Articles
| An Article Written by Sam Storms and Wayne House
IS THE GIFT FOR TODAY? NO by Wayne House For most of my early ministry I believed that the gift of tongues discussed in the books of Acts and 1 Corinthians continued until the present day. In fact, I once believed that I had this gift. I am now convinced, however, that I was mistaken, and that the "gift" I practiced was not authentic. Why? The Singular Purpose of Tongues The New Testament purpose for tongues is stated in only one place, 1 Cor. 14:22: "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers." The text begins with a strong purpose clause. The gift is a sign that God has made salvation available to all nations (Mt. 28:19-20). What better indication of that change than to enable persons to speak in the languages of the nations? Some would argue that such a sign is needed in every generation. This might be true if the gift were to function as a proof of the authenticity of the gospel, or were for evangelizing, or were merely to benefit people. This is not the case. Throughout biblical history, miracles have served primarily to usher in a new revelation of God. Series of miracles occurred at Israel's initiation as a nation, at the beginning of the prophetic ministries of Elijah and Elisha, and in the beginning of the revelation of Jesus. Other than during these specific periods, few miracles took place. Even when miracles occurred, they were done only by a few--Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, the apostles--so they are hardly normative. When God's revelation was firmly established in each new era then the miraculous passed away. One other issue should be addressed here. Some would say that the spiritual gift of tongues and the tongues in Acts are different. There is no evidence that this is so. The gift of tongues serves in Acts to signal the shift of God's favor from the nation of Israel to the Church. This perfectly accords with Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor. 14:21-23, clearly tying these "tongues" together. The Limited Value of the Gift for the Church Some argue that the gift of tongues also is meant for edification of the Body of Christ and that Paul commended the use of tongues in the church (1 Corinthians 14). Yet in reality the apostle did not really commend the use of tongues when believers gather, he merely reported that it occurred. Paul recognized that tongues have a place in the church. However, during church gatherings the gift has value only when interpreted. This is surely not an endorsement. Advocates will respond that tongues are proper in private devotional use. Yet no such use exists in the New Testament. There is no example of tongues being spoken in private; when tongues are exercised they should benefit the Body, not the individual (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:5). But doesn't Paul say he would speak in tongues in private rather than in the church (14:18-19)? He really does not say this but is thought to have done so because of a logical fallacy. The alternative to speaking in the church is not speaking in private, but speaking outside the church. This speaking could have been in any number of settings where Jews were present, as at Pentecost, Cornelius's house, or with John's disciples. A Real Human Language The "tongues" spoken today--which, by and large, show none of the linguistic patterns of a human language--are not the same as those described in the New Testament. Scripture generally presents the tongues spoken by believers as real, human languages. This is evident from the meaning of the Greek terms as well as the context. Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6, as well as 1 Corinthians 14, use the Greek term glossa for "tongues." This term is regularly used of intelligible languages. Granted, there are a few instances outside the New Testament when the word is used of ecstatic utterances or gibberish. However, it is clear that the phenomenon described in Acts 2, where the Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to speak in the dialects (dialektos) of the diverse speaking audience who heard them (2:8), was not ecstatic gibberish. The other instances of tongues-speaking in Acts give no reason to suspect them to be different from this event. On the other hand, the phenomenon in Corinth is a mixed bag. The immature Corinthian Christians had come from paganism with its standard emphases on frenzied worship and ecstatic utterances. In 1 Corinthians 14, the apostle seeks to move them to the gift of tongues given by the Holy Spirit. The Corinthians highly praised their ecstatic utterance, but Paul desired them to exercise the legitimate gift of the Spirit, which was a real human language. The apostle sought to allow the genuine gift of tongues given by the Spirit to operate within its purpose (14:20-22) while limiting the unintelligible and self-induced ecstatic utterances of the Corinthians. The latter was practiced without interpretation (14:2, 6-13) and did not accompany the use of the mind (14:14-17). Those who practiced it rebelled against proper order (14:26-28) and gave undue importance to the gift in the church (14:4-5,18-19). The authentic gift of tongues is described in 1 Corinthians 12. A Rare Occurrence Those who advocate speaking in tongues today consider this phenomenon to be a common occurrence in the first century (as well as in Church history, which we cannot discuss now). They base this belief on three mentions of the gift in the book of Acts and the references to tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Actually these specific examples militate against the likelihood of this gift being commonplace today. Let us examine the passages. The first occurrence of the gift of tongues is reported in Acts 2:1-4, where the Holy Spirit enabled the apostles to speak in languages they did not know. Generally Pentecostals and Charismatics believe that the entire 120 spoke in tongues in the Upper Room, but the text indicates otherwise. In Acts 1:15 Peter and the apostles were with 120 disciples. When one comes to verse 26, the only reference is to the 12 apostles. The grammatical structure indicates that those who came together in one place in Acts 2:1 were specifically the apostles, not the 120. After the miraculous events of sight and sound (Acts 2:2-3), each of these apostles was filled with the Holy Spirit and was enabled to speak in tongues (2:4). When the crowd gathered, the tongue-speakers were identified with a common designation of the apostles, namely, Galileans (2:7). When Peter then addressed the crowd he stood up, not in the midst of the 120 of 1:15, but with the 11 (2:14). He then identifies the 11 with him as witnesses (1:32; see 1:22), a requirement for an apostle, but not required for the disciples of 1:15. When the crowd responded, only Peter and the apostles were present (2:37). Tongues, then, were not initially given to all believers. The second mention of tongues in the book of Acts is 10:44-47. Cornelius and his house were endowed with the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues, similar to the day of Pentecost. But this does not prove that speaking in tongues was a usual occurrence. In fact, just the opposite is true. There are other examples of conversions among Jewish believers prior to this (Acts 2:41; 4:4) but no tongues are mentioned. The giving of the Spirit to Cornelius and his household was extraordinary; the men with Peter were astonished (10:45). Due to this visible sign (10:46), the Jews and Peter became convinced that God's new creation, the Church, was not restricted to Jews (10:45). Even more forceful is Peter's account of Cornelius's conversion in Acts 11. In attempting to persuade the other apostles of its legitimacy, he relates that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit accompanied by tongues. If speaking in tongues was a common occurrence in the Christian church, why did Peter refer the apostles to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost eight to ten years earlier? In Acts 19:1-6 we encounter the third incident of tongues in Acts. Here were disciples of John who, though having understood the Messiah was coming, did not have information regarding Christian baptism nor the coming of the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul conveyed the gift of the Spirit and the accompanying tongues by laying his hands on them. None of these examples from Acts points to a universal experience of tongues for all Christians. Why Tongues Ceased The grammar and context of 1 Cor. 13:8-12 would seem to support the teaching that tongues ceased by the end of the first century. This is consistent with the purpose of tongues: as a sign of a new era. Paul indicates that the incomplete gifts of prophecy and knowledge are done away with by the coming of the "perfect," while tongues simply cease in and of themselves. The text says that the gifts "in part" will be stopped by the "perfect" thing. Prophecy and knowledge (13:9) are intended to build up the Body. Their purpose relates to the completion of God's revelation to the Church and the establishment of the Church's foundation. They will continue until the "perfect," that is, the Church's adulthood, has come. Once the Church has the tools (including Scripture) and maturity to carry on apart from these miraculous gifts, prophecy and knowledge--gifts needed in the Church's "childhood"--will pass away (13:11). Tongues, on the other hand, are a sign to unbelievers of a new revelation (compare Eph. 2:19-20). The Greek uses the same verb and voice (passive) with prophecy and knowledge. They are both stopped by the coming of the "complete" or "perfect." The verb used with tongues, on the other hand, is in the middle voice, which should be translated, "cease in and of themselves." Nothing has to stop tongues; they stop when they are no longer needed. A Plea for Unity The gift of tongues was important to demonstrate the movement of God in history from the nation of Israel to all nations. It served as a sign of this event. There is no conclusive evidence that tongues were meant to exist past the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and it is doubtful that what is practiced today is the same thing as the tongues mentioned in the New Testament. What about those who claim to have this gift today? Though I believe one's personal experience is important in the Christian life, it is not a valid means to discover biblical truth. Our feelings do not determine the meaning of any given passage of Scripture. Feelings and perspective vary according to circumstances, but God's Word remains unchanged. Even if one should observe a bona fide example of a person speaking in a language that he or she never learned, through the power of