The truth about tongues: a DIVISIVE force in Christianity today

[Nehemiah6]

Modern tongues have caused a huge division within evangelical Christianity, and division is not from God. It has also resulted in “two-tier” Christianity – those who are presumably “Spirit-filled” (the tongue-speakers) being Tier One, and everyone else (who should go to the back of the bus, since they are not “Spirit-filled”) within Tier Two.

The truth of the matter is that modern tongues are not even biblical tongues. And the only reason the KJV translators used the word “tongues” is because back in the 17th century, that word was interchangeable with “languages”. So if we eliminate “unknown” (since that is not in the Greek text, therefore italicized) and simply say “language” or “languages”, the whole controversy disappears. Indeed, several modern translations do not even use the word “tongues”, and consistently translate glossa or glossais as language or languages.

There is no glossolalia in the New Testament, and that is what is practiced today.
‘Those are the terms we have heard frequently at Charismatic conferences, such as those in New Orleans in 1987, Indianapolis in 1990, and St. Louis in 2000. The tongues that I heard in these conferences were not languages of any sort but merely repetitious mumblings that anyone could imitate. Larry Lea’s “tongues” at Indianapolis in 1990 went like this: “Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida.” I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of the St. Louis meeting in 2000, spoke in “tongues” on Thursday evening of the conference. Her tongues were a repetition of “shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leea…” ‘
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/pentecostaltongues.html

But no one is speaking unlearned foreign languages supernaturally today (as even the Charismatics will tell you). It would be fantastic for missionaries from the USA to go to Japan (for example) and simply start speaking Japanese fluently and supernaturally. Instead they must spend months and years learning the language, and being only rudimentary speakers after all that.

However, when you study Acts chapter 2, there are at least fifteen foreign languages or dialects listed, and that is when tongues were manifested on the day of Pentecost. Simple Galileans (who spoke only Aramaic) were suddenly speaking Persian or Arabic as though they were native speakers! And the native speakers heard their words and understood everything perfectly.

When we come to 1 Corinthians 14, it should be evident that it is there for the correction of the Christians at Corinth. They were abusing tongues, so Paul had to straighten them out. What does Paul say? “There is no reason to believe that the gift of tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is any different from that mentioned in the book of Acts. In both places the tongues involved speaking in earthly languages that one had never learned.” [Ibid]

1. Focus on prophecy, not on tongues, but make agape love your primary goal. (vv 1-6)

2. Speaking within the church should be spiritually meaningful (vv 7-12)

3. There must be interpretation whenever tongues are spoken (vv 13-17)

4. Paul would rather speak 5 intelligible words than 10,000 words in tongues (vv 18-19)

5. Focusing on tongues is childish, and if everyone spoke in tongues at the same time, visitors would think they are all mad (vv 20-23)

6. Prophecy is extremely profitable for many reasons (vv 24-26)

7. Tongues (with interpreters) are limited to two or three speakers at the most (vv 27-28)

8. Prophecies are also limited to two or three speakers (vv 29-33)

9. Women are to maintain silence within the churches (vv 34-38)

10. Closing comments – everything to be done decently and in order (vv 39-40)

 

[Truth7t7]

Modern tongues have caused a huge division within evangelical Christianity, and division is not from God. It has also resulted in “two-tier” Christianity – those who are presumably “Spirit-filled” (the tongue-speakers) being Tier One, and everyone else (who should go to the back of the bus, since they are not “Spirit-filled”) within Tier Two.

The truth of the matter is that modern tongues are not even biblical tongues. And the only reason the KJV translators used the word “tongues” is because back in the 17th century, that word was interchangeable with “languages”. So if we eliminate “unknown” (since that is not in the Greek text, therefore italicized) and simply say “language” or “languages”, the whole controversy disappears. Indeed, several modern translations do not even use the word “tongues”, and consistently translate glossa or glossais as language or languages.

