for their benefit...” [3] [4] Tertullian (ca. 155-220) (a Latin father for the early church) also spoke favourably of this gift. [5]

Montanism was a prophetic movement that broke out in Phrigia in Roman Asia Minor (Turkey) around 172AD. It made tongues-speaking a central part of their worship experience. Montanists followed Montanus of Phrygis, who said he was the chosen instrument of the Spirit to prepare the church for the second coming. He taught a strict asceticism, which soon developed into legalism. It was condemned by bishops in Asia and elsewhere. A residual sect persisted in Phrygia for some centuries before it disappeared. [6]

By the middle of the fourth century, the practice seems to have diminished in the West, [7] although Vincent Ferrer and Francis Xavier were missionaries who described their miraculous ability to communicate with various groups as glossolalia, [8] and other examples exist. [9] In addition many believe that in the Eastern church tongues-speaking continued to be practised in Greek Orthodox monasteries throughout the Middle Ages. [10]

At the end of the seventeenth century, widespread tongues-speaking occurred for a little over a decade in southern France among a group of persecuted Huguenots. Similarly, in the 1730s an occurrence of tongues-speaking happened among a group of Catholic pietists, called the Jansenists. [11]

Then in the 1830s until the end of the century, a revival of tongues-speaking occurred in England during the ministry of Edward Irving. After reports that tongues-speaking had occurred in the west of Scotland in the spring of 1830, Irving himself shortly after reported such expressions in his Regent Square Church. Until the end of the century, his followers (Irvingites) made tongues-speaking central to their church life. [12]

The example of the Huguenots and Irvingites then led to similar occurrences in Mother Anne Lee's Shaker movement in England and America, and among the Mormons in America were Joseph Smith's followers in New York, Missouri, and Utah began practising tongues-speaking. [13] Not long after, in the 1850s, a tongues-speaking movement began in Russia that continued throughout the century. [14]

Similarly, beginning around 1860 on the Southern tip of India, through the influence of Plymouth Brethren theology [15] and the leadership of the Indian J.C. Aroolappen a revival of tongues-speaking and prophecy was reported. [16]

In addition to the occurrences of tongues-speaking in 1901 in Topeka and in Los Angeles in 1906-9, it also arose in the Welsh revival in 1904-5. [17]

It seems, then, that tongues-speaking, whether unknown utterances or miraculous gifts of languages have been reported throughout history. However, what makes Pentecostalism unique is that never before has tongues-speaking been given the doctrinal importance that modern Pentecostals gave to it.

“Pentecostals... were the first to give doctrinal primacy to the practice. Though Pentecostals recognize such sporadic instances of tongues-speaking and other charismatic phenomena throughout the Christian era, they stress the special importance of the Azusa Street revival, which occurred in... 1906 to 1909 and launched Pentecostalism as a worldwide movement.” [18]

But to understand why Pentecostals were the first charismatic movement in history to give tongues-speaking theological importance we need to understand the theological roots of Pentecostalism.

That's why in the next article, “Where did Pentecostalism come from?” we'll talk about the theological roots of Pentecostalism.

More on this topic

(PART 1) Where Pentecostalism came from - The theology of John Wesley

How Pentecostalism developed over time

Tongues and Spirit-baptism: What Pentecostals believe

The gift of tongues: What the Scriptures describe

- -

[1] The Greek word for “tongues” is, glossolalia, meaning “languages.” While the tongues-speaking enabled by the Spirit in Acts 2:4 were identifiable known dialects of countries foreign to the speaker, some think 1 Corinthians 14:2 indicates another type of tongues. This is based upon the view that if “no one understands him” except God, and his words “utter mysteries with his spirit,” then this tongues-speaking is not an actual language, but rather “unknown utterances.” Whether this is a valid reading of this text, this history to tongues-speaking records the reporting of both types of phenomenon (the miraculous gift of languages and speaking unknown utterances).

[2] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1206.

[3] Refutation and Overthrow of False Doctrine, p. 174.

[4] Elsewhere Irenaeus said, “When God saw it necessary, and the church prayed and fasted much, they did miraculous things, even of bringing back the spirit to a dead man.”

[5] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1207.

[6] David F. Wright (D.D, University of Edinburgh), “Montanism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 790.

[7] Chrysostom (ca. 347-407) was quite negative about it. Augustine (354-430) taught that it had been given only for the New Testament times. However, Luther and Calvin both accepted the continuing validity of tongues, speaking positively of the gift, primarily in terms of missionary preaching. Similarly, John Wesley believed that tongues-speaking was still a valid gift.

[8] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1208.

[9] Abbess Hildegard recorded unknown tongues in Lingua Ignota.

[10] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1208.

[11] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1208.

[12] Ian S. Rennie (Ph.D., University of Toronto), “Irving, Edward,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 617-618.

[13] Vinson Synan (Ph.D., University of Georgia), “Pentecostalism”, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 899.

[14] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1208.

[15] They taught a charismatic eschatology which they inherited from Edward Irving. Irving influenced J. N. Darby, a leader in the Brethren movement of the nineteenth-century. Irving taught a charismatic eschatology: that in a period prior to the Second Coming a special “latter-rain” outpouring of the Holy Spirit would occur. Darby became the leader of the exclusive group known as the Plymouth Brethren movement and develop classical dispensationalism, which even more specifically taught that there would be a special time in history for the church in the period just prior to Christ's Second Coming.

[16] Gary B. McGee (Ph.D., Professor of Church History, Chair, Bible and Theology Department at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary), Systematic Theology, Chapter 1 “Historical Background,” Logion Press, 1995, p. 10.

[17] Grant. R. Osborne (Ph.D., University of Aberdeen), “Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 1208.

[18] Vinson Synan (Ph.D., University of Georgia), “Pentecostalism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed., Paternoster Press, 2001, p. 899.

talkingpentecostalism.blogspot.com | joe towns: christian discussion on pentecost, charisma, pentecostal and charismatic beliefs, the Bible and Jesus; including the origin and history of pentecostalism, baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, gifts and miracles, divine healing and word of faith, prosperity and wealth, praise and worship, guidance and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit.