It is my sincerest belief that the Catholic church, especially in Singapore, does not teach its Catholics properly about the gift of tongues.
Although the charismatic gift of tongues is used by many charismatic groups, there are few charismatics that can properly explain the gifts in a way that corresponds to reality.
For example, some charismatics teach that if you don't use your gift of tongues, it will vanish. That's just not true. I am not the only one who has tested this out.
I had an idea on this gift of tongues, but nothing concrete then, so I put it aside until it was time to think about it again and discover more.
After Mass on Pentecost Sunday, I found myself dwelling on the gift of tongues again. While walking down the leaf-strewn pavement, I chanced across a tract from True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church titled "Charismatic Tongues Examined" by Jeffrey Khoo.
I decided to take a look at what this church had to say about the gift, since what the Catholic church here says about it leaves me dissatisfied.
While I don't agree with a lot of what is written in the tract, there are a few gems I picked up:
It is important to note that when the gift of tongues is given to an individual, the Holy Spirit supernaturally enables him to speak in tongues. One does not need to go through any speech training in order to exercise the gift. Tongue-speaking is not letting one's tongue "roll" in super-quick hallelujahs till one gibbers. Such self-induced and self-taught tongues are not biblical tongues. The ability to speak in tongues is God-given, not man-made!
This paragraph has a lot of truth in it. I remember being taught how to use my gift of tongues… actually inducing it to appear. I don't remember being taught how to use any of my other gifts of the Holy Spirit.
The confusion over tongue-speaking is not new. Paul found absolute confusion over the use of spiritual gifts in the church at Corinth (1 Cor 12-14). The gift of tongues was abused by the Christians there. Every member in church wanted to speak in tongues. Obviously, some did not have the gift, but pretended to have it by speaking ecstatically.
Doesn't that happen at charismatic prayer meetings too? Have you ever wondered how all these people can seem to have the gift of tongues? Why would this gift be so common compared to other gifts of the Holy Spirit? Could it be because many people are actually pretending to have it just so that they are not left out?
Looking at 1 Corinthians 14, which seems to be a chapter that I've never read before in this light, I see that Paul writes about how he would rather the Christians have the gift of prophecy rather than the gift of tongues because "the one with the gift of tongues talks for his own benefit, but the man who prophesies does so for the benefit of the community."
Paul is quite humourous too, when he adds:
Now suppose, my dear brothers, I am someone with the gift of tongues, and I come to visit you, what use shall I be if all my talking reveals nothing new, tells you nothing, and neither inspires you nor instructs you?
- 1 Cor 14:6
He then gives the analogy of music:
Think of a musical instrument, a flute or a harp: if one note on it cannot be distinguished from another, how can you tell what tune is being played? … It is the same with you: of your tongue does not produce intelligible speech, how can anyone know what you are saying? You will be talking to the air. There are any number of different languages in the world, and not one of them is meaningless, but if I am ignorant of what the sounds mean, I am a savage to the man who is speaking, and he is a savage to me. It is the same in your own case: since you aspire to spiritual gifts, concentrate on those which will grow to benefit the community.
- 1 Cor 14:7-12
So basically what Paul is saying is that the gift of tongues alone is useless to the community. Even an entire community praying with the gift of tongues alone, without anyone to interpret it, is useless to the community, because no one understands what anyone is saying and therefore cannot benefit from it.
The tract goes on:
Thus the one who speaks in tongues edifies only himself since without an interpreter or translator, he is the only one who understands what he is saying (1 Cor 14:4). Paul emphasized the importance of understanding: "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue" (1 Cor 14:19).
So what then? Is the gift of tongues not a good thing to have? Paul continues in 1 Cor 14:26-33, 36-40 :
At all your meetings, let everyone be ready with a psalm or a sermon or a revelation, or ready to use his gift of tongues or to give an interpretation; but it must always be for the common good.
That makes sense… otherwise why gather in a community? Might as well pray alone, right?
If there are people present with the gift of tongues, let only two or three, at the most, be allowed to use it, and only one at a time, and there must be someone to interpret.
Not "let's everyone with the gift of tongues use it at the same time throwing the whole room into confusion."
If there is no interpreter present, they must keep quiet in church and speak only to themselves and to God.
Not "start talking in tongues and loudly too, so that everyone else can wait for you to finish showing them that you're holy because you can use the gift of tongues."
As for prophets, let two or three of them speak, and the others attend to them. If one of the listeners receives a revelation, then the man who is already speaking should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn, so that everybody will learn something and everybody will be encouraged. Prophets can always control their prophetic spirits, since God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
Can you believe it? Paul makes no mention of "a burning feeling in your heart that if you don't say what's in there, you will burst"! Finally, Paul writes:
Do you think the word of God came out of yourselves? Or that it has come only to you? Anyone who claims to be a prophet or inspired ought to recognise that hat I am writing to you is a command from the Lord. Unless he recognises this, you should not recognise him.
And so, my dear brothers, by all means be ambitious to prophesy, do not suppress the gift of tongues, but let everything be done with propriety and in order.