God, this would not mean that this manifestation is identical to the gift of tongues in the New Testament. For the two to be the same, their purpose would have to be identical. The miracles of the Old and New Testaments served to validate the initiation of new revelation, not evangelism or some other purpose. Finally, let me say that I in no way doubt the sincerity of those who differ with me in this matter. I have many friends who earnestly believe they still exercise this gift, and I believe the matter, though important, should not detract from the emphasis of the New Testament that our fellowship in the faith and unity in the Spirit focus around our common Lord and Savior, not in our perspectives on tongues. IS THE GIFT FOR TODAY? YES by Sam Storms Cessationists commonly argue that the "gift of tongues" practiced today is not the same gift described in the New Testament. Referring to Acts 2, they argue that the gift of tongues was always an actual human language of the day, whereas the tongues spoken today are gibberish which generally shows none of the characteristics of an actual language. Acts 2, however, is the only text in the New Testament where tongues-speech is explicitly said to consist of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker. There is no reason to think Acts 2, rather than, say, 1 Corinthians 14, is the standard by which all occurrences of tongues-speech must be judged. Other factors that suggest tongues could also be heavenly or angelic speech are as follows. "If tongues is always a foreign language intended as a sign for unbelievers, why are the tongues in Acts 10 and Acts 19 spoken in the presence of believers only? "Paul describes various "kinds of tongues" in 1 Cor. 12:10. His words suggest that there are differing categories of tongues-speech, perhaps at minimum human languages and heavenly languages. * In 1 Cor. 14:2 Paul says that whoever speaks in a tongue "does not speak to men but to God." If one who prays in tongues speaks only to God, why would a human language be necessary? * Again, in 1 Cor. 14:2 he says that "no one understands" tongues because "mysteries" are spoken. But if tongues are always human language, many would understand, as they did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8-11). This would especially be true in Corinth, a multi-lingual cosmopolitan port city that was frequented by people of numerous dialects. * If tongues are always human language, then the gift of interpretation would require no special work of the Spirit. Anyone who was multi-lingual could interpret tongues-speech simply by virtue of their education. * In 1 Cor. 13:1 Paul refers to "the tongues of men and of angels." Whereas he may be using hyperbole, it is just as likely that he is referring to heavenly or angelic dialects for which the Holy Spirit gives utterance. * Some say the reference in 1 Cor. 14:10-11 to earthly, foreign languages proves that all tongues-speech is also human language. But the point of the analogy is that tongues function like foreign languages, not that tongues are foreign languages. His point is that the hearer cannot understand uninterpreted tongues any more than he can understand the one speaking a foreign language. If tongues were a foreign language, there would be no need for an analogy. * Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 14:18 that he "speaks in tongues more than all of you" is evidence that tongues are not foreign languages. As Wayne Grudem notes in Systematic Theology, "If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?" * If tongues are always human language, then Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 14:23 wouldn't always hold true. Any unbeliever who would know the language being spoken would more likely conclude the person speaking was highly educated rather than "mad." What Scripture Says Why am I convinced this helpful gift is still operative today? First, there is the absence of biblical evidence How Tongues Build Up the Church Cessationists have said that miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit such as tongues and their interpretation were designed as a sign to confirm and authenticate the apostles' message. This is true. But nowhere in the New Testament does it say that authentication was the sole and exclusive purpose of such displays of divine power. In fact, a wealth of biblical material suggests that the gift of tongues fulfills many purposes within the Church. Like every other spiritual gift, the gift's ultimate purpose is to build up the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:3,26). Tongues benefit believers in the following ways. Speaking in tongues is a form of prayer (1 Cor. 14:2, 14-15). Through its use the believer can communicate with God in supplication, intercession, and thanksgiving. Speaking in tongues is a means for edifying oneself (1 Cor. 14:4), as are many other Christian activities such as prayer and Bible study. Self-edification is not evil unless it becomes an end in itself. It is even commanded in Jude 20. Speaking in tongues is a way to praise the person and works of God (1 Cor. 14:16). There is no evidence that the tongues-speech in Acts 2 (or elsewhere) served an evangelistic purpose. According to Acts 2:11, the content of the tongues-speech was "the wonders of God" (see the same phrase in Acts 10:46). The people didn't hear evangelism; they heard