Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

7/21/2019 Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/speaking-in-tongues-gerhard-hasel 1/178

SPEAKING IN

TONGUES

Bíblica! Spenking in Tonques and

Contemperan»' Glossolalia

Gerhard F. Hasel



ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

MONOGRAPHS, VOL. 1

(ATSM, 1)

Adventist Theological Society Publications

Berrien Springs, MI 49103



SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Biblical Speaking in Tongues ai

Contemporary Glossolalia

Gerhard F. Hasel

Adventis t Theological Society Publica!

Berrien Springs, MI 49103



Cover design by

Giselle Sarli

© by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1991© by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1994

All Rights Reserved

ISSN 1059-7905

To purchase a copy of this book

mail your prepaid order ($11.95, postage paid)

to:SPEAKING IN TONGUES

9984 Red Bud Trail

Berrien Springs, MI 49103, USA



CONTENTS

PREFACE 9

INTRODUCTION 11

Chapter I CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN AND NON-

CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA . 17

1. Glossolalia ¡n Contemporary Christianity 20

2. Glossolalia ¡n Contemporary Non-Christian

Religions 24

3. Glossolalia ¡n Contemporary Linguistic Study 27

4. Glossolalia in Contemporary Experience 31

5. Glossolalia and Contemporary Doctrinal Disunity 35

6. Glossolalia and the Testing of Tongues 35

Endnotes 37

Chapter II SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE 41

1. Greek Usage of Glóssa Laleín in the New

Testa me nt 43

2. Alleged Glossolalia Outside the New Testament 47

3. The Usage of Glóssa and Laléo Outside the

New Testament 49

4. The Usage of Glóssa Laleín in the Septuagint 51

5. Modern Hypotheses for Glossolalia as

Unintelligible Speech 52

6. Conclusions 54

Endnotes 55



1. Historical Setting 59

2. Jesús' Prediction of Speaking in New Tongues 60

3. The Meaning of the Word "Tongues" 61

4. The Meaning of the Word "New" 61

5. The Purpose of Speaking in New Tongues 63

Endnotes 64

Chapter IV SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2 67


2. The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit 68

3. The Nature of Speaking in Tongues 69

4. The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues 74

5. The Scoffers' Reaction to Speaking in Tongues 75

6. Speaking in Tongues and Modern Source

Hypotheses 76

7. Conclusions 82

Endnotes 83

Chapter V SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 10 91


2. Linkages Between Acts 2 and Acts 10 923. The Nature of Speaking in Tongues 93

4. The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues 94

5. Conclusions 94

Endnotes 95

Chapter VI SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19 97


2. Ephesian "Disciples," Christian Baptism

and the Holy Spirit 98

3. Speaking in Tongues and Prophesying 101

4. Does Spirit-Baptism Result in Glossolalia? 103

5. Conclusions 104

Endnotes 105

Chapter III SPEAKINGIN TONGUES IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 59



Chapter Vil SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14 109

1. Historlcal Setting 111

2. Survey of 1 Corinthians 12-14 112

a. 1 Corinthians 12 113b. 1 Corinthians 13 115

c. 1 Corinthians 14 115

3. Tongues-Speaking Language ¡n Modern

Translations 116

4. Tongues-SpeakingTerminology 118

5. Tongues-Speaking and the Language of Angels 122

6. Tongues-Speaking and Speaking Mysteries 123

7. Tongues-Speaking and Understanding 1268. Tongues-Speaking and Hellenistic

Mystery Religions 129

9. Tongues-Speaking and the Upbuilding of the

Church 133

10. Tongues-Speaking as a Sign for Unbelievers 136

11. Tongues-Speaking and Interpretation 141

12. Tongues-Speaking and Prophecy 144

13. Tongues-Speaking and Prayer 14514. Tongues-Speaking and Orderly Worship 147

15. Conclusions 150

Endnotes 154

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 165

INDEX 174



PREFACE

There ¡s nothing more pervasive ¡n contemporary Chris-

tianity than "speaking in tongues," technically designated asglossolalia. This topic ¡s part of the larger context of thecharismatic movement. It has held the attention of the authorof this book for about three decades. He has studied thistopic over the years from the Scriptural evidence as well asthe múltiple and variegated aspects in contemporary discus-sions in church commissions, scholarly investigations, and

personal contacts around the world.In the last thirty years the charismatic movement hasexperienced three "waves" of development. The "first wave"appeared around 1900 and manifested itself in the traditionalPentecostal churches in which "speaking in tongues" isperceived as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the key togreater spiritual power.

The "second wave" showed up in the 1960s when"speaking in tongues" entered most traditional churches ofChristianity, including Methodism, Presbyterianism, Lutheran-ism, the Baptist denominations, the Román Catholic Churchand so on. This wave is known as neo-Pentecostalism or thecharismatic renewal movement. The "third wave" devel-oped in the 1980s. It too is part of the charismatic movementworldwide. It is characterized, among other things, by an

emphasis on so-called power evangelism where the forcé ofprayer is utilized, particularly for the purpose of miraculoushealing. A significant part of the current "third wave" of thecharismatic renewal movement is the celebration churchmovement. The inspiration of the latter is charismatic churchrenewal as is noted by "third wave" writers.

It is ¡mportant to recognize that these three "waves" are

a part of the charismatic movement in Christianity at large.By means of these "waves" nearly every Christian denominaron is being penetrated with the charismatic movement in itsvarious shapes and forms. The forces of the charismaticmovement are immense and often quite adaptable to newsettings. Thus there is this larger contemporary context of"speaking in tongues" in the charismatic movement inChristianity.



10 SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Various parts of this book have been presented in formaland informal ways in a variety of church settings. Apprecia-

tion goes to many people for the encouragement and supportfor this project. I wish to thank Dr. Jack Blanco, chairpersonof the Adventist Theological Society Publications Committeeand its members, for the encouragement to have this bookappear in the series of the "Adventist Theological SocietyMonographs." Dr. Gordon Hyde and William Fagal have gonethe extra mile in making this book more readable by going

through the manuscript and offering ma,ny learned andvaluable suggestions. Reinaldo Siqueira and Koot van Wyk,doctoral students at Andrews University, have checkedreferences and engaged in other technical assistance. Mrs.Betty Jean Mader has provided fine practical advice andprofound Computer skills without which this book would nothave seen such speedy publication. I greatly benefitted from

the suggestions of many people with whom I have discussedaspects of this topic over the years and whose ñames are toomany to mention. Of course, it is understood that I assumeall responsibilities for the content and the limitations of thisbook.

Constant encouragement and understanding was providedby my family. The preparation of this work has absorbedmore leisure time than one anticipates that rightly beionged to

my wife, Hilde. In a real sense her love and unselfishness area key contribution to this book. Thus I wish to dedícate thisbook to Hilde as a worthwhile retum for her ¡nvestment inlove and support for me and for God's cause.

Gerhard F. HaselTheological Seminary

Andrews University



INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of "speaking in tongues," technically

designated as "glossolalia," has been manifested ¡n nearly

every Christian denomination in recent years. Some churches

have been divided on how to handle this manifestation. There

are churches where it has been totally rejected and ¡n others

¡t has been uneasily tolerated or quietly supported. Other

churches again have embraced ¡t wholeheartedly. Some

congregations have claimed a sweet enrichment and othershave been split over it. Glossolalia remains a controversial

subject despite its occurrence growth and popularity.

The widespread practice of "tongues" Is pervasive in

worldwide Christianity. It is unquestionable the fastest

growing phenomenon not only among the traditional Pente-

costal churches and neo-Pentecostalists, but also among

various other charismatics and renewal movements. Thereare estimates that between 140 and 370 million Christians

engage in glossolalia worldwide. These figures suggest that

between 7.7% and 20.5% of all Christians engage in glossola

lia, if one accept the figure of 1.8 billion as the total number

of Christians on this globe.

A whole new set of questions is being asked today

regarding glossolalia. Aside from the issues of whether theChristian usage of glossolalia is from God or, as others hold,

from Satan or to be connected with the demonic; whether it

is a supernatural phenomenon; whether it is the result of a

trance-state, a stimulation of Boca's Area in the left cerebral

hemisphere, an altered State of consciousness, a form of

hypnosis or hysteria, or a process of learned behavior, there

is a another matter that cuts to the very core of the modernconcern-namely whether the modern phenomenon of glosso

lalia is identical with the gift of the Holy Spirit manifested on

the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Most modern charismatics

say that present day glossolalia is not identical with the

outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They claim instead

that it is identical with Paul's descriptions of the spiritual gifts




in 1 Cor 12-14. Is contemporary glossolalia as practiced

among Christians different from the gift "speaking in tongues"

referred to in Acts 2? Are they affirming that there are two

different kinds of "speaking in tongues" in the New Testa-

ment, one in Acts 2 and another one in 1 Cor 12-14? Why do

modern glossolalists now usually suggest that they speak in

the "language of angels" whereas they said before that they

spoke in known foreign languages? Is ¡t true that modern

glossolalia is a spiritual and not a rational language? These

questions and issues are but a small sample of those that

many Christians are asking about today. These matters and

many more deserve to be addressed with candor and hones-

ty.Charismatics usually consider "speaking in tongues" as

the fulfillment of the Latter Rain promised in Joel 2:28-29.

They believe that glossolalia is a final and massive manifesta-tion of the Holy Spirit in the end of time before the Second

Corning of Christ. It is a major sign, and for some the sign, of

the end.

Thoughtful non-charismatic Christians everywhere, who

do not belong to Pentecostalism and have not become

engaged in neo-Pentecostalism, which developed from the

1960s onward, and are not part of the charismatic renewalmovements of the 1970s and 1980s, wonder how they

should understand these unique modern developments.

Laypersons, church leaders on all levels, theology students

and pastors of more traditional Christian churches ask what

to make of neo-Pentecostalism and the modern "charismatic

renewal movements" where "speaking in tongues," glossola

lia, is an essential ¡f not the key element. People everywhereask about "speaking in tongues," its origin, its meaning in

personal life, its purpose for the church, and its extraordinary

explosión in nearly every denomination. Is this the foundation

of Christian and non-Christian ecumenism?

Many of the televangelists, radio preachers, faith healers,

and others who are Pentecostalists or charismatics engage

from time to time in glossolalic speech in their mass mediaproclamations. They contribute in no small measure to the



INTRODUCTION 13

spread of and ¡nterest ¡n the phenomenon of "speaking intongues." More than ever before "speaking in tongues" is a

phenomenon that has aroused the interest of the masses.The largest church in the world, which I was able to visitonce, is the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, Korea, with400,000 members in 1984, pastored by Paul Yonggi Cho anda pastoral staff in excess of 320 persons. A key element inthis congregation is an emphasis on church growth coupledwith glossolalia, faith healing and miracles. Other mega-

churches and metachurches are "tongues-speaking." Charis-matic movements are so extensive that a professional societyunder the ñame of "Society for Pentecostal Studies" wasformed.

There is also an explosión of literature from so manyquarters that average Christians, even scholars, are over-whelmed. It has become nearly impossible for them to keepup with the rapid pace of publications on the subject. Wehave only to remind ourselves that a 1985 bibliography on"speaking in tongues," which Watson E. Mills published underthe title, Glossolalia: A Bibliography, has no less than 1,150entries. This does not account for the hundreds of Ítems thathave been published since. The field of Pentecostal andcharismatic renewal movements is so vast that the year 1988saw a major publishing house in the United States come outwith a Dlctlonary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (ZondervanPublishing House). I have greatly benefitted from a vastnumber of these resources in the form of books and articlesthat I have studied for more than two decades.

At one time, people who were nonparticipants in thecharismatic movements designated those who were classicalPentecostals in North America as "holy rollers," a term thatwas used pejoratively. Today respectability for charismatictongues-speakers is higher than at any other time. When thefaith healer, Oral Roberts, left his Pentecostal denominaron in1967 and joined a prestigious Methodist Church in Tulsa,

Oklahoma-subsequently building Oral Roberts University for200 million dollars—it was clear that "tongues-speaking"




charismatics had achieved a new level of respectability.

This does not mean that all charismatics are welcome atevery place and ¡n every denomination. In the latter 1980s

three faculty members of the large dispensationalist Dallas

Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, started "speaking in

tongues" as part of their charismatic experience. They

subsequently resigned under pressure from their institution.

Nevertheless, regardless of what one's personal convictions

or feelings are on the subject of "speaking in tongues"(glossolalia), there is by and large a respectability accorded to

charismatic Christians that did not exist in the same way

before.

Very few people are aware of the newest developments

in traditional Pentecostalism and particularly in the recent neo-

Pentecostalism. Fewer people yet are informed about the vast

number of new insights gained from the most recent literatureon "speaking in tongues," or glossolalia. Extensive research

has been done by psychologists and psychiatrists on persons

practicing glossolalia. Linguists of various specialties have

investigated the linguistic nature of glossolalia as a language

among Christians and non-Christians, including pagan glossol-

alists. On the sociocultural side studies have demonstrated

that glossolalia is not a uniquely Christian practice. Largenumbers of studies have investigated various Biblical aspects

of evidence on "speaking in tongues" using a variety of

approaches and methodologies. The conclusions of these

studies are by no means identical or uniform, reflecting their

respective methodological biases and other factors.

The approach chosen for the topics of this volume has

been to move into a description of the modern phenomena ofglossolalia as ¡t developed in the twentieth century. Subse

quently we do turn to the New Testament in an endeavor to

discover what this part of the Word of God has to tell us

about Biblical "speaking in tongues." In accordance with this

methodology we depict in the first chapter the rise of "speak

ing in tongues" at the turn of the twentieth century, the

appearance of glossolalia in non-Christian religions and the

study of glossolalia in both Christian and pagan religions by



INTRODUCTION 15

various authoritative scientists and scholars. Then we turn

our attention to the practice of glossolalia ¡n the experience ofmany modern religious settings and follow up with the

questions raised regarding the disunity in teaching and

doctrine among those who engage ¡n glossolalia. This chapter

concludes with a section on testing of tongues and the way

¡nterpreters of tongues engage in their art.

The second chapter gives major emphasis to a linguistic

study of the terminology used in the Bible for "speaking intongues." The purpose of this chapter ¡s to discover what

language is used in the New Testament and whether the

usage of this language for this Biblical gift is employed in non-

Christian texts of the surrounding ancient world. The ultímate

aim is to discover whether ancient religions, or practices

among ancients, are ¡dentical to those in what the New

Testament describes as "speaking in tongues" and whetherthe New Testament practice is in continuity with practices in

ancient pagan religions.

The remaining five chapters are devoted respectively to

a detailed study of the five passages in the New Testament,

Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1-13, 10:44-48; 19:1-7; and 1 Cor 12-

14, that deal directly and explicitly with "speaking in

tongues." The purpose of each of these five chapters is tostudy each passage in its own context, to relate it to previous

investigations and yet to let it stand in its Biblical context.

Particular focus is given 1) to discovering the origin of

"speaking in tongues," 2) to determining from the Biblical

context the purpose for which this gift had been given, 3) to

relating it to the larger topic of spiritual gifts, and 4) to

ascertaining whether the "speaking in tongues" phenomenonin the New Testament is the same in all passages or whether

the same word may mean something different, particularly in

1 Cor 12-14. Many charismatics and modern scholars believe

that there is a distinction between the passages in Acts and

1 Cor 12-14, even though the same original language is used

in them. This matter is sensitive but decisive, from many

points of view, to the modern debate on the nature ofglossolalia.




The overall purpose ¡s to find out whether the modern

phenomenon of "speaking ¡n tongues" (glossolalia), ¡s to be

¡dentified with "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament.If it is, then we seek to know whether it functions ¡n the same

way now as in the New Testament. If it is not, then we need

to understand what modern glossolalia is and how the

Christian is to relate to it.

We trust that in this modest effort on our part our Father

in heaven and our Lord Jesús Christ will be glorified. After all,

the Holy Spirit is promised to God's people in the last days

and the Latter Rain of that Spirit (cf. Joel 2:28-29) is desiredby every sincere believer.



CHAPTER I

CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN

GLOSSOLALIA

The contemporary phenomenon of "speaking ¡n tongues,"which ¡s practiced by millions of Christians around the worldat present, is of recent origin ¡n Christianity. Even though

there have been attempts by the score to demónstrate thatthe phenomenon of glossolalia in modern times has rootsgoing back for centuries in Christian practice, it remainscertain that it is of recent origin, as will be shown below. Thepractice of "speaking in tongues," or glossolalia, is part of thePentecostalism of the twentieth century and the charismaticmovement that has spread beyond traditional Pentecostalchurches since the 1960s. It is growing at a most rapid paceand seems to have become a part of nearly every Christiandenomination around the world.

In view of this rapidly spreading phenomenon, there aremore and more Christians asking a set of new questions.Bible-believing Christians are asking, Where does "speaking intongues" origínate from? Who engages in the practice of"speaking in tongues"? Do all Christians need to "speak in

tongues"? Is this "speaking in tongues" necessary for aperson to be saved? Is "speaking in tongues" the same as thebaptism of the Holy Spirit? Is "speaking in tongues" theoutpouring of the Latter Rain before Jesús Christ returns inthe clouds of heaven? Who endorses "speaking in tongues"?Does "speaking in tongues" lead to a closer walk with Christ?Does the Holy Spirit reveal "new truths" to the one "speaking

in tongues"? If "speaking in tongues" derives from the HolySpirit, does it lead into a full knowledge of all truth of Scrip-ture? Is "speaking in tongues" the future means to unite allChristians into one single church? These questions are but afew of the ones most frequently asked today.

There is, however, another set of questions that is askedregardingthiscontemporary phenomenon, becauseglossolalia,

or "speaking in tongues," remains for many people a modern




enigma.1 Bible-believing Christians ask one set of questionswhich need to be answered from the Bible and a Christian

context.In recent years glossolalia--as we shall cali the modern

phenomenon of "speaking in tongues"--has received muchattention from experts in various fields of study such asscholars, linguists, anthropologists, and scientists. For nearlya century these experts have engaged in scholarly andscientific studies of the phenomenon of glossolalia. They

deserve to be heard as well. What have they found? Howdoes it relate to what ¡s already known? What ¡nfluence havethese studies had on those who engage in glossolalia?

For example, glossolalia has been studied by linguists andanthropologists who attempt to discover whether and/or towhat extent it is linked to modern or ancient languages andlanguage structures. Glossolalia has been ¡nvestigated by

psychologists and psychiatrists who wish to find out whetherit is an aberrant or semi-normal psychological form of humanbehavior.2 Glossolalia has been scrutinized in recent years bysociologists and behavioral scientists who seek to discover its

place in various areas of socio-behavioral patterns of humanbehavior.3

Another group of researchers has ¡nvestigated therelationship of glossolalia as practiced by Christians withglossolalic phenomena that seem identical in non-Christianreligions in the world. It is known now that priests of non-Christian religions, witch doctors, shamans, and otherreligious persons speak on various ceremonial and religious

occasions in glossolalic utterances that have characteristicsidentical with Christian glossolalia. These observations haveraised totally new issues and have put glossolalia in a much

broader religious context that can no longer be ignored.It is an undeniable fact of the 1990s that scores of

researchers and scientists have made great advances inunravelling the glossolalic experience in the modern world. Dotheir voices deserve to be heard? Do they bring to theattention of the serious person aspects of the phenomena ofglossolalia that should no longer be avoided or ignored? It is

our responsibility to inform ourselves on these new issues andto bring them to bear on New Testament "speaking in



CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 19

tongues."

The essential question remains, Are New Testament"speaking in tongues" and modern glossolalia ¡dentical or isthere a radical difference between them? This vexing issue

deserves renewed attention ¡n view of the new findings in somany fields.

We need to define our terms now. The modern phenome-non of "speaking in tongues" is most appropriately designatedfrom a formal point of view as glossolalia (the ñame of which

is derived from the Greek terms glóssa, "tongue, language,"and the verb laléo, "to speak"). Glossolalia is defined in therecent authoritative Encydopedia o f Religión as a practice of"nonordinary speech behavior that is institutionalized as areligious ritual in numerous Western and non-Western religiouscommunities."4 This up-to-date definition, not typical ofolder definitions and anomalous in terms of glossolalia is being

a typically Christian phenomenon, alerts the reader to thebroader picture that has emerged in very recent years in thestudy of glossolalia.

A renowned linguist who has studied Christian glossolaliaextensively gave a similar defintion, describing it as "a meaningless but phonetically structured human utterancebelieved by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no

systematic resemblance to any natural language, living ordead."5 This definition is based on a study of Christian"speaking in tongues" that lasted for about a decade or more.It has had a profound influence on Pentecostalism and thecharismatic community. Most charismatics today are awarethat what is happening in "speaking in tongues," or better,glossolalia, can no longer be defined as the speaking of anunknown living or dead language. Therefore, some havesuggested that they speak in the language of angels and not

of humans.Both definitions indícate that glossolalia is "non-ordinary

speech behavior" in any Christian or non-Christian religious

community and that as far as Christians are concerned it is a"human utterance" that bears "no systematic resemblance toany natural language, living or dead."

Glossolalia is traditionally identified with "speaking intongues" mentioned in the New Testament. It has been held




widely that thé phenomenon today is the gift of the HolySpirit manifested again ¡n the Christian community at large.For our purposes we shall refer to the modern phenomenon ofunintelligible utterances ¡n religious communities as glossolaliaand to the New Testament phenomenon as "speaking ¡ntongues." This seems to be sound since the New Testamentitself uses the designation of "speaking in tongues."

This brief overview of some new matters involvingglossolalia with their wide-ranging implications calis for more

detailed attention which we attempt to provided in thesubsequent pages.

1. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY

For most Christians glossolalia6 is known as a typically

Christian phenomenon, i.e. an experience of the so-calledPentecostal churches and neo-Pentecostal charismatics inmany denominations. Glossolalia is likewise a phenomenonthat is a characteristic of most churches, denominations, andgroups in the modern "charismatic movement." A generalumbrella term for all of the latter is "charismatic renewal

movement".7

Historically glossolalia and Pentecostalism are modernphenomena,8 leaving aside the Shakers and Irvingites of thenineteenth century, that are said to have begun in 1906 at

312 Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California, in an abandoned

African Methodist Episcopal church.9 Pentecostalism was

launched there as a worldwide movement from the AzusaStreet mission.

However, "speaking in tongues," or as we more correctlydesígnate it in harmony with the definition above, "glossolalia," had its antecedent in 1900 in Kansas. A Methodistminister. Charles Parham, who had started a Bible school,Bethel College (which closed in 1901), in Topeka, Kansas,

was hoping to revitalize the church. On Dec. 31,1 900, NewYear's night, he laid hands on some of his students. It isreported that Miss Agnes Oznam "began to speak in tongues"

on that night.10 Others also began to "speak in tongues,"that is, they engaged in glossolalic speech, "and making




sounds that were not discernible as normal language to theothers present."11 Later when Parham moved to Texas an

African-American student, William J. Seymour, was in contactwith him. On April 9, 1906, the "firs t Pentecostal effusion

carne"12 to Los Angeles at 214 Bonnie Brae Street.13 It¡nvolved Seymour and the group moved soon to 312 AzusaStreet, "where the meetings continued for the next threeyears."14 Aside from Seymour there was again AgnesOzman and also Jennie Moore, both of whom engaged in

glossolalia in the Azusa Street meetings.15 This is thebeginning of modern glossolalia in Christianity in which manyother people subsequently entered into from all over the

United States and the world.Modern Pentecostalism with its most typical characteristic

of glossolalia was thus born at the turn of the 20th centu-ry.16 It had its roots in the 19th century Holiness Move-

ment. Watson E. Mills States that from its beginnings"certainly there was no more controversial aspect of charis-matic [Christian] religión than speaking in tongues."17

An issue that most students of glossolalia in charismaticChristian faith are hardly aware of is the historical fact thatthe first persons who practiced glossolalia, that is, thestudents of Parham, did not study the subject of tongues in

the Bible to begin with. Recent investigations demónstratethat glossolalia did not happen as a result of the study ofScripture. "Speaking in tongues," or glossolalia, simplyhappened, and subsequently students of Parham studied theBible to find support for this new phenomenon that took place

in their meetings. A very early article entitled, "Tongues As A Sign," from September 1906, finishes with a revealing

statement, "We have been running off with blessings andanointings with God's power, instead of tarrying until Bibleevidence of Pentecost carne."18 A key Pentecostal historianreports, "It is significant that this thought [that they spokewith other tongues in Acts] developed, not in a revivalmeeting, but in a Bible school [Parham's Bethel College], notin the midst of camp meeting excitement, but in a group ofserious persons who were pondering thoughtfully the relation-

ship of this experience [of glossolalia] to other events,attempting to give it theological substance."19 In other




words, first carne the glossolalia experience, then students ofParham's Bible school were asked by him to explore the book

of Acts to find Biblical evidence for the glossolalia experience.Thus Parham and Seymour became convinced that glossolalia

was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that glossolalia was tobe identified with the New Testament phenomenon ofspeaking ¡n tongues.20

From the first occurrence of glossolalia there was thepersonal conviction that it carne from God and that the Holy

Spirit was manifested through glossolalia. As a result, in themind of charismatics there are two sources for the belief thatglossolalia was Holy-Spirit-originated. The first was thesubjective and personal conviction that it derived from theHoly Spirit and the second was the subsequent ¡nterpretationof Scripture that "speaking in tongues" in Acts and 1 Cor 14¡s the same as the glossolalia now practiced.21

At this point we need to draw two important conclusionsregarding Christian glossolalia: 1) Whereas Christian glossolal-ists have claimed from the beginning that there is Biblicalsupport for glossolalia, the fact is undeniable--and we do notsay this unkindly-that modern glossolalia does not derive fromthe study of the Bible but the Bible has been used subsequent-ly to give theological and scriptural support for its use and togive it authenticity. 2) Charismatics who engage in glossolalia

point to two sources normally for the authenticity of "speaking in tongues." One is the source of personal conviction andthe other is the subsequent source of Scripture support.These two sources are often in tensión with each other with

regard to which of them should have primacy or first rank.Since, in historie Protestant Christianity, the Bible and theBible only is the source of all doctrine and practice, glossolali-

sts usually find the source of personal experience takingprecedence.

In the 1960s the charismatic movement, with glossolalia,entered a second stage or "second wave"22 in Christiancircles in that it broke out of the traditional Holiness23 andPentecostal24 churches and entered many traditional church-es. This outbreak into more traditional churches is usually

referred to as neo-Pentecostalism, or "denominational Pente-costalism."25 It is also designated as the "charismatic




renewal movement."Beginning ¡n the year 1967, Román Catholics have

become a part of neo-Pentecostalism.26 Glossolalia is partof the "Catholic charismatic renewal movement."27 It seemsto have appeared first among students, priests and nuns ofNotre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana.28 From thereit spread to various campuses of Catholic universities in theUSA and beyond.29 At the ouset various Román Catholic

bishops, while still cautious, said that "the movement should

at-th is point not be inhibited but allowed to develop."30Shortly thereafter the Pope designated Cardinal JosephSuenens to take the leadership of Román Catholic neo-

Pentecostals.31 The Jesuit scholar P. Damboriena reportedsome time ago, in the very early stages Catholic neo-Pente-costals, that Catholics would "get together in the chapéis ofsecluded monasteries, spend long vigils speaking and singing

in tongues."32 It is reported in 1991 that "in the nearly 25years since it began, the charismatic renewal movementwithin the Catholic church has grown to touch some 6 million

to 10 million Catholics around the world ."33 Today prelates,priests, nuns and Catholic lay persons are part of this renewalmovement. It has had the blessings of the various popessince it began.

While there seem to be strains among some smaller neo-Pentecostal Catholic communities, there appers to be nolasting change. It is reported that "over the years, the centerof Catholic charismatic renewal has shifted from covenantcommunities to parish prayer groups and diocesan renewal

committees."34There has also been much interest in the World Council of

Churches in the charismatic renewal movement.35 It wouldtake us too far afield to describe the large numbers of neo-

Pentecostal advances made in recent years. It is pointed outtime and again that neo-Pentecostalism, or the "charismaticrenewal movement" as it is now often referred to, is thefastest growing segment in Christianity at large. "Missionstatistician David Barrett estimates [in 1991] that of the 1.8billion people who cali themselves Christians today, about 372

million identify themselves as charismatic/Pentecostal."36Based on these statistics, about 20% of all who cali them-




selves Christians are Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal.It ¡s not our purpose to trace the phenomenal growth of

the glossolalic movement ¡n Christianity at large. Manyexperts conclude that neo-Pentecostalism, or the charismatic

renewal of the "second wave" of charismatics, ¡s the fastestgrowing "charismatic" element in Christian churches world-wide.

While this is true in the modern situation, it should notdeter us from recognizing that glossolalia does not seem to be

a uniquely Christian phenomenon. As we shall see below,there are evidences that suggest that the "glossolalic"phenomenon is practiced by persons in other living non-Christian religions also. This may come as a surprise to mostChristians who wish to see it purely in terms of the gifts-of-the-Spirit passages in the New Testament and as a manifestaron of the Holy Spirit or as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit."

It seems appropriate now to turn our attention to currentnon-Christian religions and the manifestation of glossolalia inthem. Although it is not possible to be exhaustive here, wemay at least be representative in the following discussion.

2. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY NON-

CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

Recent studies have indicated that glossolalia is not auniquely Christian practice. Glossolalia is practiced by a largenumber of native non-Christian living religions around theworld. R. P. Spittler writes in the 1988 edition of the Dictio-

nary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, "Whatever

its origin, glossolalia is a human phenomenon, not limited toChristianity ñor even to religious behavior among human-kind."37

Felicitas D. Goodman has engaged in extensive researchin glossolalia. She reports that glossolalia is found among"the Inuit (Eskimos), the Saami (Lapps), Chukchi, the Khanty(Ostiaks), the Yakuts, and the Evenki, [who] use in their

religious rituals secret languages that consist of a mixture ofnonsense syllables and the vernacular."38




There are many examples of unintelligible sounds orglossolalia from all continents and the native religions prac-

ticed on them.39 For ¡nstance, "in Japan glossolalia ¡sknown to occur in small cultic groups, during sorcerousseances in Hokkaido and northern Honshü, and in the postwarsect known as the Dancing Religión. A full range of glossol-alic phenomena is said to occur frequently during the ceremo-nies of the small cult led by a Genji Yanagida of Mojí City,Fukuoka Prefecture, and in other groups similar to ¡t."40 It

is reported that among the Palaung peoples of Burma "aperson possessed by a Palé-speaking bre, or 'black magician,'is impelled to talk in the magician's tongue, although atordinary times he is unable to speak it."41

In Ethiopia in the zár cult, "the shamans talk to the zárs (spirits) in a 'secret language'."42 In this ¡nstance the pictureseems to involve spirit-worship.

Goodman notes, "Possession is one of the most frequentritual occasions for the use of glossolalia. In possession, anentity from the sacred dimensión of reality is experienced aspenetrating the respective person."43 She points out thatthe Spirit is experienced "as power, not as personality, butother spirits—for ¡nstance, those of the dead of the TrobriandIslanders, ancestral spirits in Africa, and various spirits inHaitian Voodoo--have pronounced personality traits that areexpressed in glossolalia. . . . The voice of the possessingbeing differs from that of the possessed practitioner."44 Thissounds much like the phenomena associated with seances inspiritualism. "SpirituaUstic glossolalia and related phenomenaamong spiritual médiums were among the first studied bypsychologists near the beginning of the twentieth century,"writes R. P. Spittler.45

These are but a few of the many known examples ofglossolalia from modern non-Christian religions.46 L. CarlyleMay shows that glossolalia in non-Christian religions ispresent in "Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arctic regions, China,Japan, Korea, Arabia, and Burma, among other places."47It is also present extensively in African tribal religions.48 Asnoted above it is not our purpose to be exhaustive, but to

reveal that the phenomenon of glossolalia is not unique toChristianity.




The commonality of glossolalia ¡n both Christian and living

non-Christian (pagan) religions raises a whole new set ofquestions. What is the source or origin of glossolalia? Whatis the purpose of glossolalia? What relationship existsbetween glossolalia among Christian and non-Christianpractitioners? What spirit is at work? Is ¡t the spirit of thedead, as is claimed in some places? Is ¡t of Satanic origin? Isit but a human invention? These and other questions deserve

careful thought and study.Is the glossolalic phenomenon, the "pagan glossolalia,"49

in these modern non-Christian religions the same glossolalia asamong Christians from the point of view of linguistics and thestructures it manifests? Or, is it different? This matter willhave our attention in the next part of our discussion, becauseit may assist in answering another question: Is there adistinction between Christian glossolalia and non-Christian

glossolalia? What is the origin of glossolalia? Where does itcome from? If there is a distinction, then one may indeedclaim that Christianity is unique in its manifestation andChristian glossolalia could then more easily be thought toderive from the Holy Spirit. If there is no distinction, then onehas to ask whether the Holy Spirit is the source of thephenomenon in one religión and another spirit the source in

the non-Christian religions. Few would be willing to argüethat the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself within pagan ritual

and practice, within the crafts of witch doctors, shamans, andpriests of pagan religions, in the same way as in Christianity.

It now seems quite evident that the phenomenon of

glossolalia can no longer be isolated as a unique element ofChristianity. This seems to be a new, undeniable factor. Is

glossolalia the common experience that unites or combines allreligions? Is it the common element of the numinous andsupernatural linking Christian and non-Christian religions? Ifit is the gift of the Holy Spirit, does the Holy Spirit manifestHimself in these religions in this manner, even in sorcerousseances? These questions are being asked today by manypeople.

In view of these issues, can we detect any scientific,linguistic difference between the glossolalic phenomena ofChristians and non-Christians? If so, what is it? And if not.




what are the implications for the use of glossolalia amongboth Christians and non-Christians? Finally, the disturbing butinevitable question must be raised, Is glossolalia really the giftof the Holy Spirit?

3. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY

LINGUISTIC STUDY

The highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl

concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiouslyinspired [glossolalic] utterances have the same generalcharacteristics as those that are not religiously inspired."50We should be reminded at this point that Kildahl comparesreligious glossolalia with non-religious glossolalia. We havenot considered non-religious glossolalia, because ¡t would lead

us into another area of study that we do not wish to penétrateat this time. While our study cannot consider non-religiousglossolalia at this time, we are cognizant of the fact thatglossolalia is also practiced by non-religious people, includingatheists and agnostics.51 In other words, the modernpractice of glossolalia is not restricted to religious personsalone. It is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity

ñor even to religious behavior."52Modern linguistics is a subject area for scholars and

researchers to study of what is and what makes a language.Experts in the field of linguistics have taken much pains tostudy the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of manyyears. One of the early investigations was made in the early1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of

reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language.53 Another early study, that of W. A. Wolfram in the year 1966,also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements ofhuman language as a system of coherent communication.54

Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toron-to's Department of Linguistics published, after more than adecade of careful research, a massive study of glossolaliafrom a linguistic perspective.55 In this 1972 study Samarin,

together with other linguists, rejected the view that glossolaliais xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be




understood by another person who knew that language.

Samarin concluded that glossolalia ¡s a "pseudo-language."He said, "When the full apparatus of linguistic Science comesto bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade

language-although at times a very good one indeed. Forwhen we comprehend what language is, we must concludethat no glossa, no matter how well constructed, ¡s a specimenof human language, because it is neither ¡nternally organizedñor systematically related to the world man perceives."56 Hedefined glossolalia as "unintelligible post-babbling speech thatexhibits superficial phonological similarityto language withouthaving consistent syntagmatic structure and that is notsystematically derived from or related to known languag-es."57 The main point in his conclusión is that it is not"derived from or related to known languages"--and that meanspast or present languages. It is, however, "a meaningless but

phonetically structured human utterance believed by thespeaker to be a real language but bearing no systematicresemblance to any natural language, living or dead."58 Thevarious studies by Professor Samarin are published in manyscientific articles and are basic to much of the discussion ofthe linguistic shape and language nature of glossolalia.

In the year 1985 two socio-linguists, well qualified

experts in the field, one of whom is himself a glossolalist,surveyed the area of investigaron as to whether glossolalia isintelligible human communication. H. Newton Malony's and

A. Adams Lovekin's survey of the studies on the nature ofglossolalia suggests that "glossolalia is, indeed, a language of

a different sense of the word! [namely in the sense of someform of communication]." But they admit that "the weight of

evidence, however, suggests that although there is patternand form, speaking in tongues [Le. glossolalia] is most likely

not a known tongue ñor a human language as that term ispresently understood."59 This is an ¡mportant conclusiónwith regard to the debate on whether glossolalia is a knownhuman language. It is important to note that it is theirconsidered conclusión that it "is most likely not a knowntongue ñor a human language as that term is presentlyunderstood." This conclusión must be a considerable blow tothose who still wish to claim that glossolalia is indeed some




form of ¡ntelligible human language. Another study done by Williams and Waldvogel and

published ¡n 1975, a decade before the Malony-Lovekin studywas released, concludes that glossolalia "embraces everyecstatic oral-auditory phenomenon . . . [including] verbaleffusions that are more likely to be psychological-spiritualprojections of inner speech than some authentic languageitself."60

Based on these recent conclusions of scholars and

researchers who studied glossolalia from a variety of anglesand methods of research, we may have no other recoursethan to admit that the phenomenon of "speaking ¡n tongues,"or glossolalia, is an experience other than speaking in a knownhuman language of the present or the past. On this point thestudies of Samarin and those of earlier and later researcherscoincide.

The psychological anthropologist and linguist, referred topreviously. Felicitas D. Goodman, has also engaged in a studyof various English- Spanish- and Maya-speaking Pentecostalcommunities in the United States and México. As others havedone before her, she compared tape recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan aswell.61 She published her results in the year 1972 in anextensive monograph. Goodman concludes that "when allfeatures of glossolalia were taken into consideration--that is,the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases)and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent,and especially overall intonation)--they seemed cross-linguisti-cally and cross-culturally ¡dentical."62

What is so ¡mportant in Goodman's study is the identityof the linguistic phenomena of these comprehensive features

of glossolalia over various major parts of the world and fromdifferent cultures, including both Christian and non-Christianreligions. It is Goodman's conclusión that there is no distinc-tion in glossolalia between Christians and the followers ofnon-Christian (pagan) religions. All forms of glossolalia are

"cross-linguistically and cross-culturally identical" as to theirsegmental structure and suprasegmental elements. Goodman

provides another key element for the evaluation of glossolaliaas a universal phenomenon in any religión, whether pagan or




Christian. She makes us aware that glossolalia amongChristians and non-Christians is the same. There ¡s no

distinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia.It seems that these ¡nvestigations, carried on over several

decades, point conclusively in the same direction. What is theimplication of these studies for an understanding of modernglossolalia? From a scientific and linguistic point of view onecan no longer conciude that Christian glossolalia is differentfrom that practiced in non-Christian (pagan) religions. All

forms of glossolalia are identical from the point of view oftheir structures.

Goodman drew two additional conclusions from her

studies. She has established that glossolalia is not derivedfrom a State of hypnosis as believed by some earlier research-ers. Goodman holds that glossolalia derives from "neurophysi-ological changes, collectively and popularly called trance, . .,"63 Thus she defines glossolalia as "a vocalizaron pattern,a speech automatism that is produced in the substratum ofthe trance and reflects directly, in its segmental and supraseg-mental structures, the neurophysiological processes presentin this changed State of consciousness [i.e. the trance]."64The "association between trance and glossolalia is now

accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption,"writes Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopedia of Religión

[1987].65 Another important conclusión reached by Goodman

addresses the view that glossolalia is simply an involuntary,spontaneous outburst or the like. Goodman indicates in

contrast that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behavior,learned either unawarely or, sometimes, consciously."66Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is

given on how to "speak in tongues," i.e. how to engage inglossolalia.67

In short, we can summarize this part of our study of themost current and authoritative as well as the most extensive¡nvestigations of glossolalia from linguistic perspectives bypointing out that from different avenues of research theconclusión is reached that modern glossolalia, whether

Christian or non-Christian, whether Western or non-Western,whether religious or non-religious, is not any known language




as had been commonly assumed or claimed for a long time.Glossolalia is a form of linguistic expression that is cross-cuiturally the same from a linguistic point of view, both in

Western and non-Western religions, both in Christian and non-Christian religions, both in relígious and non-religious settings.It is a speech behavior that is learned or can be learnedcónsciously or otherwise.68

What are some implications of these findings for glossolalia in modern Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism as wellas in the charismatic renewal movement? What kind of

experience is glossolalia as found in the modern charismaticrenewal movements? What kind of "language" is glossolalia?

Why is glossolalia practiced in so many religions today? Whycan relígious and non-religious persons practice glossolalia?What is going on when a person ¡nterprets someone else'sglossolalia?

4. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE

Since "speaking in tongues [glossolalia] is present in non-Christian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and incults such as Mormonism,"69 how can the modern practice

of glossolalia in the charismatic renewal movement have suchdisturbing similarity, ¡f not identity, to like phenomena inpagan, non-Christian religions? Can this be of God? What isthe nature of the glossolalic experience?

How do charismatics respond to the fact that glossolaliais no human language? J. R. Williams addressed this matterrecently: "Charismatics are not disturbed by linguists whoclaim that glossolalia has no observable language structure,

for if such were the case, speaking in tongues would not be

spiritual but rational speech."70 He asserts further, "Speaking in tongues is thus understood to be transpsychical; itbelongs to the realm of the spirit (pneuma)."7' Thus Williams plainly holds that modern "speaking in tongues" (glossolalia) is not rational speech. It is "spiritual speech" andbelongs to the realm of the spirit.

The issue before us is, therefore, if it were to be consid-

ered speech that originates from the Holy Spirit, how can it be




practiced in pagan, non-Christian religions as well? Is theHoly Spirit speaking through the shamans, priests, and witchdoctors of other religions and the médiums of sorcerous

seances? Not many Christians would feel comfortable inaffirming such a conclusión. How is it that a non-religioushumanities scholar "taught himself" to engage in glossolaliaand can continué to do so at will?72

The Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of truth" and is promisedonly to the followers of Jesús Christ (John 17). The HolySpirit is not assigned to be a part of any and every religión

that exists in the world today or that has existed in the past.The Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated by non-religious andreligious persons as they wish. There is no teaching in theNew Testament or in the Oíd Testament to the effect that theHoly Spirit is universally manifested in all religions or that Hecan be manipulated at will. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit isthe third person of the triune Godhead and as such is a unique

Person in the trinity of Christian faith alone.There seem to be but four major options in any attemptto come to grips with the nature of glossolalia as a universalphenomenon of Christian and non-Christian religions, ofreligious and non-religious persons. The first option is tosuggest that glossolalia is derived from and provided by theHoly Spirit. The second one is that it is derived from the

counterfeit source, Satan. The third possibility is that it isproduced by means of a human learning process (possibly by

some kind of a trance or altered State of consciousness)regardless of a religious (Christian or pagan) or non-religious(humanistic or other) environment. The fourth option is thatglossolalia may derive from more than one of these options.

The first two options see glossolalia as deriving from"supernatural" sources. The first option derives it from the

Holy Spirit. Bible-believing Christians will agree that it seemshardly feasible to claim that the Holy Spirit is manifesteduniversally in all religions or religious contexts since the HolySpirit is restricted as a gift to the believing community (1 Cor12-14; John 14). The second option can be supported, if oneconsiders non-Christian religions to be used by Satanicagencies. The Satanic cannot be ruled out as also intruding

into the sphere of Christian life and worship. Satan originated




glossolalia is accounted for as has been pointed out in thestudies cited above. The third option ¡s a more "natural"explanaron, accounting for the universal usage of glossolaliaas a learned behavior. The fact that glossolalia can be

learned, that ¡t is even "taught" by Pentecostals and othercharismatics, that is can be self-taught, and so on, is ofutmost ¡mportance. As has been stated in several studies, theSatanic/demonic can take hold of a human being assumedlywith or without a learning process.

The fourth option in explaining the origin of glossolalia

holds that it can be of Satanic origin or that ¡t is merely alearned behavior; or that such learned behavior can be used bySatan, and the like. Spittler, who is a charismatic himself,writes that glossolalia "may rise from the speakers them-selves, from a demonic spirit, or from the Holy Spirit." Thenhe goes on to explain that "even ¡f glossolalia occurs in abalanced Pentecostal environment, any one of the three

sources [learned behavior, demonic spirit, Holy Spirit] mayapply. The discernment of the community is essential." Hepoints out in conclusión that "glossolalia of human [learned]

origin [among Christian charismatics] is probably morefrequent than recognized."73

Would the Holy Spirit use such a learned but unintelligibleform of speaking as one of His gifts? Would He use some-

thing that is identical with that used by witch doctors,shamans, and priests of non-Christian (pagan) religions?Would he use something that is also used in seances and in

sorcerous meetings by spiritualists? Few Christians wouldfeel comfortable answering this in the affirmative. Basic toanswering the question of the origin of glossolalia as derivingfrom the Holy Spirit is the nature, function, and purpose ofBiblical "speaking in tongues" as described and used in theNew Testament church.

Based on the evidence presented above from theseextensive recent studies, contemporary glossolalia may bebest understood to be a learned behavior, but seemingly notas one of the unique and universal supernatural gifts given bythe Holy Spirit. Glossolalia can be learned; it can be practicedby many persons in many different religious and non-religious

settings; and thus can enter the religious arena in any religión,




or ¡t can stay ¡n the non-religious arena of human life as usedby humanists, agnostics and atheists. In these arenas ¡t canbe employed for various purposes, particularly by the Princeof evil ¡n his deceptive ways.

5. GLOSSOLALIA AND CONTEMPORARY DOCTRINAL

DISUNITY

An issue that has troubled many people is the question of

the unity of the charismatics on most matters of Christianbelief and practice. An example of charismatic ecumenicalunity in evangelism is a case in point. In August 1991approximately 3,000 delegates attended the InternationalCharismatic Consultaron on World Evangelisation in Brighton,England. This meeting was organized by the Anglicancharismatic leader Michael Harper. A Planning Committee

included Vinson Synan, head of the North American RenewalServices Committee; Larry Christenson, renewal leader of theEvangelical Lutheran Church of America, and also RománCatholic and Pentecostal leaders. It may be significant thatthe Anglican Archbishop George Carey addressed the opening

session. While not all Pentecostal denominations wererepresented ñor all known major figures of neo-Pentecostalism

present, it is reported that "Catholic and Protestant charismatics carne together . . . , drawn past their denominationaldifferences by the goal of seeing half the world's population

confess Christ as Savior by the year 2000."74 It is thedoctrinal denominational differences that remain problemati-cal.

A recent writer has raised the question of doctrinal

disunity among Pentecostalists and neo-Pentecostalistcharismatics: "Is it not inconsistent that a movement whichclaims to be in direct contact with the Holy Spirit, to have allgifts such as prophecy, apostleship, and the word of knowl-edge, to communicate directly with God by tongues-speakingand other means, can at the same time inelude RománCatholics, conservative and liberáis Protestants, amillennial-ists, premillennialists, Calvinists, Armenians, those who denythe verbal inspiration of the Bible, and those who reject




Christ's vicarious atonement on the cross?"75 These ques-tions are penetrating. They cut to the core of the problem of

the origin of glossolalia and its function ¡n Christian life andfaith.

If the Holy Spirit were at work in all of these charismaticgroups of the various Christian churches, the Holy Spirit ofwhom Christ said that He will "teach you all things” (John14:25) and "will guide you into all the truth" (John 17:13),the very Spirit which is called "the Spirit of truth" (John17:13), would He not be concerned to teach anyone among

those who engage in glossolalia any truth that would correctany and all of these differences? Many of these differencesare foundational for Christian faith; some are actually errors.Is the spirit claimed by Christian charismatics interested inteaching the truth to charismatics? Should the Holy Spirit nothave taught them by now that the seventh day of the weekis binding upon all believers? Should the Spirit of truth not by

now have corrected unbiblical teachings such as incorrectviews of the atonement, eternal punishment, and so on? Upuntil now the spirit claimed by charismatics, whether Pente-costal or neo-Pentecostal glossolalists, remains uninterestedin producing unity among them based upon what the Spirithas given the true believer in Scripture. Whatever spirit is atwork, that spirit seems indeed uninterested in bringing them

into all Biblical truth. Why are neo-Pentecostal RománCatholics better Román Catholics, having greaterappreciation

for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (the mass),76 and tongues-speaking Baptists are better Baptists, and tongues-speaking

Mormons are better Mormons, and so on?

6. GLOSSOLALIA AND THE TESTING OF TONGUES

However one may wish to respond to the various gnaw-ing questions and issues, it seems certain that glossolalia has

to be understood in a larger context than that of the uniquelyChristian experience. It can no longer be seen as a normalhuman language. Whatever one's final conclusions may be,there is no doubt that anyone wishing to stay within the

confines of the New Testament principie of proving all things




and holding fast that which is good has to be aware that thereis no sure way to test tongues. Dr. Kildahl has run such tests

based on a tape recording of a tongue-speaker which heplayed ¡ndependently before several persons who were knownto have the supposed gift of interpretation. Here are theresults of his experiment:

In order to investígate the accuracy of these interpreta-tions, we undertook to play a taped example of tongue-

speech privately for several different interpreters oftongues. In no instance was there any similarity in theseveral interpretations. The following typifies our results:one interpreter said the tongue-speaker was praying forthe health of his children; another that the same tongue-speech was an expression of gratitude to God for arecently successful church fund-raising effort.77

When the interpreters were confronted with their disharmoni-ous responses they offered "the explanaron that God gave toone person one interpretation and to another person anotherinterpretation."78 This evidence of variety of interpretations79 indicates that tongues-speaking and tongues-interpre-tation is beyond the realm of verifiability.

An interpreter of glossolalia responded to the Lord'sPrayer that was spoken in a Pentecostal meeting by one who

wished to test the interpretation. The Lord's Prayer wasspoken in an African language. The interpreter said that " it isa message about the imminent second coming of Christ."80Here again there is no consistent correlation in the testingprocess of interpretation. Is this not another indication thatglossolalia is no normal human language and that the ¡nterpre-tation does not correspond to what has been said?

The Biblically-oriented Christian will hold on to what theBible defines as "speaking in tongues". What does the NewTestament language mean? Is the expression "speaking intongues" used outside of the New Testament for a glossolalicexperience? Did ancient religions, which were in existencewhen the early Christian community developed, such as theDelphic oracle, practice "speaking in tongues"? Is thereanywhere in the New Testament any clear definition of the"speaking in tongues" that derives from the Holy Spirit? Is ¡tperhaps provided in Acts 2 where it is a supernatural gift and



CHRISTIAN & N0N-CHRIST1AN GLOSSOLALIA 37

not a learned behavior? What ¡s the purpose of this gift? To

whom ¡s ¡t given? Do all believers need to "speak intongues"? These and other questions shall have our attention

¡n the chapters that follow.

ENDNOTES

1. H. Newton Malony and A. Adams Lovakin, G/ossola/ia. Behavioral Science

Perspectivas on Speaking in Tongues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) 3, refer to it as "a modern enigma."

2 . For a curren t survey of research, see Cyril G. William s, Tongues o f the Spirít. A

Study o f Pentecostal GlossolaliaandReiatedPhenomena (Cardiff: Univers ity of Wales

Press, 1981) 125-50.

3 .See fo r examples the recent su rvey by Malony and Lovekin, pp. 11-93 .

4 . Felicitas D. Goodman, "Glosso lalia," The Encydopedia o f Religión, ed. Mir cea Eliade

(New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987) 5:564.

5 . William J. Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angeis. The Religious Language o f

Pentecosta/ism (New York, 1972) 2.

6 . From now on in this study w e will use the term " glosso lalia," a term used in much

modern literature on the subject. We do not imply w ith t he usage of this term t hat

it is identical or not identical with "speaking in tongues" as practicad by New

Testament believers on various occasions.

7 . J. R. Williams, "Charismatic Mov ement," Evangélica! D ictiona ry o f Theology, ed.

Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) 205-208.

8. V. Synan, "Pentecostalism," Evangélica / Dictionary o f Theology, ed. Walter A.

Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) 836.

9 . John P. Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues (New York: Harper & Ro w,

1972) 18.

10.Sarah E. Parham, The Life o f Charles F. Parham. Founder o f the Apo sto lic Faith

Movement (Joplin, MO, 1930) 38.

11 .Watson E. Mills, "Glossolalia: An Introduction," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to

Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 5.

12 . William W. Menzies, A no in te d to Serve. The Sto ry o f the Assemblies o f God

(Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971) 50.

13. Charles S. Gaede, " Glossolalia at Azusa Street: A Hidden Presupposition?"

Westminster Theological Journal 51/1 (1989 ) 77.

14.lbid.

1 S.lbid ., wi th prim ary sources.




16 . The vast literatura on Pentecostalism and more precisely the phenomenon of

glossolalia ¡s collected in Charles Edwin Jones, A Guide to the Stu dy o f the

Pentecostal Movement, 2 vols. (Hamden, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1983); Walter

Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement ¡n the Churches (St.

Louis: Augsburg, 1972); Ira J. Martin , The G ifto f Tongues: A Bibliography (Pathway

Press, 1970); Watson E. Mills, Speaking in Tongues: A Classified Bibliography

(Sooiety for Pentecostal Studies, 1974).

17 . Watson E. Mills, Charismatic Religión in Modern Research. A Bibliography (Macón ,

GA: Mercar University Press, 1985), p. 13.

18 . " The Apostolic Faith Mo vem ent,” The Apo sto lic Faith, no. 1 [Sept. 1906] 2, cited

in Gaede, p. 79.

19. Menzies, Anoin te d to Serve, p. 37.

2 0 . Gaede, pp. 78-79 .

21 .Ibid., pp. 78-82.

22.50 C. Petar Wagner, How to Have a Heaiing Ministry Without Making Your

Church Sickl (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1988), pp. 12-23.

23.See Charles E. Goodwin, A Guide to the Stu dy o f the Hoiiness M ovem ent

(Hamden, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974).

24.For bibliography, see David W. Faupel, The American Pentecostal Movement

(Society for Pentecostal Studies, 1972).

25.See Russell Spittler,ed., Perspectivas on the Ne w Pen tecostalism (Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Book House, 1976).

26.See Vincent M. Walsh, A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church

(Abbey Press, 1971); Kevin and Dorothy Ranagan, Catholic Pentecostals (Mahwah,

NJ: Paulist Press, 1971); Donald Gelpi, Pentecostalism: A Theological View po int

(Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1971).

27.Edward D. O'Connor, C.S.C., "The Literatura of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal

1967-1974, " Perspectivas on Charismatic Renewal, ed. Edward D. O'Connor (Notre

Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp. 145-84.

28.See the detailed report in K. And D. Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals (Mahwah,

NJ: Paulist Press, 1969).

29.See note 19.

30.50 K. McDonnell, "Catholic Pentecostalism: Problems in Evaluation," Dialog

(Winter, 1970), 35-54, quotation from p. 54.

31 .Cardinal Joseph Suenens, A N ew Pentecost (Seabury Press, 1973).

32. P. Damboriena, S.J., Tongues as o f Pire. Pentecostalism in Contem porary

Christianity (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1969) 63.

3 3 . Julia Duin, "Catholic Renewal Charismatic Communities Split by Controv ersy,"

Christianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 55.

34.Ibid., p. 57.

35.See Arnold Bittlinger, The Church is Charismatic (Geneva: World Council of

Churches, 1981).




3 6 . "Char¡smat¡cs on Evangelism," Christianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 52.

3 7 . R. P. Spitt ler, "Glosso lalia," Dictiona ry o f Penteco stal and Charismatic Move-

ments, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

1988), p. 336.

38 . Goodm an, "Glosso lalia,” p. 564.

3 9 . L. Carlyle, May, "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Chris tian

Rellglons," Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, pp. 53-82.

40.lbid., p. 67.

41.lbld „ p. 65.

42.Goodman, p. 565.

43.lbid.

44.lbid.

45.Spittler in Dictionary o f Pentecostal and C harismatic Movem ents, p. 336.

46.For a fine study of glossolalia in a non-Western culture, see A. F. Anisimov, "The

Shaman's Tent of the Evenks and the Origin of the Shamanistic Rite," Studies in

Siberian Shamanism, ed. Henry M. Michael (Toronto, 1963).

47.Summarized by Spittler, p. 336.

48.lbid., p. 337.

4 9 . Designation is that of Spittler, p. 336 .

5 0 . Kildahl, p. 81.

51 .See Spittler, pp. 336-37.

52.Spittler, p. 340.

5 3 . Eugene A. Nida, "Glosso lalia: A Case of Pseudo-Linguisti c Struc tu re," unpublished

paper delivered at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Soclety of America in

New York, Dec. 28, 1964.

54 . W . A. Wol fram, "The Sociolinguistics of Glossolalia" (Master's thesis; Hartford

Seminary Foundation, 1966).

55.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Ange ls.

56.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angels, pp. 127-28.

57.Will¡am J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia,” Language

in Society, ed. Dell Haymes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 121-30.

58.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angels, p. 2.

5 9 . Malony and Lovekin, p. 38.

60 . Williams and Waldvogel (1975 ), p. 61, as citad by Spittler, p. 34 0.

61 .Felicit as D. Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cu ltural Stud y o f Glossolalia

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).

62.Goodman, "Glossolalia," pp. 563-64.

63.Ibid., p. 564.

64.lbid.




65.lb¡d., referring to Cyril G. Williams, Tongues o fth e Spirít: A Study o f Pentecostal

Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981).

66 . Goodman, "Glossolalia," p. 56 4.

67 . For example, Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues, pp. 2-4.

68 . This is argued by Nida (1964) Wolf ram (196 6) and J. R. Jaquith, " Toward a

Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviors: Glossolalia,” Anth ropolo glcal

Linguistics 9 (8) (1967) 1-8.

69. Thomas R. Edgar, " The Cessation of Sign Gift s," Blbllotheca Sacra 145 (1988)

383.

70. Will iams, " Charismatic Movem ent," p. 207.

71 .Ibid.

72.Referred to by Spittler, p. 340.

73.Spittler, p. 340.

7 4 . " Charismatics on Evangelism," Christianity Today (16 Sept., 1991) 52.

7 5 . Edgar, " The Cessation of Sign Gifts," p. 385.

76.In an editorial ¡n Renewai (June/Ju ly, 1974) Mich ael Harper asked Pentecostal

Román Catholics, "Is there anything whlch the Holy Spirlt has shown you which is

at variance with the infallibility of the Pope?" Cited in Williams, Tongues o fth e Spirít,

p. 103, who notes that Catholics who are tongues-speakers customarily testify that

they have "a new appreciation of the liturgy of their church and a profounder

experience of the sacraments" (ibid.).

77.Kildahl, p. 63.

78.Ibid.

7 9 . Malony and Lovekin, pp. 26-27 .

8 0 . Kildahl, p. 63.



CHAPTER II

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE

The purpose of this chapter ¡s to investígate the NewTestamentterminology used for "speaking in tongues" and itsusage outside the New Testament. In the previous chapter

we have looked at the practice of glossolalia ¡n modern times.We have learned that ¡t is a recent phenomenon that had itsbeginning in modern times around 1900. It has also becomeapparent that glossolalia is not restricted to Christians alone,but that many other persons, among them priests, shamans,sorcerers and others of other major religions of the world,engage in glossolalia. Linguists and others who have studied

the glossolalia phenomenon have informed us that there is nodistinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia.We have also seen that glossolalia as practiced today cannotbe identified with any known human language from the pastor the present. Its articularon and structure do not resembleany human language. We have also found that glossolalia canbe learned.

This set of new facts, previously largely unknown, causes

us to return to the Bible for a new ¡nvestigation of theexperience of "speaking in tongues." In view of this new setof facts, the foremost question is to investígate anew whatthe evidence for "speaking in tongues" is in the Bible itself

and how it is to be understood. We must be cautious aboutthe ready identificaron of modern glossolalia with NewTestament "speaking in tongues." This identificaron which

is so widespread today can only be supported ¡f it can bedetermined beyond the shadow of a doubt that NewTestament "speaking in tongues" is the same as the presentphenomenon of glossolalia.

It will be the purpose of this chapter to turn to the NewTestament itself and to investígate the Greek terminologybehind the expression "speaking in tongues." This will involve

some technical knowledge and will also involve the claims




made by others as to how the New Testament wordsrendered "speaking in tongues" are used. It ¡s customary in

such an investigaron to turn to the Greek literature outside ofthe New Testament in order to discover, ¡f possible, whatother ancient writers, more or less contemporary with NewTestament writers, meant when they used the same terms.This assumes that they used the same terms, of course. Thisbackground from contemporary writers is useful in illuminatingthe language background of the New Testament. It may

provide options in understanding the New Testament termsunder investigaron. In the end it may limit the meaning of theterms used in the New Testament. In this comparativeprocedure we must not, however, read onesidedly from oneculture into another. This means that in the end the NewTestament must be interpreted on the basis of the Biblicalcontext. The Bible is its own interpreter.

The expression "speaking in tongues" is used in the NewTestament in only five passages, namely at the end of theGospel of Mark (16:17), in three places in the book of Acts(Acts 2, 10, 19), and in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

Many modern scholars have suggested that theexpression "speaking in tongues" (g/óssa laleín) is not uniformin its meaning.1

These scholars claim that there are two meanings

associated with this Greek expression. The first meaning isfound in the Pentecostal experience of Acts 2, where"speaking in tongues" means the miraculous gift of speakingforeign languages not known by the speaker previously. Thesecond meaning is allegedly employed in 1 Cor 12-14 whereit is said to be a technical term that refers to some kind ofecstatic unintelligible utterance which is equal to modern

glossolalia.2 Other scholars, equally well trained, suggestthat the language in the New Testament is uniform and that"speaking in tongues" in every text in the New Testamentmeans the speaking of genuine languages not previouslylearned.

In view of these diverse claims it seems imperative toinvestígate the expression "speaking in tongues" in some

detail in the Greek language. The issue under consideraron inthis part of our study is (1) to investígate the basis for the



SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK 43

modern claim of two meanings in the New Testament by astudy of the language ¡n the Greek New Testament ¡tself, (2)to study the similarity or variation of usage of the expression

"speaking ¡n tongues," (3) to research the usage of the noung/óssa in the Greek language outside the New Testament, and(4) to investígate the usage of the New Testament expressiong/óssa lalefn, "speaking in tongues," in the Septuagint (LXX),the oldest Greek translation of the Oíd Testament (whichforms a background of much of the New Testament), and, ifpresent, in other Greek literature outside of the New

Testament. It is anticipated that a thorough investigation intothese linguistic usages and lexicographical backgrounds willenable us to draw conclusions on the usage of the expression"speaking in tongues" in the New Testament.

1. GREEK USAGE OF GLOSSA LALEIN IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Greek expression g/óssa /a/eín, literally translated "tospeak in tongues," is used infrequently in the Greek NewTestament. This may come as a surprise to many people whoassume that "speaking in tongues" is a pervasive NewTestament practice. This assumption regarding the allegedlywidespread use in the New Testament may rest on theextensive use of modern glossolalia in recent years.

The statistical ¡nformation for the usage of the Greekexpression g/óssa /a/eín in the New Testament is as follows.It is used in only three New Testament books:

1. Mark 16:172. Acts 2:4, 6, 8, 11; 10:46; 19:6

3. 1 Cor 12-14a. 1 Cor 12:31b. 1 Cor 13:1c. 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 5 (2x) 6, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23,

27, 39

The noun g/óssa, "tongue,” is found unmodified and in

the singular five times (1 Cor 14:2, 4, 13, 19, 27). It is found




nine times in the plural without modifiers (Acts 10:46; 19:6;1 Cor 13:30; 14:5 (2x), 6, 18, 23, 39). It appears with

modifiers in the plural in a total of five passages (Mk 16:17; Acts 2:4, 11; 1 Cor 13:1; 14:21).

It ¡s suggested that there are eleven expressions in theNew Testament that have a relationship to the usage ofglóssa lalefn.3 In Acts 2:6 the phrase "speak in his owndialect/language"4 ¡s used and in vs 8 the clause "in our ownlanguage"5 appears. These additional phrases are specific

definitions, indicating that "speaking in tongues" is thespeaking of a known language that some of its hearers werefamiliar with.

There are various phrases in 1 Cor 14, many of which usea form of lalefn, "to speak," (vss 2 [twice], 15 [twice], 16[twice], 17, 21, 28).

We also need to investígate the term glóssa used byitself, i.e. without the verb lalefn, as it appears in the NewTestament. The term glóssa appears a total of 24 times6outside the passages where it is associated with "speaking intongues."

Recent dictionaries of the Greek language inform us thatthe Greek term glóssa means (1) "tongue" as an organ ofspeech (Luke 1:64; 16:24; Mark 7:33, 35; Acts 2:26; Rom3:13; James 1:26; 3:5, 6 [2 times], 8; 1 John 3:18; 1 Pet

3:10; Rev 16:10), (2) "tongue" as in "tongues of fire" in afigurative sense (Acts 2:3), and (3) "tongues" typically in thesense of "language" as a normal means of communication(Rom 14:11; Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7;14:6; 17:15).7 It is noteworthy that in the New Testament,outside the disputed "speaking in tongues" passages in 1 Cor14, the term glóssa does not in any case mean unintelligible,

ecstatic speech, heavenly language, angelic speech, oranything like this.We are now in a position to draw some initial conclusions:

1. The noun glóssa by itself always means the organ of themouth known as "tongue" and in the other New Testamentinstances it means "language."

2. In but one instance it refers to "tongues as of fire"(Acts 2:3) where a comparative particle is joined to the nounand where it has a figurative meaning. The comparative




partióle "as" (hoseí) is used to indícate its specific figurativesense. In these New Testament passages there is no usageof glóssa with the meaning of glossolalia in the sense ofunintelligible speech or gibberish, leaving aside for themoment the disputed usages in 1 Cor 14.

3. The Synoptic Gospels do not know anything of"tongues" in the sense of glossolalia. Mark 16:17 does notcontain it either. However, there is no reason to read amodern phenomenon back into Mark 16:17.

4. The Gospel of John speaks much of the Spirit (John14, 17) but is totally silent about tongues in the sense ofunintelligible speech or as a gift of the Spirit.

5. In Acts 2 there is a clear-cut usage of "tongues." It isclearly defined in both of its usages. The first is the figurativeusage of "tongues as of fire" (vs 3) with the usage of thecomparative particle as noted above whereby it is used in a

figurative sense. The second usage is predominant. It is of"speaking in tongues" in the sense of speaking miraculouslyintelligible languages understood by bystanders who speakthese as their native languages.8 What is meant here is thatthe "Holy Spirit enabled the believer to talk in other languages, that is, to speak a language which was different from the onethey normally spoke."9 It has been pointed out that in Acts2 "the language is a meaningful language, fully intelligible tothe hearers, [which] is suggested not only by what comes inthe following verses [after vs 4] but by the word which Lukechooses for 'speaking [apophthéggomai].' This verb is usedboth in the Septuagint and in classical Greek to indícatesolemn or inspired speech, but not ecstatic utterance."10 Inother words, what the tongues-speakers in Acts 2 werespeaking were "not ecstatic sayings that were unintelligible,

but were clearly discernible languages (glossai¡dios dialektos) that were recognized."11 The tongues-speakers in Acts 2are not glossolalists in the modern sense of the term. Theyare speakers of human languages that they did not previouslyknow. The people present at Pentecost carne from Rome,various other areas, including Mesopotamia and Arabia, andtestified as eye witnesses and ear witnesses that they heard

those imbued with the Holy Spirit speak their "own language"(idia dialekto) as Acts 2:6, 8 emphasizes.




It has been our purpose so far to bracket out from ourdiscussion the disputed passage of 1 Cor 12-14. The reason

for this is summarized ¡n a very recent dictionary (published in1988) that ¡s based on semantic domains:

Most scholars assume that the phenomena described ¡n Ac 2.4 and in 1 Cor 14.2 are significantly different in thatin one instance people understood it in their own regionallanguage or dialect and in the other instance an ¡nterpreterwas required. It is for that reason that many interpret

glóssa in 1 Cor 14.2 as ecstatic speech, which was alsoan element in Hellenistic religions and constituted aSymbol of divine inspiration.12

We have chosen to cite this most recent dictionary sinceit summarizes the thinking of many. It summarizes theunderstandings of various modern scholars regarding the twotypes of "speaking in tongues" which are alleged for the New

Testament.There has been a change over the last one hundred years

on this subject of New Testament "speaking in tongues." Inthe year 1858, for example, a major Greek-English dictionaryof the New Testament concluded as follows:

Here, according to the two passages in Mark and Acts,the sense obviously is, to speak in other living languages; comp. Acts 2, 6. 8-11. Others taking the passage in 1Cor. as the basis, suppose the sense to be, to speak another kind of language, referring it to a person in a Stateof high spiritual excitement or ecstasy from inspiration,unconscious of external things and wholly absorbed inadoring communion with God, and breaking forth in abruptexpressions of praise and devotion, which are notcoherent and therefore not always intelligible to the

multitude; . . . Most interpreters have correctly adoptedthe first meaning; while some again suppose a referenceto two distinct gifts.13

It is noteworthy that in 1858 when this dictionary waspublished there were only "some" interpreters who went for"tw o distinct gifts ." The interpretation of glossolalia asecstatic speech in 1 Cor 14 was followed at that time, some

130 years ago, by but a few interpreters. Today, on thecontrary, the majority of scholars adopt the view of two




distinct gifts, one ¡n Acts 2 and another in 1 Cor 14.Walter Bauer's recent standard Greek-English Lexicón of

the New Testament, speaks of "a special problem" when ¡trefers to "speaking in tongues" ¡n the New Testament andmaintains that in 1 Cor 14 "there is no doubt about the thingreferred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religiousecstasy."14 This summarizes the majority view of modernscholars today.

The issue before the discerning reader is, What hasbrought about this change in interpretation? What are the

reasons that have led the majority of modern scholars oftoday to posit two different experiences, one in Acts 2 andanother in 1 Cor 14, but with the same language? Whatevidence is there for this change? Is there evidence inHellenistic religions for glossolalia? Is there evidence forecstatic unintelligible speech from sources outside the NewTestament? Our next section is devoted to these questions.

2. ALLEGED GLOSSOLALIA OUTSIDE THE

NEW TESTAMENT

What has brought about the change in interpretation inthe last hundred years of Greek-English lexicography and the

interpretation of tongues-speaking in the New Testament? Isit a more extensive study of the Greek usage of glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," in other Greek literature? Is it thediscovery of new Greek texts that use the expression of

glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," and that demónstratebeyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a phenomenon ofecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind? Is it a reinter-pretation of the New Testament phrase glóssa lalein, "tospeak in tongues," to bring it into harmony with the modern

practice of glossolalia among charismatic Christians? Issomething being read back into the New Testament?

These questions are raised in order to sensitize the readerto various possibilities. In order to find a satisfying answer tothe change in the lexicography reflected in more recent Greek-English dictionaries, it is ¡mportant to investígate the ancient

Greek language outside the New Testament. This seems




particularly mandated by the claim that "ecstatic speech" ofan unintelligible kind "was also an element ¡n Hellenistic

religions."15 A study by a highly qualified scholar ¡n ancient Greek

culture, Christopher Forbes, has produced an analysis of thevarious arguments and suggestions made over the years byscholars who favor the view that Hellenistic popular religióninfluenced early Christian inspired glossolalic speech,especially in 1 Cor 14 and other passages in the New

Testament that refer to "speaking in tongues."16 We willrefer to some of the major points made by Forbes.

The ancient philosopher Plato informs us about thePythian priestess at Delphi who is said to have engaged in afrenzied ecstasy in giving her oracles.17 We must be awarethat the Delphic oracle is the major example referred to bymany scholars who hold that there is a Greek background for

unintelligible, inspired speech. It is customary to refer to theDelphic oracle as the prime example for ancient glossolalia.18Scholars have carefully restudied these alleged

"comparative phenomena."19 It may be surprising, but it isat the same time undeniable, that "there is no decisiveevidence to indícate that the Pythian priestess ever spoke heroracles in a form analogous to glossolalia."20 Another verycompetent scholar, Joseph Fortenrose, who studied these

texts of ancient Greek authors independently, concludes thatthe Pythian priestess at Delphi did not engage in a frenzied orraving ecstasy. She did not take leave of her senses, and shedid not engage in "¡ncoherent babbling."21 To the contrary,the priestess at Delphi could provide the oracles in oral orwritten form in both prose or poetry.22 This is not the resultof glossolalic utterance given by inspiration or of ecstatic

speech. Furthermore, what the Pythian priestess engaged inis never described in terms of g/óssa lalein, "speaking intongues," or in any other terminology of unintelligible ecstaticspeech.23

There is a statement to the effect that the Pythian"oracles are obscure (asaphe)."24 Does this mean that theDelphic oracles pass from unintelligible language to intelligible

language or that someone needs to transíate what is obscure?It does not mean this at all. It simply means that the oracles




become obscure as they pass from divine language intohuman language. While they are in fully intelligible language,

these "oracles" are simply hard to understand, because theyare mysterious and in need of explanation. There is noinference that what is difficult to understand, thoughspoken/written in plain Greek, is unintelligible speech. Whatis hard to understand in intelligible language is in no wayglossolalia or ecstatic speech. These recent studies of theDelphic oracle remove much of the earlier misinterpretation by

scholars. It is demonstrated today that there is no conceptualor linguistic evidence in the Delphic oracles of any glossolalia,"speaking in tongues," or inspired ecstatic speech of anunintelligible kind.

The recent reassessments of earlier claims by scholars25who had argued that there is a linkage between glossolaliaand Hellenistic religión and who attempted to derive Pauline

usage in 1 Cor 14 from this source will not be supported byan analysis of the evidence presently available. This is asobering assessment for anyone who seeks to interpret either1 Cor 12-14, or Mark 16:17 and Acts 10 and 19, on the basisof an álleged Hellenistic religious background. It does not

exist.

3. THE USAGE OF GLOSSA AND LALEO OUTSIDE

THE NEW TESTAMENT

What is the meaning of the noun g/óssa in the Greeklanguage outside the New Testament? Does the Greek termglóssa mean in any ancient Greek usage unintelligible speech?

The standard lexicons for the period of Greek in theancient world agree in their listings of meanings for glóssa. Our first attention will be directed to an investigation of thepapyri, ancient Greek documents written on material madefrom reeds. It is widely employed and many texts have beenfound written on papyri. Friedrich Preisigke's authoritativedictionary of Greek papyri informs us that g/óssa means

"tongue, language" and nothing else.26 He lists for the termlaléo the meanings "to speak, to communicate, to te ll."27



50 SPEAKIÑG IN TONGUES

There is no evidence for any glossolalic utterance ¡n theliterature contained on papyri. Everything ¡s on the level ofrational and intelligible speech.

Moulton and Milligan have assembled Greek terms frompapyri and other non-literary sources to ¡Ilústrate thevocabulary of the New Testament. Here too the term glóssa is an organ in the human mouth or in the mouth of animáis,namely the "tongue," or ¡t has the meaning of intelligiblehuman "language."28

Moulton and Milligan note that "while légo calis attention

to the substance of what is said, the onomatopoeic laléo points rather to the outward utterance . . ."29 Still there isno evidence whatsoever that laléo has developed into anexpression for glossolalia in the ancient world. It remains aterm for intelligible speech. This is the case even in the verychapter in which many modern scholars wish to findunintelligible speech. In 1 Cor 14:19, 29 the verb laléo is

used for intelligible speech.30Moving beyond the papyri and other non-literary sourcesin our investigation of glóssa, it is necessary to see whetherthe Greek language that is later than the New Testamentknows this term to mean ecstatic utterance or unintelligiblespeech. Thus we need to turn to patristic Greek literature.The ancient Greek church fathers wrote extensively and lefta rich body of Greek literature.

In the patristic Greek language glóssa means the "tongue,[as an] ¡nstrument of speech," or "language," andmetaphorically a "thong" or an "ingot" of gold.31

Investigations into the subject of "speaking in tongues"among the early Church fathers prior to the third century haveled to the conclusión "that when the [early church] fathersclarified the nature of the tongue-speech being practiced they

most usually specified them as being xenolalic [i.e. speakingin a known language that the person has not learned bymechanical methods]."32 In other words, the early Churchfathers saw the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" in theirday as speaking foreign languages miraculously. They also¡nterpreted 1 Cor 14 in that light.

It is noteworthy that the most extensive study that makes

a distinction between "speaking in tongues" as intelligible




speech and unintelligible speech in 1 Cor 14, produced by N.I. J. Engelsen, concluded that the Greek expression "speaking

¡n tongues," glóssa lalefn, ¡s not found outside the NewTestament.33 A single exception has been discovered sinceEngelsen's study was completed. However, ¡t does not referto unintelligible speech.34

We have exhausted all ancient Greek texts presentlyknown. So far there ¡s not even a single Greek text known tothe ancient world that uses the designaron glóssa, the verb

lalefn, or the New Testament combination "to speak intongues," glóssa lalem, in the alleged sense of ecstatic"speaking in tongues." To this day no scholar has been ableto point to a single usage of these terms in non-biblical Greektexts to mean glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible speechor of ecstatic utterance. This is amazing in view of the readyimpression left by many writers on the subject of tongues-speaking that the phenomenon of glossolalia was knownoutside the New Testament in ancient pagan religions fromwhich it was introduced to the church in Corinth andelsewhere.

4. THE USAGE OF GLOSSA LALEIN IN

THE SEPTUAGINT

Finally we turn to the usage of glóssa lalefn in theSeptuagint, which during New Testament times wasJudaism's authorized Greek translation of the Hebrew (OídTestament) Scriptures. The Greek language of the Septuagintis widely used by New Testament writers in quotations fromthe Oíd Testament. The question before us is, Does the

Septuagint use the expression glóssa lalefn in the sense ofunintelligible speech and/or ecstatic utterance?

Professor Roy A. Harrisville summarizes the evidence inhis famous essay on the Greek language usage of glóssa lalefn: "In the Septuagint, the term glóssa appears togetherwith the verb lalefn seven times, four times in the singularunmodified [Job 33:2; Ps 36 (37): 30; 38 (39):4 (3); Jer

9:4(5)], and three times in the singular with modifiers [Ps108(109):2; Isa 19:18; 28:11]."35 Here is evidence of the




¡dentical usage of the phrase under investigaron in the NewTestament.

Regarding the entire Corpus of usage of glóssa in theSeptuagint and also in those cases where it approximatesmost closely the linguistic usage of the New Testament,Professor Harrisville concluded that the "Septuagint translatorappears to have known nothing of a technical term forspeaking in tongues"36 in the sense of unintelligible speech.In every instance of usage of g/óssa or the combination ofglóssa lalein in the Septuagint, the reference is to a normal"tongue" in the sense of language. In no instance isglossolalia in view. Thus the Septuagint usage is in harmonywith any other usage of these terms in Greek literatureoutside the New Testament.

As a matter of fact the Septuagint usage of theexpression ̂ /dssa laletn supports the view that in other usagesoutside the Septuagint, that is, in the New Testament, this

phrase simply means to speak in normal human languages.We may summarize the evidence presented on the

expression glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," by stating thatthis phrase is never used outside the New Testament for whatis today designated as glossolalia in the sense of unintelligiblespeech or ecstatic utterance. Such usage is not known in theGreek language and literature of the ancient world, as the key

recent studies on this subject unanimously indícate. Thus itbecomes more and more difficult to interpret the Paulineusage in terms of ecstatic unintelligible speech. There is nooutside support for this interpretaron contrary to what earlierscholars were apt to claim.

5. MODERN HYPOTHESES FOR GLOSSOLALIA AS

UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH

It may be very surprising to the student of the modernphenomena of glossolalia that there is no linguistic or otherevidence whatever for glossolalia or ecstatic utterances in theworld outside the New Testament. In view of this fact thereare not many options for persons who wish to interpret theexperience of 1 Cor 14 in terms of glossolalia. Professor




Harrisville has stated the ¡ssue ¡n precise terms: "Unless weassign to the NT authors total responsibility for coining the

nomenclature under discussion, we shall have to continué oursearch for that point at which the technical terms for speakingin tongues penetrated the NT."37

There are two major hypotheses for assigning to theGreek expression glóssa laleín, "to speak in tongues," thetechnical meaning of "an unintelligible utterance"38 in 1 Cor14. One hypothesis suggests that the expression was

developed by Paul himself as a technical term to combat theexperience of some Christians in Corinth. The secondhypothesis ¡s that the "technical term had its birth in pre-Christian Judaism" particularly in pre-Christian Jewish sourcesconnected w ith Qumran.39

These hypotheses have immense difficulty. There is nodemonstrable step from any specific usage in Biblical or extra-

Biblical language or literature to show that the meaning of theexpression "speaking in tongues" moves from speakingnormal languages, to the meaning of a supposed unintelligibleecstatic speech. The fact that Paul is credited w ith coining anew technical term indicates that its supporters are forced toadmit that there is nothing outside the New Testament thatwill support the view that glóssa laleín, "to speak in tongues,"means glossolalia anywhere in the ancient world. They are

forced to credit Paul with the innovation, because they havebeen unable to find evidence elsewhere. Johannes Behm inhis article on glóssa, "tongue(s)," written in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, argües that Acts 2:3, 4cannot have given rise to the technical term glossolalia.40He is undoubtedly correct.

Scholars who wish to suggest that the verb laleín, "to

speak," supposedly an onomatopoeic term, gave rise toglossolalia41 have also no sound íinguistic support for theirview, except some of their own guesses.42 Why should Paulinvent a technical meaning of some sort simply because hecombats a misuse of a spiritual gift?

Those who have argued that there is some sort of originfor glossolalia in Jewish or Hellenistic circles are countered by

Engelsen's conclusión, "He [Paul] may have had predecessorsin this, but they have left no trace."43 This means that




hypotheses built on alleged analogues ¡n the Jewish or

Hellenistic world of Paul lack any direct or indirect supportfrom any written ancient sources. Such material is notavailable.

What about the sectarian Jewish community fromQumran? Did ¡t leave any trace of an experience of glossolalicutterance or ecstatic speech? Although there is no evidencefor glossolalia from Qumran, it is suggested that glossolaliaaróse out of the community of Qumran. Qumran neither

provides the "missing link" to the supposed Pauline usage ofglóssa lalefn as a technical term for glossolalia ñor does itsupport its hypothetical origin.44 No one has been able todemónstrate any clear linkage from either Qumran or otherpre-Christian Jewish circles for the origin of glossolalia.

The fact remains that there is no evidence whatever ¡nQumran or in circles connected with Qumran regarding

anything even similar to modern glossolalia or to what isdescribed in 1 Cor 14. In plain language, this means that thehypothesis of an origin of alleged Pauline glossolalia beingdependent on Jewish or other circles still lacks the requiredsupport from presently available sources. It is noteworthythat those who have constructed the hypotheses underdiscussion are the very ones who admit to the lack of

contemporary evidence that glóssa laleín, "to speak intongues," ever meant glossolalia in the sense of ecstaticunintelligible utterance outside the New Testament.

6. CONCLUSIONS

There is no consensus among modern scholars as to theorigin of an alleged glossolalia that Paul supposedly has inmind in 1 Cor 12-14. To the present time there is noevidence for the phenomenon of glossolalia from any of theavailable written Greek or other sources. Neither is thereevidence to charge Paul with an invention of something,namely glossolalia, in a form similar to or identical with whatis practiced today in certain Christian and non-Christian

religions. From the point of view of interpretaron, it does notseem to be sound to read into the New Testament a modern




phenomenon--in this case glossolalia as practiced by

Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostal charismatics and as used ¡nother non-Christian religions on various continents. If thisprocedure were to be followed we would engage in a methodof eisegesis (a reading into a text what is not there) and notin proper exegesis (a reading out of the text what the text

itself has).There is but one clear and definitive passage in the New

Testament which unambiguously defines "speaking intongues" and that is Acts 2. If Acts 2 is allowed to stand asit reads, then "tongues" are known, intelligible languages,spoken by those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit andunderstood by people who carne from the various areas of theancient world to Jerusalem.

We may raise a question of sound interpretation. Wouldit not be sound methodologically to go from the known

definition and the clear passage in the New Testament to theless clear and more difficult passage in interpretation?45Should an interpreter in this situation attempt to interpret themore difficult passage of 1 Cor 12-14 in light of the clearerpassage of Acts 2? Is this not a sound approach?

Evidence outside of the Bible is not available to supportany glossolalia in the New Testament. It is methodologically

unacceptable simply to read today's practice of glossolalia inthe charismatic movement back into the New Testament. Letus interpret the Bible by the Bible where the same linguisticphenomenon is under discussion. This methodology islinguistically consistent and hermeneutically sound. It hasstood the test of time over the centuries.

ENDNOTES

1.See, for example, standard dictionaries such as Johannes Behm, " glóssa ,"

Theologica/ Dictionary o f the N ew Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans Publ. Co„ 1964) 1: 719-26; J. B. Tyson, " Tongues, Speaking wi th,"

Harper's Bible Dictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemaier (San Francisco: Harper & Row

Publisher, 1985) 1081-82.




2.See W. Grundmann, "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte ¡n seinem

theologisohen Sinn,” Studia Theologica, ed. F. L Cross (Berlín: Akademie Verlag,

1964) ll:584-94; Frank W. Beare, "Speakíng in Tongues: A Critical Survey of the

New Testament Evidence," JBL 83 (I964) 229-46 (reprínted in Watson E. Mills, ed.,

Speakíng in Tongues. A Guido to Research on Glossoialia [Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986] 107-26); Stuart D. Currie, "Speaking in

Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament Bearing on G/óssais La lein,”

Interpretation 19 (1965) 274-94 (reprinted in Mills, ed., Speaking in Tongues, 83-

106); Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular

Religión," Novum Testamentum 28/3 (1986) 257-70.

3 . This info rmation is provided by Roy A . Harrisville, "Speaking in Tongues: A

Lexicographical Study," Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Modern Research, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 36, and n. 10, upon whom

we are heavily dependent for the statistical information and the summaries.

4 . Acts 2:6 té ¡día diaiékto laloúnton.

5. Acts 2:8 té ¡día diaiékto hemón.

6. Mark 7: 33, 35; Luke 1:64; 16:24; Acts 2:3, 26; Rom 3:13; 14:11; Phil 2:11;

James 1:26; 3 :5 (3 tim es), 8; 1 Pet 3:10; 1 John 3:18 ; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10: 11; 11:9;

13:7; 14:6; 16:10; 17:15.

7 . Wal ter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker, A Greek-

English Lexicón o f the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literatura (2nd ed.;

Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) 162; Walter Bauer,

Griechisch-deutsches Wórterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der

frühchristiichen Literatur, ed. Kurt A land und Barbara Aland (Berlín: New York: Walter

de Gruyter, 1988) 324; Joseph Henry Thayer, The New Thayer's Greek-English

Lexicón o f the Ne w Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981) 1100-

1101.

8.See among the many expositors, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A

Transiator's Handbook on the Ac ts o f the Ap osties (London: United Bible Societies,

1972) 34-36.

9.lbid., p. 35 (emphasis in the text).

lO.lbid.

11 .William G. MacDonald , " Glossoialia in the New Testam ent ," Speaking in Tongues,

ed. Watson E. Mills, p. 129.

12 . Joh annes P. Louw , Eugene A. Nida et al., Greek-English Lexicón o f the New Testament Based on Semantic Domain (London/New York: United Bible Societies,

1988) 1:389-90.

13 . Edward Robinson, Greek and English Lexicón o f the New Testament (rev. ed.;

New York: Harper & Brothers, 1858) 149.

14 . Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich , p. 162.

1 5 .Louw and Nida et al., pp. 389 -90.

16.Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular

Religión,' Novum Testamentum 23/3 (1986) 257-70.




17.lt ¡s typical that interpraters by the soore assert that there was "eostatio speech"

or "speaking ¡n an ecstatic manner" at the Delphic Oracle and/or in Pythian religión.

See, for example, C. M. Roebeok, Jr., "Tongues Gift of," The International Standard

Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1988) 4:872, and the

discussion in Forbes, pp. 269-70, who cites as typical examples such scholars as N.

I. J. Engelsen, L. T. Johnson, T. W. Gillespie, P. Roberts among others.

18.The widely quoted artic leby F. Behm, 'glóssa," The ologicalDictionary o f the New

Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), l:722, also refers to

Plato's reference to the Delphic Oracle in Phrygia, quoting the Greek text in extenso.

See alsó above n. 17.

19.50 Behm, "glóssa ," p. 722.

2 0 . Forbes, p. 260.

21. Joseph Fortenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley: The University of California

Press, 1978) 204-212.

2 2 . Forbes, pp. 26 2-6 3.

23.lbid„ pp. 267-68.

24. Cited from Dio Chrysos tom by Forbes, ibid., p. 268.

25 . Typic al for this is N. I. J. Engelsen, Glossolalia and Othe r Forms o f Inspired

Speech Acc ord ing to 1 Cor. 12-14 (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University,

1970), who argües extensively that Paul distinguishes between intelligible and

unin telligible speech. He has been fol lowed uncritically by man y writ ers. Forbes

concludes, "Engelsen's attempt to parallel Christian glossolalia in Greek and

Hellenistic religious phenomena is, however, marred by many errors of both method

and interpretation, and his conclusions are largely to be rejected" (p. 269).

2 6 . Friedrich Preisigke, Wórterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Heidelbergr

Selbstverlag, 1924) 1:299.

27. Friedrich Preisigke, Wórterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Berlín:

Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925) 2:3 "sprechen, mitteilen, erzáhlen."

28. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The V ocabulary o f the Greek

Testament ll lustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London:

Hodder & Stoughton, 1952) 128.

29.Ibid., p. 368.

30.50 correctly Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Journal of

Theological Study 17 (1969) 304.

31. G. W. H. Lampe, A Patr is tic Greek Lexicón (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press,

1962) 316.

3 2 . Harold Hunter, " Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis," Jo urna l o f the Evangélica!

Theological So ciety 23 /2 (1980 ) 13 5. See also Currie, p. 105 , w ith slightly different

conclus ions. He points out, however, th at ¡t is not possible to determin e whether the

Greek phrase glóssa lalein in the NT "can be used appropriately to describe the

current 'speaking in tongues' phenomena" (ibid.).

3 3 . Engelsen, p. 20 . This is suppo rted by Harrisville, p. 41 .




34 . Harrisv¡lle, p. 41 , has found one instanoe of glóssa lalein in pro fane Greek. It is

found in a reconstructed line of a hymn to Imouthes-Asclepius from the library of the

Oxyrhynchus Papyri citad in Harrisville, p. 41 n. 34.

35. Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, 39.

36.lbid., p. 41.

37-lbid., p. 43.

38.So Behm, p. 72 2.

39. Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 44-50.

4 0 . Behm, pp. 72 5-26 .

41 .See fo r instance B astiaan Van Elderen, " Glossolalia in the New Testament ,"

Bulletin o fth e Evangélica! T heologicalSociety 7 (1964 ) 5 3-58 ; William E. Richardson,

Litúrgica i Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthians 14:26c-3 3a an d Its Implications

(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 1983) 89-

91.

42. Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, p. 50, rejects a Paulina origin by opting for an

origin "in pre-Christian, Jewish sources."

4 3 . Engelsen, p. 20.4 4 . Harrisville, pp. 44 -48 .

4 5 . There are some scholars who on the basis of their form-cri tical and redaction-

critical analyses of Ac ts 2 claim that the o learer passage is 1 Cor 14. They seek to

move on that basis from 1 Cor 14 to Acts 2. They claim th at in Ac ts 2 there is a

deeper layer of tradition wh ich is identical to the alleged glossolalia in 1 Cor 14, but

later editors have redactad Acts 2 to make the gift one of intelligible languages (see

Chapter IV below ). This approach lacks the support of the plain meaning of the tex t

of Acts 2, it lacks the support of the ancient manuscript tradition, and it is solely

based on modern reconstructions that are too subjective to carry weigh t. It is best

to employ the "cióse reading" approach to the text.



CHAPTER III

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE G OSPEL OF MARK

In this part of our study, we shall investígate the New

Testament phenomenon of the promise of the gift of tongues

as stated by Jesús Christ the risen Lord. This means that we

shall begin a careful study of the New Testament passages

that refer to tongues-speaking. In the succeeding chapterswe will continué with a study of New Testament references

to "speaking in tongues" in chronological order.1

1. HISTORICAL SETTING

The first individual to speakabout the gift of tongues wasJesús Christ himself. He referred to this matter only once,

according to the gospel record.

The passage under consideration is Mark 16:17. It

belongs to the so-called "longer ending"2 of the Gospel of

Mark. This "longer ending" has been the subject of study for

a long period of time. There are good reasons for this section

to remain in our modern Bible translations.3 It would be tootechnical a matter to pursue in some detail the issues relating

to the debate about the "longer ending" of the Gospel of

Mark. For our purposes we consider it to be a genuine word

of the Risen Lord.

The setting of this prediction puts it in the context of

several statements made by Jesús to His disciples after His

resurrection and shortly before His final ascensión. Thecontext reveáis that it is spoken by Jesús when He command-

ed His disciples to preach the gospel in all the world (vs. 15)

and when He promised them the power to perform miracles

(vs. 17). One of these miracles is the ability "to speak in new

tongues."




2. JESUS' PREDICTION OF SPEAKING IN

NEW TONGUES

Jesús predicts the following:

And these signs will accompany those who have believed:in My ñame they will cast out demons, they will speakwith new4 tongues (Mk 16:17, NASB).6

With regard to Mk 16:17 a number of considerations shouldhave our attention:

a) This ¡s the only reference to speaking in tongues ¡n the

Gospels. Significantly, it comes from the mouth of the Lord

Himself. It unique appearance here should not diminish its

significance.

b) This reference to "new tongues" comes in the form of

a prediction made by the Risen Lord to His eleven disciples(vs. 14) within the context of reaffirming the Great Commis-

sion to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all

creation" (vs. 15). Here Christ repeated the mándate to

evangelize the whole world. It is within this context of

evangelization that the Risen Lord speaks of the accom-

panying "signs" of casting out demons (cf. Acts 8:7; 16:18;

19:12) and the speaking in or with "new tongues." The"sign" nature indicates in this instance that Jesús is speaking

of a miracles which the disciples would engages in. Since

Jesús is speaking to his disciples. He does not refer to the

sign-miracles of vs. 17 as something that will come to His

disciples when they began to believe. They are signs that will

manifest themselves as they remain in a State of faith and

faithfulness.

c) The reference is to a future occurrence as the future

tense of the verb indicates (Greek laíesousin), i.e., during the

future, when Christ's followers would take up the commission

of the Lord, this sign of "speaking in new tongues" would be

manifested among believers.

d) The "sign" of "speaking in new tongues" is as much a

miracle as the other signs mentioned in vs. 17. Each one of

them is supernatural in origin and nature.



SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN MARK 61

e) The nature of the "sign" which would accompany the

future proclamaron of the Good News by believers, consisting

of an experience which would enable them to "speak withnew tongues" (Greek g/ossais la/esousin kainais).

What does the crucial phrase "new tongues" mean?

3. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "TONGUES"

The Greek word for "tongues" ¡s glóssa. We have

observed in the previous chapter that this word is used with

a variety of meanings in the New Testament and in the Greek

language ¡n general. We may summarize as follows:

a) It is employed with reference to the "tongue" as an

organ of speech (so Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 1:64; Rom 3:13; 14:11;

Isa 3:5 f.; 1 Jn 3:18; 1 Pet 3:10; Rev 16:10; Acts 2:26).4*6 It

is, however, generally agreed that this is not what it means

here in Mark 16:17.

b) Another meaning of the word for "tongue" is "lan

guage" (Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6;

17:15; Acts 2:6, 11).7The meaning "languages" is the meaning employed in

Mark 16:17 by the NAB (New American Standard Bible) which

translates "new languages."8 This versión seems to reflect

the intention of the original Greek word glóssa. The Transla-

tor's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, published first in

1961, explains that "tongues" here means "languages" on the

basis that "the meaning here is the same as that in Acts 2:4-

11, . . ."9 This suggestion finds linguistic and contextual

support, as will be shown below.

4. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "NEW"

The adjective "new" in the phrase "speak in new

tongues” translates the Greek adjective kainais10 which can

have a variety of semantic meanings.11 A few Englishtranslations render this Greek term with the word "strange"




(NEB, TEV). These translations are based on the dynamic

translation method which does not follow the historie, literal

word-for-word translation. The dynamic translations have thetendeney to introduce the translator's understanding.12 The

meaning "strange" ¡s never used ¡n the New Testament when

the Greek term ¡s kainais, as is the case here.

This difference may be ¡llustrated by the comparison

between the tw o words for "new" used ¡n the Greek language

of the New Testament. One is the Greek word kainos, used

here ¡n Mark 16:17 in the plural form kainais, and the other is

the Greek term neos. "Of the two most common words for

'new' since the classical period [in Greek], namely neos and

kainos, the former signifies 'what was not there before,'

'what has only just arisen and appeared,' the latter 'what is

new and distinctive' as compared with other things. neos is

new in time or origin, i.e., young, with a suggestion of

immaturity or of lack of respect for the oíd . . . . kainos is

what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive,

better than the oíd, superior in valué or attraction,. . . " 13 We

have to balance this definitional distinction with the fact that

the Synoptics "use kainos from time to time with the same

meaning as neos in order to distinguish the new . . . from the

oíd already in existence, . . .” 14 Based on these definitionsthe term "strange" is ill-chosen.

The meaning of the Greek term kainais in Mark 16:17

seemsto indícate "new" in the sense of something unknown

in this manner and at the same time marvelous to the one

speaking ¡t.15 It is "new" in the sense of a language which

the speaker had not learned previously.16 It is "new" in the

sense of a miracle that makes it possible to speak withtongues not learned. It is a miracle joined to other miracles

that the Lord had promised in Mark 16:17.

The idea then is clear. To speak with "new tongues"

means to speak in "languages" which were "new" to the

speaker, i.e., those, which he had not acquired by normal

learning processes, though they could have been acquired in

this way under normal circumstances. There was also a newquality to the language spoken.




5. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN "NEW TONGUES”

It seems to be self-evident that Mark 16:17 ¡s to be

closely linked with Acts 2, because the phraseology ¡n both

passages ¡s very cióse. We read in Mark 16:17 "speak ¡n new

tongues" and ¡n Acts 2:4 "speak ¡n other tongues." Only ¡n

these two passages we find adjectives joined to the phrase

"speak ¡n tongues" (cf. 1 Cor 14). This adjectival usage of aterm links these passages together from a linguistic point of

view.17

There ¡s another linkage between Mark 16:17 and Acts 2.

These passages are linked together on the basis of the

theological principie of prediction and fulfillment. Mark 16:17

contains the Lord's prediction of this miracle. It finds its great

fulfillment in the miracle of tongues-speaking at Pentecost inJerusalem (Acts 2) a few weeks later.

The immediate context of this Markan statement on the

gift of tongues puts it undeniably within the framework of the

commissioning of the Lord's disciples between Jesús'

resurrection and ascensión. Jesús' disciples were to receive

the marvelous power of the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were

to go forth to proclaim the Good News of what Jesús hadachieved for all mankind, first in Israel, and then to all nations,

tongues, and peoples. During their previous ministry the

disciples were restricted to Israel (Mt 10:1-11:1, esp. 10:6)

and Samaría (Lk 10:1-16), but now the ministry of the

followers of Jesús, "those who believe" (Mk 16:17), was to

go far beyond the borders of Palestine.

During their earlier, more restricted ministry, the discipleswere equipped by their mother tongue(s) to preach the gospel,

but now "a new endowment was promised. The disciples

were to preach among other nations, and they would receive

power to speak other tongues. The apostles and their

associates were unlettered men, yet through the outpouring

of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, their speech, whether

in their own or a foreign language, became puré, simple, and

accurate, both in word and in accent"’8. The Risen Lord




made a prediction as far-reaching as the Great Commission

and thereby determined the purpose in the use of the gift of

speaking ¡n tongues. It is suggested that a) the discipleswould be able to speak "new tongues," that ¡s, foreign

languages which were "new" to them and b) that they would

be able to speak all languages with a flawless newness.

ENDNOTES

1 .We do not mean the c hronology of t he documents in w hich these passages are

found but the chronology of the development of the NT church.

2 . Mk 16 :9 -20 is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but are omitted by

Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bobiensis (Oíd Latín), Sinaitic (Oíd Syriac) and some other

manuscripts (cf. E. Nestle, Novum Testamentum Graece [25th ed., Stuttgart, 1963] ,

p. 1 36). Both Eusebius and Jerom e attest that these verses were w anting in almost

all Greek MSS know n to them . There are traces of these verses in Justin Marty r

(Apol. i 45), but the earliest definite witness to this longer ending of Mark is in

Irenaeus (iii .10.6). Although man y comm entators hold th at this longer ending of

Mark is not an original part of the gospel, M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile salón S aint Maro

(5th ed.; Paris, 1929), pp. 456-468, affirms the canonicity of this passage.

According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, ed. F. D. Nichol

(Washington, D.C., 19 56), V, 659, th e "Textual evidence favors the so-called Longer

Ending” over the "Shorter Ending."

3 . For discussions on the longer ending of Mark, see B. F. Wes tc o tt and F. J. A. Hort , The N ew Testament in the Original Greek, W ith Introdu ction and Ap pend ix (London:

Macmillan & Co., 1882) Appendix, 2:28-51; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (New

York : Macmillan and Company , Limited) pp. 33 3-3 60 ; B. B. Warfield , A n In troduc-

t ion to the Textual Criticism o f the N ew Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton,

1886) pp. 199-204; C. S. C. Williams, A lterations to the Text o f the Synoptic

Gospels and A cts (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951) pp. 40-44; R. G. Bratcher and E.

A . Nida, A Transla to r's Handbook on the Gospel o f Mark (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961)

pp. 517-522; W. F. Farmer, The La st Tw elve Verses o f Mark (London/New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1974) pp. 1-124.

4. The adjective " new ” (kainais) is omitted from certain MSS (Ephraemi Rescriptus

[original reading], Regius, St . Gall [037] , Athos [044 ], Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Bohairic,

Armenian) but is at tes ted in most of the bes t manuscrip ts and should be accepted

as original (so among many C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel Ac cord ing to St.Mark

[CGTC; Cambridge, 1963], p. 474).

5 . KJV: "new tongues” ; RSV:” new tongues" ; JB: "n ew tongues"; NEB: "s trange

tong ues" ; TEV "strange tongu es"; NAB: "n ew languages"; NIV " new tongues"; NRSV

"new tongues."




6 . W. F. Arnd t and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón o f the New Testament

(Chicago, 1 95 7), p. 161 (hereaf ter citad as Arndt and Gingr ich ). Also J. H. Moulton

and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testament (London, 1952), p. 128.

This meaning is attested also generally in Greek, so H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A

Greek-English Lexicón (Oxford, 1940), I, 353; F. Preisigke, Wórterbuch der

griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Heidelberg, 1924), I, 299, and E. Kiessling,

Wórterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 58.

7. This meaning is attested in all lexicons mentioned in note 6 above. Liddell and

Scott, A Greek-Eng lish Lexicón, p. 353, also gives the meanings of "an obsolete and

foreign word, which needs explanation" and anything shaped like a tongue such as

a "reed or tongue of a pipe," or the " tongue or thong o f leather, s ho e-latch et,” or the

"tongue of land," or the divinatory "marking on the liver."

8 .Supra, note 5.

9.R. G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, Transiator's Handbook on the G os pe iof Mark

(Leiden, 1961), p. 512.

10.On the textual questions, see V. Taylor, The GospeiAccording St. Mark (London,

1963), p. 612, omits this word from his Greek text, but Cranfield, St. Mark, p. 474,

defends its authenticity.

11.See Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, pp. 394f., and J. Behm,

"kaino s," Theological Dictionary o f the Ne w Testament, ed G. Kittel (Grand Rapids,

MI: Eerdmans 1965), 3:450ff.

12.See Eugene H. Glassman, The Translation Debate. What Makes a Bibie

Transiation Good? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981) pp. 48-52.

13. Behm, "kainos," 3:447.

14 . H. Haarbeck , H.-G. Link, and C. Brow n, " New ," The New Interna tional Dictiona ry

o f N ew Testament Theology Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976) , p. 67 1.

15 . Arnd t and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 39 5. T. H. Thayer, Greek-English

Lexicón o f the NT (New York, 1889), p. 119: "To speak with new tongues which the

speaker had not learned previously."

16.See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicón o f the NT, p. 119: "To speak with new

tongues the speaker had not learned previously." See also Bratcher and Nida, Gospei

o f Mark, p. 512.

17 . The authorit ative Greek gramm ar of F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A

Greek Gram mar o f the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literatura (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 254, explains that we have in Mk 16:17 an

ellipsis of an adjective where heterais, " other," which properly belongs to the phrase

"as it is designad in the narrative where the phenomenon first appears (A 2:4)."

According to this grammar Mk 16:17 and Acts 2:4 are closely linked together,

although the adjectives differ.

18. Ellen G. White, The Desire o f Ag es (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1940) p. 823.



CHAPTER IV

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

The most explicit and significant passage on the gift ofspeaking in tongues is presented in Acts 2:1-13.1 In thispassage Luke, the associate of Paul, gives an account of thegreat Day of Pentecost. It was a day of dramatic change forthe primitive Christian Church. The outpouring of the HolySpirit on the Day of Pentecost was the early rain experienceof the Holy Spirit. It enabled the first Christians to comedown from the Upper Room and to engage in the proclamaronof the Good News as never before. This experience changedthe early Church into a true missionary movement, despite theextraordinary obstacles it would face in overcoming tradition,prejudice and other formidable obstacles. God showed

Himself to be on the side of the new community and with thepower and presence of the third Person of the triune GodheadGod's cause would succeed. In the gift of "speaking intongues" God provided the means to overeóme the naturalobstacle limitating the quick and efficient communication ofthe Gospel.

1. HISTORICA!. SETTING

The Day of Pentecost took place on the 50th day afterthe Passover (Lev 23:15f.; Num 28:16; Deut 16:9-12),2

placing the events of Acts 2 seven weeks after the crucifixiónof Jesús. The Risen Lord appeared to His disciples over a

period of forty days (Acts 1:3; cf. 1 Cor 15:3-7)3 and spoketo them about the "kingdom of God."On the day of His ascensión Jesús Christ gathered His

disciples together and in His last conversaron with them Heenjoined them to stay in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) until thepromised Holy Spirit (John 14) would come upon them.

The last words of the Risen Lord to His disciples were:"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come




upon you; and you shall be my witnesses ¡n Jerusalem and ¡nall Judea and Samaría and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8,

RSV). After Jesús Christ had thus assured the disciples thatthey would receíve the Holy Spirít—the sine qua non for thefulfillment of their comm¡ss¡on2*4--which conferred themiraculous power to perform the "signs" promísed before (Mk16:17f.), He was received out of their síght ¡nto heaven (Acts1:9-12).

The Hoiy Spirít was promised; the early Church was to

await His coming in Jerusalem, the last place they would havechosen for themselves so soon after the terrible eventsleading to the crucifixión of their Lord.5

The disciples, however, were obedient to Christ'scommand. They waited with the women,6 Jesús' mother,and His brothers (cf. 1 Cor 9:5)7 in the Upper Room inJerusalem (Acts 1:12-14) for the gift of the Holy Spirít. Thepromise of the coming of the Holy Spirít would be experiencedin a few days' time.

The time of waiting was a time of preparation. Thefollowers of Jesús devoted themselves to prayer (Acts 1:14),numbering at that time in Jerusalem about a hundred andtwenty. The infant community of faith was bound togetherin a spirít of unity8 through prayer (Acts 2:1). The time wasripe for the outpouring of the Holy Spirít.

2. THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

When the disciples were all gathered together at thedawning of the Day of Pentecost, suddenly the whole house9where they were sitting was filled with a sound of a rushing

"wind" (pnoe).10The celestial visitation was not only audible but also

visible. There were "tongues as of fire distributingthemselves, and they rested on each of them" (Acts 2:3,NASB). Both the rushing wind and the "tongues as of fire"are emblems of the power of the Holy Spirít. They were twosigns11 which manifest the coming and continued presence of

the Holy Spirit.The appearance of "tongues as of fire" does not mean



SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2 69

that fire fell down from heaven, but that the "tongues"(g/ossais) looked l¡keu flames of fire, forking in such a way as

to touch each one of them. It provides "visual evidence thatthe Spirit is given them as individuáis."13

Luke endeavored to avoid giving the ¡mpression that thenoise from the sky (heaven) and the fire-like tongues weremere natural phenomena. In each case he made the point thatthe noise was "like" (hosper) that of a strong rushing windand the tongues were "like" (hoseí) flames of fire. That "thewind and fire he mentions were not those known tonature"14 is evident from the use of these tw o comparativepartióles.15

This emphasis of the report of Acts shows that theoutpouring of the Holy Spirit was no mere subjectiveexperience.16 This is further supported by the verb translated"appeared" (ophthesan) in vs. 3a. This term was deliberatelychosen to suggest that what the followers of Jesús witnessed

with their own eyes had a corresponding reality. Theexperience cannot be explained away as the product of theirimagination.

The report in Acts 2:3b emphasizes that the Holy Spirit"rested" (ekathisen) on each of them.17 The subject of theverb "rested" could be either "tongue" (understood from"tongues" earlier)18 or less possibly "fire ,"19 or most likely the

Holy Spirit of the next verse.20 Although the Greek is notclear on the subject of the verb, the verb itself (kathizo) means "to sit down, rest." It indicates through its meaning apermanent settling down, while the aorist tense21 heresuggests the inception of the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The phrase "and it rested on each one of them" implies(a) that the Holy Spirit was received by each one individuallypresent in the house and (b) that this was no momentaryexperience restricted to the Day of Pentecost. It was apermanent endowment lasting throughout the lifetime of theperson who had received this g ift.22

3. THE NATURE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The audible and visible aspects of the presence of the




Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost ¡s evident. Now a thirdaspect ¡s added: "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit

and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave themutterance" (Acts 2:4, RSV).

The word "gave" is used to depict the gift nature ofspeaking in tongues.23 The gift of speaking in tongues is not

a learned experience. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit tobelievers. This is in contrast to the practice in Pentecostalismand neo-Pentecostalism with their so-called "tarrying"

meetings. In these meetings "groups of people would 'tarry'and be taught how to expand their consciousness in order tobypass the ¡ntellect"24 so as to be able to engage inglossolalia.

It is of crucial importance to inquire into the meaning ofthe words, "they began to speak in other tongues." As soonas the Holy Spirit filled those present in the Upper Room anexternal effect was manifested. There was no period ofapprenticeship; there was no period of being taught, and therewas no time of learning: "They began" (erxanto) to speak25right away.

The Holy Spirit causes the disciples to speak out boldly(2:4c). The term used by Luke is rendered as "utterance"(NKJV, NASB) or "ability"(NRSV). The actual word used isapophthéggesthai,26 and in non-biblical Greek it means "to

speak out loudly and clearly," "to speak with emphasis."27The "bold" speech of those endowed with the gift of tonguesdoes not desígnate ecstatic speech, but a speaking that isdistinct, emphatic, loud and clear.28

The phrase of importance is that they spoke "in othertongues." The NRSV, a dynamic translation, renders thisphrase with "in other languages." The first term which needs

careful attention is "tongues" (Greek g/ossais), the traditionalrendering of the original word in English translations.The Greek word used here in Acts 2 is identical with the

one in Mark 16:17. In our discussion of Mark 16:17 inChapter III and in our linguistic discussion in Chapter II it hasbeen shown that the Greek term "glóssa," that is, "tongue,"in its various usages can mean in the Greek language (a)"tongue" as an organ and instrument of speech and (b)"language" in the sense of a native or foreign language or




dialect.29 In Chapter II above we have studied the broadissues of the term "tongue" ¡n the Greek language, to which

the reader may return for a review of the evidence.The term "tongues" ¡n vs. 4 ¡s clearly defined by Luke ¡n Acts 2. In vss. 6 and 8 he equates this term with"languages." In the latter two verses we do not find theGreek word glóssa but the Greek term dialektos. The termdialektos means "language of a nation or región."30 In Acts1:19 the term dialektos means the vernacular language of acountry.31 It has the same meaning in Acts 2:6, 8.

Some have suggested that no true foreign languages aremeant in Acts 2:6, 8, but "dialects,"32 an ecstatic spirit-language,33 a "supernatural Esperanto,"34 or an orderedHebrew recitation of fixed liturgical passages.35 Theseproposals come to grief on the basis of the equation of"tongue" and "language" in vss. 4 and 11 aside from vss. 6and 8 in Acts 2.36 In Acts 2 there is a scholarly consensus of

opinión supporting the equation of "tongues" with "dialects"that mean "languages."37 "By speaking other languages, thebelievers provide the evidence that the Holy Spirit isperforming a miracle."38

Additional considerations lend strong support to theposition that the "tongues" are indeed "languages." First,notice that the hearers who have not yet attained to faith are

not endowed with the gift of interpretation. They understandthe believers who speak in tongues without recourse tointerpretation or translation. Second, the people are amazedand bewildered (Acts 2:7). "The crowd detects that thespeakers are not foreigners but Galileans"39 who could nothave learned these foreign languages in any natural way. Thisdemonstrates that the listening crowd does not think that theyare heafing a "spirit-language," "supernatural Esperanto," orsomething else, or a speech a Galilean could engage in as wellas any other person. The utter amazement was caused by thefact that these unlearned Galileans suddenly spoke in thenative mother tongues of the various listeners.

Luke was not recording a miracle of hearing, as has beensupposed by some, namely that the disciples spoke in theirown language, but people understood what they were saying,

each in his own tongue. This view was held by some of the




Fathers of the Church, but ¡t has not found serious supportsubsequently. Luke explicitly records that "each one heard

them speaking in his own language" (Acts 2:6). The word"them" indicates that they are hearing the Christians speakeach in the language of respective hearers.

An additional reason against the view that the miracle atPentecost was one of hearing rests in the problem that themiracle is thereby transferred from the disciples to theunconverted multitude. To this should be added the fact that

speaking in tongues began before there was an audience(Acts 2:4).

This miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit carne upon thebelievers only. It enabled them to speak in different humanlanguages, so that the ¡nternational group of listeners (vss. 5,9-11) heard them in their own mother tongues (vss. 6 ,8 ,1 1 ).Those who do not believe do not particípate in this miraculousgift of the Holy Spirit.

This point seems very important in view of the fact thatin modern times glossolalia is practiced by believers and non-believers, that is, by Christians and non-Christians, and evenby non-religious persons such as agnostics and atheists. Thegift of Acts 2 is not universal in nature; it is a gift restrictedto those who were waiting in proper preparation for the giftof the Holy Spirit which had been promised only to the

followers of Jesús.In Acts 2 non-believers are privileged to hear the Good

News of "the mighty works of God" (vs. 11), so that they toomay join the fellowship of believers. However, non-believersare not endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The adjective "other" (heteros) in the phrase "to speak inother tongues" in Acts 2:4 deserves attention. The Greek

term heteros here has the meaning of "different, foreign,"40so that the phrase has been properly translated as "to speakin foreign tongues."41 The phrase "to speak in other( = foreign) tongues," States H. W. Beyer, "means speaking invarious languages which were different from the mothertongue of the speakers and which were previously unknownto them."42

This linguistic specification does full justice to the laterexpression that each one heard them in his "own language"




(¡día dialekto), as vs. 8 explicitly States. It also fits theenumeration of the languages of the ¡nternational group of

listeners. To put ¡t differently, Luke's use of "other" and"own" ¡mplies that he did not mean by "other tongues" atPentecost a type of glossolalia which is characterized by¡narticulate, unintelligible speech which is in need ofinterpretation because no one can understand it. Luke wishesto communicate by ever so many means that the miraculousgift of speaking in other languages at Pentecost was the

ability to speak articúlate, intelligible, foreign languages whichhad not been learned by the speakers previously and whichwere not learned at that time.43

We may concluded from the testimony of thoseenumerated in the long list of countries and peoples44 from"every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5) that they werewitnesses of the miracle of the believers' speaking intongues.45 To say that the gift of speaking foreign languageswas quite superfluous at Pentecost since all who were presentwould have been able to speak or understand either Aramaicor Greek, is only to say what Luke himself must have known.The point is that Luke was not so foolish as to suggest thatthis gift was bestowed upon the disciples even though theycould make themselves intelligible to their hearers without it.46The reaction of the listeners who were "hearing them

speaking in their own (hemeterais) tongues" (Acts 2:11)testifies to their conviction that they as "Jews and

proselytes" (2:9) recognized what was spoken to be their"own native language" (2:8). It is well to keep in mind thatthe "proselytes" were not obliged to learn Hebrew or Aramaic.47

The phenomenon of speaking in tongues at Pentecost is

depicted by a well-known writer in the following insightfulmanner:

The Holy Spirit, assuming the form of tongues of fire,rested upon those assembled. This was an emblem of thegift then bestowed on the disciples, which enabled themto speak with fluency languages with which they hadheretofore been unacquainted.... Every known tongue was

represented by those assembled. This diversity oflanguage would have been a great hindrance to theproclamation of the gospel; God therefore in a miraculous




manner supplied the deficiency of the apostles. The HolySpirit did for them that which they could not have

accomplished for themselves in a lifetime. They couldnow proclaim the truths of the gospel abroad, speakingwith accuracy the languages of those for whom they werelaboring. This miraculous gift was a strong evidence tothe world that their commission bore the signet ofHeaven.48

This summary of the Pentecostal phenomenon reflects whatthe text of Acts 2 says.

4. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

We must ask, What was the purpose for providing the giftof speaking foreign languages? As we have seen in theprevious sections, the Holy Spirit carne upon the believers

gathered together in the Upper Room49 and each one wasendowed with the Holy Spirit. Thus they were enabled tospeak intelligible foreign languages.

Based on the prediction of Jesús, as recorded in Mark16:17 and its context, the purpose of the gift of tongues wasto provide the Communications means for the evangelizationof the world through the proclamation of the gospel (cf. Mk

16:16ff.). The words of Jesús recorded in Acts 1:5, "Youwill be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days," foundtheir fulfillment in Acts 2 in the Pentecostal outpouring of theHoly Spirit.

Those assembled in the Upper Room carne down andentered into the streets, miraculously speaking in foreignlanguages previously unknown to them. As the crowds,which included many from different regions and countries,

heard that "sound," undoubtedly the speaking of foreignlanguages (vs. 4),50 they gathered together and witnessed theproclamation of "God's deeds and power" (vs. 11). Thepoclamation of God's deeds and His power ¡nvolved the"telling in all languages then spoken [of] the story of His[Christ's] lite and ministry."51

The final result of this experience and the preaching of

Peter at Pentecost (2:14-41) was that three thousand soulswere baptized on that day (vs. 41). The reaping of the first




fruits of the worldwide harvest was accomplished atPentecost through the miraculous gift of communicating the

Good News to all those from the various parts of the ancientworld who were present ¡n Jerusalem at this festal occasion.The purpose of the gift of "speaking in tongues" ís toemphasize that God had lifted any linguistic barriers to theproclamation of the Good News. Furthermore, the gift oftongues as manifested through the Holy Spirit reveáis that bymeans of this gift of audible communication the church has

become worldwide. The 120 that were assembled wereenlarged into a worldwide church with persons from all thecivilized world of that day.

5. THE SCOFFERS' REACTION TO SPEAKING

IN TONGUES

There were "some" (Greek heteroi)52 persons among thehearers who contemptuously mocked by saying, "They are fullof sweet wine"53 (2:13, NASB). These scoffers implied thatthe tongues-speakers were drunk.

Who were the scoffers? "One may think of JerusalemJews who did not know foreign languages"54 and of thosewho dismissed the miraculous event with a sneer55 by

suggesting that the tongues-speakers were drunk.There ¡s an element here that made some hearers56

amazed and thoroughly perplexed. Some people continued tobe confused, for they were unable to account for this miraclein a natural way. These unbelievers, or ancient secularists,can be equated with "the world [which] begins with rid¡cule\ then afterwards it proceeds to questioning (4:7); to threats

(4:7); to imprisoning (5:18); to infHcting stripes (5:40); tomurder (7:58).1,57 As God performs miracles for all humanbeings to see and to hear, there will always be unbelieverswho, while the evidence is before them, refuse to accept thetruth. In mocking and scoffing, such people harden theirhearts so that they cannot see and are unable to hear (Isa 6:9-10).

It is appropriate here to point to a relationship between Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14. The fact that certain members of the




crowd were able to accuse those who first received the Spiritof having had too much sweet wine appears to be related to

the charge of "outsiders" that church members speaking withtongues ¡n Corinth must be out of their minds (1 Cor14:23).58 If a non-Christian comes into a congregation, theunbelieving non-Christian may be led to conclude that theSpirit-filled tongue-speaker is mad. In Corinth, however, therewas an additional confusión caused by the disorderiy way inwhich things took place.

6. SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND MODERN

SOURCE HYPOTHESES

The relationship between the reaction of the hostile groupon the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:13) and the reaction of thenon-Christian visitor in the Corinthian congregation with theimplied reference to "tongues" in each case has led certainscholars to hypothesize that in its present form Acts 2:1-13unites two different sources of the Pentecostal experience.One announces the commencement of speaking in tongues interms of glossolalia, that is, inarticulate, unintelligible, ecstaticutterance, and the other source consists of a miracle ofspeaking intelligible, known, foreign languages.

Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the varioussource hypotheses which have been developed by historical-

critical scholars over the years. Therefore, we will limit ourdiscussion to representative examples.

At the end of the earlier high tide of source hypothesesamong historical-critical scholars appeared the study by F.Spitta.59 He claimed as long ago as 1891 that there were

tw o basic sources. The "historical source A" whichsupposedly contained Acts 2:1a, 4, 11-36, reflecting"speaking in tongues" in terms of unintelligible speech as hesupposed was the case in 1 Cor 14. The remainder of Acts2 comes from a "legendary source B," namely the voice ofGod which speaks to the Jewish people. Vss. 3b and 7f.were inserted by a later editor who thus spoke of a humanlinguistic miracle.60

O. Bauernfeind, in his 1939 commentary, ascribes to




Luke's source only the miracle of the descent of the HolySpirit and the miracle of the languages.61 He claimed that "¡tis no long step" from the miraculous understanding ofglossolalia by a single "interpreter" (1 Cor 14:28) to the"miraculous understanding on the part of a whole company,or at least many of them."62

Even critical scholars find the step rather long, the moreso since it merely leads to the conclusión proposed by H.Wendt that the disciples spoke in an ecstatic "spirit-language"

which each hearer understood as if it were his mother tongueeven if he knew that it was not so!63

In 1957 C. S. C. Williams conjectured an original(Aramaic?) source in which the Twelve are depicted as filledwith the Holy Spirit and were sent forth into twelve parts ofthe world. Luke altered this source in order to let a gradualprogression of missions evolve.64

Different still ¡s the hypothesis propounded by E.Trocmé65 in 1957. He suggests that in Acts 2:1-6, 12-13Luke was ¡ndebted to a source which reported how divinegrace had removed the confusión of languages ¡ntroduced inthe Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1 -9)66 by bestowing a"supernatural Esperanto" based on a midrash of Ex 19.67Luke then ¡ntroduced the idea of foreign languages in vss. 7-8,11.

Lutheran bishop Eduard Lohse is much more cautious. Hepostulates that Luke used only one oral tradition, but Lukehimself transformed the "speaking in tongues" from ecstatic,unintelligible speech into the miracle of foreign language.68In his recent commentary on Acts Emst Haenchen points outthat Luke "could not count on much help from sources: therewas no ancient or uniform tradition."69 But Luke was a

theologian who reshaped the idea of the Risen Christ'stransmitting to His disciples the Holy Spirit (John 20:22)under the influence of the Jewish Pentecost experience intoa story with an ecstatic speech incomprehensible to mostlisteners but comprehensible to some.70

Basic for our attempt to evalúate the various writtenand/or oral source hypotheses is the need to recognize the

assumptions and presuppositions at work among criticalscholars. It must be pointed out first of all that these




scholars, representative of a much greater number, share thecommon conviction that the supposedly original Pentecostal

experience of "speaking in tongues" consisted of glossolaliaand not of known intelligible languages.

The question to be raised is, On what foundation is thissupposition based? The consistent answer is that 1 Cor 14proves that the original gift was glossolalia, unintelligiblespeech. In other words, historical-critical scholars wish toknow the precise nature of the experience in Corinth, derived

through an interpretaron of 1 Cor 14 with the aid ofreconstructed contemporary phenomena in pagan religionswhich supposedly influenced the church in Corinth. InChapter II above we indicated how this common suggestionthat glossolalia was known from pagan religions is withoutsupport from ancient sources. It will not do to create abackground on which to interpret 1 Cor 14 and then to read

this reconstruction back into Acts 2. This smacks too muchof circular reasoning and using a hypothesis that remainsunproven as the foundation for another hypothesis.

Another basic assumption is that the Pentecostalexperience of Acts is to be ¡nterpreted by means of 1 Cor 14--the key to the understanding of speaking in tongues in Acts2 is the speaking in tongues in 1 Cor 14. In this way, themovement in understanding begins in 1 Cor 14 and moves to

the earlier experience reported in Acts 2. In terms of thechronology of events, however, Acts 2 is an experience thatprecedes that of 1 Cor 14. There can be no doubt on thisissue.

No one wishes to deny a connection between theexperience of the Christians in Corinth and those in Jerusalemat an earlier time. There is indeed a connection on

phenomenological grounds, on linguistic grounds, ontheological grounds, and on missiological grounds. However,on the basis of the chronology of the manifestations of"speaking in tongues," there can be no question regarding thefact that the initial experience took place at Jerusalem atPentecost. The experience of tongues at Corinth took placeabout two decades later. On this basis alone the starting

point for the investigation and interpretation of the gift oftongues has to be Acts 2, i.e., the earliest manifestation.




Every scholar who employs source hypothetical theoriesis torced to come to the conclusión that the tongues-speakingphenomenon in Acts 2 in the presently available Greek text,which is very well supported textually, is to be understood interms of real languages. It is this inevitable conclusión thatdoes not seems to square in their mind with theirunderstanding of 1 Cor 14. Is it methodologically sound tohypothesize that there are layers of sources and redactionalactivity going on in Acts 2 simply because this earlierphenomenon of tongues does not agree with a problematical

interpretaron of 1 Cor 14 by modern scholars? This matterraises serious methodological questions.71

There is a time-honored principie of Biblical interpretation.It has a history reaching back to the Reformation and into theNew Testament itself. It is the principie that the Bible is itsown interpreter. It is known from the history of Christianityas the Protestant principie of sola scriptura-th e Bible alone.

Space does not permit a treatment of the various ramificationsof this hermeneutical principie. Paul recommended"comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13, KJV).The idea is to put together spiritual things on the basis of theinspired word of knowledge (12:8; cf. 10:12). Peter'sinjunction is that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter ofone's own interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20; RSV). Bible-believingChristians have historically followed the principie of letting theBible speak in matters pertaining to spiritual things, letting itbe the solé rule of authority in matters pertaining to doctrinesand practice. The present writer maintains that we mustcontinué to let the Bible be its own interpreter, "comparingscripture with scripture."72

The ¡dea that the Bible is the only and unique "standardof all doctrines and the basis of all reforms" applies in the

strict sense to everything that claims to be a hermeneuticalkey for the interpretation of Scripture. This means thattradition does not determine the correct interpretation ofScripture.73 It also means that philosophy does not providethe key to the interpretation of Scripture, ñor does thecomparative approach of the history-of-religions school, ñorany other external key extraneous to the inspired Revelation.

To put it differently, experience, tradition, philosophy, Science




or extra-Biblical religions do not determine the correct meaningof Scripture. The reason for this rests ¡n the fact that, as theuniquely ¡nspired Divine revelation, Scripture is to speak foritself and must be allowed to speak for itself. Most generallythis means that interpretation is nothing else than allowing thetext to speak for itself; ¡t is the process of making ¡t clear andestablishing what the text actually says, and thus enabling it,as it were, to speak for itself, taking it as it reads in itsobvious meaning. It must not be assumed that in every case

or in most instances the meaning of a Scriptural passage is inevery case or in most instances so obviously clear as torender hard effort and devoted labor for its understandingunnecessary. The subject matter is Scripture as the Word ofGod. As such it must interpret itself. The contrast isbetween the Word of God and a word of man (experience,tradition, philosophy, Science, etc.). The latter is not the

ultímate key for the meaning of the Bible as the Word ofGod.74These hermeneutical considerations provide the basic

framework and the sure foundation for the discussion of therespective Biblical texts on speaking in tongues. As statedabove, this study continúes to move in chronological orderand at the same time from the clear passage of Acts 2:1-13to the less clear or obscure ones in other parts of the New

Testament. Another consideraron, and possibly one of the most

important in the minds of scholars, is to follow the hearerswho were perplexed by the experience of the tongues-speaking believers (Acts 2:13). This perplexity is used bymodern scholars to insert in Acts 2 the view of unintelligiblespeech, that is, glossolalia. This has led them to hypothesize

"that in its present form Acts 2 unites two different accountsof which one narrates the commencement of speaking withtongues in the early Church and the other a miracle ofspeaking in foreign languages."75 It must be pointed outthat there is no objective evidence for reading an unintelligibletype of speech into Acts 2:13. Neither this text ñor any othertext in Acts 2 makes a claim for unintelligible speech.

Perplexity at people suddenly speaking the languages of otherpeople does not make such speaking into unintelligible speech.