If you noticed, I stopped referring to the tract, because it goes on to tell about some things that I seriously disagree with e.g. the biblical gifts of tongues, knowledge and prophecy have ceased, and that they ceased when the last book of the Bible was written. Why I disagree with that is because when the last book of the Bible was written, it was not for another hundred years or more before the contents of the Bible was finalised.
Filed under: General, Gifts of the Holy Spirit, Tongues
Dear Catholicwriter,
You raise a number of valid points, and I think most of your questions in a sense, revolve around public tongues and private tongues. I would like to offer some observations.
First of all, Paul was writing to First Century Christians to whom speaking in tongues was a first century reality experienced in the presence of the Original Apostles, not to 21st century Christians to whom speaking in tongues is a rediscovered gift that had been largely neglected by the Church for centuries. As such, I think the context of many of Paul's comments were immediately identifiable and obvious to his readers, where to us, the context and implications are less clear.
Paul, for instance, makes two contradictory statements about speaking in tongues, which I think they immediately understood, but which we misconstrue. He wrote:
1. "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God…" I Cor. 14:2.
2. "…With men of other tongues and other lips will I [God] speak unto this people…"I Cor. 14:21.
Paul describes tongues as "speaking not to men" but also, "God speaking to men." These are mutually exclusive. How can a single gift never speak to men, and at the same time, speak to men? No gift can.
I believe they understood, and we should understand, that Paul was speaking of two different types of tongues: speaking in tongues, and the Gift of Speaking in tongues publicly. Allow me to draw an analogy.
I speak English. I have spoken English all my life. I have the ability to speak in English at will, any time I like. But just because I speak in English, and can stand up in a service and speak in English, that does not mean that everything I say in English is the Gift of Prophecy. If God gives me the Gift of Prophecy, then this is how it operates: I can speak in English at home, and all the way to the service. I can talk to friends in English before the service. I can whisper comments to the person beside me in English concerning how dull I think the sermon is. Then I can talk in English all the way home, and at work and everywhere else at will, all week long. None of that is the Gift of Prophecy.
But then I may be in a service, and the Spirit of God may suddenly inspire me, and the Gift of Prophecy can come into operation, and I can stand up and speak out in English, "Thus saith the Lord…," and continue on exercising the Gift of Prophecy until the Lord finishes. Then I return to speaking in English all week. Nothing else I say in English is prophecy, unless the Lord inspires me to speak. Then I prophesy in English, because that is the language I speak.
A couple of questions to consider: Could I have the Gift of Prophecy if I were mute? No, because the ability to speak is necessary for prophecy. The spirit inspires me to speak out prophecy in English, because English is the language I speak. Could I publicly speak out a message in tongues, if I did not have the ability to speak in tongues? No. I would have to be able to speak in tongues, before God could use me to publicly give a message in tongues.
Paul was writing throughout First Corinthians twelve, thirteen, and fourteen about both kinds of speaking in tongues: the ability, and the full-blown Gift.
You receive the ability to speak in tongues, when you experience the infilling or the "baptism" in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you receive the ability to speak in tongues. Some people call this a "prayer language," which is an ok term to use if you want to. Paul was writing of the ability to speak in tongues, or the prayer language when he wrote, "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth him…"
When you are filled with the Spirit you receive the ability to speak in tongues. You can exercise that at will. It is not a gift, it is an ability. You can use it to pray to God, and Paul used it to sing unto God in worship. There is no restriction on it's use. There is no need for interpretation, for it is addressed unto God, and men have no need of understanding the content because God already understands what is being said.
Some people who have the ability to speak in tongues, who have a "prayer language" will sometimes be chosen by God to be used in the full Gift of Tongues. Just as he may anoint me to speak out prophecy in the only language I know–English, if I already speak in tongues, He may choose to anoint me to speak out publicly a message from Him in tongues to a congregation. In this instance of public exercise of the actual Gift of Tongues, the Scripture is fulfilled, "With men of other tongues and other lips will I [God] speak unto this people." When this happens, the message in tongues is to be publicly interpreted. And if no one seems able to interpret the tongue, the speaker should not keep standing there, repeating the same message in tongues over and over. Paul directs us that he should sit down, and speak to himself and to God. Of course. And there is the restriction that only two or three should speak out messages in tongues publicly in a service, take turns doing so until God seems to be through, and let one person interpret.
Perfectly reasonable. Perfectly logical.
What happens all to often in our services is that someone who has the ability to speak in tongues, but does not have the Gift to speak in tongues publicly, will stand up, speak out some sentences loudly in their prayer language, and sit down. Then there is an awkward silence as people wonder why there is no interpretation.
Then the silence becomes so deafening, that someone will stand up and ramble off something in English to fill the void in the air. It doesn't seem to have much anointing in it, or much blessing in it. And usually the "interpretations" are similar and repetetive, and predictable. "Oh boy," we think, "there's Brother so and so. Praise and worship is endind. Now's his cue to speak in tongues." And Brother so and so does his thing. "Now it's time for Sister so and so." And Sister so and so stands up and "interprets" saying a variation of what she always says. "Oh My people, My people, I am pleased with your praises. They have ascended unto Me like the insense in the Temple of old…" Next Sunday her "interpretation" will be, "Oh My people, My people, My people, [three My people's this time] I am blessed by thy praises. [blessed and thy this time]. They have ascended unto Me like the wings of angels…[that's good, we think. Angel's wings this time instead of insense. I was bored with the insense interpretations anyway]. I'm exaggerating of course, but not by much.
I have had the ability to speak in tongues, my "prayer language" if you want to call it that since 1981. I prayed to God and sang to God in worship in tongues countless times. Never did I speak out a public message in tongues in a service–I had the ability to speak in tongues, but not the Gift of Tongues. Then in 1989, a minister I had known for years, who was used for over 50 years in the Gift of Tongues, laid hands on me. And God for His own reasons, imparted to me the Gift of Speaking in Tongues. Immediately I found myself experiencing this Gift. Suddenly, it was as though Tongues were boiling up out of the inside of me, and I would stand up and speak them out. And someone used in interpretation would immediately begin interpreting, or I would interpret it myself. And it was beautiful.
I've given several thousand messages in tongues to congregations and to individuals over the last 17 years since the Gift came. And no two have been the same. Some have encouraged us to remain true to God. Other's have spoken of Christ's magnificant life and sacrifice. Others were for individuals, giving them ecouragment.
In my prayer language, I pray "unto God and no man understandeth [what I'm saying, me included]." Then as the Spirit wills, God uses me in the Gift of Tongues for others, and He speaks through me to others. I've experienced both the ability and the Gift.
If there were clearer teaching on the difference between the ability to speak in tongues, and the Gift of Speaking in tongues in a public service, there would be much less confusion, and much more blessing.
Kind Regards,
Brother Mel
Dear Brother Mel,
Thanks for your comment. It’s really enlightening and great to hear from someone who has the gift of tongues today (which totally refutes the last part of that tract about such gifts having ceased
). There are just some parts that I need to clarify.
First, you shared that St. Paul was writing to the Corinthians, a first-century audience, not to 21st century Christians. If I remember correctly, one of the four criteria of the choice of a book in the New Testament for the canon of the Bible is the universality of its message. To be sure, Paul wrote many other letters to many other communities, as did the other apostles, but only a few were taken and placed into the canon of the Bible. The reason being that these messages are universal, that is, the message is applicable to Christians anywhere and any time. After all, we still continue to use many other parts of St. Paul’s letters to the Christians.
Second, about the apparent discrepancy between 1 Cor 14:2 and 1 Cor 14:21, it would seem that Paul is writing about the gift of tongues as the ability to speak in a foreign language, not as the ability to speak gibberish which somehow makes sense to people who hear it. Recall the day of Pentecost, when the apostles went out and started speaking in strange languages, and the people who heard it understood what they were saying. It is not because the apostles were speaking gibberish. They were actually speaking in foreign languages that they have never learnt before. This is the gift of tongues, as written by St. Paul to the Corinthians, to speak to people in a foreign language that they can understand.
In 1 Cor 14:2, St. Paul first writes about the usage of the gift of tongues among a local community. He tells the Corinthians, if you are among your community and you speak in a different language, you are talking to yourself and to God. Better that you sit down and shut up, and talk to God when you’re alone with him, not with your community, because the community isn’t benefitting from what you are saying at all (in essence, that’s what I believe he’s saying).
In 1 Cor 14:21, St. Paul is quotes from Isaiah 28:11-12. His meaning is that “if the Jews won’t listen to me (God) in their own language, then I will use foreign language to speak to them”. Not foreign language that the Jews don’t understand, but foreign language that they do understand, because many of these Jews understood other languages as well, languages from the countries in the region. St. Paul goes on to say that the gift of tongues, that is, speaking in strange languages, is meant to be used for unbelievers, not for believers.
His meaning here is that believers already speak in the same language and they gather together to pray in a common language. Let’s say that your community speaks English, and when you use the gift of tongues, it comes out in French and there is no one to interpret what you are saying, then what you have said has gone to waste. On the other hand, if you were evangelising in a foreign country and you have the gift of speaking in a foreign language, the gift of tongues, then what you preach in that foreign language with the gift of tongues does not go to waste.
This is why St. Paul says to the Corinthians, and to us, if you’re in a community that all speaks a common language, it is better for you to use the gift of prophecy, so that everyone who hears it might benefit from it. This is written in 1 Cor 22-25:
You see then, that the strange languages are meant to be a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while on the other hand, prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers. So that any uninitiated people or unbelievers, coming into a meeting of the whole church wehre everybody was speaking in tongues, would say you are all mad; but if you were all prophesying and an unbeliever or uninitiated person came in, he would find himself analysed and judged by everyone speaking; he would find his secret throughs laid bare, and then fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is among you indeed.
It is wonderful that you have the gift of tongues, Brother Mel, as it is meant to be used today. But as to whether or not there is such an ability to speak in tongues as you describe, I seriously wonder whether that is not just people’s desire to believe that they have the gift of tongues when they actually don’t. I doubt that your analogy of a muted being unable to prophesy if he doesn’t have the prerequisite ability of speech can be translated to a person being unable to use the gift of tongues if he doesn’t have the prerequisite ability of tongues.
A person without the gift of prophesy but with the ability to speak still can use his ability to help others grow in the faith. A person without the gift of tongues but with the ability to use tongues… what can he do with that ability to help others grow in the faith?
Hello Brother,
Interesting and straightforward questions and comments. I will address as many as I can in this post, and may have to address the rest later. I'll address them point by point.
Point one. Allow me to clarify. As I re-read what I wrote, I wrote what you said, but that is not what I meant. Let me re-phrase. What Paul wrote in I and II Corinthians, and all of his other Epistles was written equally to all Christians for all times. All his writings apply equally to first century Christians, and to us today. Or to use your phrase, they are indeed Universal.
What I meant was, that what the First Century Christians had, that we do not have today, is the experience of personally witnessing how the Original Apostles spoke in tongues. The gift was active in an unbroken line from the Original Apostles and participants at Pentecost, through to Paul, and from Paul, then into their midst at Corinth. The Gift of Tongues was not a gift that had been neglected for centuries, and re-discovered, as it is to us today.
So, when Paul wrote about "speaking in tongues," they understood his writings in context, because speaking in tongues had always been in clear manifestation in their churches. Because Speaking in Tongues was a gift almost entirely ignored until only about 100 years ago, when we hear this re-discovered gift today, we wonder sometimes, "Is this tongues, or is it gibberish?" We have today no indisputable audible reference–such as a recording of the Apostles speaking in tongues–with which to compare it.
In other words, when Paul writes a statement about exercising speaking in tongues, there could be no possible misunderstanding of his instruction by First Century Christians, because they had genuine tongues in their midst, and genuine Apostles to correct any errors which arose. Even though the Word of God remains the same, and provides the same standard for us that they had, never the less, our personal experience is less indisputable, and living Apostolic confirmation from the Original Apostles is no longer impossible.
My ultimate point is that Paul's statements about tongues, which could not possibly be misunderstood, or taken out of context in the First Century due to the abundance of their personal experience with tongues, can be easily misunderstood today as we are used in this re-discovered gift. And misunderstandings that the Early Church never thought of, abound today!
Concerning your second point. Let's review together the context of Pentecost, and what the Scriptures specifically say about it, and the two different kinds of tongues will become clearer. Again, and let me respectfully emphasize this as one brother in the Lord to another, forget what we assume it says about Pentecost, and look at what was specifically said. I don't have my Bible with me at the moment, so I can't quote it precisely. Please re-read the account when you have time.
The Apostles, Mary, the brethren of Jesus, and other disciples were gathered together in an upper room. Jesus had instructed them in the last chapter of Luke to "Wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard of me." He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, and that he would "Send the promise of the Father UPON you," and that they would receive "power from on high." So as they gathered together in the Upper Room, they were praying, and waiting, but they did not know what to specifically expect. They just knew that the Holy Ghost and power was coming. When Pentecost came, the Spirit came with a rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues as of fire, etc. They began to speak in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Notice now what they did not do. They did not go out into the streets and speak to people in other tongues. They remained in the upper room, and as the King James translates it, "it was noised abroad." In other words, word got out that something strange had happened to some people in the upper room. Passersby gathered around who probably were already fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and they were stunned to find these fellow Jews speaking in dialects from far-away lands. Evidently for the speakers, it was a very heady, seemingly intoxicating experience, because onlookers wrote it all off as being the result of alcoholic intoxication.
The hearers described what the speakers were saying in these foreign tongues. Notice they don't say, "We hear in our native tongues about a sinless man being crucified on a cross, and that whosoever believes in him will have everlasting life." They didn't say, "We hear about the long-promised Messiah!" No, they said, "We hear in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." What were they hearing?
Praise.
The Spirit fell at Pentecost in an upper room. They began speaking in tongues, praises unto God, speaking of His wonderful works. Passersby were drawn in because they heard their native dialects being spoken.
After they heard the tongues, Peter still had to stand up and present the Gospel to them in Hebrew. He did not preach to them in tongues. No one preached to anybody else in tongues. They had spoken praises to God in tongues, and Peter presented the Gospel in Hebrew, and thousands came to faith in Christ.
This was what I call the ability to speak in tongues, not the Gift of speaking in tongues. Or, this was what some call a "prayer language." It was being exercised IN PRIVATE, and was overheard. It was directed to God, not to other men. Other men simply overheard what was said. Had it been the Gift of speaking public messages in tongues, Paul's later instructions would have required that only 2 0r 3 of the 120 spoke, and then one at a time, with one interpreting. So, one would have spoken a message in Phoenician, for instance, and Peter or someone else would have been required to interpret the message back into Hebrew or Greek so that ALL could have benefitted. But Peter did not do that. No one interpreted anything. God did not use the Gift of Tongues to speak to assembled men. This was the prayer language overheard by those who happened to understand some of the languages being spoken.
I've seen an example of this myself. My Mother has spoken in tongues for as long as I have, and within the last year or so, has also begun to be used in giving public messages in tongues from time to time, and I have interpreted them. But several years ago, I overheard her praying in tongues. Her language sounded vaguely Middle-Eastern to me. So I listened to several words, and wrote down how they sounded phonetically. I took these words to an Iranian friend of mine who spoke Farsi, and repeated the words to him. He said, "I recognize those words. She is speaking in ancient Persian." This was her prayer language, long before she began to be used in the public gift of speaking in tongues. This is similar to what was seen on Pentecost. There people were praising God in their newly acquired languages, and others overheard.
We do not know if Paul himself was ever used in the gift of speaking public messages in tongues. We do know that he had the ability to speak in tongues, he had the prayer language, and exercised it very extensively. He said "I will pray with the Spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also. I will sing with the Spirit, and I will sing with the Spirit also."
A similar experience happened at the house of Cornelius. The Holy Spirit fell on the whole group. They all spoke in tongues. No interpretation was given of any of the messages. Not one. Why? Because it wasn't the Gift of speaking public messages in tongues. They were simply speaking prayers and praises unto God in their newly acquired prayer language.
I think we have to conclude one of two things. Either Peter held two astonishingly out-of-order services, or he did not. If the people were speaking in their prayer languages at Pentecost and Cornelius' house, then Peter handled it correctly by letting them speak to God as much as they wanted, and without interpretation. If though they were all exercising the full-blown Gift of Tongues, Peter erred severely by not limiting the speech to two or three, and requiring each message to be interpreted. The only conclusion I can reach is that in both instances the people were simply speaking to God in their prayer language, and not the Gift, and that no interpretation was needed.
Allow me to throw you a curve, (If I haven't already). The Gift of Tongues was never given, so far as I can determine from Scripture and from Church history, to PREACH to foreigners with. Think of it a little bit. Peter spoke in tongues. Peter travelled to a foreign country or two, but he never PREACHED to them in tongues. If he had, don't you think the Bible would have recorded such a substantial miracle? Of course it would have. All of the remaining Apostles spoke in tongues. All but one went to foreign lands at one point or another. Not one of them PREACHED IN TONGUES in a foreign country. We may have an unverifiable third or fourth-hand account of someone somewhere preaching in other tongues, but no clear historical or Scriptural example of it. What a waste! If the Gift of Tongues was the ability to speak in a foreign tongue for the purpose of evangelism, don't you think at least one of the 120 would have done it? Don't you think that God would have given us at least one example of it? But He didn't. Why? Because that is not the purpose for the Gift of Tongues.
I've run out of time. I'll need to continue this in the next day or so in order to address your other points.
Kind Regards,
Brother Mel
Hello Brother Mel,
It is good to hear from you again. Take your time to address the points. There's no rush.
You are right in saying that the gift of tongues the first century Christians had in their midst was not one that had been neglected for centuries and then re-discovered… which also brings the question: is the gift of tongues discovered today, the same one as the first century Christians had? Just a thought.
Although Acts 2 follows immediately after the election of Matthias at which 120 people were gathered, it was not the 120 that were present at Pentecost. Rather, it was the group of apostles mentioned in 1:13-14. These were the ones that were staying in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended on them. Minor detail, I know…
As you mentioned, had this been the gift of speaking in tongues, Paul's later instruction that only two or three speak would have been followed. But how can this be, since Paul's instruction came much later after the event? Presumably the apostles had run into much confusion over the frequent usage of the gift of tongues, which is why they laid down some ground rules, which is what Paul wrote to the Corinthians about. Since it is their first time using the gift, how could there have been any rules to follow?
But even in this event, we could see that the apostles did not continue to speak in tongues all at once, and continue to allow people to think them drunk. Peter did in fact take charge, and explained on behalf of the apostles in a single voice. That perhaps may have been a hint or origins of Paul's later instruction to the Corinthians… which of course probably went through much arguments and discussion.
Again, the same thing takes place at Cornelius' household. This event occurs far earlier than Paul's instruction to the Corinthians. Peter could not have erred if Paul's instruction had not yet been written. Still, Peter appeared to have erred in the eyes of the Jewish Christians for even going to a pagan's house, an act which he had to justify to the Christians who demanded an explanation from him.
The example that you give of your mother speaking in ancient Persian reminds me of a recent conversation I had with my own mother who believes that she spoke in Arabic once. But we had no Arabian friend to confirm this for us, unfortunately…
One thing that we do know about Paul is that he did indeed have the gift of tongues, as he wrote to the Corinthians, "I thank God that I have a greater gift of tongues than all of you" in 1 Cor 14:18, which also indicates that he used his gift of tongues with more than the church at Corinth.
Interestingly, a look at church history tells us that usage of the gift of tongues had never really been lost. From 150 A.D., Justin Martyr refers to tongue-speaking in his dialogue with Trypho. Iranaeus refers to it in his treaties "Against Heresies" before 200 A.D. Ambrose, in his work "Of the Holy Spirit" again mentions the "gift of tongues" as being given in his day (around 350 A.D.) by "the Father". Augustine of Hippo writes about it in 390 A.D.
In the 1100s, Hildegard of Bingen spoke and sang in tongues. Occurrences throughout history in the 1300s, 1500s, 1600s, and 1800s all make mention of the usage of this gift.
In each of the cases of the appearance of the gift of tongues found in the Book of Acts, of which there are three instances, the appearance of the gift of tongues was for one purpose – to show the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the first case, it was on the apostles at Pentecost. In the second case, it was on Cornelius household, to show Peter (and therefore all Christians) that God does not have favourites. In the third case it was on the disciples at Ephesus, which was to show the difference between the baptism of repentance and the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
But addressing the issue of the gift of tongues being the ability to speak in a foreign tongue for the purpose of evangelism, I must say that I cannot read the mind of God, so I cannot say whether he should have given us an example of it or not. Perhaps there was no need to tell of it, because perhaps all of those who had initially received the gift of tongues did indeed speak in foreign tongues for evangelism, and there was no confusion about the usage until Paul received news of its abuse in Corinth, which he set about to settle. Then again, this is only perhaps.
What I can say for certainty is that the purpose of the bible is not to provide historical fact or evidence of the use of tongues. It is to tell of the relationship between God and man.
Like I said earlier, take your time in replying, and I do sincerely welcome your views.
Hello Brother,
I have a little time tonight, and I would like to pick up our discussion. I have really enjoyed our exchange. You clearly have studied the Scriptures and take them very seriously, and approach this discussion with an open mind. I think this post lets you know what my e-mail address is. If you want to contact me directly, or carry on this exchange by e-mail, you are welcome to.
I hope I don't come across as dogmatic on this subject, or pushy. I have been used in speaking in tongues and in interpreting strongly for so many years, I believe the main thrust of my calling is to teach in this area, and to help believers to come into a greater understanding and greater fluency in tongues. So I have studied this matter closely for many years, and have even read a number of anti-tongues, anti-Charismatic arguments in order to challenge myself to study this subject deeper. Speaking in tongues is only a part of the overall Gospel, but it is an important part. And I feel passionately about tongues and interpretation because as these two gifts manifest in genuine manifestation, it is my experience that they act like a doorway, opening into the other Gifts of the Spirit. We all hunger to see God manifest His power and glory stronger in our midst, and as we understand the 9 gifts better, it seems to put us into better cooperation with the moving of the Spirit, and He is able to do greater things in our midst.
I've taught on this subject alot, and I started a blog several days ago, http://giftoftongues.wordpress.com. It is in its infancy. I have only one post on it. But as I have time to add more content, I'll have the opportunity to present material on the Gift of Tongues in a clear, methodical way. As I understand it, it won't fully be a part of the search engines for awhile yet. You can pull up the site by going to Google Blog search, and typing in the title of my first post, "Evidence Theories"–in quotation marks like that, and click "search blogs". Several posts from different sites come up, and mine is the third or fourth one down. Come visit it some time.
Now to our discussion. Because of some things I've seen the Holy Spirit do, I have come to conclude that I Cor. 14:21,22 could have a different meaning than what we would think at first glance. It reads, "in the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people: and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:…"
Paul begins by drawing from the Old Testament the concept of God dealing with the Jews and speaking to the Jews through foreigners. When Israel sinned and worshipped false gods, God would sometimes stir up a foreign enemy to come and invade Israel and put them under the yoke, until Israel repented and turned back to God, at which point God would demonstrate His goodness by giving them a great deliverance from their enemy. Paul begins by noting how God spoke to the Jews through foreigners, then he makes a subtle shift to writing about God speaking to UNBELIEVERS. (I have no italic option, so I have to capitalize to emphasize a word. It doesn't mean I'm shouting at you). Paul writes of God speaking to the Jews in verse 21, and he could have continued writing, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to the Jews, but prophesying serves not the Jews, but for them which believe." But he didn't write that. He shifts from talking about the Jews, to writing about the "unbelievers" for the rest of the chapter.
Paul does not write that tongues are a sign to the Jews. He writes that they are a sign to "them that believe not." I believe I've seen exactly what Paul was writing about.
In the times God has used me in tongues and interpretation, they have ranged from the seemingly very simplistic messages, to occasionally, ones that can be very dramatic. The message can be dramatic, and/or the reaction from the people can be equally dramatic.
At the church I attended some years ago, a dramatic manifestation of tongues demonstrated what I think Paul was writing about–a sign to unbelievers.
I wasn't scheduled to minister that morning, so I just came to service, minding my own business–as I say sometimes–and was just expecting an ordinary service. A friend who sang in the worship team introduced me to her adult son that was visiting her for a few days, and had come to the service. He just seemed like an ordinary person to me, a little distant perhaps. We only had a moment for a brief introduction before the service started, so I had no idea whether he was a Christian or not.
The service began, and we were singing along. All of the sudden, the Spirit of God fell on me and gave me a message in tongues. I knew the pastor very well, and he had given me permission in advance to flow in the Spirit when God gave me something. So I waited until the music ended, and I approached the platform. The Pastor handed me the microphone, and I began to flow in tongues.
As I began to interpret, if I remember correctly, the interpretation went along these lines–"You know Me as the God who gives. I give healing. I give health. I give strength. I give life. I am the God who gives. But learn of me also in another way–I am also the God that taketh away. I take away your sins. I take away your sickensses and diseases…" And the message in tongues and interpretation went along actually for probably 3 or 4 minutes. It was quite powerful. I had my eyes shut, because I did not want to see people's faces and be distracted as the Lord flowed through me. My eyes were closed, but my ears were opened.
