Acts 2:1-13:
1When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. 5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11 (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!" 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, "What does this mean?" 13Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."
Most Christians have heard this story. It is the story of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles enabling them to speak in tongues. But what does that mean? Some Christians will tell you that the apostles were simply speaking foreign languages. Others say that while they were actually speaking a "heavenly" language, the people listening to them heard various different human languages. Do Christians still speak in tongues today? If so, what do they sound like?
Pentecostal churches, such as the Church of Christ, derive their name from this event in chapter 2 of Acts. They belong to the school of thought that believes the apostles were speaking a heavenly language, and the Holy Spirit continues to bestow this gift upon believers today. Other mainstream Christian denominations disagree. But the differences in theology run deeper than merely the definition of "tongues." In order to understand these differences of opinion we must dig deeper and ask, "What does it mean to be 'baptized' by the Holy Spirit?" The two schools of thought provide different answers to this question, and those differences lead to their divergent conclusions about tongues.
From the outset I will tell you that I am not Pentecostal, so I disagree with their conclusions about tongues. However, I will try as best I can to begin this article by fairly and objectively making the case for the Pentecostal view (just as if the argument was being made by a leader from one of those churches) before I proceed to present the counterpoint.
The Pentecostal View
When speaking to the church in Corinth, the apostle Paul said, "anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God." 1 Corinthians 14:2. If tongues are only understood by God then they must not be any language spoken here on Earth. Only God understands them. Therefore, there must be some heavenly language that is spoken by God and the angels in Heaven. To us, this may sound like gibberish. But it makes perfect sense to God.
This is precisely what Jesus Himself said would happen. After His resurrection, Jesus told His disciples, "these signs will accompany those who believe: ... they will speak in new tongues." Mark 16:17. Any language that is already spoken by anyone here on Earth would be an "old" tongue. But Jesus said His believers would speak in "new" tongues. Therefore, whatever language is spoken by believers must be one that heretofore was unknown by mankind.
Go back to the story in Acts chapter 2. Verse 5 tells us that there were "God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven" present in Jerusalem. If they were from "every nation," or even every known nation, that's a lot of different languages represented. Surely the apostles could not have been speaking this many languages at once. Yet verse 8 says that each person heard the apostles in his or her own "native language." This means that the miracle of Pentecost was not just that the apostles were speaking a different language (they were; the heavenly language of God and the angels), but it was also in the hearing. God performed a miracle by allowing each individual person listening to hear the apostles in his or her native tongue, even though that is not what the apostles were speaking.
As verse 2 shows us, the ability to speak in tongues comes from the Holy Spirit. According to Pentecostals, most Christians misunderstand the way the Holy Spirit works. The Holy Spirit certainly plays a role in salvation. He does convict us of our sin. But being "baptized by the Holy Spirit" refers to a different experience entirely. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is something that happens to believers after they are saved. For example, look at the story in Acts 8:9-17:
9Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. He boasted that he was someone great, 10and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, "This man is the divine power known as the Great Power." 11They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw. 14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
Notice something about this story. The believers in Samaria believed and were baptized. Yet Peter and John noticed that they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. They prayed and laid hands on the Samaritan believers. Only then did the Holy Spirit come.
A similar story is found in Acts 19:1-7:
1While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples 2and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 6When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. 7There were about twelve men in all.
Pentecostals argue that this passage is even clearer. Not only do we yet again see that the coming of the Holy Spirit is a separate event from salvation, but we also see that the result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.
This shows that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is theologically subsequent to salvation. Usually this means that it will come chronologically after salvation, although it is possible for them to occur in the same overall transaction. They can occur at the same time, but they would still be two separate (yet simultaneous) events.
Because the baptism of the Holy Spirit usually comes after salvation, it is possible to be saved and not yet be speaking in tongues. However, speaking in tongues is the "initial physical evidence" of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. While the Spirit may give other gifts, the speaking of tongues is always the first gift given.
Take five examples of people in the Bible receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit:
Acts 2:4: "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."
Acts 8:17: "Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit."
Acts 9:17: "Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord - Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.'"
Acts 10:44-46: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God."
Acts 19:6: "When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all."
Of these five examples, three explicitly mention the gift of tongues as accompanying the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The other two don't mention what gifts are given, so it is impossible to draw any conclusions one way or the other. Therefore, all of the evidence we have for the initial gift of the Spirit indicates that it is speaking in tongues.