There is no glossolalia in the New Testament, and that is what is practiced today.
‘Those are the terms we have heard frequently at Charismatic conferences, such as those in New Orleans in 1987, Indianapolis in 1990, and St. Louis in 2000. The tongues that I heard in these conferences were not languages of any sort but merely repetitious mumblings that anyone could imitate. Larry Lea’s “tongues” at Indianapolis in 1990 went like this: “Bubblyida bubblyida hallelujah bubblyida hallabubbly shallabubblyida kolabubblyida glooooory hallelujah bubblyida.” I wrote that down as he was saying it and later checked it against the tape. Nancy Kellar, a Roman Catholic nun who was on the executive committee of the St. Louis meeting in 2000, spoke in “tongues” on Thursday evening of the conference. Her tongues were a repetition of “shananaa leea, shananaa higha, shananaa nanaa, shananaa leea…” ‘
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/pentecostaltongues.html

But no one is speaking unlearned foreign languages supernaturally today (as even the Charismatics will tell you). It would be fantastic for missionaries from the USA to go to Japan (for example) and simply start speaking Japanese fluently and supernaturally. Instead they must spend months and years learning the language, and being only rudimentary speakers after all that.

However, when you study Acts chapter 2, there are at least fifteen foreign languages or dialects listed, and that is when tongues were manifested on the day of Pentecost. Simple Galileans (who spoke only Aramaic) were suddenly speaking Persian or Arabic as though they were native speakers! And the native speakers heard their words and understood everything perfectly.

When we come to 1 Corinthians 14, it should be evident that it is there for the correction of the Christians at Corinth. They were abusing tongues, so Paul had to straighten them out. What does Paul say? “There is no reason to believe that the gift of tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is any different from that mentioned in the book of Acts. In both places the tongues involved speaking in earthly languages that one had never learned.” [Ibid]

1. Focus on prophecy, not on tongues, but make agape love your primary goal. (vv 1-6)

2. Speaking within the church should be spiritually meaningful (vv 7-12)

3. There must be interpretation whenever tongues are spoken (vv 13-17)

4. Paul would rather speak 5 intelligible words than 10,000 words in tongues (vv 18-19)

5. Focusing on tongues is childish, and if everyone spoke in tongues at the same time, visitors would think they are all mad (vv 20-23)

6. Prophecy is extremely profitable for many reasons (vv 24-26)

7. Tongues (with interpreters) are limited to two or three speakers at the most (vv 27-28)

8. Prophecies are also limited to two or three speakers (vv 29-33)

9. Women are to maintain silence within the churches (vv 34-38)

10. Closing comments – everything to be done decently and in order (vv 39-40)

You can claim whatever you desire, I received the gift of speaking in tongues 43 years ago while in my room praying, and it's exactly the same today.

 

[Dino246]

There wouldn't be any division if people handled the gifts properly... both those with and those without.

Instead, a few gifted people act like they are special; that's simply wrong; and some ungifted people rail on about how the gifts aren't for today.

Both are wrong, and both are responsible for the division.

This thread can end now. Thanks all for coming; there's an offering plate by the exit door.

 

[Truth7t7]

There wouldn't be any division if people handled the gifts properly... both those with and those without.

Instead, a few gifted people act like they are special; that's simply wrong; and some ungifted people rail on about how the gifts aren't for today.

Both are wrong, and both are responsible for the division.

This thread can end now. Thanks all for coming; there's an offering plate by the exit door.

I fully agree the gift is used improperly in the church, however there are many such as myself that use this gift in my prayer life.

The supernatural gift of tongues is also a sign for the unbeliever as clearly described below.

1 Corinthians 14:22KJV
22 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.

 

[BenFTW]

So because tongues causes division and division is not from God, tongues are not from God? What do you say about the Protestant reformation? Is that split, that division, not of God? What about the debate of Law versus Grace? Sometimes truth divides. God wants us in unity, yes. Unfortunately some people don’t believe the truth. Hence, they speak against tongues and remain in ignorance. 😁🤪❤️

 

[Corban]

If we take the whole Bible, an interesting fact emerges. God gave His Oracles to Israel, and so the vast part of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. But one verses in Jeremiah and six Chapters of Daniel are in Aramaic. And on examination of these deviations, it turns out that Gid was addressing the Gentiles. Then, although our Lord Jesus and the Apostles were Hebrews, the New Testament is written in Greek, the official language of the Gentiles. Then, when our Lord Jesus said that the disciples must tarry at Jerusalem for POWER to preach the gospel, they are able to reach each man present in his own language. The unswerving line is that it seems that God wants each man to hear His Words in his own language. And the enemy of the Word, the Roman catholic Church, not only did the opposite by forcing Latin upon us, but also forbade the study of the Bible by the Laity. And it was the translating of the Bible into the languages of the Gentiles that sparked the Reformation.