Many began weeping and were deeply affected by what God said to us through me. I ended the message, and handed the microphone back to the pastor. We prayed and praised the Lord a little bit more, and then he went on in to taking up the offering, gave the sermon, and gave an invitation for those who wanted to accept Christ into their lives to come forward. My friend and her son were sitting directly behind me. Her son immediately got up and went forward, praying with the pastor, and invited Christ into his life. I was thankful for my friend and her son.
After the service she asked her son, and later repeated the matter to me. She said, "Son, what lead you to give your life to Christ today? Was it the praise and worship?" He replied, "No, Mom. You did a good job, but it wasn't the music." She asked, "Well, was it the pastor's message?" He said, "Well, it was ok, but that wasn't it either." Finally she asked, "Well, what moved you to give your life to Christ today?" Her son replied, "I can't explain it really. But somehow hearing that man [me] speak that message in a foreign language…I don't know…I just knew I had to get right with God." Praise the Lord.
TONGUES WERE FOR A SIGN to this UNBELIEVING son. Somehow, even though the message in tongues was not an evangelistic message preached at anyone, the anointing in that message in tongues got over on to that son and convicted him of his sins.
That was a dramatic example that produced salvation. Another woman came to me after that same service. She was a believer that really loved the Lord and was regularly attending and serving Him at that church. She wanted to share a testimony. She told me that she heard that same message in tongues, and told me, "You know that part at the end of the message where God said he 'took away our hurts and sorrows, and you don't need to bear them anymore?'" I replied, "Yes." She continued, "You don't know this Brother Mel, but I've been through alot in my life. I've been divorced and made some mistakes, and a lot of people have said some very critical things to me. In fact, I feel like I've been criticized all my life. Well, when you spoke that phrase, 'My Son took your hurts and sorrows, and you don't have to bear them anymore,' something just broke on the inside of me, and all that hurt and sorrow left me in a moment. My emotions, my broken heart is healed!" Praise God.
Tongues were a sign to an unbelieving son of the need to get right with God. Tongues were a sign to a believing woman of God's love for her, Christ's provision for her to be healed from past hurts. I've seen the same message in tongues affect individuals powerfully in entirely different ways.
Drawing on Paul's change in phrasing from verse 21 to verse 22, and upon my experiences with the Holy Ghost, I don't believe Paul's referring to tongues as a sign refers exclusively to the Jews, or to evangelistic messages that will be preached to Jews by foreigners. I believe tongues are much more supernatural sign than what we have assumed them to be. I believe tongues can be power-saturated containers of God's anointing, that can wash over a congregation and absolutely work miracles. I've seen church problems suddenly be settled after a strong manifestation of tongues. I've also seen numerous people report physical healing after hearing a strong message in tongues.
Because I have personally witnessed such powerful manifestations come through a message in tongues, I deeply desire the Body of Christ to operate in the fullness of this gift more often.
Thanks for your historical comments about tongues. And you are entirely correct. Tongues have never been completely lost. They have erupted here and there over the centuries in situations of revival or where people have sought God. They've never been lost, but they have been neglected. We haven't taught about them as regularly as we should, and we haven't reached out for them in faith and in expectation. They operate by faith. They come in response to faith. If you actively believe for them to manifest, they eventually will.
As to Paul's instruction concerning tongues, true, it had not been written yet on the day of Pentecost, or at the time of the events at Cornelius' house, never-the-less, the Holy Ghost who was present would have known what was proper and what wasn't and I can't imagine Him NOT giving Peter or some other leader the direction to reign matters in if things were truly out of bounds. These were two of the greatest individual outpourings the Early Church experienced, and for them to be inconsistent with later instructions seems to me unthinkable.
I would disagree with you in only one side issue. I do not see Paul's instruction as being the end result of discussions, arguments, and re-writes (so to speak) with the other Apostles. By Paul's testimony in Galatians, he had ministered for a number of years before he ever met the original apostles. He spent then several days with Peter and others and reported that "they who seemed to be somewhat in conference ADDED NOTHING to me…" Gal. 2:6.
Now in the 15th chapter of Acts, Paul and Baranbas went up to Jerusalem to confer with the original apostles as to how much, if any, aspects of the Jewish religion were to be carried over into the Gentile Christian churches. But at that meeting they were much more worried about circumcision and the Jewish dietery laws and commandments, there isn't any mention of settling other controversies. And the decree they issues at the conclusion mentions "that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication…" Since they issued no ruling on the administering of Speaking in Tongues, I don't see it as being any significant part of that exchange.
I think Paul's instruction was much more supernatural, and also practical, in origin. Surely Paul had himself been in meetings here and there where way too many messages in tongues and interpretation were given, involving too many people, and sometimes lacking any interpretation. Such services inevitably got bogged down, drug on too long, or wandered all over the place losing focus and causing confusion. He saw with his own eyes how counter-productive such instances were. And I can see him mentioning a correction to people verbally, but I can't see him giving a formal written correction unless the Holy Spirit had specifically directed him to.