Believers can speak in tongues both privately and in corporate worship. "He who speaks in tongues edifies himself." 1 Corinthians 14:4. So tongues-speaking in private can bring enrichment to the individual believer. But glossalia (the Pentecostal word for speaking in tongues) while in worship can benefit the entire congregation as long as an interpretation is also provided. After all, Paul said, "if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?" 1 Corinthians 14:6.
The conclusion that we derive from this Biblical evidence is that once believers are saved, they will receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The first evidence of that baptism is speaking in tongues. This is not referring to any human language, but rather a heavenly language that sounds largely unrecognizable to us here on Earth (hence the need for the gift of interpretation of tongues). This is precisely what we hear during every service in a Pentecostal church.
The Foreign Language View
The opposing view that is held by the majority of Christians (although Pentecostalism is growing more rapidly than any other subset of Christianity) believes that when the apostles were speaking in tongues, they were speaking foreign earthly languages, not some mysterious heavenly language.
First, let us look at how the word "tongue" is used throughout the New Testament. The Greek language has a number of different words for "tongue." The particular word used in verse 4 of the Pentecost story is transliterated "glossa." This word refers to the human organ and in some contexts to languages. "Dialektos," as may seem obvious by looking at the word, refers to a dialect. This is the word translated as "tongue" in verse 11 of the Pentecost narrative. "Hebraisti" is used to refer specifically to the Hebrew language or tongue.
Both "glossa" and "dialektos" are used to refer to human languages. The following two examples (from the Revised Standard Version) illustrate the point:
Revelation 7:9: "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues [glossa], standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands..."
Acts 26:14: "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language [dialektos], `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It hurts you to kick against the goads.'"
Outside of the verses that Pentecostals encourage us to interpret as a heavenly language, there is no example anywhere in the Bible of either of these words being used to refer to some mysterious heavenly dialect. This opens up the strong possibility that Pentecostals are reading their theology into the text rather than deriving their theology from the text.
So does the Pentecost story in Acts 2 really show that the apostles were speaking some mysterious "heavenly" language? One point that could be made in favor of the Pentacostal view (although I have not personally ever heard or read anyone making it) is that two different words are translated "tongues" in the story. When discussing what the apostles were speaking, the word "glossa" is used. When discussing what the people were hearing, the Bible uses the word "dialektos." A Pentecostal Christian could argue that "dialektos" in this context refers to human languages. The masses were actually hearing human languages. But Luke, the author of Acts, used a different word to describe what the apostles were actually speaking. This was because (so the Pentecostal argument would go) the apostles were not speaking in the same language as the people were hearing.
One problem with this argument, as we've already pointed out, is that both glossa and dialektos are used to refer to human languages. But the bigger problem for the Pentecostal view is that verse 4 says that the apostles were speaking in "tongues" (plural), not "a tongue" (singular). This is true in Greek as well as English. If the apostles were all speaking this one heavenly language, they only would have been speaking in one tongue, not several. And of course, if they weren't speaking a heavenly language, we are left with the normal definition of these terms; human languages.
Also, nothing in Acts chapter 2 requires that each individual apostle was only speaking in one language. Pentecostals seems to assume that the apostles were "declaring the wonders of God" one time only. A far more reasonable interpretation (and one more consistent with the text) is that the apostles were declaring God's wonders, first in one foreign language then another. Peter may have started out speaking the language of the Parthians then moving to the Medes. Maybe Thomas started out speaking to the Phrygians then preached the gospel to those from Pamphylia. The miracle noted by the listeners was not that they were all hearing different languages when the apostles spoke but rather that "Galileans" were speaking all these different languages (verses 7-8), languages they should not know.
So Acts chapter 2 does not seem to support the view that the apostles were speaking some heavenly language. But what about the other verses relied upon by Pentecostals?
At first glance, 1 Corinthians 14:2 seems pretty persuasive. After all, it explicitly says that anyone speaking in tongues is speaking "to God." Doesn't this indicate that they are speaking the same language as God?
First of all, God can speak in whatever language He likes. He spoke to Moses in Hebrew. Jesus (God the Son) spoke in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. God knows everything. Certainly He can understand what we are saying regardless of the language we are speaking.
Second, Pentecostals commit the same mistake that is all too common in Biblical interpretation: plucking a verse out from the surrounding context and trying to give it a completely different meaning than it originally had. Look at the context in which this "speaking to God" verse occurs:
1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. 6Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?