Would we not say that it is God's desire that every man hear His Words in his own language? If so, then the restriction on tongues in 1st Corinthians 14 is fully understandable. In an assembly in Greece the Lord would want the teaching and prophesying in Greek. But Corinth, being a city of much trading, would have a any number of foreign tradesmen transiting the city, and some of these would be Christians. So, if God had a Word for one of these INDIVIDUALS, He would give it in his language via one gifted with tongues. But so that the Assembly at large ALSO understood it, one with the gift of interpretation was given. If an interpreter was not present, no utterance of an unknown tongue was allowed.

But further to this, 1st Corinthians 14:21-23 show that an Assembly who speaks in unknown tongues has a "sign" of unbelief given. The reference to the Law in verse 21 comes from Deuteronomy 28. When Israel was totally unfaithful and lawless they would be carried off to a nation whose language they did not understand. Any use of a foreign tongue when (i) it is not needed (that is, not inspired), (ii) more than three times if foreigners are present, (iii) no interpreter is present, (iv) randomly, is a SIGN of weak spirituality, unfaithfulness and unbelief.

Finally, it is clear that the gift of tongues was given to spread the gospel and speak to individuals. That would mean that the tongues are known foreign languages. More than one study has been done, mostly secretly, on the phenomena of tongues in the Pentecostal Movement. The results are almost the same every time. 98% of the utterances are not in an earthly language. 95% of the utterances use only half of the intonations of the simplest known languages. 97% of the utterances carry the accent of the speaker's usual language. That is, a linguist can tell when an American is simulating a tongue, or a Russian, or a Frenchman.

Just consider; If there is Local assembly in a small Siberian village, and they rarely get visitors, foreign tongues are just not needed, and so will not be used. God wanted men to assimilate His Words with the intellect (1st Cor.14:14-16). God's speaking has value if it is not understood, for it is also spiritual food (Jn.6:63), but God cannot instruct with it (2nd Tim.3:16). So, if the tongues were genuine there is some profit to the speaker, but no prophet to the Assembly. And if the studies are even half right, those Christians making an issue of tongues are supporting a massive fraud in the name of Jesus.

 

[JaumeJ]

Ezra is also in Aramaic.

 

[JaumeJ]

PS, there are Aramaic words peppered in the Word from the transcripts availed to man.

 

[Micaiah-imla]

I remember a Pentecostal Church I visited in the 1990's; they all started jumping around and speaking jibberish. I remember thinking at the time, These people have lost their minds! It was no sign for me, an unbeliever at the time. That experience kinda repelled me.

I remember when I read that verse in the letter to the Corinthians for the first time, where it warned the believers that if all spoke with tongues men would think they were crazy, I thought to myself, Amen, so true!

 

[Corban]

Ezra is also in Aramaic.

Ezra, to my best knowledge, is written in Hebrew, but with the official documents issued by the king of Persia to be in Aramaic.

 

[Corban]

PS, there are Aramaic words peppered in the Word from the transcripts availed to man.

Correct.

 

[Corban]

I remember a Pentecostal Church I visited in the 1990's; they all started jumping around and speaking jibberish. I remember thinking at the time, These people have lost their minds! It was no sign for me, an unbeliever at the time. That experience kinda repelled me.

I remember when I read that verse in the letter to the Corinthians for the first time, where it warned the believers that if all spoke with tongues men would think they were crazy, I thought to myself, Amen, so true!

This was my experience as well. I was newly saved and though I tried I could never join in without an uneasy feeling. Now, all these years later I just feel sorry for the Lord that His People, some of them very nice people, damage His testimony in such a fashion.

