A Distinction Between Tongues

When evaluating the concept of speaking in tongues it is crucial to rightly divide the Word of Truth. (2 Tim 2:15)

Understanding of any concept in the Word requires the separation of scripture into proper categories. In order to know what is expected of all mankind it is absolutely essential to adhere to this practice. Otherwise, deception will keep those who earnestly wish to be obedient to God’s Word from doing so.

Twisting, combining, and force fitting unrelated scriptures to justify a concept is one way the enemy keeps mankind chained in darkness.

Speaking in tongues is the evidence that a person has received the entrance of the Holy Ghost into their body. Scripture specifies this in the Book of Acts where the birth of the NT church is recorded. (Acts 2:4) What occurred was prophesied by the Prophet Joel. (Acts 2:16) Peter states that receiving the Holy Ghost is a gift that is available to all those whom Jesus’ calls. (Acts 2:38)

The Apostle Peter addressed the Jewish population on the Day of Pentecost with instructions that all were required to obey.

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Acts 2:38-39

Notice in the scripture above that the Holy Ghost WAS the promised gift available to AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL.

Later Peter’s words to the Gentiles via Cornelius include required obedience to the same components outlined in his comments to the Jewish population when the church was first birthed. They, too, receive the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in tongues. (Acts 10:44-48)

Another group of people, the Samaritans who are half Jewish and half Gentile receive Peter’s instructions through Philip the evangelist. (Acts 8:12-17) The group hears the message of Jesus and the need to be water baptized in His name and do so. However, Philip realizes they did not receive the Holy Ghost and sends for Peter and John to assist. STOP.

Ask yourself how Philip knew the group had not received the Holy Ghost? One can only conclude from his actions, and other related scriptures on the topic, there is external evidence of the infilling. In this portion of scripture we also see it stated that when Simon saw that the Holy Ghost was given through the laying on of hands he offered money. (Acts 8:18) Again, ask yourself how Simon knew someone had received the Holy Ghost after having hands laid upon them. These scripture verses debunk the idea that everyone receives the Holy Ghost the moment they believe the gospel message of Jesus.

Lastly, the Apostle Paul comes across some disciples at Ephesus. The first question he asks is “Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed?” Again his question debunks the idea that everyone gets the Holy Ghost the moment they believe the gospel.

Further, Paul instructs the disciples on what is required:

Acts 19:3-93 “And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.”

Notice after Paul provided the disciples with accurate information concerning the correct way to water baptize, and of the need to receive the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues he stayed to teach others this truth as well. (Acts 19:8) But many believed him not and spoke evil of that way so he departed from them. (Acts 19:9)

The scripture evidence is conclusive. Everyone is supposed to receive the Holy Ghost and has done so when there is evidence of speaking in tongues. God is the only one that has complete control of the tongue.

"For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame;" (James 3:7-8) However, with God all things are possible. (Matt 19:26)

In addition, on the Day of Pentecost a flame resembling a cloven tongue appeared above each person when the Spirit entered their body and they began speaking in tongues.

The visual flame accompanying the initial speaking in tongues surely conveyed that the presence of God had filled the body. The born again Christian’s body is God’s tabernacle. Notice the OT parallel below:

• The Israelites knew when God was present in the darkness of night by the pillar of flame that appeared above the Old Testament tabernacle. (Exodus 25:8, 22, 29:43,40:34-38) The flame was the undeniable evidence that God’s Holy Spirit was present.

The definition of cloven pertaining to this scripture means split. This implies that biblical tongues manifests in two forms.

• The cloven (split or divided in two) tongue appears to represent that there are two types of tongues: One as the initial evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, and two; the Spiritual gift of tongues.

SPIRITUAL GIFT OF TONGUES:

Paul’s discourse about Spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12) was presented to those who had already become born again believers.

Only after one is born again and has received the Holy Ghost within their body will there be the possibility of having Spiritual gifts manifest for the edifying of other church members.

The Spiritual gifts manifest when the Holy Ghost flows through and uses our human body to edify other believers and unbelievers alike. The born again Christian is a conduit between the Holy Ghost and others for the specific purpose of bringing God’s will to pass.

God distributes the Spiritual gifts as He sees fit. Not all will be used to Speak in Tongues for the edification of church members.

According to Curtis Edwards, Pagan Pentecostalism: Its Roots: Sex, Sin & Slavery, Voodoo was the religion of African slaves. And even before slavery they would voodoo any religion they took part in. They had voodoo Catholicism for the main part.

The after coming to Haitian and American shores, they voodooed whatever religion they encountered. Voodoo Methodism and voodoo Baptist churches, were common in Louisiana.