As you know, the Scriptures were written by men under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, they wrote only what they were specifically directed to write. The Holy Spirit wanted some ground rules laid down, so that He could flow through His gift among more people in a decent and orderly way, so He directed Paul to give instruction. I picture the scene more this way of clear divine instruction, flowing through Paul, than of men debating with each other and coming to a compromise directive. My opinion. Could be wrong.
Lastly, yes I do believe that we are experiencing today the exact same kind of tongues they did back then–sometimes public messages with interpretation, sometimes private prayer languages that are misunderstood and therefore mishandled, and occasionally someone mistakenly speaking gibberish thinking it is tongues.
As I close this, I've thought of something that might bless you and give you a clear example. My mentor–Sister Goodwin (term of affection, not an indication of being a nun)–ministered one time in a public service which was videotaped. In it, she gives numerous messages in tongues, another person interprets, and it is quite instructional. I'll be glad to send you a copy–no charge–if you would want to tell me where to mail it. I think you can pull up my e-mail address from this comment.
She ministers to the crowd as a whole, and then to numerous individuals as they come up for prayer. It is obviously unrehearsed and entirely extemporaneous. I've shared this video with several others over the years. It is currently being shown in a Pentecostal Bible School to instruct pastors about flowing in the Spirit. And the way you see Sister Goodwin minister then is exactly the way I minister now in tongues. Long story, but she laid her hands on me, and that Gift came into me, like the anointing went from Elijah to Elisha.
Let me know if you would like me to send you a copy.
Kind Regards,
Brother Mel
Hello Brother Mel,
Apologies for the delayed response. It's been a busy week. Thanks for your blog address. I'll add it to my list of links once the blog is more established.
If you don't mind, I'd like to continue our discussion here on this blog. The reason for it is that it is carried out openly and for all to read, so that if there is someone else following this discussion but does not want to join in or make known his or her identity, he or she can still benefit from it. Or, if there is someone who happens to cruise in to this post, he or she would not want to find the comments ending abruptly.
To me, you have not come across as dogmatic or pushy, so no worries there. You are, in fact, answering your calling in beginning this discussion by helping me (and whoever else who happens to be reading this) come into a better understanding in tongues. I admire your desire to challenge your understanding of tongues by subjecting yourself to anti-tongues and anti-charismatic arguments. Often, that is the only way to test your own understanding to see if it holds under pressure.
My understanding of 1 Cor 14:21-22, where Paul quotes from the OT, is that the Jews and the unbelievers mentioned are not two groups of people, but one and the same. Unbelieving Jews, so to speak. In other words, it is like saying, since God uses Hebrew to talk to the Jews but they don't believe, maybe they will believe if God talks to them in a foreign language.
Such things do happen (quite frequently too, I might add) today. When you, as a Christian, do not believe in a certain way God works, and no amount of explanation by your fellow Christians seems to convince you. Then this non-Christian friend of yours talks to you about the same topic, and then you just get it. Know what I mean?
The underlying message, of course, is that God's wisdom and goodness is not just restricted to those who profess belief in God. God speaks to us from all directions, even from those we least expect it.
Thanks for sharing about your experience of a dramatic manifestation of tongues as a sign to unbelievers. I guess when we talk about unbelievers, we don't necessarily mean non-Christians. It could be a Christian who was baptised a long time ago, and is now just going through the motions and not really believing in what he or she is doing or speaking about any more… which probably applies more to cradle Christians – those baptised at birth.
I remember the story a friend told me of a Catholic who had been serving in various church ministries for over 20 years. But for some reason or other, she attended an ALPHA course where during the live-in weekend, she was so touched by the Holy Spirit because she had never experienced him in that way before.
What I mean is that you can be a Christian and still be an unbeliever, maybe because of some events or hurts that happened in your life, and you no longer believe as fully as you once did.
******
Your statement about your deep desire for the Body of Christ to operate in the fullness of this gift more often strikes me deeply. On Sunday, I wrote a reflection on the Body of Christ. My renewed understanding of the Body of Christ leads me to share in the same desire as you now, because it is indeed the same Holy Spirit, the same giver of gifts, that runs through all believers in Christ, which form the Body of Christ. If all members of the Body of Christ return to an active use of the gift of tongues, the Body will indeed function much better than it already does.
Your little paragraph on the activity of the Holy Spirit in the writing of Scriptures makes reference to certain Catholic practices which I don't think we should venture into in this discussion unless we intend to head in that direction. I'd just put in this little note and say that there were many books and letters written by men. It took a group of men debating with each other and coming to a decision on which books and letters to include into a compilation that formed the Bible. But that group of men did not act purely on their human wills and intellect; they also had the guidance of the Holy Spirit with them as they made their decisions, the same Holy Spirit that exists in the directs successors of these men today who still debate with each other and come to a Spirit-led decision, especially on matters of faith and morals.
Thanks for your offer of sending me the video of your mentor ministering to the crowd. I'm not one who watches any videos, so best that you do not send it to me. I still have many videos from other people who, like you, send me videos at no charge, but I never actually got round to watching them. *sheepish look*
Peace, and God bless,
Catholic Writer