A foreign language that ¡s not understood by anotherperson ¡s still a foreign language, but not ecstatic, unintelligi-

ble speech. If someone spoke in Nabataean76 which wasintelligible by those in the crowd who carne from Arabia (Acts2:11), then it could hardly be expected that it was understoodby those who carne from certain parts of Asia. Some of thelatter may have had a knowledge of Lydian, or other locallanguages, which others could not understand, and so on. Inaddition, there were undoubtedly some in the crowd who

were ¡ll-disposed toward the Galilean Christians (Acts2:17).77 Only fif ty days earlier key Jewish leaderssucceeded in their plot to kill Jesús. Now some hearers whomay have plotted to murder Jesús could not admit that amiracle had taken place. Therefore, the malicious declarationwas voiced that these men were drunken with new wine.78

There is no contextual support for the claim that those

who charged that the disciples were drunk understood thedisciples to practice unintelligible speech, i.e., glossolalia. Ifit would have been an ecstatic, unintelligible speech, Galile-ans could have spoken this as well as any other person, butGalileans could not have learned foreign languages in anynatural way. The foreign Jews, however, testify: "Each oneof us is hearing the language proper to the country in whichhe was born" (Acts 2:8).79 Unless one accepts the assump-

tion that there was no miracle of foreign languages at Pente-cost, which runs counter to the express testimony of thehearers, there is not the least support for the assumption ofsources. Hypotheses based on such assumptions do notcreate confidence in the soundness of the conclusions ofsuch research.

Various source hypotheses of some historical-critical

scholars raise the serious problem of ¡ntegrity. Since thehistorical-critical scholars mentioned above assume that theoriginal experience at Pentecost consisted of something otherthan real human languages, and since the present, final textof Acts 2 unmistakably indicates that the experience was themiraculous speaking of foreign languages, the conclusiónneeds to be drawn is that Luke (or some editor) deliberately

misrep-resented what he knew to have been glossolalia orsome other form of unintelligible speech.80 The idea of a




willful distortion on the part of the Biblical writer ¡s notconvincing. There were too many eyewitnesses andearwitnesses to tell the truth, if the truth had not beenreported correctly by a Bible writer. The recent trend in manycircles of scholarship is to consider the author of Acts as areliable historian.81 This militates against making Luke (or aneditor) a willful distorter of actual facts. History writing in

Acts is sound.82The question as to whether or not there are underlying

detectable sources83 behind the account of Acts 2:1-13 hasbeen the subject of some studies. NI. Adler has demonstratedagainst the supporters of earlier source-hypotheses that thereport of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which resulted inthe permanent endowment of the disciples to speak foreignlanguages in Acts 2:1-13 is as a whole linguistically Lukan.84Eduard Lohse has recently concluded that "literary criticism is

unable to disentangle the written source or sources whichLuke might have had before him. Both linguistically andstylistically the account is wholly Lukan, . . ,"85 The recentnegative reaction to source hypotheses by another criticalscholar may be added. Ernst Haenchen writes that Luke"could not count on much help from sources"86 for theycannot be traced.

It is inevitable to conclude that the source hypothesesdeveloped by various historical-critical scholars concerning thepassage of Acts 2:1-13 do not commend themselves. Theyhave led to radically contradictory results and are based onunproven assumptions and presuppositions. They reflect thesubjective nature of the source-critical enterprise.

7. CONCLUSIONS

Let us summarize our major findings on the origin, nature,function, and purpose of "speaking in tongues" in Acts 2:1-13 :

1) The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was afulfillment of the coming of the Spirit promised by Jesús

Christ himself (Lk 24:36-51; Mk 16:15-17; Acts 1:1-11; cf.Jn 14:15-17, 25f.; 15:26f.; 16:5-11, 12-15).




2) The reception of the Holy Spirit by the believers in theUpper Room was a real and not an ¡maginary phenomenon.It actually happened and changed the early Church from alargely Jewish community into a community of faithconsisting of believers from the known civilized world of thatday.

3) The Holy Spirit was received individually. The gift ofthe promised Spirit was not a manifestation on the masses assuch, but it was a gift to the 120 who were in the Upper

Room and who were of one accord, seeking and waiting forthe Lord to bestow this gift on each one individually.

4) The external and audible effect of the reception of theHoly Spirit was the ability of the believers in the Upper Room"to speak in other tongues" (Acts 2:4).

5) The ability "to speak in other tongues" means amiraculous enabling to speak fluently living foreign languages

previously unlearned and unknown to the speaker.6) The purpose of the spiritual gift of miraculouslyspeaking foreign languages as a continuing gift was meant toprovide the infant Church with the means of communicatingthe Good News to the world.

7) The spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages byJesús' followers was a sign to unbelievers that theircommission was of divine origin.

8) The gift of speaking foreign languages was permanentand not a temporary or unrepeatable event.

ENDNOTES

1 .We agree wi th other Interpreters in maintaining a cióse relationship b etw een all five

NT passages referring to speaking in tongues (cf. J. Behm, " glóssa ," Theological

Dictíonary o f the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964] , 1:72 2). Ac ts

2 is the second passage to be considered in chronological order, because the

Pentecostal experience was the firs t manifestation of the gift o f speaking in tongues.

" Wh atever t he date of A cts, its early pictures of the Church and her doctrine are pre-

Pauline," States C. S. C. Williams, A Commentary on the A c ts o f the A postles (New

Yor k, 195 7), p. 61. See also W. L. Knox, The A cts o f the Apo stles (Cambridge,

194 8), pp. 80 ff . There is still much difference of opinión on the date of Ac ts. The

"age of tendency-criticism" which compromised the historical reliability of Acts and

argued for a 2nd cent. A.D. date is now over and its thesis refuted (cf. Ernest




Haenchen, The A cts o f the Apos tles. A Com mentary [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], pp. 15-24). See also P. Feine, J . Behm, and W. G. Kümm el, Introduction to

the N T (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), p. 132. A number of oth er scholars who

claim that Acts was written ca. 70 after Luke was written (W. Michaelis, A.

Wikenhauser, C. S. C. Williams, 0 . Michel, P. Benoit, T. W. Manson). There are a

number of scholars who place Acts shortly before A .D. 64, i.e., b efore Paul's death,

so earlier Sahlin and Koh and from different points of view more recently, see F. F.

Bruce, The A cts o f the Apostles. The Geek Text w ith Introduction and Commentary

(2nd ed.; London, 1951), pp. 1 f f.; Ídem , Comm entary on the Book o f A cts (London,

1968), pp. 20ff.; E. M. Blaiklok, The A cts o f the Ap ostle (London, 1959), pp. 16ff

J. Munck, The A cts o f the Apost les (Anchor Bible; Garden City, N.Y., 1967), pp.

XLVI-LIV.

2.See also Josephus, A ntiqu it ie s III, 252.

3.See C. F. D. Moule, "The Post-Resurrection Appearances ¡n the Light of Festival

Pilgrimages," NTS, 1 (19 57 ), 5 8 f f ., for the various localities wh ere Jesús appeared.

4 . K. Lake and H. J . Cadbury , eds., The Beglnnings o f C hristianlty (London, 1933),

IV, 8.

5 . J. A. E. Hull, The H oly Spirít ¡n the A cts o f the Ap ostles (Cleveland, 1968), pp.

47f . , 81 f f .6. The " w om en” (Acts 1:14) w ere in all likelihood those who supported Jesús (Lk

8:2f.; 23:49, 55; 24:10) and not the wives of the disciples or of Jesús' brothers.

7 . A t first Jesús' brothers were antagonistic to Him (Mk 3: 21; Jn 7: 5) but later they

changed (1 Cor 9:5 ). The natural inference is that not only James but Jesús ' o ther brothers attached themselves to the infant church in Jerusalem.

8. Earlier jealousies, such as were revealed in their failure to heal the demon-

possessed boy (Mk 9: 14 -29 ), their striving for high positions (Lk 22 :2 4), and refusal

to wash one another's feet (Jn 13:3-7), had been removed by the increased

understanding which Jesús provided th em during the forty days of post-resurrection

instruction (Acts 1:3ff.) and the ten days of earnest prayer during their period of

waiting for special endowment of the Holy Spirit (1:14ff.).

9.Some have taken the term "house" (olkos) to refer to the temple precincts (Th.

Zahn, Ole Apostelgeschlchte des Lucas [Leipzig, 1919], l:77; H. J. Holtzmann, Die

Aposte lgeschlchte [HKNT; Tübin gen/Leipzig, 1901] , 1:31). If Josephus on one

occasion {Antiquities , VIII. 3.2 65ff.) employs the term "house" {olkos) for the

Temple which he elsewhere designates naos, the context clearly indicates what he

means. Here this ¡s not the case. Luke consistentl y refers to the Temple as fo hieron

(22 times). The only oth er locality wh ere the disciples m et during the ten day period

of waiting ¡n Ac ts is the Upper Room (1:13 ). According to Lk 24 :5 3, they were

" conti nually in the temple, blessing God." Holtzmann (p. 26) suggested that the

Upper Room is to be located in the Temple. Haenchen, A cts , p. 153 n. 2, points out

that this rests upon "th e false equatlon of Acts 1: 13 wi th Luke 24: 52 f.... In fact Luke 24 :53 would seem to correspond with Acts 2 :4 6." So also H. H. Wend t, Die

Aposte lgeschlchte (Gottingen, 1913), p. 72.

10-This term means either " wind" or " breath ." See Arn dt and Gingrich, A Greek-

Engllsh Lexicón, p. 68 6. For speakers of the Greek language this term and the Greek

word for spirit/wind {pneuma) were closely related, so Haenchen, A c ts , pp. 167f.




11 .Hull, The Holy Spirit, pp. 58f.

12. The Greek reads hosei, danoting comparison, cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek

Grammar o f the NT, p. 219 # 425(3).

13. Haenchen, A cts , p. 168.

14. Hull, The Holy Spirit, p. 59.

15. The frequent reference to the phrase "tongues of fire" ¡n Enoch 14 :8 -15; 71:5 ,

does not próvida a real parallel to the phrase "tongues like of f ire" in Ac ts 2: 3. The

form er denotes an element of divi nity but the latter is a descrlption of a phenomenon

which in its physical appearance may be compared to fiery tongues.

16 . Cf. H. J. Cadbury, "A cts and Eschatology," The Background o f the N T and its

Eschatology, eds. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 303f.

17 . NEB trans lates w ith a particip le, "and resting on each of th em ," and thereby

misses the faot that in the Greek the word is not a participle but a main verb.

18.50 Munck, A c ts o f the Apostles, p. 13.

19.Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 82, suggests both "tongue" and "fire" as

possible subjects.

20.50 Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 391; Hull, The Holy Sp irit, p.58.

21 .On the basis of the Greek grammar and syntax one may best understand this as

an " ingressive (inceptive) aorist" whereby the action m ay be con templated to denote

entrance into that State or condition. Cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar

o f the NT, p. 171 # 3 3 1 ; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar o f the Greek N T in the Light

o f H istórica! Research (London, 1914), # 834; E. de W. Burton, Syntax o f the Moods

and Tenses in NT Greek (Edinburgh, 1898), # 41; C. F. D. Moule, A n Idiom-Book o f

N T Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1959), p. 10.

22.Hull, The Ho ly Spirit, p. 58: "The mention o f 'resting on each one' strongly implies

that this w as no mom entary lapse of the Spirit but one that was perm anent (cf. John

1: 32)." F. D. Nichol, ed., SDABC, VI, 137: "Even though the fiery-appearing tongues

remained upon the believers for only a brief time, the effec ts of the vis itation lasted

for the lifetime of the faithful Christians who received the Spirit."

23.50 correctly Gottfried Schille, Die Aposteigeschichte des Lukas "Theologischer

Handko mm entar zum NeuenTestam ent" (Berlín: Evangelische Verlagsans talt, 1983),

p. 96.

24.G. R. Osborne, "Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical Diction ary o f Theology, ed.

Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), pp. 1102-1103.

25.Sea H. Jaeschke, "Lalein bei Lukas," BZ 15 (1971), 109 -114 .

26 . The term apophtheggomai means to speak in a bold or inspirad way, but not

ecstatic speech. See Haenchen, A cts , p. 168; J. Behm, " apophtheggomai," TDNT,

I (1964), 447; Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 101.

2 7 . Behm, p. 44 7.

28.Schille, Die Aposteigeschichte des Lukas, p. 96.




29 .Supra, n .21. In Patristic literatura these tw o meanings are also the only ones

know n. Sea G. W. H. Lampe, A Patr is tic Greek Lexicón (Oxford, 1968), p.

316.29.22

30.Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-Engiish Lexicón, p. 184; of. R. Munz, "Über glotta

und dialektos," Glotta, 11 (1921), 85-94.

31.50 correctly Haenchen, A c ts , p. 169 n. 2.

32 . H. E. Edwards, " The Tongues at Pentecost; A Suggestion," Theology, 16 (1928),

248-252; R. O. P. Taylor, "The Tongues at Pentecost," Expository Times, 40

(1928/29), 300-303; R. F. Stoll, "The First Christian Pentecost," Ecclesiastical

Review, 108 (1943), 337-347.

3 3 . A. Wikenhauser, Die Apo stelgeschichte (4th ed.; Regensburg, 1961), pp. 39f.,

who fol lows Wendt.

3 4 . E. Troc mé, Le ’Livre des A c te s ' et Thistoire (Paris, 1957), pp. 202ff.

3 5 .50 firs t G. J. Sirks, " The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,"

HTR, 50 (1957), 85f., followed by C. S. Mann, "Appendix III. Pentecost in Acts," in

Munck, The Ac ts o f the Apostles, p. 275 . Mann himself admits that "this

hypothesis,... must remain sub jud ice,” because there is no evidence for the kind of

liturgical readings presupposed fo r the hypothesis.

36.There is a general consensus of opinión among scholars of all schools of thought

that Luke wishes us to understand th at those endowed with th e gift o f tongues were

enabled to make themselves understood in all languages.

37.50 again Schille, Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas, pp. 93-96.

38.Simón J. Kistemaker, Ne w Testament Commentary, Exposition o f the A cts o f

Apostles (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990) p. 81.

39.lbid.

40.Ar n d t and Gingrich, A Greek-Engiish Lexicón, p. 315.

41 .So the NAB and F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The A cts o f the Apostles (London, 1945),

p. 10.

42. H. W. Beyer, " heteros," Theological Dictlonary o f the N ew Testament (Grand

Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1964) 2:703.

4 3 . Am ong the large number of scholars who have interpreted the speaking in

tongues at Pentecost as referring to intelligible, foreign languages are: D. Brown,

"The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter ii, The Day of Pentecost," Expositor, 1 (1875 ),

392-408; J. Behm, " glóssa ," Theological Dictiona ry o f the N ew Testament (Grand

Rapids, Mich., 1964), I, 725; A. Beel, "Donum linguarum juxta Act. Apost. ¡i. 1-13,"

Collationes Brugensis, 35 (1935), 417-420; S. Lyonnet, "De glossolalia Pentecostés

euisque signification e," Verbum Domini, 24 (1944), 65-75; E. Andrews, "Tongues,

Gift of," Interpreter's D ictiona ry o f the Blble (Nashville, 1962), IV, 671; F. W. Beare,

" Speaking with Tongues. A Critical Survey of the NT Evidence," JBL 83 (1964), 237;

J. D. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia," Jou rnal o f Theological Studles, 3 (1952),

228-231; R. H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)," Jou rnal o f Theological

Studies, 17 (1966), 299-307; S. Aalen, "Zungenreden," Biblisch-historisches

Handwórterbuch (Gottingen, 196 6), III, 22 49 f.; Th. Zahn, Die Apostelges chichte des

Lukas (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1919), pp. 93ff.; A. Steinmann, Die Apostelgeschichte




(Bonn, 1934), p. 29; Foakes-Jackson, The A cts o f the Apostles, p. 11; Hermann W.

Beyer, "hateros," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, G. Kittel (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 2:702-704; E. Lohse, "Die Bedeutung des

Pfingstberiohtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," EvTh, 13 (1953),

424; G. Kretschmar, "Him melfahrt und Pfingsten," ZKG, 61 (1954/55), 235; Bruce,

Com mentary on the Book o f A cts, pp. 59ff.; Munck, The A cts o f the Apostles, pp.

14f.; G. Stáhlin, Die Apostelgeschichte (Góttingen, 1967), p. 33; Hull, The Holy

Spirit, p. 62; Haenchen, Acts , pp. 168f.; Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 81.

4 4 . Kretsch mar, "Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten," 2 35 , emphasizes th at "Luke put equal

weight upon the meaning of glossa as language, which is shown primarily in the

catalog of nations,...."

4 5 . For stud ies on the regions of the world mentioned by Luke, see Haenchen, A cts ,

pp. 165ff.

46. Hull, The Holy Spirit, p. 62.

4 7 .So Philo, cf . Haenchen, A cts, p.171.

48 . E. G. Wh ite, The A cts o f the Apo stles (Mountain V iew , Calif ., 1 91 1), pp. 39; 40;

cf. E. G. White, The S tory o f Redemptlon (Washington, D.C., 1947), pp. 242-244,

246.

4 9 . Ac ts 1: 13. According to H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kom me ntar zum Neuen

Testam ent aus Talmud und Midrasch (München, 1972ff.), II, 594, upperrooms used

to " serve the learned as a place of assembly , study and prayer." They were normally

rooms in the upper story of large houses. Sometimes they were also let as dwellings .

In the home of the mukhtar's house of an Arab village today there is likely to be an

upper room, medhafeh, for entertainm ent of guests . See 0 . R. Sellers, " Upper

Room," IDB (1962), IV, 735.

50 . With Bruce, The A cts o f the Apo stles, p. 83 . It could include also the "sound"

of vs. 2.

51 .Wh ite, A c ts o f the Apostles, p. 40.

52 . The Greek term suggests "o thers of a different kind" not "others of the same

kind" as would be suggested by alio!. This indicates that a diff erent class of

speakers is meant in vs. 13 as compared to that of vss. 5-12.

53. The term gleukos occurs only here in the NT, but is found in Aristotle (384-322

B.C.) with the meaning "must" in the sense of unfermented grape juice (Meterologica

3 8 8 .b .9-13 ). Since the vintage of the new year carne not till Au gus t, it has been

suggested that this mus t refer to fermented w ine sweetened with honey (so Strack

and Billerbeck, Komm entar zum NT, II, 61 4). It is not necessary to assume that this

was ferment ed wine because new w ine could be kept from golng sour. Columella,

an agriculturalist living at the first century A.D., preserved instructions on how to

keep unfermented grape juice (On Ag ricultura 12, 21, 1). The same is tru e of Virgil

(70-19 A.D.), who provides information in Georgis 1, 295-96, and Pliny, NaturaI

History 14 , 11, 80 . See Samuele Bacchiocchi, VJine in the Bible. A BíblicaI Study

on the Use o f A lcoh ollc Beverages (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectivas, 1989),

pp. 1 79 -82, for the proof that gleukos in Acts 2:13 means unfermented grape juice.

54. Haenchen, Acts, p. 171.




55.lt may be suggested that some with vastad ¡nterest were eager to explain the

miraculous natura of the observable phenomenon in a natural w ay. Cf. Bruce, The

Book o fA cts , p. 65.56 . Th¡s means th at there are tw o opp oslng groups among the hearers: one defending

the miraculous experience of the early believers as recognizing their glft as foreign

languages and the other hostile to the gift. Luke frequent ly introduces tw o opposing

groups, see Acts 5:34ff.; 14:4; 17:18ff.; 23:6ff.; 28:24.

57. John Albert Bengel, Gnomon o f the New Testament, ed. A. R. Fausset

(Edlnburgh: Clark, 1877), 2:526.

58 . This parallel is fur ther suggested on the basis th at in the pagan my stery religions

the prophetic oracle was believed to come through the "Spirit" but manifestad itself

as if the " inspirad" person were full of w ine. Ecstasy and drunkenness are im portant

aspects in the interp retaro n of pagan ecstatic phenomena. Cf. H. Conzelmann, Der

erste Bríef an die Ko rínther (Góttingen, 1969), p. 286 n. 25.

59. Friedrich Spitta, Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher

Wert (Halle, 1891).

6 0 . Recently Haenchen, A cts , p. 29, expressed his amazement to "how ingeniously

the whole of Acts has been dismembered into these two sources w itho ut leaving too

much of a surplus to be attributed to the editor.... Spitta's skill in dissection is as

astounding as his trust in the editor’s skill in comblnation."

61.0tto Bauernfeind, Die A postelgesc hichte (Góttingen, 1939), p. 55.

6 2 Jbid., p. 56.

6 3 . H. Wendt, Kritisch-Exegetisches Handbuch über die Apostelgeschichte (7th ed.;

Góttin gen, 188 8), pp. 64 f. Cf. Haenchen, A cts , p. 172.

64. Witl iams, The Ac ts o f the Apostles, pp. 61-65.

65. Trocmó, Le ’Livre des A cíe s', pp. 202-206.

66 . The ¡dea that the speaking in tongues ¡s a reversal of the confusión o f tongues at

the Tow er of Babel receives increasing attention by scholars. See Davies, JTS, 3

(1952), 228ff.; Bruce, The Book o f A cts, p. 64: "The event was surely nothing less

than a reversal of the curse of Babel." So already K. Lake, " The Gift of the Spirit on

the Day of Pentecost,” The Beginnings o f Ch ristianity (London, 1933), 5:114f.

67.lt is claimed that Philo could already be dependent on this supposed midrash.

68. E. Lohse, "Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen

Geschichtswerkes," Evangelische Theologie, 13 (1953 ), 424 ff .; Ídem, "pentekoste,"

Theological Dictionary o f the N ew Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Raplds Mi:

Eerdmans, 1968), 6:51.

69. Haenchen, A c ts , p. 173.

7 0 Jbid., pp. 174f.

71.See Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical Interpretaro n Today (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Instituto, 1985), fordetailed informatlon on historlcal-critlcal methods and

their implications for faith.

72.Ellen G. White, The Great Con troversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905)

p. 595.




73.This was the problem against which the reformer Martin Luther fought. The sola

scriptura principie refuted the Catholic hermeneutical principie whic h c laimed that the

revelation to which Scripture bears witness cannot be rightly understood apart from

the Tradition representad in the Church and its Magisterium.

74.See Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Totality of Scripture versus Modernistic Limitations,”

Journa l o f the A dv en tlst Theological Society 2/1 (1991) 30-5 2.

75.Beyer, "hateros," 2:703.

76.In NT times Arabia referred to the kingdom of the Nabataean Arabs, then at the

height of their pow er under Aretas IV (9 B.C.-A.D. 40 ), with its famous c apital Petra.

77. The reference to the fact that the infant church in Jerusalem w as made up of

Galilean disciples is interesting from the point of view that the Eleven were all from

Galilee (Mk 3 :1 4). The Risen Lord appeared to the disc iples in Galilee as well as in

Jerusalem. The Galileans were kno wn to have had peculiarities of speech (cf. A.

Neubauer, "The Dialects of Palestina in the Time of Christ," Studia Bíblica, 1 [1 885] ,

51), and could therefore be easily identified (Mt 26 :7 3). The stressing of the Galilean

origin of those who now spoke foreign languages meant to guarantee that they could

not have learned the different foreign languages as their mother tongues (cf.

Haenchen, Acts, p. 169 n. 3).

7 8 . E. G. Whi te, A c ts o f the Apost/es (Mountain View, Calif., 1911), p. 40: "The

priests, determined to account for the miraculous power of the disciples in some

natural way, declared that they were drunken from partaking largely of the new wine

prepared for the feast."

7 9 . The present writer's translation.

80.On this problem, see Hull, The Holy Spirit, pp. 62ff.

81 ,C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (2nd ed.; London, 1970), pp.

26ff., contains a useful summary of the views of a number of modern scholars.

Atten tion should be given also to H. J. Cadbury , The Book o f A c ts in H istory (New

York , 1 955). On the subjects of histor iography and sources in Ac ts , see D. Guthrie,

The Gospeis and Acts. New Testament introduction (London, 1965), pp. 321-344.

82.See particularly, W. Ward Gasque, A H is to ry o f Criticism o f the A c ts o f the

Apostles (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975); Jacques Dupont, The Sources o f A cts (New York:

Herder & Herder, 1964); Conrad H. Gempf, ed., The Book o f A c ts in the S etting o f

Hellenistic History (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989).

83. Dupond, The Sources o f Ac ts, p. 166, writes, "Despite the most careful and

detailed research, it has not been possible to define any of the sources used by the

author of Acts in a way which will meet with widespread agreement among critics.”

8 4 . N. Adler, Das erste christliche Pfingstfest, Sinn und Bedeutung des

Pfingstberichtes, A g 2, 7-f3(Neutes tam entli ch e Abhandlungen, 18,Mün st er, 1938),

pp. 32-35.

85. Lohse, "pentekoste," 6:51.

86. Haenchen, A cts , p. 173.



CHAPTER V


The third passage ¡n the New Testament which mentionsspeaking ¡n tongues takes us to Acts 10. Thus the reader ofthe book of Acts is transferred from the first manifestation oftongues among Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost(Acts 2:1-13) to the Gentile city of Caesarea (Acts 10:1,24).


The first baptism of Gentiles is mentioned in Acts 10 astaking place in the city of Ceasarea. It was performed afterthe conversión of Cornelius, a Román centurión (vs. 48), and

only after many difficulties had been overeóme in breakingdown the barriers which Judaism had built up between Jewsand non-Jews.

An ángel appeared to Cornelius, a pious man who as a"God-fearer" (vs. 2)1 took part ¡n synagogue Services.2 Inthe eyes of the Jews such people were still consideredunclean and profane and could not associate with Jews in

normal life.3 Therefore, Jews would not fellowship at a tablewith such non-Jews, even a God-fearer. It is not that theywere unclean or profane from the point of view of the HebrewBible, the Oíd Testament, but from the perspective of Rabbinictraditions which separated Jews from their non-Jewishcontemporaries.4

The ángel ordered Cornelius to send for the apostle Peter

who was in Joppa. In the meantime Peter, still steeped intraditional Jewish taboos regarding non-Jews, was preparedthrough a visión to overeóme his inherited Jewish Rabbinicprejudices and consent to visit a Gentile (vss. 10-16). Whenthe Holy Spirit ordered Peter to go with the messengers, hewillingly obeyed and entered the house of Cornelius (vss. 23-25). After Peter had reported his experience (vss. 26-29) andCornelius his (vss. 30-33), Peter "opened his mouth" (vs.




34),5 preaching a sermón "peculiarly appropriate to theoccasion."6 He proclaimed the life and work of Jesús before

the Cross, and also His death and resurrección, includingChrist's commission to preach to the people (vss. 34b-43).

