- What is, actually, the gift of tongues? I think in Acts chapter two, that's the first example we
see on the day of Pentecost of people speaking in tongues. And those who speak in tongues, I think, clearly speak in other languages. Luke lists all these different regions from which people come and he says they heard them
speaking in their own language. There's a few people out there that say the gift was
in the gift of hearing, but I think when you
actually read the text, it's much more likely that the gift is in the gift of speaking. So they spoke in a different languages, people who were in Jerusalem
for the day of Pentecost from all around the world, they heard, the apostles and their friends, speaking in their own languages. So what is the nature of the
gift of tongues in Acts 2, I think it's clearly speaking
in foreign languages. The next clear example,
speaking in tongues, and it's in Acts chapter 10 when Peter preaches to
Cornelius and his friends. And Peter's preaching to them, he doesn't give an invitation, but the Spirit suddenly falls on them and they speak in tongues. Now, I think the burden
of proof is on anyone who would say the gift is different from what it is in Acts 2. Secondly, the Gentiles, 'cause
Cornelius was a Gentile. The Gentiles speaking in tongues proves to these Jewish believers that these Gentiles had
received the Holy Spirit. Which the Jews would wonder about since the Gentiles were not circumcised. And thirdly in Acts chapter 11, Peter says they got the same gift as us. So I think that seals the deal. It's the same gift. So, again, I think it's quite clear they were speaking in other languages. Luke gives us no indication that the gift is of a different nature than what we see in Acts chapter 10. The third example is in Acts chapter 19, when Paul goes and speaks
to the Ephesian 12, and they've only heard
about John's baptism, and he tells them about
Jesus and the Holy Spirit and they receive the Spirit
and they speak in tongues. I mean, again, there's no reason to think, we've had two examples now
that the gift is any different from what we've read about in
Acts 2 and Acts chapter 10. So I think there's good reasons to think that the gift of tongues, they are speaking in other languages. What about 1st Corinthians? 1 Corinthians 12 through 14. So many people argue, "Yes, the gift was speaking
in other languages in Acts, "but in 1 Corinthians, it's speaking "in a private prayer language
or ecstatic utterances." When I say ecstatic utterances, I'm not criticizing the term. But it's not a discernible
language any longer. And so they'll say, you
know, "Tongue speaking today, "it's not speaking in foreign languages, "but it's like the ecstatic
utterances we read about "in 1 Corinthians 12 through 14." That's possible, but I'm not convinced. I think there's several
arguments against it. First, I think the burden of proof, again, is on someone who would say,
"The gift is different in Acts "from what it is in 1 Corinthians." The most natural way to read
it is it's the same gift. Second, Christopher Forbes,
who is himself a charismatic and has written on inspired speech, argues that the Greek word, glossa, doesn't refer to ecstatic utterances but speaking in a language. So the actual meaning of the term, I don't think points
to ecstatic utterances. Thirdly, though, people point to verses like 1 Corinthians
14:2, and they'll say, "Well, it's clearly a different gift "because in Acts they speak
to men and men understand. "But in 1 Corinthians, "Paul says you're not speaking to men," This is 1 Corinthians 14:2. "You're not speaking to men but to God "and no one understands "but he speaks mysteries in his spirit." And so they say, "Look
how different that is, "it must be a different kind of tongues "in 1 Corinthians 14:2." But my response to that
is I just don't think that's persuasive because
the key is to recognize the situation is different. In Acts, why is it that those
who are speaking in tongues were speaking to men and
not speaking mysteries? Because the people who knew
the languages were there. If, and in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is addressing a specific
situation in the church, where the Corinthians
are speaking in tongues and no one understands
what they're saying. So it's not that the gift is different, it's the situation is different. If you're in a situation and you're speaking in another language and no one understands you, you're basically speaking
to God, aren't you? And it's a mystery to
everyone else that is there. So, honestly, I don't
think the differences between the two texts are
very, very significant at the end of the day. We just have to recognize we
have a different circumstance that underlies these two texts. Does Paul speak of a
private prayer language in 1 Corinthians 14? He absolutely does. He says that one can speak it in private. But we are not to make
the mistake of saying, "Well, if the language is private, "it must be ecstatic utterances." I don't think that follows. I think Paul says it's fine
to speak it in private, but that doesn't prove that
the nature of the gift is there for speaking in ecstatic utterances. You can speak in another foreign language in private as well. Of course, Paul doesn't think
such private tongue speaking is important to ones spiritual life. Paul emphasizes that the purpose of gifts is to edify the body. So he doesn't give any essay on what it's like to speak
in tongues in private. Because that is not even his concern. What about "the tongues of angels"? Maybe we don't speak in
foreign languages only but we also speak in
the tongues of angels. 1 Corinthians 13:1 Again, that's possible. But I'm not persuaded. I actually think Paul
is speaking rhetorically and hyperbolically in that passage. I mean, he's talking about what love is, he's not really trying to explain the nature of the gift of tongues. My support for this really comes
as well from the next verse because Paul says, "If I
have the gift of prophecy "and know all mysteries
and all knowledge," do you hear the rhetorical nature of that? Clearly, it's hyperbolic. Nobody who has the gift of prophecy knows all mysteries and all knowledge. But I think that matches up very well with 1 Corinthians 13:1. "If I speak in the tongue
of man and even of angles." So I don't think we
ought to read into that, that yes people speak
in the tongue of angels, I think he's just extending
out the argument to say, "Even if that were possible," and I think Paul's
saying we don't do that, "but I don't have love, I'm just a sounding gong,