 

[Kavik]

Apologies for the long post - Part 1:

The truth of the matter is that modern tongues are not even biblical tongues. And the only reason the KJV translators used the word “tongues” is because back in the 17th century, that word was interchangeable with “languages”. So if we eliminate “unknown” (since that is not in the Greek text, therefore italicized) and simply say “language” or “languages”, the whole controversy disappears. Indeed, several modern translations do not even use the word “tongues”, and consistently translate glossa or glossais as language or languages.

There is no glossolalia in the New Testament, and that is what is practiced today.

But no one is speaking unlearned foreign languages supernaturally today (as even the Charismatics will tell you).

However, when you study Acts chapter 2, there are at least fifteen foreign languages or dialects listed.

When we come to 1 Corinthians 14, it should be evident that it is there for the correction of the Christians at Corinth. They were abusing tongues, so Paul had to straighten them out. What does Paul say? “There is no reason to believe that the gift of tongues mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is any different from that mentioned in the book of Acts. In both places the tongues involved speaking in earthly languages that one had never learned.” [Ibid]

Totally agree – replace “tongues” with ‘language(s)’, get rid of the added “unknown”, and the modern concept of “tongues” becomes difficult to posit in Biblical texts.

Most people don’t realize this, but the “unknown” was added in the early days of the Reformation specifically as an anti-Catholic ‘jab’ – a reference to Latin (the language the mass was said in) being a language no parishioner understood; thus ‘unknown" (but that’s a story for another day).

Modern tongues-speech is an entirely self-created phenomenon. Non-cognitive non-language utterance.

And, yes – there are no known proven cases of xenoglossy – anywhere. Thousands of examples of tongues-speech have been studied. Not one has ever been found to be a real, rational language, living or dead.

If one examines the "gift of tongues", the traditional definition is a sort of “spiritual/religious” xenoglossy. This definition however is completely hinged upon one assumption; that there was linguistic diversity at Pentecost (and the Holy Spirit gave the apostles the ability to speak in languages they could not have possibly known, as those gathered there spoke a slew of languages).

A few questions to ponder about the Pentecost narrative:

In the entire narrative, not one language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?

Though there were Jews from "every nation under heaven", nowhere in the entire narrative is it even remotely suggested that communication among all these people was ever an issue to begin with. Again, why do you suppose that is?

Indeed the “list of nations” in Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that – a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people "from every nation under heaven" (an idiomatic phrase) were from; not what language(s) they spoke.

If one examines this list of nations carefully, something becomes apparent. These are the lands of the Diaspora. One can quickly conclude therefore, that the Jews gathered in Jerusalem came from three areas: namely, Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora (as evidenced in our ‘list of nations’).

Many different lands, but for Jews living there, what about languages?? If one were a Jew living in one of these places in the early 1st century, what would be the language of “hearth and home”; not the language I spoke when I went to the market, or conducted my business, but the language spoken at home among my family and, to a wider extent, my fellow Jews?

 

[Kavik]

Part 2 -

Here’s where I have to respectfully disagree with Nehemiah6. The language answer may come as rather a surprise for many: To put it as simply as possible and eliminate what could easily be several pages of detailed explanation, Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any issues there. Jews from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek – all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced any indigenous languages. Eastern Diaspora was a bit different - no Hellenization and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’ was Aramaic; it’s one of the main things that defined them, set them apart, and gave them their ethnic and religious identity.

Many lands, many places and people; but as we can now see, only two languages: Aramaic and Greek. The apostles spoke both.

The difficult thing for many to accept perhaps is that the gift of tongues (as traditionally defined) was not evidenced at Pentecost; it didn’t need to be. The apostles weren’t speaking any language they didn’t already know.

The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.

The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars. Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly and with such inspired authority. It’s no wonder some thought them drunk.

