The Holy Spirit1 and Tongues (continued) listeners: the disciples were speaking their languages (in this case the word is glossais, “tongues”). There is no record of their being impressed by some sort of in coherent babbling; in fact, the record says that the dis ciples were uttering words about the wonderful works (literally, “splendors”) of God. And lest someone say that it was a miracle of hearing rather than speaking, let it be remembered that it was upon the speakers, not the listeners, that the Holy Spirit came. The only defensible conclusion, therefore, is that on the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke in the languages of the different peoples enumerated in Acts two. In regard to this conclusion Henry Alford has written, “All attempts to evade this are connected with some forcing of the text, or some far-fetched and indefensible exegesis” (The Greek Testament, II, 15). Once this feature of speaking in tongues is discerned in Acts two, there is no sufficient ground for departing from it in the subsequent occurrences of the gift. Thus Peter’s words regarding the household of Cornelius con firm that their experience was strictly analogous to that on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 11:15, “as on us at the beginning”). It is also to be assumed that the nature of the gift is the same in Acts 19:6 because of the identical terminology used. There is no reason to believe that there were two distinct kinds of tongues in this book. Tongues in First Corinthians Having reached a conclusion as to the nature of tongues in Acts, one must next compare these results with the classic passage in First Corinthians (chs. 12-14). The reason most often advanced for finding a difference between the phenomenon of tongues in Acts and that in First Corinthians is that in the former, tongues are intelligible languages while in the latter they appear to be unintelligible. When the evidence for the latter book is examined closely, however, the argument is re vealed to be quite inadequate. Different from Acts. To support the idea of inarticu late forms of speech such passages as I Corinthians 13:1 are cited, and it is adduced from the context that the verse refers to inarticulate forms of speech (G. G. Find lay, “First Epistle to the Corinthians,” Expositors Greek Testament, II, 896-97). But as Alford points out, “the tongues of men” must mean the tongues spoken by men in general, if language is to have its natural sense ( The Greek Testament, III, 585). The same is true of the tongues of angels, whatever their languages may be. Mistranslations in the King James Version undoubted ly have contributed to the conviction in favor of ecstatic speech. For instance, the word unknown, used throughout the chapter to characterize “tongue” or “tongues” is actually without basis in the original Greek. This un doubtedly has led some to look upon these as utterances unknown to any man. Another reason sometimes deduced for “unknown tongues” is found in I Corinthians 14:26. It is inferred from this verse that the interpreters of tongues did not always agree, and from this inference it is concluded that the tongues were not a foreign language. This ex planation reads into the verse something that is not there, however, for Paul is simply making reference to the difficult encountered in everyone’s speaking at the same time. Same as Acts. On the other side, the evidence in favor of foreign languages in Corinthians is far more convinc ing. First of all, the identity of the gifts in Acts and Corinthians is proven from the same terms by which they are described. To speak “with other tongues” (Acts 2:4) and to speak “with tongues” (Acts 10:46; 19:6)
are equivalent expressions, and the latter of these ex pressions in Acts is identical with the terminology of I Corinthians fourteen (cf. I Cor. 14:5). To take the same phrases and apply them to different manifestations without any explanation to support such action, is con trary to sound principles of interpretation. Secondly, in I Corinthians 14:19 the apostle speaks of “ten thousand words in a tongue.” There are two interesting facts about this phrase. The word “tongue” is singular here and elsewhere in the chapter, but some times it is plural in this same context. This fluctuation between the singular and plural is easily explainable from the standpoint of “language” and “languages,” but such a variation defies explanation if unintelligible ut terances are advocated. The second interesting fact about the verse is that “words” are the product of this mani festation. The conclusion must be that the “words” go together to constitute a known language. Thirdly, in I Corinthians 14:11 the writer’s complaint is that the man who speaks in a voice that is meaning less to him, is a foreigner (King James Version, “bar barian”) to him. If this verse referred to a man’s in coherent, inarticulate sounds, which no living person could understand, it would not make him a foreigner, but a babbler. The contrary would be true, however, if he spoke a foreign language. Fourthly, the Old Testament citation in I Corinthians 14:21 defines the nature of tongues. Introduced to teach that it was not a mark of divine favor to have teachers whose language they oould not understand, the quotation is taken from Isaiah 28:11-12. In this Old Testament passage the context clearly indicates a reference to lan guages spoken by the Assyrians, which were foreign languages insofar as Israel was concerned. This further confirms that the nature of the gift in Corinthians is the same as that in Acts. The Limitations of Tongues If then, the nature of the gift is the same in the two books, there is but one Scriptural gift of tongues, and it is possible to set down certain God-given principles as to the exercise of this gift. (1) If the gift is received on the basis of its being in tended for every Christian, it is not the same gift de scribed in the Bible. In this connection a recent writer has said, “I am convinced that it is not for me only, but for everyone ” (Ivan S. Gamble, “And I Was Afraid,” Trinity} Trinitytide, 1961, p. 5). But I Corinthians 12:14, 19 shows from an analogy with the human body that all believers are not to expect the same gift. If the body were composed of only one member, it would be im possible for it to be a functioning organism. Coupled with this analogy is the statement of 12:30 to demonstrate that all do not speak with tongues. Instead of the word ing “Do all speak with tongues?” a rendering which re veals the force of the construction would be, “All do not speak with tongues, do they?” The question must be answered negatively due to the grammatical construc tion that Paul uses. (2) If the gift is understood to be a sign of spirituality, it is not the gift described in the Bible. In addressing his congregation, an Episcopalian recently said, “I, your Vicar, have experienced this infilling of the Holy Ghost and have spoken with other tongues” (Gordon S. Scovell, “The Experience of Pentecost,” Trinity, Trinitytide, 1961, p. 3). To make being Spirit-filled and speaking with tongues synonymous is, however, to do violence to the Scriptures. There is abundant evidence that this gift, with the others, is sovereignly bestowed by God, and that its reception depends only on the person’s having re-
10
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online