1 Corinthians 14:1-6.
Does this passage sound like it is praising the fact that a tongues-speaker is speaking only to God? Paul is actually scolding those in the Corinthian church who are longing for the gift of tongues over other gifts. Paul's point is that if you are speaking some unknown tongue, nobody in the congregation will understand you. Only God (who is always present) has any clue what you have said because He knows all tongues. But if you are blessed with the gift of prophecy, everyone in the church can benefit from what you are saying.
The same is true of Pentecostals using this passage to claim that Christians can "edify" themselves by speaking tongues in private. The entire context of this verse deals with what is going on in corporate worship. The point is the same. If nobody understands what you are saying, you are not benefiting anybody but yourself. But if you are prophesying, the entire church benefits. These verses have nothing to do with encouraging yourself by speaking tongues in private.
Of course, looking at the context of this passage leads to another problem for the Pentecostal perspective. Paul specifically says, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues..." Why would he say this if they were all speaking in tongues already? Clearly not everyone who is baptized by the Holy Spirit speaks in tongues.
Pentecostals believe that the apostles were speaking a heavenly language that was then heard by the listeners as their native tongue. But if this were true, then why would Paul (in 1 Corinthians 14:2) describe speaking in tongues as something that cannot be understood by anyone? This verse only makes sense if Paul was speaking of foreign languages that could not be understood by anyone in the congregation. He obviously did not literally mean that tongues could never be understood. After all, the listeners at Pentecost understood the tongues spoken by the apostles perfectly well.
What about Jesus' statement that "these signs will accompany those who believe: ... they will speak in new tongues"? Mark 16:17. A simple illustration should demonstrate the fallacy in the Pentecostal reliance upon this verse. If I told you that in my sophomore year in High School I started learning a "new" language, what would you think? Would you think that aliens from some distant planet came down and started teaching me to speak like them? Would you think that angels visited me to teach me a heavenly tongue? Or would it be far more reasonable that I enrolled in Spanish 101 and started learning that "new" language"? Saying that a language is "new" does not mean it has to be "new" to everyone on Earth. It only has to be "new" to the speaker. Jesus was telling the apostles that a time would come when His followers would miraculously speak human languages that they did not previously understand. That is precisely what happened at Pentecost.
How about the two stories from Acts that Pentecostals use to argue that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" refers to a separate and theologically subsequent event to salvation. Look at the two stories and ask whether these people were really saved in the first place.
The first story (Acts 8:9-17) does not really help us one way or the other. Peter and John noticed that the Samaritans had not received the Holy Spirit. They had only been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. There are plenty of people in the church today who have been baptized and claim to be Christian but who have not truly accepted Jesus in their hearts. It is at least as likely that the people in Acts chapter 8 were not truly saved as it is that they were. Perhaps by noticing that the "Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them," Peter and John were noticing that they had not truly accepted Christ.
This becomes clearer in the next story (Acts 19:1-7). Paul asked these people in Corinth, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" When they explained that they had not, Paul pressed the questioning further. He asked them whose baptism they had received. As it turns out, it was John's baptism, not Jesus'. Paul went on to explain the difference and baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ. Clearly, Paul expected that the Holy Spirit would have been present the moment they believed or he never would have asked the question in the first place. But most importantly, these people were not true believers in Christ before Paul arrived. They were followers of John the Baptist, not Jesus, and they just assumed there was no difference.
It is true that the Holy Spirit continues to work in our lives after we are saved. He bestows gifts and helps us along the path of sanctification, the process of becoming more and more like Christ throughout our lives. But there is nothing in the scriptures to support the idea that there is some separate "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that comes after salvation for all true believers in which they begin speaking in tongues.
Finally, all the examples of believers starting to speak in tongues (Acts 2:4,10:44-46 and 19:6) only show that glossalia was one gift given to believers. It does not mean that it was given to everyone, especially in the face of evidence to the contrary.
So far I've only discussed the defensive case against Pentecostalism. We've taken the alleged evidence in favor of the Pentecostal position and shown why it does not prove what they claim it proves. I have yet to present the affirmative evidence against Pentecostalism, so that is where I will turn next.