As Peter was still preaching "the Holy Spirit fell on allwho heard the word" (Acts 10:44). The hearers upon whomthe Spirit had fallen were "Cornelius, his kinsmen and ciósefriends" (vs. 24). The Holy Spirit did not fall on Peter and theother Christians who had come with him from Joppa.7

2. LINKAGES BETWEEN ACTS 2 AND ACTS 10

The experience of "speaking in tongues" in Caesarea ¡svery significant. It contains crucial parallels to the experienceof the original followers of Jesús in Jerusalem on the Day ofPentecost. They may be listed as follows:

1) Both groups were believers.82) The Holy Spirit "fell" (epepsenf suddenly10 on both

groups.3) Both groups experienced the same outward manifesta-

tion among others, namely "they heard them speaking intongues" (vs. 46).

4) Both groups spoke for God and what He had done.

5) The designation "speaking in tongues" is employed inboth situations.

6) Both groups experienced something that was "heard"(akouo) by others.

7) Both groups experienced something new from the HolySpirit which they had not experienced in this way before,although the Holy Spirit was already at work in them.

8) Both groups function in major cities in which therewere populations of differing language backgrounds.

The expression "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais) of vs. 46 is explicitly identified with the manifestation oftongues-speaking at Pentecost through the words "just as wehave" ( / j o s kai hemeis)" in vs. 47. This linkage is of trueimportance in identifying the experience of the household ofCornelius (Acts 10) with the experience on the Day ofPentecost.




In Acts 2:11 the hearers report that they "heard" them"telling . . . the mighty works of God." This phrase ¡s

equivalent12 to what was "heard" in Caesarea, namely"glorifying God" (Acts 10:46, NAB). The connection here ¡sfound in a) the fact that in both experiences somethingspecific was "heard" (akouo) and b) what was heard waswhat God had accomplished in Jesús Christ.

Both groups of believers received the gift of speakingforeign languages in cities of ¡mportance, Jerusalem andCaesarea respectively. The City of Jerusalem was the well-known Jewish city with minority segments of population whospoke foreign languages. At the annual feast days Jerusalemwas filled with people from the entire Jewish Diaspora, from

the civilized world of that day.Caesarea was the Román metrópolis of Judea on the

Mediterranean shore. It was located in the great caravanroute between Tyre and Egypt and was thus a celebrated

commercial and maritime trading center. It was given toHerod the Great by Ceasar Augustus in 30 B.C. Herod rebuiltit into a showcase of the East. A mixed population wasproduced by Greek culture and Román influence. There wasalso a powerful minority of Jews ¡n the city.

A knowledge of foreign languages by believers would aidthem in the proclamation of the gospel message in Caesarea

and among the people traveling through this metropolitancenter.

3. THE NATURE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The identity of the two manifestations of tongues in both

Acts 2 and 10 is further stressed by Peter, the eyewitness in Acts 11:15: "The Holy Spirit fell on them [in Caesarea] just ason us in the beginning." Peter made the connection betweenthe two events when he reported to the brethren ¡n Jerusalem. He affirmed that "God gave the same gift to them as hegave to us [at Pentecost] when we believed in the Lord JesúsChrist" (vs. 17). Peter was convinced that the gift of speaking in tongues by the believers in Caesarea was "the same

gift" (Greek ten ¡sen dorean) of miraculously speaking foreign




languages as the gift which he and the other followers ofJesús received on the day of Pentecost.13

4. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The bestowal of the same gift--speak¡ng foreign languag-es--upon the Gentile believers ¡n Caesarea served as an

irrefutable outward sign for Jewish Christians of God'sacceptance of the Gentiles on an equal basis,14 especiallysince the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon believers only.15The descending of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles "indicates thatthe Gentiles are part of the church and on equal footing withthe Jewish Christians.”16

The gift of tongues signifies that both Gentile and JewishChristians share alike ¡n the task of evangelizing the world.Both have also been endowed with the same spiritual giftwhich breaks down the language barrier and makes possiblefluent communication of the Good News among all men.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Acts 10 reveáis the following points:1) The barriers developed in Jewish tradition between

Jews and Gentiles are removed in the church. The Holy Spirit¡s no respecter of persons.

2) As Peter and the other Jewish believers had experi-enced the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, in the same manner the Gentile but "God-fearing"

Cornelius and his household experienced the outpouring of thesame Spirit in the same way. Both outpourings, one onJewish believers and the other on Gentile believers, belong toeach other in terms of their origin, nature, and purpose.

3) Speaking in tongues in Acts 2 and Acts 10 consists ofthe same gift of which the apostle Peter is a witness. It ¡s themiraculous speaking of foreign languages for the purpose of

proclaiming the Good News to everyone.4) The Holy Spirit comes to Gentile "God-fearers" in




Caesarea before they are baptized, ¡ndicating that a) thebaptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism may go together

and b) that the rite of circumcision ¡s no longer needed fornew Christians. What counts for Christians ¡s the circumcision of the heart.

5) Luke does not need to explain the phenomenon ofspeaking in tongues, because Peter himself malees the linkagebetween the Pentecostal experience and the experience of theGentiles in Caesarea. Both phenomena are idéntica! and both

are manifestations of the Holy Spirit on believers. Peterindicates that in Acts 2 and 10-11 the coming of the HolySpirit ¡s a gift.

ENDNOTES

1 .The God-fearers were Gentiles who worshiped God but who were not integrated

into Jew ish soc iety. See Emil Schürer, The History o f the Jew ish People in the Age o f Jesús Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 3:173-74; T. M. Finn, "The God-Fearers: Some

Neglected Features," Journal for the Study o f the New Testament 32 (1988): 17-26;

Colin J. Hemer in The Book o f A c ts in the Setting o f He ilenistic H istory, ed. Conrad

H. Gempf (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989), pp. 444-47.

2. Bruce, The A cts o f the Apost/es, p. 215.

3. Haenchen, A cts , p. 346; Kirsopp Lake, "Proselytes and God-fearers," The

Beginnings o f C hristianity (London, 1933), V, 74-96.

4. Colin House, "Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of

koinos/koinoo in Acts 10-11," AUSS 21 (1983) 14 3-54 , shows that this was a

defilement of Rabbinic tradition and not supported by the OT.

5. Bruce, The Book ofActs, p. 224 , makes the point that this expression "¡s one that

is used to introduce some weighty utterance."

6.So Foakes-Jackson, The A cts o f the Aposties, p. 93 . This sermón is not a Lukan

interpolation in the Cornelius story as argued by M. Dibelius, Studies in the A cts o f

the A pos ties (London, 1956), pp. 110f., and accepted by Haenohen, A cts , p. 351, among o thers . Against the form -critical approach to this sermón see C. H. Dodd, The

A postlic Preaching and its Deveiopment (London, 1936), p.56; Bruce, The Book o f

the Ac ts, pp. 225f.

7. With Munck, The Acts of the Aposties, p. 95; Haenchen, A c ts , p. 353; et al.,

against Wendt, Aposte lgeschichte , p. 185.

8 . Although there is no explicit reference to faith in the immediute con text of Acts

10 :4 6f ., it is inevitably implied. It is definitely indicated in Peter's report of Ac ts

11 :17 wi th his words " when we believed in the Lord Jesús Christ" clearly meaning that the Holy spirit carne upon the Gentiles w hen they believed. Cf. Bruce, The Book




o f the Ac ts, p. 230.

9 . The same verb is used for the descending o f the Ho|y Spiri t both at Pentecost ¡n

Jerusalem (Acts 11:15) and here in Caesarea (10:44).

10. Cf. W. H. Lampe, The Seal o f the Sp irit (London, 1951), p. 66.

11 .So correctly Wendt, Handbuch über die Apostelgeschichte, p. 254; Zahn, Die

Aposte lgeschichte des Lukas, p. 361.

12. Bruce, The A cts o f the Apostles, p. 228.

13. Munck, The A cts o f the Apostles, p. 95: "The talking ¡n other languages is

described in terms similar to those in ii 11; . .

14 . F. H. Chase, The C redibil ity o f the A cts o f the Ap ostles (London, 1902), p. 79,

has made the suggestion that the experience of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in

Caesarea was the "Pentecost of the Gentile world." This will have to be qualified.

In spite of the many distinct parallels between Pentecost and the experience in

Caesarea, the bestow al o f the Holy Spirit in Caesarea is subord ínate to Pentecost and

intimates the significance of Pentecost for the salvation of the Gentiles (cf. N. B.

Stonehouse, "Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Spirit," Westminster

Theological Journal, 13 [19 50 /51] , 8) and signifies that the Gentile believers are also

included in the Great Commission to evangelizo the whole world.

15.See above, n. 8.

16.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 399.



CHAPTER VI


Speaking ¡n tongues appears in the book of Acts for thethird and last time in chapter 19:1-6. Again it appears inconnection with a major metropolitan city, Ephesus. The city,however, is in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and not in Pales-tiñe where Jerusalem and Caesarea were located. Nowspeaking in tongues appears with the Gentile mission under

the leadership of Paul. Thus in Acts 19 we have a change oflocation and a change of the missionary.


Christianity seems to have gained a foothold in Ephesus

through Aquila and Priscilla, staunch friends of Paul (Acts18:1-3; 1 Cor 16:9),’ who had to leave Rome when all Jewswere expelled by the edict of Claudius (ca. A.D. 49).2

Paul made a short visit to Ephesus on his Second Missionary Journey (Acts 18:18-21). While Paul was prevented bythe Holy Spirit on an earlier occasion from entering Asia (Acts16:6), there is ampie evidence that Paul considered Ephesusan important city for spreading the Good News.

Paul carne again to Ephesus on his Third MissionaryJourney and stayed there for over two years (Acts 19:8, 10).During that time the experience of speaking in tongues tookplace.

Ephesus was a major city of the ancient world. Ephesushad surpassed Pergamum in significance when the Romansmade it the capital of the province of Asia. It was the provin-

ce's most important city, on the west coast of what is now Asiatic Turkey.

Ephesus was located on the Cayster River and was acrossroad for the Coastal highway that went from south tonorth. This highway stretched east to Laodicea and to theregión of Phrygia where Pisidian Antioch was located.Ephesus was the leading commercial center; just three miles




from the city was a large harbor. At one time the sea hadreached Ephesus but in Paul's day silt had closed the city's

original harbor to ships. Ephesus served both as a greatexport center at the end of the Asiatic caravan route and alsoas a natural port for ships from Rome.

The goddess Diana made the city famous (Acts 19:27,35), but the emperor cult was not neglected. The goddess

Artemis, identified by the Romans as Diana, was the goddessof wild animáis, wild nature, and particularly of fertility and

childbirth. Artemis, or Diana, was the Anatolian Magna Mater, the Great Mother, and she is also known as Cybele,the goddess of fertility and fructification.

The temple of Artemis was the most important structurein Ephesus. It is reported that it took 120 years to build andwas destroyed and rebuilt seven times. It was one of theseven wonders of the ancient world. It had 127 columns,

each of which was 60 feet in height and represented a king.The complete temple was 425 feet by 225 feet in size.Contributions and visitors to the temple carne from all of AsiaMinor and beyond.

A second major building in Ephesus was the amphithe-ater, which seated an estimated 24,000 persons on sixty-sixtiers of seats. The stage area measured 115 feet by 70 feet.

The population of Ephesus at the time of Paul is estimated

to have been more than 200,000. Ephesus contained a largecolony of Jews.3 Ephesus was of strategic importance as acommercial, political and religious center in the ancientworld.4

2. EPHESIAN "DISCIPLES," CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

Paul arrived for a second time in Ephesus in ca. A.D. 54,5having visited the churches in Galatia. Now he meets twelve"disciples" (Acts 1 9:1 ,7 ). The term "disciples" is of considerable interest, because these twelve persons had been"baptized with the baptism of John" (Acts 19:3). Luke

usually uses the term "disciple" in the book of Acts as adesignation for Christian believers. Inasmuch as Paul asked




whether they received the Holy Spirit when they "believed,"

he seems to consider them as believers. Surely they werebelievers with partial knowledge.These Christian brethren6 had no knowledge of the

existence of the Holy Spirit (vs. 3). This became apparentthrough Paul's question whether or not the Holy Spirit wasgiven "when they believed" (vs. 2).7 When these believersprofessed complete ¡gnorance of the work of the Holy Spirit,Paul was led to question them right away concerning the kind

of baptism they received. This line of questioning is sound,because ¡n the New Testament "anyone who has not receivedChristian baptism does not belong to the community at all."8They responded that they were baptized "into John's baptism" (vs. 3). Paul then proceeds to explain the relationshipbetween John's baptism and Christian baptism (vs. 4).John's baptism was anticipatory of what Christ would

achieve; Christian baptism rests on what Jesús Christ hasaccomplished on earth in His life, death and resurrection.Thus Paul was leading these "disciples" into a full faith inJesús Christ in whom they put their trust. As these twelvebelievers listened to the instruction provided by Paul, theyheard and understood the Good News. The message of thegospel entered fully into their hearts. In faith they acceptedthe word of salvation and were baptized.

On the basis of Paul's instruction, these believing brethrenwere willing to submit to the only appropriate and adequatebaptism. It is the true baptism "in the ñame of the LordJesús" (vs. 5).9 "The baptism of John points toward Christ,but the baptism in the ñame of Jesús looks back to Christ'saccomplished work."10

Following the baptism Paul laid his hands upon them and

"the Holy Spirit carne on them" (vs. 6b). There seems to bea parallel between the laying-on of hands on these twelveEphesian believers by the apostle Paul and the laying-on ofhands by Peter and John on the Samaritan converts (Acts8:17). The laying-on of hands was not only a Symbol of thebaptism of the Holy Spirit,11 but here, as for the Samaritanbelievers earlier, it was a sign that they too had received the

commission to evangelize the world.12 Just as Jerusalemwas the nucleus from which the mission was to advance




(Acts 1:8; 2:1 f f .), so Gentile believers were drawn into themissionary activity at Caesarea in Judah (Acts 1:8; 10:46f.),and then it proceeded to Samaría (Acts 1:8; 8:13 ff.) wíthSamarítan Christians joíníng the task.

Now Ephesus was to be "another decísive moment ¡n themissionary history"13 with the gift of the Holy Spirit be-stowed upon these twelve newly baptized disciples. Underthe endowment of the Holy Spirit the mission of Christianityadvanced as predicted by the Risen Lord along the line of

Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria-beyond (Ephesus) to the end of theearth (Acts 1:8).

At various major centers (Jerusalem, Caesarea, Ephesus)the Holy Spirit was manifested in a special way. Thisprogression in evangelizing the world demonstrates the basiccontinuity of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the bookof Acts. F. F. Bruce notes incisively that Ephesus ¡s "the new

center for the Gentile mission."14There ¡s another link between the manifestation of the

Holy Spirit in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) and the manifestation ofthe Holy Spirit earlier. The first time the Holy Spirit carneupon Gentile believers (other than Samaritans) was in connec-tion with the work of an apostle.15 As Peter was instrumental for the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, hishousehold and friends (Acts 10:44-46), so Paul dispenses theHoly Spirit upon the twelve Christians in Ephesus (Acts19:1 ff.) .16 This linkage of the outpouring of the Holy Spiritwith the apostles is summarized as follows, "The fouroutpourings of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts are confirmedby the apostles: in Jerusalem by the Twelve, in Samaría byPeter and John, in Caesarea by Peter, and in Ephesus byPaul."17

It should be made clear that the Holy Spirit was ¡mpartedin the Caesarea experience without the laying-on of hands. Itis evident from the book of Acts that the Holy Spirit could be¡mparted without the laying-on of hands (Acts 2:1 ff.; 9:10 ff.;10:46ff.).18 There is no evidence that all the believers inEphesus received the gift of the Holy Spirit when Paul laid hishands on the twelve disciples. Thus it is not a biblical

teaching that the Holy Spirit can only be ¡mparted by thelaying on of hands. Furthermore, the New Testament lacks




support for the contention that the reception of the Holy Spiritresults ¡n speaking in tongues.19

3. SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND PROPHESYING

The external sign of the reception of the Holy Spirit inEphesus are the same as in Caesarea and Jerusaiem, Le.,those who received the Holy Spirit "spoke with tongues andprophesied" (Acts 19:6).20

We must give attention first to the phrase "spoke intongues." The same Greekverb for "spoke" is used as earlierin Acts, in connection with speaking in tongues. The imper-fect form of the Greek verb laleín is used. This form indicatesthat Luke intended to emphasize a continuous or protractedaction in the exercise of this g ift.21 The experience ofspeaking in tongues at Ephesus was not a one-time matter of

a single event.22 Those upon whom the gift was bestowedwith possessed ¡t for continuous usage. It was a permanentgift, as ¡dentical to that found to be true in Acts 2 and Acts10.

The term for "tongues" is again the plural of the custom-ary Greek term glóssa which we have met in Mark 16:17;

Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46.23 Luke, Paul's companion, reportedthe endowment of the gift of speaking in tongues in Ephesuswith the ¡dentical terminology in which he reported themanifestation of tongues earlier in the Pentecostal experienceof Jerusaiem and subsequently in the city of Caesarea. Un-

doubtedly he wanted his readers to understand that the gift tothe believers in these three cities, Jerusaiem, Caesarea andEphesus, was the same, namely, that of miraculously speaking foreign languages.24 This conclusión is based on contex

tual, historical, linguistic, and phenomenological evidence.The purpose of the gift was to make it possible to communi-cate the gospel message in Ephesus and in Asia Minor. Ashas been stated above by F. F. Bruce, the respected commen-tator on the book of Acts, Ephesus was now the center forthe mission to Gentiles.25

The second aspect of the outward sign of receiving the

Holy Spirit was the ability to "prophesy." This new aspect is




of importance for a number of reasons. Acts 19:6 ¡s the firstNew Testament passage which places ¡n cióse proximlty thetwo spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues and prophesying,and in connection with a church where Paul labored extensive-ly. An ¡mmediate relationshlp to 1 Corinthian 14 ¡s apparentwhere Paul deais both with tongues and prophecy.

It would, however, be erroneous to conclude that tonguesand prophecy are only associated in connection with Paul, andthus separating Acts 19 and 1 Cor 14 from other New

Testament passages dealing with tongues-speaking. It hasbeen pointed out above that in Acts 10:46 the content ofspeaking in tongues was defined as "glorifying God." Thelatter is identical in meaning with the proclaiming of "themighty works of God" in Acts 2:11. Just as Acts 10:46 islinked to the miracle of foreign languages in Acts 2, so theexperience of "prophesying" (epropheteuon)26 in Acts 19:6

has its counterpart in the twofold mentioning of "prophesy"in Acts 2:1 7, 18.

Having shown the connection of prophesying andproclaiming the deeds God performed in Christ in other parísof the book of Acts, it remains for us to pursue the ¡deaexpressed by "prophesying." The idea might be entertainedthat the cióse association of speaking in tongues and prophesying in Acts 19:6 should be understood in the sense thatboth are the same.27 This ¡dea--though it has been main-tained by various people--is hardly likely. In 1 Cor 12:28-30and 14:1-5 Paul makes a clear distinction between the two.There is no reason to suppose that the two gifts are actuallyonly the same g if t.28 Luke refers to two gifts of the HolySpirit, namely, speaking in tongues and prophesying. Both ofthese gifts appear separately in the New Testament lists of

spiritual gifts. They should not be identified with each otherand made into a single gift.

Another hypothesis that needs to be mentioned briefly isthat prophesying refers to prophetic ecstasy. There is noevidence in the New Testament that would give any reason toperceive that "prophesying" involves an ecstatic experience.Such passages as 1 Cor 12-14 and 2 Pet 1:21 reveal that

Christian prophecy is non-ecstatic in nature. The speaking intongues experience in Acts is also non-ecstatic.29




The activity of "prophesying" may be taken to mean thatby means of the Holy Spirit God gave these believers in Christ

the ability to have a word of revelation from the Holy Spiritthat en^bled them to proclaim the Good News with power andconviction. The evidence ¡n the book of Acts is that all"Christians who were filled with the Holy Spirit witnessedintelligibly for Jesús Christ."30

4. DOES SPIRIT-BAPTISM RESULT IN GLOSSOLALIA?

Having considered all passages in the book of Acts onspeaking in tongues, we are now in a position to ask thequestion, Does the baptism of the Holy Spirit result in glosso-lalia? This isthe claim of many Pentecostalists, neo-Pentecos-talists and charismatics today.

First, we have seen that the book of Acts does not know

glossolalia as ¡t is practiced today, that is, glossolalia asunintelligible speech.

Secondly, the baptism in Ephesus is a baptism in theñame of Jesús and not a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Subse-quent to the baptism Paul lays his hands on the newlybaptized believers who receive the Holy Spirit. The result isthat they both speak in tongues and prophesy. Thus it does

not seem warranted that Spirit-baptism results in glossolaliaonly. It should result, if it were correct, in both speaking intongues and prophesying. Why should it result in only one ofthe gifts today? On the other hand, there is nothing in Acts19 that would point to what may be called Spirit-baptism.The gift of the Holy Spirit is the token of true conversión.Baptism is by water.

Thirdly, the book of Acts reports that numerous people invarious settings were baptized without speaking in tongues.We think of the 3,000 at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), the Ethiopianeunuch (Acts 8:38-39), Paul himself in Damascus (Acts9:18),Lydia and her household (Acts 16:15), and the jailor in Philippiand his household (Acts 16:33).

Finally, there were people who were filled with the HolySpirit but they were not reported to speak in tongues--such as

Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8), Stephen also before the




Sanhedrin (Acts 7:55), and the apostle Paul as he confrontedElymas (Acts 13:9).

5. CONCLUSIONS

Briefly summarized, the spiritual gift of speaking intongues in Acts 19:1-7 has the following characteristics:

1) The gift of tongues appeared in Ephesus, the most

¡mportant city of Asia, as it had appeared before in Jerusalemand Caesarea. Each city was a center of evangelism andoutreach ministry.

2) The gift of tongues was an audible outward sign of thereception of the Holy Spirit.

3) The gift of tongues carne through the apostle Paul,similarly to the earlier manifestations of the Holy Spirit

through Peter and John (Acts 8:14 f f 10:45f.). This links thethree leaders of the early church together.

4) The gift of tongues is the miraculous gift wherebaptized believers speak foreign languages.

5) The spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages is notnon-repeatable but permanent.

6) The gift of tongues is not given to every believer.There were other believers in Ephesus who did not have thegift of tongues.

7) The purpose of this spiritual gift was to enable therecipients to evangelize the city and its hinterland.

8) The spiritual gifts of tongues and prophecy appeartogether in cióse proximity, as in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14.

These characteristics demónstrate the confluence of¡deas, concepts and motifs which link into an inseparable

Chain the several passages on the manifestation of the gift oftongues in the book of Acts.




ENDNOTES

I.E. M. B. Green, "Ephesus,” The N ew Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (2nd ed.;

Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965), p.381.

2.S. H. Horn, Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.

61; M. J. Schroyer, "Aquila and Priscilla," Interpre ter’s D ictiona ry o f the Bible

(Nashville, TN; Abingdon Press, 1962), 1:176.

3.Josephus, Antiquit ie s, xiv. 10. 12, 25.

4 .0 n Ephesus, sea F. V. Filson, "Ephesus and the NT," BA 8 (1945), 73-80; M. M.

Parvis, "Archeology and St. Paul's Journeys in Greek Lands. Part IV: Ephesus," BA

8 (1945), 66-73.

5. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Román Citizen (3rd ed.; Grand

Rapids, Mich., 1965), pp. 265f., 269-282, believes that Paul could have arrived in

Ephesus as early as October A.D. 53. The date of autumn 53 is also suggested by

G. B. Caird, "Chronology of the NT," IDB, I, 60 7. There are tho se who place it in the

fall of A .D. 54, so G. Ogg,"Chrono logy of the NT," The Ne w Bible Dictionary, p. 228,

and many others.

6 . Many co mm entators have pointed out that for Luke the Greek term mathetes, " disciple,” invariably signifies "Christi an." Cf. J. Wellhausen, Kritische Ana/yse der

Aposte igeschichte (Berlín, 1914), p. 39; A. Loisy, Les Actas des Apotres (París,

1920), p. 718; Zahn, Aposte igeschichte , p. 673; Lake and Cadbury, The Beginnings

o f C hristianity, 4:237; E. Kásemann, "The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus,"

Essays on New Testament Themes (London, 1964), p. 136; Bruce, The A cts o f the

Apostles, p. 353; Haenchen, A cts , p. 553.

7 . This phrase is a translation of the Greek aorist particip le pisteusantes which,

according to J. H. Moulton, A Grammar o f the N ew Testament Greek (3rd ed.;

Edinburgh, 1908), I, 131 n., is a " coincident aorist partic iple" w hic h "is doctrinally

imp ortant." Acco rdingly the idea is that the Holy Spirit would come upon them when

th ey would b ecome believers and be baptized. The relation betw een receiving of the

Holy Spirit and believing is indicated better by ERV, RSV, NEB, NAB, NASBthan by

AV: " Have ye received the Holy Ghost si nce ye believed." Robertson , A Grammar

o f the Greek New Testament, pp. 860f., 1113, explains that "the two aorists point

to one definite occasion," the aorist participle pisteusantes expressing "simultaneous

action." These grammatical and syntactical observations do not support the

Pentecostal interpretation of the teaching of "t he second blessing." See Hoekema,

What About Tongue-Speaking?, p. 66; M. F. Unger, New Testament Teaching on

Tongues (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1972), pp. 68-73.

8 . Kásemann, " The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus," p. 144 . See also F. W.

Norris, "Christians only, but not the only Christians (Acts 19:1-7)," Restoration

Quarterly 28 (1985-86): 97-105.

9 . To cali this "t he only account of re-baptism that we find in the NT" (so Bruce, The

Book o f Acts, p. 38 6) seems to be claimlng too much. The baptism by John was

cert ainly a baptism by immersion but an antic ipatory baptis m. The baptism by Paul

was not a "re-baptlsm” of someone who had already been baptized into the ñame of

Jesús previously. It was the first Christian baptism experienced by the "d isciples."




Thus one cannot speak of re-baptism in an unqualified sense, because the first

baptism was not identical in ¡ts natura to the baptism into Jesús.

lO.Kistemaker, A cts , p. 680.

11 .White, A c ts o f the Apostles, p. 283.

