To Speak or Not To Speak, That is the Question
The issue of speaking in tongues is a topic that has plagued the Church and even split local churches in the last 150 or so years. It is something that the Apostle Paul swiftly dealt with in the early church, and something preachers throughout Church History have had to battle whenever a sect would pop up. The speaking of tongues saturates the movement known as Pentecostalism, but extends to other denominations that have a bent for the charismatic influence. Nothing is safe from the reaches of the teaching of tongues. They are in everything from the ultra-charismatic Assemblies of God, to the predominately conservative Baptist, to the Roman Catholic Church. The vastly different, hard-line, stuck in the mud views people have on tongues has split churches, placed strains on families, and caused a great division between people in the local churches, and that is the place where there should be the most unity.
So the question still remains, should tongues be spoken today, or did they cease to have any purpose, after the apostolic era ended? It is the hope of this writer that through this piece, the reader will be able to make a humble, educated decision as to whether tongues should be spoken in today’s church services, or even in one’s private prayer closet.
Before one can determine if the gift of tongues is for today, a definition is required. A clear concise definition of tongues is difficult to nail down. For each view there are different definitions. The first view, held by most people within Pentecostalism is an unknown, ecstatic prayer language in which the Holy Spirit prays as intercessor for your needs to God through you (Busenitz 62). The view held by most people in the camp that teaches tongues has ceased, believe that tongues were known languages, but foreign to the person because it was a different unlearned language, than what the person speaks (Busenitz 62). Acts 2.4, 7-8 gives proof that this was indeed a miracle, and a known language; “Then they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in different languages, as the Spirit gave them ability for speech. And they were astounded and amazed, saying, "Look, aren't all these who are speaking Galileans? How is it that each of us can hear in our own native language (HCSB)?”
So where then does teaching of tongues come from? Even though the Old Testament (Mills 21) does refer to tongues, they were spoken both in pagan rituals such as voodoo (Erickson 879), and also legitimate tongues spoken by Prophets, Charismatic’s typically make a bee-line to the book of Acts to give support to their view. Further support is given by 1st Corinthians (Gromacki 10-11). To understand where they are coming from and the basis to their entire argument, these verses must be unpacked to see what tongues are and if they should still be used today.
The Charismatic epicenter of the gifts of tongues has to deal with the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter two. Dr. George W. Dollar in his book The New Testament and New Pentecostalism says that Acts 2 “is the Belgium chapter of Acts, if not the whole New Testament (Dollar 47).” Dollar says this because Belgium was fought over more than almost any other European country, just as is Acts two in continuous strife and a battle within the Church. In Acts 2.2-8, the events that lead up to 3000 getting saved were, a sound of a violent wind, flames were over each head, and the people began to, by the Holy Spirit, speak in other tongues (HCSB). The Greek word in Acts 2 for tongues is the plural word Glōssa, this was to show that what was being spoken was more than one language (MacArthur 226). To take the argument even further, what happened at Pentecost was a known language and not just ecstatic utterances, is the word (often used interchangeable with glossa) Dialektos, which when transliterated to English, is our term dialect (MacArthur 159). A Dialect is multiple forms of a language, no matter how many ways gibberish is sliced it is still gibberish. This further proves that tongues are a language and not senseless utterances.
Also most charismatics will say, the purposes of tongues are a sign that salvation has taken place and the person was baptized by fire of the Holy Spirit (Arthur 47). Aside from all the times, people where saved in the Scriptures and didn’t speak in tongues, this view can be refuted within the same chapter! This is why it is important to use context when studying, instead of taking a single or a cluster of verses and making an entire doctrine of it. In the beginning of the chapter we see the breaking out of tongues; however, it is not until after Peter preaches the Word, do 3000 people get saved (HCSB). Also, not all believers have the gift. 1 Corinthians 14.5 says “I wish all of you spoke in other languages…” logically proving not all believers spoke in tongues, thus negating the argument that tongues are a proof of salvation (HCSB). In summation tongues cannot be evidence of salvation and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, because tongues were spoken before salvation and not all believers spoke in tongues.