an irritating noise." So I don't think the argument
from the tongues of angels is a persuasive argument in favor of a different kind of tongue. One other question, is speaking in tongues
the baptism of the Spirit? I mean in Acts 2, it takes
place right on Pentecost, you could say Pentecost is
the birthday of the church. Those who believe speak in tongues. In Acts 10, Cornelius and his friends, when they become
Christians, speak in tongues and Acts 8, perhaps the
Samaritan spoke in tongues, the text doesn't say they
did, but perhaps they did. Acts 19, the Ephesian 12 speak in tongues. I would argue what we
have in Acts, though, is we have a purpose in all those passages for the speaking in tongues, and it ought not to be
equated necessarily, that's my key word. It ought not to be equated necessarily with the baptism of the Spirit. So Acts 2 is the
inauguration of the church. It's the inauguration
under the new covenant. It's the coming of the new age. Yes, is it identified as
the baptism of the Spirit? Absolutely. Because of Acts 1:5, Jesus says you're going to be baptized, you're going to be immersed
with the Spirit in not many days Obviously that took place
in Acts chapter two. So, yes, the baptism of the Spirit can be accompanied by speaking in tongues. The question is, does it have to be? My answer to that is no, but
let's go to the next passage. Did they speak in tongues in Acts chapter eight with the Samaritans? Let's say they did. We're not sure, the text doesn't say. It says Simon saw the
Spirit being given to them. Maybe he saw them speak in tongues. But why did the Samaritan
speak in tongues? Well there's this long cultural breach, this long cultural separation between the Jews and the Samaritans. The Samaritans had even
built a separate temple, although the Jews had burned it down. The Samaritans, if they spoke in tongues and I think they probably did, it would demonstrate to the Jews, "Yes, the Samaritans have
really become Christians." So, were they baptized
when they spoke in tongues? Yes. Was it the baptism of the Spirit? Yes. But the function of them
speaking in tongues, I think was to demonstrate to the Jews, who would hold the
Samaritans in suspicion, "Look, these Samaritans
are really Christians." Acts chapter 10, Cornelius
and his friends are Gentiles. Peter preaches, they receive the Spirit, and they speak in tongues. Is that their baptism of the Spirit? I think it is. But why do they speak in tongues? Not because you must speak in tongues, to be baptized of the Spirit. They speak in tongues to demonstrate to the Jewish believers, "Yes, these Gentiles are really saved. "They're really Christians "without being circumcised
and keeping the law." So again, speaking in tongues demonstrate the Gentiles are truly
part of the people of God. Fourthly, what about the Ephesian 12? The Ephesian 12 in Acts chapter 19. The Ephesian 12 are
disciples of John the Baptist and they speak in tongues. Now, it's very interesting to note, this is not a second experience
for them in Acts chapter 19 because I don't think
they were Christians yet. They only believed in the baptism of John. So we're not getting a
second experience here, what we're seeing here is we're
seeing that the Ephesian 12 for the first time enter the new period of redemptive history. They live in kind of a
redemptive, historical time warp. They're stuck on John's baptism. So they hear the good news about Jesus and the gift of the Spirit, they believe and they receive the Spirit
and they speak in tongues. Was it the baptism of the Spirit? Yes. But it's a baptism of the
Spirit that came at conversion. So I would argue, when you look at all
four of those passages, Pentecost, Samaria, Cornelius and his
friends, the Ephesians 12, in every case the tongue
speaking came at conversion as accompanied by the
baptism of the Spirit. But there were good reasons
in every one of those cases why they spoke in tongues. The Ephesian 12, why do
they speak in tongues? To show that Jesus' message is more important than the Baptist. That Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Baptist taught. Remember, they were disciples
of John the Baptist. And in the first century,
some people actually thought the Baptist was more important than Jesus. So this shows that Jesus is
more important than the Baptist, he's the fulfillment of
all the Baptist taught. Finally, Paul mentions
the baptism of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13. And Paul emphasizes every Christian is baptized by the Spirit. I mean read it, we're
all baptized, he says. Whether Jew or Greek,
whether slave or free. So the baptism of the Spirit is something all Christians
experience at conversion and, what else do we see in
1 Corinthians 12 through 14 that's very helpful, Paul says, "Not all speak in tongues." Very clearly. Not all have that gift but all Christians are baptized with the Spirit at conversion. "They enter the body of
Christ," 1 Corinthians 12:13. So you put those two things together. All Christians are baptized
by the Spirit at conversion. In Acts, right, we saw
that in all four cases. Yes, in those passages, for particular reasons it was accompanied by speaking in tongues, but when we come to 1
Corinthians, it's very clear that the baptism of the Spirit
takes place at conversion and it isn't necessarily
accompanied by speaking in tongues. In fact probably for most it was not accompanied
by speaking in tongues. So my final word is this. If speaking in tongues is
speaking in foreign languages, I think most tongue speaking today, what people call tongue speaking, is not the same thing as what
was taking place in the Bible. Does that mean I think it's of the Devil, what's happening today? I'm not saying that. I think people do it out of good will. But I don't think it's the same thing as the gift that is talked
about in the Scripture. And in fact, I lean towards the view that gift is no longer operative
today, although, perhaps, God might be willing to grant that gift in cutting-edge, missionary situations, such as we see on the day of Pentecost. But I don't think that's a regular feature of church life today. So that's a very
controversial issue, isn't it? Good Christians who love
each other, disagree on this. We're still brothers
and sisters in Christ. The main thing is we all
have the Holy Spirit, we worship the same Christ,
we belong to the same Lord. So we give ourselves to Him
and we pray for one another, and we love one another, and we spread the good news to the world. - [Narrator] Thanks for
watching Honest Answers. Don't forget to subscribe. (music)