1 Corinthians, the same letter that Pentecostals rely upon so heavily, contains a pretty explicit proof against their theology. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11 is one of the more famous passages in the Bible:
7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. 8To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, 10to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
This verse is pretty clear. There are many gifts of the Holy Spirit and we do not all receive the same gift. Some speak in tongues. Others do not. Two verses later, Paul explains that the baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to salvation, almost as if he was speaking directly to the Pentecostals. "For we were all baptized by one Spirit - into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink." Put it together. All Christians are baptized by the Holy Spirit. Not all Christians speak in tongues. Therefore, speaking in tongues cannot be the result of being baptized by the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the act that brings us all "into one body;" i.e., salvation. Once we come to Christ, we are all part of the body of Christ.
If those verses were not clear enough, Paul emphasizes the point again at the end of the chapter. "29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts." 1 Corinthians 12:29-31. Clearly, the connotation here implies that the answer to all of these questions is "no."
Pentecostals try to explain away these passages by claiming that they only address speaking in tongues while in public worship. Not everyone speaks in tongues in public, but everyone who has received the baptism of the Spirit will at least engage in glossalia in private. To support this view they rely largely upon the same verses as before, 1 Corinthians 14:4 and 6. Allegedly, because these verses show that someone speaking in tongues "edifies" himself while explaining that tongues must be interpreted for the congregation, this makes a distinction between private and public tongues. But as I discussed previously, this passage has nothing to do with private glossalia. It is teaching that the spiritual gifts that benefit the entire congregation are superior to speaking in tongues, because without interpretation tongues cannot be understood by anyone. The bigger problem for the Pentecostal response, though, is that the two passages in 1 Corinthians 12 simply do not make the private versus public distinction Pentecostals want to read into them. It is just not there. Paul does not ask "Do all speak in tongues during worship?" He only asks, "Do all speak in tongues?"
The Pentecostal view also does not hold up to cross-examination. If glossalia is the initial manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit for all believers, why did this phenomenon virtually disappear from Christian history until it was allegedly revived by the early charismatic movement during the early 20th century? The Church of Christ answers this question by arguing that this Biblical doctrine was simply neglected by the church. But that does not answer the question. Supposedly, glossalia finds its origin in the action of God, not in the action of man. If God truly bestows tongues upon all believers, then people should be speaking in tongues whether they understand the divine origin of the gift or not. God's gifts are not conditioned upon man's understanding. Yet centuries go by without any record of Christians speaking in tongues. If Pentecostalism is true, this should not happen.
How does the Church of Christ explain the existence of Christians who have accomplished great things for Christ, yet who have never spoken in tongues? In their statement on the baptism of the Holy Spirit approved by their General Presbytery on August 11, 2000, the Church of Christ concedes that many Christians who made great strides for Jesus did not speak in tongues. In response to the question, they state, "every believer must determine whether to accept or reject this provision of God's grace." But again, this does not answer the challenge. Supposedly glossalia is the first manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit. If it must be first, then you cannot receive any further gifts until you receive this one. The Church of Christ believes that "It is the baptism in the Holy Spirit that endues a person with power for ministry. Nothing else can take its place." So how did all of these great Christians accomplish such wonderful things if they were not empowered by the Spirit? If they were empowered by the Spirit, then why weren't they speaking in tongues? The Pentecostal view does not fit the evidence. You cannot have it both ways. Either these people were able to do all these things without the help of the Spirit (something that is clearly unbiblical) or else we do not need to speak in tongues in order to be empowered Christians.
Conclusion
The Pentecostal argument on speaking in tongues commits many of the same errors that are far too common in the church today. It takes verses out of their context and reads a preconceived conclusion into the text rather than allowing the text to dictate the proper conclusion. We should always be wary of arriving at our beliefs before we open the Bible. The temptation is far too strong to attempt to mold God's Word so that it says what we want it to say rather than what God wants it to say. It is the same temptation that overtook Eve in the Garden of Eden. After all, did not the serpent ask her, "Did God really say...?”
When we look to the scriptures in context and allow them to teach us proper theology, we are forced to take Paul at his word. Not everyone will speak in tongues. Whether we feel encouraged or not when we speak in tongues is irrelevant. After all, the heart can be deceived. Trust God's Word, not your heart.
Finally, Pentecostals and non-Pentecostals alike believe in salvation by grace through faith. We don't see eye to eye on speaking in tongues. But Paul encourages us to "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). This is one of those issues that we should not allow to divide us. If you ever find yourself discussing this issue with a fellow Christian and start to feel it driving a wedge between you, it is time to change the subject.
|