This idea of Hebrew first, then the vernacular is rather detailed and for the sake of brevity, I don’t present it in any detail here. The closest analogy in a religious setting I can think of would be the Roman Catholic Church, pre-Vatican II. If people in the US went to church in say 1950, and the priest came out and started to offer the mass in English, the parishioners’ reaction would be one of confusion, bewilderment, astonishment – the same reaction by the crowd as on Pentecost – “how is it that we hear him speaking in the language we were born in to??” In pre- Vatican II, the parishioners would have fully expected to hear Latin , the liturgical and sacerdotal language of the RCC used; not their native language of English. Indeed, the only part of the mass allowed to be given in the local language was the homily (sermon). Some may even have thought the priest drunk to dare to do such a thing – it was just unheard of. Sort of the same idea here with Hebrew first, then a translation to the vernacular.

To suggest, as the apostles did, that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence, in part, also likely accounted for the crowd's reaction.

If we take a closer look at a more literal translation of the Greek text here, what we have is: “they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages [than Hebrew] as the Spirit kept giving bold, authoritative, inspired speech to them.”

The Greek ‘apophtheggomai’ refers, not to the content of the speech (i.e., the language), but to "the manner of speaking." In each instance, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired.

Other languages - other than Hebrew. These other languages they spoke in were Aramaic and Greek – that the Spirit kept giving them bold, authoritative, inspired speech. Why? To declare the mighty works of God. To declare God available to anyone. The complete breaking of a previously existing barrier between Gentiles and God.

Something to consider is that the only "tongues evidenced" by the apostles after being “baptized in the Holy Spirit” were nothing more than their own native languages – Aramaic and Greek! No xenoglossy, and definitely no modern tongues-speech here, folks.

So, if the gift of tongues is not a spiritual xenoglossy, since the assumption that this definition hinges on is not correct, what is it?

I would argue that the “gift of tongues” may be essentially defined to mean the God/Holy Spirit-given ability, i.e. the gift ….. of being able to learn languages more easily and quickly than most others, but more so, as far as Paul was concerned, using that ability in spreading the message of Christianity and edifying the community, and to the further glory of God in general.

One needs to consider that in most cultures in the ancient world, the average person was born, lived and died in the same village and never ventured more than 10-20 miles beyond its borders. A person who had the ability to be able to “pick up” languages from lands that would have seemed almost impossibly distant, and quickly become conversant maybe even literate in them, was looked at and considered to be a divine gift.

And finally, yes, Corinth was about correcting language issues. In an ethnically and linguistically diverse city such as Corinth, it’s not difficult to imagine a slew of communication/language issues (no multi-lingual signs and instruction books in those days 😊).

 

[Corban]

Part 2 -

Here’s where I have to respectfully disagree with Nehemiah6. The language answer may come as rather a surprise for many: To put it as simply as possible and eliminate what could easily be several pages of detailed explanation, Jews from Judea spoke Aramaic as their mother tongue. I don’t think there’s any issues there. Jews from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek – all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced any indigenous languages. Eastern Diaspora was a bit different - no Hellenization and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their ‘mother tongue’. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of ‘hearth and home’ was Aramaic; it’s one of the main things that defined them, set them apart, and gave them their ethnic and religious identity.

Many lands, many places and people; but as we can now see, only two languages: Aramaic and Greek. The apostles spoke both.

The difficult thing for many to accept perhaps is that the gift of tongues (as traditionally defined) was not evidenced at Pentecost; it didn’t need to be. The apostles weren’t speaking any language they didn’t already know.

The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.

The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars. Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. Further added to the crowd’s reaction was to hear Galileans (the “country bumkins” of their day) speak so boldly and with such inspired authority. It’s no wonder some thought them drunk.

This idea of Hebrew first, then the vernacular is rather detailed and for the sake of brevity, I don’t present it in any detail here. The closest analogy in a religious setting I can think of would be the Roman Catholic Church, pre-Vatican II. If people in the US went to church in say 1950, and the priest came out and started to offer the mass in English, the parishioners’ reaction would be one of confusion, bewilderment, astonishment – the same reaction by the crowd as on Pentecost – “how is it that we hear him speaking in the language we were born in to??” In pre- Vatican II, the parishioners would have fully expected to hear Latin , the liturgical and sacerdotal language of the RCC used; not their native language of English. Indeed, the only part of the mass allowed to be given in the local language was the homily (sermon). Some may even have thought the priest drunk to dare to do such a thing – it was just unheard of. Sort of the same idea here with Hebrew first, then a translation to the vernacular.