The question can then be raised, “What then is the purpose of tongues?” There is one purpose for tongues, and two sub-purposes. Those sub-purposes stem from the main purpose in Acts chapter five. Luke writes in verse twelve, “Many signs and wonders were being done among the people through the hands of the apostles (HCSB).” So the head of the purpose of tongues flowchart is that they were a sign to the Jews. They are then sub-categorized into a sign to unbelievers not a sign for believers, (1 Corinthians 12.22). The second category was a sign to the Jews that the Gentiles were now brought into the fold (Burdick 30)! Acts 10.44-48 tells the account of Peter going to Cornelius, and Cornelius getting saved. Because of this the Gentiles spoke in tongues and solidified to the Jews that the Gentiles, were now able to be saved like the Jews.
Now that the definition of tongues and the purpose of tongues are understood, it should do well to understand the practice of tongues. Paul deals with the guidelines of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The Corinthian Church had the problem of abusing or over-using this Spiritual Gift. We know this because it is only in this epistle that tongues are mentioned, let alone a rebuke and establishment of guide lines (Hayes 17). 1 Corinthians 14.26 says that tongues were to be used to edify the church during the service (HCSB). In addition to building up the church, there must be an interpreter present (Gromacki 130). 1st Corinthians 14.28 says, “But if there is no interpreter, that person should keep silent in the church and speak to himself and to God (HCSB).” The tongues spoken must be in a known language. Nowhere in the Scripture is it ever mentioned that the spiritual gift of tongues was ever ecstatic utterances (Gromacki 131). The next requirement for tongues in a service is who is allowed to speak. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14.27 that no more than three people should be allowed to share the gifts of tongues in any given service, and they must speak separately as not to over talk one another (HCSB). Also, in following the same thought, only men are allowed to speak. 1 Corinthians 14.34 says “the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says (HCSB).”
While many people continue to speak in tongues, no matter the reasoning or kind, there are a large group of people that believe the gift has ceased and is no longer operative today. It is impossible to deny that the gift has an end, whether it was during the early church or in the future, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13.8 “Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for languages, they will cease… (HCSB).” So what is the reasoning for the cessationist view? The only time tongues were mentioned was in an early epistle, and never mentioned again in the later letters (MacArthur 231). Tongues were a miraculous gift, if the other miraculous gifts died out with the Apostles, why would just one remain? In both Letters to Timothy, Paul wrote telling Timothy that he was unable to heal a person. In 2nd Timothy Paul states, “I left Trophimus sick at Miletus.” (HCSB), thus showing the waning of the gifts within the Apostle. If the reader recalls, it was mentioned that one of the purposes for tongues was to signal to the unbelieving Jews that God was now working within the Gentile Nations. Because the Gentiles church came to fruition, the Jews understood that God is working among the Gentiles nixing any need for tongues. Lastly the complete absence of the gift in the rest of the writing of the Bible, and Church History (except for pockets of fringe groups that were swiftly dealt with) shows that tongues have ceased (MacArthur 234).
To bring about the end, it was shown that tongues are known languages and not gibberish utterances. Also, they were used for signs. It was shown that there are regulations to the speaking of tongues, and one of those regulations was the disallowing of women to speak them. Because of this it was proven that not every person possessed the gift, crushing any argument for tongues being a proof of salvation. The question still remains. Should tongues be spoken today, or did they cease to have any purpose, after the Apostolic era ended? The only logical answer is yes! Even though there is strong argument for tongues to have ended, a date or time was never given to mark an explicit end. Therefore on the cessationists side of the argument, judgment should not be cast upon the charismatic brother if they so choose to believe in tongues. Just the same, if tongues are going to be spoken, they should be done in the exact way that the Apostle Paul organized and mandated they be done in, and judgment should not be cast on the brother who believes in the cessation in the gift. After all, the Church is one, and should be united because of the completed work of Christ, not split because of something of little importance as a gray area doctrine that could in theory go either way!
No comments:
Post a Comment