The issue of "tongues" and their usage in the Modern Era of Christendom
has been the source of many of the most feverish debates between
Christians. The topic has fueled division and persecution, accusations and
misunderstandings that have long fragmented the body of Christ. What was
meant to draw men together has instead been used as a means of drawing the
proverbial "line in the sand." Pentecostals and Charismatics, along with
the "Spirit-filled" dissidents of many denominational circles stand on one
side of the debate.The Baptist, Methodists and various other "main-line"
denominational groups stand across the valley of division on the other
side of the debate.
The question must be asked: Why would something such as the usage of
"tongues" be such a catalyst for division among God's people? I believe
that this is no new phenomenon. That the "battle over the gifts" has been
a war waged since the day of the Spirit's outpouring on the Day of
Penetecost- take for example the text of Acts 2:12 & 13.
And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another,What
meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.(KJV)
On the very day that "The Promise" was given, The Holy Ghost, the battle
started! The Bible says that those that heard it "were...amazed", "were in
doubt", They "mocked" and even accused those that had been "filled" with
being drunk! Have things really changed that much? Are accusations such as
"that's a bunch of phoney-baloney" or "that's not of God" or "they are
just a bunch of Holy-rollers", that much different than those that were
spouted 2000 years ago?
Consider this for a moment- the word translated by King James scholars as
"amazed" in acts 2:12 is the Greek word "existemi" which literally means
"to become astounded out of reflex!"
So, what does this mean to us in today's world? Well, let me put it to you
this way. Have you ever heard of the television show Ripley's Believe It
or Not? The premise of the whole program is to show the viewer something
that is "unbelievable", much like P.T. Barnum used to draw huge crowds to
his "freak shows" before the turn of the century. When we see (or hear)
something that is not part of our normal everyday experiences (or
traditions) it literally sends a shock to our nervous system. Kinda of
like seeing a mouse run across the floor when you turn on the lights-this
still makes me jump!
Is it that the mouse is ferocious or something really that strange? No,
its that it has invaded and area of our existence unexpectedly and without
warning. This causes us to "jump" or "shriek" out of reflex. This is
precisely what tongues have become to many Christians, a mouse running
across the floor. I do not wish to trivialize such a powerful gift of the
Spirit of God with such metaphorical expressions, but hopefully this will
help you to better understand the "knee jerk" response that many
experience at the mention or hearing of someone "speak(ing) in tongues".
The next thing that those that heard them on the day of Pentecost
experienced was "doubt". This is the Greek word "diaporeo" which means: to
be at a loss, to be perplexed (or to cause one to be unclear in mind or
intent).
Many who have ever "doubted" the usage or the realism of tongues for
today, have often found themselves "at a loss" as to what it is or why
they would be necessary or utilized. Others find themselves "perplexed" by
them- because they are unclear in their mind (or their cognitive
understanding of such) and have reservations concerning their intent. In
our westernized way of seeing things, this produces "doubt and unbelief".
What if I came running to you and said, "Hey, Ed Mcmahon is on your front
porch with a 10 million dollar check from Publisher's Clearing House." You
probably would think that I was just kidding with you. Why? Because, we
see winning such a prize as an impossibility and totally unlikely to ever
happen to us. That is the "mind-set" often produced when faced with the
supernatural.
Did you know that the issue of tongues is not an issue at all when brought
to "uncivilized" peoples of other nations? This is because we are such a
secularized society. We cannot believe in something unless we can
intellectually prove it to ourselves. But Paul the apostle says in 1
Corinthians 1:27 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise...". God chose something that would cause the wise to
wonder and depend upon Him for understanding.
Those that witnessed the initial outpouring then finally resorted to "name
calling". They "mocked" them, this implies "making fun of them" and they
said, "they are full of new wine." (or literally they are intoxicated with
elebriating drink).
This type of activity has now been replaced with such phraseology as "it's
of the devil", "they are off base", or "they are just pew jumpers and holy
rollers". What we do not understand, we ridicule- it makes us feel better.
Having said all that, I would now like to venture into the real thrust of
what I would like to explore.
Most "non-charismatic" believer's have a hard time disagreeing that
"tongues" are in the Bible. This is because it is mentioned over twenty
times! Some have said to me, "But Jesus never used the word tongues in the
Gospels". That is absolutely correct! He never did. But, Jesus never used
the word GRACE in the Gospels either!! So, I guess we need to throw grace
out in the same pile that we placed tongues! Who would be willing to do
that?
Since the usage of tongues in the Bible is as unquestionable as the
necessity of grace, many dissenters have instead tried to distance
themselves from the issue by relying on the "yeah, they are in the Bible-
they are not to be used without an interpreter" argument. They think that
by revealing the "misuse" of tongues that they can eliminate the "use" of
tongues altogether. The text most often quoted in rebuttal to the present
day usage of tongues is found in 1 Corinthians 14 (as a matter of fact,
this is generally the only place that dissenters go to prove their
argument) Yet, Paul also says in his letters to the Corinthian church
"...in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
established." Isolated interpretation is a very dangerous and misleading
mechanism for establishing doctrine, whether it be denominationally or
individually.