To suggest, as the apostles did, that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence, in part, also likely accounted for the crowd's reaction.

If we take a closer look at a more literal translation of the Greek text here, what we have is: “they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages [than Hebrew] as the Spirit kept giving bold, authoritative, inspired speech to them.”

The Greek ‘apophtheggomai’ refers, not to the content of the speech (i.e., the language), but to "the manner of speaking." In each instance, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired.

Other languages - other than Hebrew. These other languages they spoke in were Aramaic and Greek – that the Spirit kept giving them bold, authoritative, inspired speech. Why? To declare the mighty works of God. To declare God available to anyone. The complete breaking of a previously existing barrier between Gentiles and God.

Something to consider is that the only "tongues evidenced" by the apostles after being “baptized in the Holy Spirit” were nothing more than their own native languages – Aramaic and Greek! No xenoglossy, and definitely no modern tongues-speech here, folks.

So, if the gift of tongues is not a spiritual xenoglossy, since the assumption that this definition hinges on is not correct, what is it?

I would argue that the “gift of tongues” may be essentially defined to mean the God/Holy Spirit-given ability, i.e. the gift ….. of being able to learn languages more easily and quickly than most others, but more so, as far as Paul was concerned, using that ability in spreading the message of Christianity and edifying the community, and to the further glory of God in general.

One needs to consider that in most cultures in the ancient world, the average person was born, lived and died in the same village and never ventured more than 10-20 miles beyond its borders. A person who had the ability to be able to “pick up” languages from lands that would have seemed almost impossibly distant, and quickly become conversant maybe even literate in them, was looked at and considered to be a divine gift.

And finally, yes, Corinth was about correcting language issues. In an ethnically and linguistically diverse city such as Corinth, it’s not difficult to imagine a slew of communication/language issues (no multi-lingual signs and instruction books in those days 😊).

To your initial comments in Part 1 I find much agreement - as my own posting shows. However, to your second part I respectfully disagree. I set forth first the text under consideration - Acts 2:3-11 (KJV)

3 "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

Jerusalem, at the three annual feasts prescribed by Law, became host to a massive inflow of Jews from the diaspora (as you correctly stated). Historians disagree on the population so we cannot accurately peg the numbers, but it matters not because the "multitude" of verse six would have been limited by the size of the area they gathered in and the distance a human voice can carry among buildings. Added to this, the Hebrew is a special creature. Whereas the average foreigner who immigrates into a new society is assimilated by the third generation, the Jews have a knack of retaining their customs and Law for generations. This seemingly great and God-given trait is also the reason why Hitler and the like could identify them for pogroms. This ability might be used to support your argument to a degree, but it is to the Bible, and not historians, that we must turn to decide on the extent and content of the tongues of Pentecost.

Now, since the diaspora was a chastisement upon Israel, and the law governing this states; "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone" (Deuteronomy 28:64), we can be sure that the Holy Spirit meant what He said in verse 5 above. They might have been only a few from Tokyo (or its equivalent), but there is no contradiction here. Together with this, although the official language of the time and area would have been Greek, with Aramaic and Roman thrown in, verse 8 says that "every man" did indeed have the language of the country "he was born in", and that this language was "his own". And the language they heard was was this language. Verse 11 reaffirms the same. After listing several places stretching from Rome to Libya to Arabia to Asia, the listeners from this multiple places said that they "hear them speak in OUR TONGUES".

If we look at just the countries around the Mediterranean today, with all the aids we have and the almost universal computer language being English, the traveler from Albania to Italy, just a short hop over water, has language problems. In Switzerland there are four official languages and the effects of Babel can still be felt with many French speaking Swiss refusing to speak Swiss German, though they proudly belong to the same nation - and a small one at that.