Wm. Seymour tried to voodoo the Church of God (Anderson) but got expelled. Shortly thereafter, he voodooed his Wesley Methodism at Azusa street in Los Angeles. He thought voodoo tongues were the same as Bible tongues. This became the Assemblies of God denomination with the Oneness United Pentecostal Church splitting off from them over their antitrinitarian views.

Curtis Edwards

Edwards, Curtis. Pagan Pentecostalism: Its Roots: Sex, Sin & Slavery . Kindle Edition.

Also Speaking in Tongues: Glossalalia and Stress Reduction

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8088740

My faith is in the word of God. All spiritual concepts are confirmed within it's pages.

Satan has interjected such thoughts into mankind throughout the ages. Bad mouthing and distorting Godly principles is done in hopes of limiting and/or destroying the ability for ministries to operate in power. Also, Satan's objective is and has always been to take as many with him into eternal damnation.

Remember the word of God is what will judge every human being. Make sure to pay attention to what is found there.

History does not change. Study Wm. Seymour and Azusa Street before you say too much.

Again, the bible is the final authority, by it all will be judged.

Amen. Just because there are counterfeit tongues it does not discredit the genuine ones. Is that not what the devil always does? God has tongues, devil has tongues. God has a Messiah, satan has a (false)messiah. The devil is all about counterfeit.

I do not even know who Seymour is nor do I care to know, I do not follow the man. The Bible as you said is the leading authority.

According to some guys biased opinion. Are you kidding me?! Come on CC. Are personal attacks like this allowed here? Sex and Slavery?!! Give me a break with this junk. Disgusting.

Outrageous outlandish claims that pentecostalism's roots are in slavery sin and voodoo. The pentecostals I know who actually live in West-Africa (where voodoo is still quite common) are fighting tooth and nail against it and are trying to evangelize the practicioners of it. Not only that, they are constantly preaching to people to NOT mix Christianity with voodoo practices, because that is something that has commonly happened, prime example of this would be Haiti.

What do you think would happen if I made similar claims about Calvinism and John Calvin? Would the word misrepresentation come up or adhom? They would not take it too kindly. "Calvinism's roots, (alleged) homosexuality, execution and public hanging. Bloodlust killers and men (allegedly) convicted of sodomy"

Exactly, I have many missionary friends that evangelize all over the world. And they come up against these types of beliefs, voodoo and witch doctors and the like. And they do fight to show these people the truth and pull them out of their brainwashing. Thank you for your post.

This is history. Prove it wrong and then complain. Nothing personal.

But bad things happen when we walk blindly and turn our back on scripture.

Paragraph one started out good but ya fell off from there.

This is a Pentecostal/Charismatic misinterpretation of the gift of tongues. And you continue to push this false teaching here.

There are two recorded instances where tongues were necessary in order to prove to Jewish believers that Gentiles (or Semi-Gentiles) had also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You have mentioned them as noted in Acts 8 and Acts 10.

But that was not meant to be the norm (as you claim). The fact that about 3,000 Jews received the gift of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecosts WITHOUT SPEAKING IN TONGUES totally undercuts your belief.

Then we have other instances in the book of Acts of people being saved without any mention of tongues. And when the doctrine of salvation (justification) by grace through faith is expounded in Scripture, there is absolutely no mention of tongues being the evidence of salvation, since the gift of the Holy Spirit also means the gift of Christ and the gift of eternal life.

How dare you be literal?!
I want to be whipped up in my emotions and do a thing that assures me that I have a relationship with God, because just believing his word is not enough for me. Just taking God for what he says, means I have to deal with my doubts and failures. I can't just cover them up with emoting and doing a thing that reassures me. I have to come to the cross and say Lord help my unbelief.

You and I have discussed this before. I still stand on the fact that everyone living today is a descendant of one of the groups that was commanded to obey Peter's instructions. He stated that his comments pertained to not just those present but as many as the Lord shall call. The Lord is still calling people.

Secondly, there are many scriptures that focus on some of the four things required and not others; ie, belief in Jesus as Messiah, repentance, water baptism, etc. This in no way diminishes the fact that everyone must pursue obedience to all of the given instructions.

Just curious. Did you bother to read the entire comment? The bible confirms itself as depicted in the scriptures presented.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record......

Part 1 -

There is nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" – when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); perhaps unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) – it’s their native language.

If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point, between 1906 and 1907, the Pentecostal church was compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, and fervent belief in tongues as xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. The latter option was chosen.

One would think it impossible to study the history of Pentecostalism without, at the very least, a cursory look at the ‘tongues issue’. Because the Pentecostal doctrine and understanding on tongues was completely redefined, this would seem to present a problem – how can the issue be taught by Pentecostals to Pentecostals? The answer is rather surprising. The entire issue seems to have been conveniently ‘forgotten about’ and for all intents and purposes, swept under the rug. Very few, indeed if any, Pentecostals are taught about this issue; in my experience, most aren’t even aware that it ever existed.