The Corinthian text utilized for rebuttal is as follows, with the primary
points of dissension highlighted.
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may
prophesy. For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men,
but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he
speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to
edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown
tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. I
would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for
greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except
he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.Now, brethren, if I
come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I
shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by
prophesying, or by doctrine? And even things without life giving sound,
whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how
shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an
uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye,
except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be
known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.There are, it may
be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without
signification.Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be
unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a
barbarian unto me.Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual
gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let
him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret. For if
I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is
unfruitful. What is it then? 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 understanding also. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit,
how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy
giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? For thou
verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. I thank my God, I
speak with tongues more than ye all: 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. Brethren, be not
children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in
understanding be men. 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: but prophesying serveth
not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore
the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with
tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will
they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one
that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged
of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so
falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in
you of a truth.
How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a
psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an
interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man speak in
an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by
course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him
keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. Let
the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. If any thing be
revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. For ye
may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. For God is
not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the
saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not
permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under
obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let
them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in
the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you
only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of
the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. Wherefore,
brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. Let all
things be done decently and in order. (KJV)
The usual argument is that Paul said, "Don't speak in tongues in church
without an interpreter- period!" Those that make this argument often
follow that argument up with another, if they hear the response, "But, yes
there was an interpretation given." They will probably then try to
discredit the validity of the interpreter! (I have had this actually heard
this argument hundreds of times). They then go from denying the "gift of
tongues" to denying "the gift of interpretaion of tongues". Pretty soon
they have banished all nine gifts of the Spirit of 1 Corinthians 12:8-10.
Now does that sound like something that God would want to do? Banish and
do away with that which He gave?
Rom 11:29 "for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."
So then God does'nt revoke or undo those things that He has given. It is
also said in:
James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from
the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning. (KJV)
We clearly see from these scriptures that God is not an "indian giver".
But, instead that He does not change or take away His provisions-
especially in critical times such as these last days.
Then why does Paul put such seemingly "tight" restrictions on the usage of
"tongues" on the Church at Corinth? Why does it see that he is almost
"discouraging" their manifestation? Should we take Paul's exhortation to
this church to be the normative pattern for all the churches? Or, was this
indeed Paul's perimeterson a church that was in chaos and unbalanced in
relationship to this new found experience? Consider this:
Jesus said in Matt 6:5-6 "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the
hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in
the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say
unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into
thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is
in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Is Jesus saying? "Here is the rule that must be followed to the letter,
don't stand in the church and pray becuase you can only pray in your
closet."
But Jesus did say, "when thou prayest, enter into thy closet." So, if I am
going to be absolutely true to scripture I must follow this example to the
letter? If that was the case, then every Baptist, Methodist, Church of
Christ and every other main-line denominational minister breaks this rule
every Sunday morning, evening and Wednesday when they stand in their
synagogue or church and pray in a public place!
Jesus himself was guilty of "public praying" as were the twelve disciples.
In the context of what Jesus says here, he was dealing with a group of
people who abused praying publicly. So to keep those hearing from making
the same mistake, He told them to go and pray in a private place. Not to
establish a certain "rule" to govern every case, but to bring those that
heard back into a proper balance.
Also, Why won't the "anti-tongues" crowd put the emphasis on verse 34 that
they place on the rest of chapter 14 of 1 Corinthians:
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto
them
to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the
law.
"Speak" is the Greek word "laleo" which means: to utter a voice or emit a
sound
How many of my dear Baptist sisters go to church on Sunday and never say a
word or even make a sound? None of them! So, is this saying that women
cannot say anything in church? No. The church at Corinth had some
propblems, the least of which were tongues or women making a sound in
church. The biggest problem facing them was the motivation behind what
they were doing. They lacked the love necessary to operate in the gifts
effectively or for a woman to say anything in church. This is why Paul in
his wisdom, put such clamps on their activities. He was the father of that
church and as any disciplinarian father would do- he puts his misbehaving
children on restriction.
What about focusing on the words of the Apostle Paul that say:
"I would that ye all spake with tongues"
"I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"
" forbid not to speak with tongues."
The point is very evident, the Gift of God are give for the edification or
the building up of the body, whether the corporate body through prophecy
or tongues with interpretation or the building up of the individual
through personal or private tongues. The usage of these gifts are not
discouraged, but are clearly encouraged. Restrictions are placed where
abuses are prevalent. But, " where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty". Tongues and their usage should never become a point of division
among the Body of Christ, nor should they be used as a point of scorn,
ridicule or mockery.
Tongues are not what we seek. The Holy Spirit is Who we seek. The tongues
are just something that seeks us- to edify us and to build up our most
holy faith in Him.
In conclusion, is it always out of order to "speak in tongues" without an
interpretation coming forth? No more so than it being always out of order
to "pray standing in the synagogue". The place to judge both is in the
motivation. Is it to draw attention to oneself or to glorify God in your
hearts.