praise! And it didn't generate conversion but confusion. It is Peter's preaching that brought salvation. Speaking in tongues can also be a way of compensating for our weakness and ignorance in praying for ourselves and others (cf. Rom. 8:26-27). Good for the Body Some have challenged the idea that the gift of tongues was designed to build up the Body of Christ. But according to 1 Cor. 12:7-10, spiritual gifts such as tongues were distributed to the Body of Christ "for the common good" (v.7), i.e., for the edification and benefit of the Church! In 1 Cor. 14:5, Paul says that tongues, when interpreted, are helpful to the Church. In 1 Cor. 14:26 Paul exhorts us to assemble, prepared to minister with a hymn, a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, and an interpretation. All of these are designed, he says, for "edification." If tongues were not intended to edify believers, why did God provide the gift of interpretation, so that tongues might be utilized in the gathered assembly of believers? In addition, there is evidence that Paul himself exercised the gift in private communication to God. In 1 Cor. 14:18-19 he declared: "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." This latter statement is Paul's somewhat exaggerated way of saying he almost never speaks in tongues in church. In the absence of an interpreter, he most definitely won't. But if Paul virtually never exercised this gift in church, yet spoke in tongues more frequently and fluently and fervently than anyone--even more so than the tongue-happy Corinthians--where did he do it? Surely he prayed in tongues in private. Nothing I read in the New Testament nor see in the condition of the Church leads me to believe we have progressed beyond the need for edification and therefore beyond the need for the contribution of the gift of tougues or suggesting it is not valid. This is not an argument from silence, because the New Testament is anything but silent concerning the presence of the gift in the Church. In other words, if certain gifts of a special class have ceased, the burden of proof rests with the cessationist. Some argue that when the writing of Scripture was completed, there was no longer any need for manifestations of divine power and they ceased. Hasn't the Bible itself replaced miraculous phenomena in the life of the Church? The problem is that the Bible itself never says any such thing. No biblical author ever claims that written Scripture has replaced or in some sense supplanted the need for any of the gifts. If the gift of tongues was essential in bearing witness to the truth of the gospel in the first century, why would it not do the same in subsequent centuries, even in our own? Another argument against tongues today says that signs, wonders, and miracles were clustered or concentrated at critical moments of revelatory activity in redemptive history. But my reading of the Old Testament reveals a consistent pattern of supernatural manifestations in the affairs of humanity. In addition to the multitude of miracles during the lifetimes of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha, we see numerous instances of angelic activity, supernatural visitations and revelatory activity, healings, dreams, visions, and the like. Furthermore, in Jer. 32:20 the prophet says that God "set signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, even unto this day, and in Israel, and among other men" (KJV, emphasis added). This text alerts us to the danger of arguing from silence. The fact that from the time of the Exodus to the Captivity fewer instances of signs and wonders are recorded does not mean they did not occur. Jeremiah insists they did. Finally, four texts seem to indicate clearly that the gift of tongues is still with us. First Corinthians 1:4-9 implies that the gifts of the Spirit are operative until "our Lord Jesus Christ [is] revealed" (v. 7). Ephesians 4:11-13 explicitly dates the duration of the gifts. They are required "until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ" (v. 13). In 1 Cor. 14:39 Paul commands "my brothers," among whom I include myself, to "be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues." And despite the controversy that still surrounds it, I remain convinced that the coming of "perfection" in 1 Cor. 13:8-13 refers to the perfection of the eternal state. The gift of tongues will cease only upon Christ's return. A Gift for All Ages I believe that miraculous gifts such as speaking in tongues were designed by God to characterize the life of the Church today for much the same reason I believe in church discipline for today and in rule by a plurality of elders for today and in the observance of the Lord's Supper for today. These gifts can be counted among a host of biblical practices and patterns explicitly ordained in the New Testament. Nowhere in Scripture has any of them been clearly designated as temporary or restricted to the first century. I do not believe the Holy Spirit simply inaugurates the new age and then disappears. He, together with His gifts and fruit, characterizes the new age. The Spirit was poured out at Pentecost not simply to jump-start the Church but to energize and empower her life and witness until the return of Jesus. I am grateful for all the gifts of the Spirit, and I urge you to join with me in heeding Paul's exhortation that we "eagerly desire spiritual gifts" (1 Cor. 14:1).
|