In redefining “tongues”, Pentecostals looked to primary and secondary source works for an alternative explanation. It is during this time that, that (mainly) five German scholars promoted a fresh new approach to Biblical interpretation that purposely tried to avoid the trappings of traditional and enforced interpretations of Biblical texts, collectively known as “Higher Criticism”. Part of this tradition was examining “tongues” as ecstatic utterance, rather than the supposed xenoglossy as understood by mainstream Christianity for centuries.

As a quick aside, an important thing to note is that, prior to 1879, the term ‘glossolalia’ did not exist – it is a word coined by English theologian, Frederick Farrar (Dean of Canterbury) in 1879 in one of his publications.

The Pentecostal solution was an adaptation from the works of Farrar, Schaff and a few others. These ideas were further ‘tweaked’ to more adequately fit their new notion of tongues. From this, the concept of “prayer language” as an explanation for the modern phenomenon of tongues-speech was formed.

Over a short period of time, a Pentecostal apologetic was built. The emergence of the term “utterance” was strongly emphasized - it kept the definition ambiguous as it allowed for a variety of definitions beyond real, rational language, it was something sort of related to language, and could be defended more easily. “Utterance” fit much better in the Pentecostal paradigm and did not require empirical evidence. ‘Natural Praise’ and ‘adoration’ became a feature of ‘tongues’, and then ‘heavenly’ or ‘prayer language’ further broadened the definition. The term ‘glossolalia’ was transferred in from academia and was given a Pentecostal definition. In short, the tongues doctrine simply shifted into new semantics without any explanation. Xenoglossy one day, “prayer language” the next.

The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues. Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select Biblical texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was/is perceived to be.

What is amazing to me is how absolutely none of this is taught. It’s a topic that today is completely glossed over and conveniently forgotten about in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

Sad that you think that receiving the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues is one whipping up emotion. I pray God pours His Holy Spirit into you one day. If that happens there will be no doubt in your mind that you had nothing to do with it with the exception of humbling yourself in repentance. God alone promised He would give the gift as Joel prophesied. To belittle that is not wise.

Part 2 –

The plain fact however, is that the “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon . It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing sounds (phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, etc.). One of the most immediately obvious results of these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”.

Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, to be 'language', it must contain at a minimal two features - these two features are universal, regardless of where or by whom the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does.

People believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer bluntly put it: tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time.

There is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in natural and/or linguistic terms.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe/were taught. So much so, that many find them implausible.

With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition mentioned further above, the best two examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself.

“Praying in the Spirit” does not refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to how one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech.

The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit – “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”. Indeed, one of the most mindboggling responses I ever received in reference to the above is “They would not be called ‘tongues’ if they were languages.” – it’s honestly difficult to know where to even begin to go with that type of mentality!

The popular modern distinction/classification of ‘four types of tongues’ is also the direct result of the Pentecostal redefinition of ‘tongues’ in order to fit the modern phenomenon/understanding.

The most damning result of this re-definition is the reading into scriptural texts of things that are just not there.

Modern tongues is a tool, remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it's a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was.

Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release in that all stress can be gone after the experience.

People can describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it.

Mind you, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia . The glossolalia they are producing is in no way different from the glossolalia today's Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are producing.

Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia”, is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.

By the way, I’m a Linguist, not a theologian and let me also add here that I am neither a so-called ‘cessationist’ nor a ‘continuationist’ – I do not identify with either term; in fact, I had never heard the two terms until just late in 2016. Cessationist vs, non-cessationist is a bit of a false dichotomy; gifts ceasing is mentioned only once in one short sentence and the remainder of the Bible is totally silent on the matter. The one place it is mentioned is rarely taken into context of the entire passage. As far as I’m concerned, quite frankly, since the Biblical reference of “tongues” is to real, rational languages, obviously “tongues” haven’t “ceased”; people still speak.

As someone pointed out, 3,000 people were baptized on the day of Pentecost - not one is recorded as "speaking in tongues" as a result. Further, when Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River by John the Baptist, at which time the Holy Spirit descended from heaven and remained on him, Jesus did not begin to speak in tongues as a result, even though he was filled with the Holy Spirit.

If speaking in tongues had been the sign of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then it seems reasonable to assume that the same should have happened here and Scripture would have recorded it. However, the Bible does not contain any reference to Jesus miraculously or instantaneously speaking in tongues at the time of his baptism. This would seem to negate that “tongues” are a sign of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If they had been, Jesus of all people would have exhibited speaking in tongues at his baptism.