While I fully agree that the gift of tongues is needed very little in today's world, and that multitudes of Pentecostals simulate this gift, the gift of tongues is just that - the ability given to SOME to speak a foreign language. And Romans 11:29 indicates that once God has given a gift, He is loath to withdraw it. "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Tongues, even drastically reduced, must be available to us today - as the Lord decides (1st Cor.12:10-11).

 

[Absolutely]

Thread should read;
""Since us cessationists can not mentally discern the Holy Spirit,here is MY VERSION of modern full gospel believers outside the no brainer verses AUTHENTICATING their experience.""

 

[lenna]

Thread should read;
""Since us cessationists can not mentally discern the Holy Spirit,here is MY VERSION of modern full gospel believers outside the no brainer verses AUTHENTICATING their experience.""

they should be commended for their tireless efforts

 

[Nehemiah6]

So because tongues causes division and division is not from God, tongues are not from God?

If modern tongues were the same as biblical tongues, there would be no division. And the doctrine which was postulated to justify modern tongues was also divisive.

 

[lenna]

If modern tongues were the same as biblical tongues, there would be no division. And the doctrine which was postulated to justify modern tongues was also divisive.

so it must also follow that if Jesus really died for all, then all must be saved

and of course we know there was never any sort of division in the early Christian gatherings

and we also know that when Paul said do NOT forbid speaking in tongues, he really meant do not speak in tongues

Nehemiah you present so many strawman arguements and illogical statements, that it would be funny if you were not serious

your fallacy regarding your opinion that if tongues today were the same as 2000 years ago, there would be no division, is drawing a conclusion that attempts to persuade by a false dilemma and one of your own making at that.

 

[Kavik]

verse 8 says that "every man" did indeed have the language of the country "he was born in", and that this language was "his own". And the language they heard was was this language. Verse 11 reaffirms the same. After listing several places stretching from Rome to Libya to Arabia to Asia, the listeners from this multiple places said that they "hear them speak in OUR TONGUES".

If we look at just the countries around the Mediterranean today, with all the aids we have and the almost universal computer language being English, the traveler from Albania to Italy, just a short hop over water, has language problems. In Switzerland there are four official languages and the effects of Babel can still be felt with many French speaking Swiss refusing to speak Swiss German, though they proudly belong to the same nation - and a small one at that.

Verse 8, I would argue, is just affirmation that everyone heard the apostles speak the language of “hearth and home” – the language they were ‘born into’. For Jewish communities in the Eastern Diaspora, this language was Aramaic; not whatever the local language was. “In our own language”; i.e., not Hebrew, but our mother tongue (Aramaic and, if you were from the Western Diaspora, Greek). The verse says nothing about the language of the particular county where they were born, rather “the language wherein we were born” (i.e. the language of ‘hearth and home’; our native language). The 17th century English wording is a bit confusing there if you’re using the KJV.

Verse 11 confirms that – our languages (i.e. Aramaic & Greek); 'not Hebrew' (and I guess one could argue, for Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, 'nor the local vernacular').

Yes, I agree – the canton of Graubünden (Grisson/Grezione/Grischun) in Switzerland is home to Rumantsch (more properly, Rhaeto-Romance), but even in that tiny canton, Rhaeto-Romance is a more or less generic term for what is actually no fewer than 5 very distinct minor Romance languages. Different from each other to the point where communication can become an issue.

In the 1st century Western Diaspora, language wasn’t an issue – Jews quickly adopted the Koiné ‘dialect’, and their Greek was more or less the same no matter where in the Western Diaspora they were from. As I mentioned, for Jews in the eastern Diaspora, the situation was very different. No Hellenization – each county had its own language(s); however, Jewish communities lived in larger cities in very close-knit communities (much the same way as some immigrant groups today do in the US). They preserved Aramaic as part of their cultural and religious identity.

As a sort of analogy, my mother is of French-Canadian descent. She speaks English as well as anyone, but it’s not her language of “hearth and home”; the language ‘wherein she was born‘ is French. Even though she speaks the local vernacular fluently (i.e. English), it was never the language at home and with family; that’s exclusively French.

Same with Jews in the Eastern Diaspora – they may have certainly been fluent in the local language, but it was never the language 'wherein they were born' (the language they were born into). That language was Aramaic.