12. White, Early Writings, p. 101.

13. Lampe, The Seal o f the Spirit, p. 76.

14. F. F. Bruce, The Book o f A cts (rev ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), p.

365.

15.When the Samaritan believers received the Holy Spirit both Peter and John were

involved. The Samaritan converts, h owever, had a share in the Jewish faith, w hich

was not true of the Román centurión Cornelius, who was a true Gentile although he

was a "God-fearer."

16.Luke manifests the desire to point to parallels between the ministries of Paul and

Peter. Compare for Paul Acts 13: 6ff .; 14: 8ff .; 16:18; 16: 25f f.; 20 :9 ff „ and for

Peter 8: 18ff . ; 3:2ff . ; 5:16; 12:7ff. ; 9:3 6ff .

17.Kistemaker, A cts , p. 681.

18.See Bruce, The Book o f the A cts, p. 182 n. 35, for authorities who support the

view that the imposition of apostolic hands was necessary to the gift of the Holy

Spirit. This view is correctly criticized by Lampe, The S eal o f the Spirit, pp. 69ff,

19.See A. A. Hoekema, Ho ly S pirit Baptlsm (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), pp.

44-45.

20.The translation of the NEB, "they spoke in tongues of ecstasy and prophesied,"

supplies the words " of ecstasy" wh ich are in no known manuscrip t. This is puré

in terp retaro n w ithou t any textual suppo rt. The translation know n as TEV (or Good

News Bible) renders this part of vs. 6 as follows: "they spoke in strange tongues and

also proclaimed God's message." The word "s trange" is not in any Greek tex t. The

last phrase "and also proclaimed God's message" is a free expansión of the literal

words , "and prophesied." Both NEB and TEV are examples of dynamic translations

which do not seek to give a word-for-word translation, but use a thought-for-thought

method that does not intend to be literal.

21 .Moule, A n Idiom-Book o f N T Greek, pp. 8f.

22 . The attem pt to capture the linear Aktlonsa rt of the imperfect is manifestad by the

NAB and NASB with the translation: "and they began to speak in tongues."

23. Here we have an ellipsis of the adject ive heterais (" oth er” ) as also in Acts 10:4b

according to Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar o f the NT, p. 25 4 # 480 (3).

The adjective heterais has only weak support from ancient versions both in Acts

10: 46 and 19 :6 . See Zahn, Aposte lgeschichte , p. 361 n. 84.

24 . This view is supported by Zahn, Aposte lgeschichte , p. 102; Davies, JTS, 3

(1952), 228ff.; Unger, NT Teaching on Tongues, p. 79; S. L. Johnson, "The Gift of

Tongues and the Book of Acts," Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct., 1963), 311; and others.

25. White, A c ts o f the A postles, p. 2 83 , States, "They [disciples of John] were then

baptizad in the ñame of Jesús, . . . they received also the baptism of the Holy Spirit,

by which they were enabled to speak the languages of other nations and to




pro phesy. Thus they were qualified to labor as missionaries in Ephesus and its

vicinity and also go forth to proolalm the gospel in Asia Minor."

26.This ¡s an ¡mperfect form of the Greek verb whioh ¡ndicates that this gift was of

a continuous nature as well.

27.So A. Loisy, Les Ac tes des Apotres (París, 1920), p. 723.

28 . With Wayne A. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington, DC:

University of America Press, 1982), p. 174.

29. Terrance Callan, "Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Román Religión and 1

Corinthians," Novum Testamentum 27 (1985), 125-40; see also Robert H. Gundry,

"'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?” Journa l o f Theological Study 17 (1966), 299-307;

Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 174-76.

30. Kistemaker, A cts , p. 682.



■*í



CHAPTER Vil

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14

The New Testament passages which have held ourattention previously were Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1-14; 10-11;19:1-6. There ¡s but one other passage that has the topic ofspeaking ¡n tongues as a central theme. It is in Paul's firstletter to the Corinthians, chapters 12-14. This section

requires careful and meticulous study. It is also the mosthighly disputed as to its exact meaning.Commonly Pentecostal/charismatic Christians claim that

1 Cor 14 is the key to identifying glossolalia today. Theyusually suggest that what Paul describes in 1 Cor 12-14 issome form of ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind,produced by the Holy Spirit, which remained unintelligible toboth speaker and listeners. This is the reason for the need ofan interpreter. If there is no interpreter, it is suggested that"speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 14 may be practiced in prívateas a form of prayer which God understands. Some classicalPentecostalists suggest that the "speaking in tongues" of 1Cor 14 is actually a rarely used human language that isspoken somewhere in the world, but a growing number ofPentecostalists and charismatics of today feel, on the basis of

recent studies done by linguists and others1 in regard tomodern glossolalia, that the Biblical phenomenon is bestunderstood as an angelic language. In support of the latterview they point particularly to 1 Cor 13:1.

There is a second major approach by which the Biblicaldata on tongues-speaking are interpreted. Interpreters of themodern liberal tradition of Progressive scholarship, that is,

scholars who use the historical-critical method ofinterpretation, take 1 Cor 14 as New Testament evidence ofunintelligible ecstatic speech, some kind of cadenee ofvocalizaron, allegedly known in ancient times as glossolalia.2This is usually done in conjunction with the usage of the so-called history-of-religions approach where comparativematerials from ancient pagan religions are used as the




background for ¡nterpretating the Biblical phenomenon oftongues-speaking.3 This means that historical-critical schol-

ars do not interpret the Bible by the Bible. They ¡nterpretBiblical events--in this case tongues-speaking--on the basis ofreconstructed contexts of surrounding socio-cultural phen-omena from the ancient world.4

There is a third major view held today. This view has hadthe support of the vast majority of ¡nterpreters of Christianityfrom the early Church Fathers through the Reformation,

including John Calvin and other reformers, to the beginning ofthe twentieth century. It is still supported at present by¡nterpreters equally as qualified as the previous group butholding to a high view of Scripture and the principie thatScripture interprets Scripture. These ¡nterpreters understand1 Cor 12-14 with its emphasis on "speaking in tongues" asreferring to the genuine spiritual gift of speaking genuineforeign languages not previously learned.5 They see in 1 Cor14 a picture of the misuse of a genuine spiritual gift, misusedfor personal edification and benefit. They do not see Paulendorsing a pagan practice in the church at Corinth, but seehim regulating a true spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit for thebuilding up of the church as the body of Christ. It issuggested that in the church in Corinth, when the saints wereassembled, various Christians who had received the gift of

miraculously speaking foreign languages used this gift in theassembled congregation simultaneously without regard fororder or for using it for its appointed purpose, that is, thebenefit for proclaiming the Good News to non-believers forwhom it was given in the first place. This simultaneousspeaking of various languages by different Christians leavesthe impression on non-believers who enter into the assembly

that tongues-speakers are mad. In an attempt to correct thismisuse, Paul points out that each gift is for the upbuilding ofthe church and not for selfish use. He thus lays down rulesfor order, and recommends that when there is no ¡nterpreterpresent who can transíate these languages for the benefit ofthose who do not understand them, then the tongues-speakershould be silent in church. He may wish to speak as it were

to himself and to God.The divergence of major opinions among scholars and



SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14 111

readers of the New Testament demands that we give verycareful attention to what Paul actually wrote. The fact thatPaul never explained exactly what "speaking ¡n tongues" wasin 1 Cor 12-14 leaves the reader of these chapters with thetask of proceeding with caution and deliberation in the studyof this ¡mportant passage.

Sound interpretation will avoid isolating 1 Cor 14 from theprevious two chapters in the same letter and from the"speaking in tongues" phenomenon in the remainder of the

New Testament. Careful attention will also have to be givento the alleged parallels in Hellenistic pagan religions to whichmodern scholarship has frequently pointed and which havebeen widely used to interpret tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 12-14.

1. HISTORICAL SETTING

In order to reach a measure of clarity in this extensivediscussion of 1 Cor 12-14, ¡t is necessary first of all toattempt to orient oneself to the general historical situationprevailing in Corinth and its Christian community.

It is particularly striking that "speaking in tongues" isonce more manifested in another major metropolitan city ofNew Testament times. Corinth is located in Europe. It is one

of the famous ancient Greek cities.Corinth was the capital of the Román province of Achaia.

Thus Corinth is joined to Ephesus, Caesarea and Jerusalem asthe fourth metropolitan city in which "speaking in tongues"was manifested in the New Testament record.

Corinth commanded the trade route between Northern

Greece and the Peloponnesus, and through the harbors ofLechaeum on the west and Cenchreae on the east it becamean emporium of Mediterranean trade. Its maritime commercebrought great prosperity and luxury. Corinth becameproverbial for sexual license.

Sevearl centuries before Paul's time the temple of Aphrodite had been staffed with 1,000 female slaves

dedicated to licentious worship.6 In 46 B.C. Julius Caesarfounded Corinth anew as a Román colony. As such its




citizens were Romans, probably freedmeri from Italy, but thepopulation was augmented by Greeks and Levantines,¡ncluding Jews.

The diversity of population ¡s reflected in its religious lite.Corinth contained many sanctuaries of foreign deities, such asIsis and Serapis.7 Of special fame also was the temple of

Apollo. I vislted Corinth on several occasions and saw thesetemple ruins. An impressive sight indeed.

Paul carne to Corinth on his Second Missionary Journey.

He spent eighteen months in the city (ca. A.D. 51-52) duringwhich time he founded a church (Acts 18:1-18). Later Apollos worked in Corinth with considerable success (Acts18:24, 27f.; 19:1; 1 Cor 3:4).

After Paul's departure from Corinth a number of doctrinaland ethical problems aróse. During Paul's ministry at Ephesus(ca. A.D. 54-57) he received Communications from "Chloe's

people" (1 Cor 1:11) which indicated the growth of a party-spirit in the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church alsoturned to Paul with certain questions which he received fromthem in a written communication (1 Cor 7:1).

Paul answered these questions successively with the¡ntroductory formula "now concerning,"8 which appears in 1Cor 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, and 16:12. The mattersdiscussed in these sections deal with marriage and divorce(7:1-40), food offered to idols (8:1-13), spiritual gifts (1 2:1-14:40), collection for Jerusalem (16:1-4), and Apollos

(16:12). This letter of Paul to the Corinthians was probablywritten in the spring of A.D. 57.9 Paul probably also answersother questions in 1 Cor 7-16, although their treatment is notintroduced w ith the same ¡ntroductory formula.10

2. SURVEY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14

For a proper understanding of the subject of speaking intongues in 1 Corinthians ¡t is wise to keep in mind that aproblem had arisen in the church at Corinth concerning thespiritual gifts in general (1 Cor 12-14). Paul responds to this

issue.It is within the answer to this general problem that Paul




then evaluates the various gifts of the Holy Spirit (12:31). Although we do not know the exact content of the questionwhich carne to Paul, ¡t may have dealt with the question ofthe rank of the spiritual gifts (12:28), especially therelationship between prophecy and speaking in tongues (14:1-40).

a. 1 Corinthians 12. The opening section of 1 Cor 12-14introduces the subject of "spiritual gifts" (12:1)11 and

climaxes in explaining what a person "speaking by the Spiritof God" is able to say (12:3). Paul immediately comes tospeak about the source and content of "speaking." It has itsorigin in the Holy Spirit. Although "speaking in tongues" isnot directly mentioned with the typical terminology, there canbe little doubt that this is what he had in mind.

When Paul speaks about the pagan religious background

of the Corinthian believers, namely the ¡dolatry of pagan cults,he uses the words "however you were led" (vs. 2, NASB) or"led astray" (NRSV).

There is no unanimity of opinión on what this expressionmeans. It has been suggested that the leading by idols refersto a rulership of the idols over the Corinthian believers in theirprevious pagan life. They were enslaved to the idols.12

Some interpreters wish to see here a reference to ecstasyor enthusiasm, an ecstatic enthusiasm usually assigned to

various pagan cults.13 It is now known that "speaking intongues" or glossolalia was not manifested in ancient cults aswe have already seen14 and as will be discussed in furtherdetail below. Thus it is unlikely that Paul referred tosomething of this sort. It is important to note that there is noevidence for any pagan ecstatic manifestation equal to

modern glossolalia in non-Christian (and Christian) religions.Paul distinguishes carefully between a genuine gift bestowedby the Holy Spirit and phenomena in pagan religions.

In 1 Cor 12:4-7 Paul moves on to speak of the triunesource of all spiritual gifts: Spirit-Lord-God. This is Paul's firststatement of a general principie. All spiritual gifts must derivefrom this triune source or there is no room for them in the

Corinthian community of faith.The purpose of the spiritual gifts in the church is "for the




common good" (12:7). No gift is for prívate use; all gífts are¡ntended for the "common good" of the body of believers (cf.

1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Paul comes back to this emphasís15 ¡n1 Cor 14 where he stresses repeatedly that all spirítual gíftsmust serve for "upbuíldíng” and not for self-edífícation.

In 1 Cor 12:8-11 Paul provides a líst of níne forms ofmanifestations of the Holy Spírit. The theme ¡s many gífts(charismata) of one Holy Spírit. The last two spirítual gífts are"varíous kínds of tongues" and "interpretatíon of tongues".

Díd Paul mentíon them last because "tongues" was the giftmost híghly regarded by the Corínthíans? Díd he mentíon"tongues" last because it ¡sthe least sígníficant spirítual gift?

After Paul dwells upon the subject of the uníty of thebody of Chríst, despíte the diversity of offices and Services ofthe members of the church body (1 Cor 12:12-31), hefocuses upon eight types of members, each of whom is

endowed wíth a particular spirítual gift. It is stríking that"kínd of tongues" (vs. 28) and "interpretatíon" (vs. 30)16agaín come at the end.

Paul concludes thís unít wíth the exhortaron that thebelievers should strive for the "greatest gífts" (1 2:31). Theseare the ones toward the top of the líst and are especíallyemphasízed by the numbers "first. . . , second. . . , third”(12:28). The emphasís is clear. Paul attempts to show the

Corínthíans believers that what they consíder to be the mostimportant gift, namely, speakíng in tongues, is really not atthe top of the líst.

Paul uses the seven questíons (vss. 29, 30) to incúlcatethe principie of the diversity of spirítual gifts among variousmembers while stressing the unity of their source. He alsorefutes any tendency toward claiming that all Spirit-filled

persons must manifest speaking in tongues.It is noteworthy that among the four New Testament lists

of spirítual gifts the gift of tongues is listed in only tw o (1 Cor

12:10; 12:28, 30) and always last. On the contrary, the onlyspirítual gift which appears in all four lists is "prophecy" (Rom12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 12:28f.; Eph 4:11). In one list prophecyhas first place (Rom 12:6), in two it has second place (1 Cor

12:28f.; Eph 4:11), and in one list it appears in the middle ofthe list (1 Cor 12:10). The early place of prophecy and the




last place for tongues and their interpretaron can hardly becoincidental; it is undoubtedly Paul's delibérate plan, in order

to regúlate the gift of tongues and to assign it its proper placein the order of spiritual gifts for the upbuilding of the church.

b. 1 Corinthlans 13. In 1 Cor 13 Paul shows a moreexcellent way. It consists of the way of "love". It is agape- love. It is the highest kind of love, the love that wasdemonstrated by the Father when He gave his only begotten

Son (John 3:16).The first part of 1 Corinthian 13 stresses the superiorityof love (vss. 1-3), the middle part the necessity of love (vss.4-7), and the last the eternal duration of love (vss. 8-13). Inthe context of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are variouslyapportioned, Paul points out that the grace of love is "the fruitof the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23). It cannot be compensated for bythe most lavish exercise of any spiritual gift.

The fruit of love is given by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). Itis even greater than "prophecy" and "tongues" (1 Cor 13:1).Both will disappear, but love will never end (vs. 8).

c. 1 Corinthians 14. Paul sums up the exhortation tolove in 1 Cor 14:1 with the words, "Make love your aim."

The remainder of 1 Cor 14 speaks about the spiritual gifts

of prophecy and tongues, expressing the hope that thebelievers "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts" (14:1). It isPaul's purpose to place prophecy above tongues.

1 Cor 14 can be divided into tw o major parts. The firstsection treats the subject of prophecy and speaking intongues (vss. 1-25). The second section (vss. 26-40)addresses the subject of proper order in Christian worship.

This chapter contains Paul's most profound teaching ofspeaking in tongues. Our attention will now be given to astudy of this subject in 1 Cor 14.

On the basis of the contextual setting of Paul’sinstruction, we are now in a position to discuss what Paulsays with regard to speaking in tongues in this disputedchapter.

There is no indication in 1 Cor 12-14 that thephenomenon of speaking in tongues at Corinth is a Satanic




counterfeit. Paul Usted "tongues" among the spiritual giftswhich have their source in the Spirit of God. Note that

throughout the discussion Paul refers 23 times to speaking ¡n"a tongue" or "tongues."17

3. TONGUES-SPEAKING LANGUAGE IN

MODERN TRANSLATIONS

English translations as well as those of other modernlanguages reveal the complexity of the matter of "speaking intongues" in 1 Cor 14. We find time and again that translatorsinsert words into the translation that are not present in theoriginal text, or that they use different words for the sameGreek word in the original text. There are also othervariations. They deserve our attention now.

The adjective "unknown" which the King James Versión(KJV) supplies in 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 14, 19, 27 has no support inthe original Greek text. It is supplied by the translators. TheNew King James Versión (NKJV) is correct in omitting thisadjective as is the New American Standard Bible (NASB) andthe Revised Standard Versión (RSV) and the New RevisedStandard Versión (NRSV).

The New English Bible (NEB) renders the Greek term

"tongue(s)" w ith "ecstatic utterance/speech/language"18 or"speech/language of ecstasy."19 There is likewise no textualsupport for the words "ecstatic" or "ecstasy."20 Theseterms are problematical interpretations of the word"tongue(s)."

The Jerusalem Bible (JB) has another variation. In every¡nstance when the Greek original uses the term "tongue(s)"

the Jerusalem Bible uses "the gift of tongues." Thus thewords "the gift of" are supplied and the distinction betweenthe singular usage of the term "tongue" and its plural usage"tongues" is obliterated in this translation.

The Good News Bible, also called Today's English Versión(TEV), with counterparts in many other modern languages,also inserís a word which does not appear in the Greek text.

The adjective "strange" is inserted every time before the word"tongue(s)" in 1 Cor 14. This word puts the subject of




tongues in a light that Paul may or may not have ¡ntended,depending on the interpretador! given by modern scholars. It

¡s not supported in the original Greek text and must be seenas an interpretaron by the translators.

The New International Versión (NIV) uses the term

"tongue(s)" consistently in 1 Cor 14, but provides themarginal reading of "another language" for vss. 2, 4, 13, 14,19, 26, and 27 and "other languages" for vss. 5, 6, 18, 22,23 and 39. These altérnate readings of "language(s)" are"underscoring itsunderstanding of tongue-speaking asspeechin predictable human languages rather than as non-senseecstatic speech."21

The New Revised Standard Versión (NRSV) uses the noun"language(s)" in every instance in Acts 2 where the originaltext employs the word glóssa, "tongue(s)." In 1 Cor 14,however, the NRSV employs the word "tongue(s)" in everyinstance where the same Greek term appears. To the unwary

reader it gives the impression that there may be two differentwords used in the original text in the two passages of Acts 2and 1 Cor 14. This versión leaves the impression that in Acts2 and 1 Cor 14 there are two different gifts, unrelated to eachother.

It may be of ¡nterest that the revised Germán Bible knownas the Elberfelder Bibel (produced in 1986), which has the

reputation of being the most literal translation available in theGermán language and known to be the most faithful to theoriginal text, employs in every instance in 1 Cor 12-14 theword "language(s)" (Germán "SprachefnJ") where the Greekuses the term glóssa. In other words, this translation seesthegift of tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 to consist of real languages.

These examples of variations in modern translations with

the insertion of terms which are not in the original languageand the substitution of the term "tongue(s)" with other wordsprovide ampie evidence that 1 Cor 14 is a problem passage.Therefore, it is not sound from a methodological perspectiveto interpret the entire phenomenon of tongues-speaking in theNew Testament from the admittedly difficult passage in 1 Cor12-14, or 1 Cor 14 alone, simply because this is the longestpassage on the subject. This part of Scripture alone hardly

lends itself to be considered as the single key to




understanding the New Testament subject on speaking ¡ntongues.

This survey on translation differences also ¡nforms thereader on the distinction between a "formal translation"approach, which rendersthe original text in a "word-for-word"correspondence, and the "dynamic translation" approach,which employs a thought-for-thought correspondence andprovides much freedom to the transistor.22 In the latter casetranslation becomes a more extensive interpretaron or even

a mini-commentary. We may do well to look at the languageof 1 Cor 12-14 in the original text.

4. TONGUES-SPEAKING TERMINOLOGY

Does the language that is employed by Paul in describing

the phenomenon of tongues-speaking differ from that of otherNew Testament descriptions of "speaking in tongues"? Is thelanguage that Paul employs for tongues-speaking ¡denticalwith religious ecstatic speech in surrounding Hellenistic paganreligions? Does Paul describe a phenomenon in 1 Cor 12-14that has been adopted by the Christians in Corinth from theirpagan surroundings? These are the kinds of questions andissues that are in the mind of the discerning reader of thesechapters in 1 Corinthians. It is necessary, therefore, that wegive heed to the language that Paul uses when he refers totongues-speaking. It needs to be compared to the languagein the remainder of the New Testament and in the culturesurrounding the Corinthian church.

The word "tongue(s)" is used four times in 1 Cor 12,23tw o times in 1 Cor 13,24 and seventeen times in 1 Cor

14,25 making a total of twenty-three times. Significantly, ineach case without any exception, the word for "tongue" is theGreek word glóssa, the very word which is used in Mark forJesús' prediction of "new tongues," and in Acts by Lukewhen he describes the Pentecostal experience and themanifestations of this gift of tongues at Caesarea andEphesus.

Another observation is in order. Every time the phrase"to speak in tongues" appears (12 times)26 the verb "to




speak" ¡s a form of the same Greek term lalefn, the very verbwhich is used by Luke ¡n Acts for "to speak" ¡n tongues and

by Mark ¡n Mark 16:17. This means that there is full andcomplete identity of language in every New Testamentpassage that treats the subject of "speaking ¡n tongues."

Some scholars interpret the Greek term glóssa, "tongues," in terms of antiquated, strange, or mysteriousutterances of an ecstatic nature.27 In the Greek languagethe term glóssa can refer to an "obsolete or foreign w ord."28

This, however, is still different from what is meant by thesupporters of this hypothesis. As a matter of fact, the use ofthe term glóssa as a designaron for understandable,intelligible language far exceeds its use in non-biblical Greekfor strange and obsolete speech.29

What is the evidence of the Greek Bible (Septuagint andNew Testament) in support of the hypothesis of glossolalia asa form of speech that is unintelligible? As was demonstratedin Chapter II above, an investigaron of the usage of the termglóssa throughout the New Testament, shows that it is onlyused for the "tongue" as an organ of speech30 and forintelligible human language.31 This is true also for the usageof this term in the Septuagint. Even in Isa 29:24 and 32:4,where the term glóssa seems to refer to stammering, there isno indication of ecstasy or the like.32 Even in these two

cases "it refers to language."33 Thus there is little doubtthat the Biblical use of the noun glóssa does not support theidea of ecstatic utterance.

It has been noticed that the Greek adjective heteros, "other" (Acts 2:4), is lacking in 1 Cor 12-14. Some scholarshave, therefore, argued that the language of Paul differs from

Acts. Is this lack of the adjective "other" so decisive that the

two phenomena of speaking in tongues have to be separated?We have to keep in mind that heteros, "other," is not foundin 1 and 2 Thess, Titus, in John (except in 19:37), Mark(except 16:12), 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John. It is notnecessary that it be used again after Acts 2:4 in theexpression "speaking in tongues" because in this text it¡dentifies the tongues-speaking as something that is "other"

in the sense that those who had received the gift at Pentecostwere "speaking in various languages which were different




from the mother tongue of the speakers and which werepreviously unknown to them."34 It needs to be stressed that

the Greek expression g/óssa laleín, literally "to speak ¡ntongues," also appears in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 without theadjective. This may indícate that after the Pentecostalexperience "speaking in tongues" became a technicaldesignation35 with a fixed meaning where the adjective"other" is understood without having to be repeated. It isvery likely that the short form "speaking in tongues" without

an article in Greek and without an adjective ("new" or "other")is an abbreviated expression of the longer phrase "speaking innew/other tongues" used only in Mark 16:17 and Acts2:4.36 Henee the usage in Acts 10 and 19 and in 1 Cor 12-14 may be an ellipsis, that is, a shorter form of the originallylonger phrase. Engelsen suggests that the original term lies inthe unrecoverable past,37 but it may rather be that it rests in

Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4 where in both cases an adjective ispresent. It seems unavoidable to conclude that Christiantongues-speaking--and there is no other such phenomenonknown in the ancient world--"apparently had its beginning inthe Pentecost."38 The gift experience of Pentecostaltongues-speaking is a "new creation"39 of the Holy Spirit.

We do not need to rehearse what has been stated inChapter II above regarding the unique usage of the language

for "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament. The Greekexpression is totally lacking outside the New Testament. Forthis reason several hypotheses have been created whichsuggest that the tongues-speaking phenomenon in 1Corinthians is glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible andinarticulate speech of nonsense syllables. Among the majorhypotheses is one which interprets the New Testament

phenomenon by means of religio-historical parallels. We willturn to this once again later, but we have already touched onthis in Chapter II above.

Another hypothesis suggests that the supposedglossolalic experience in Corinth can be explainedterminologically from the Greek term laléo. The ancientChurch father Origen already speculated about a kind of

"lalling." In recent times it has been suggested again thatlaléo points to some kind of "lalling" or the like that is inherent




in this term.40 While this hypothesis inherently seeks to

explain tongues-speaking as glossolalia in the sense of¡narticulate, unintelligible speech, it admits that glossolaliacannot be derived from the term "tongue" (Greek glóssa). However, ¡t overlooks some important facts about the usageof laléo in 1 Cor 14. In 1 Cor 14:9 Paul uses laléo whenspeaking about that which is to be "known" in the sense ofthe activity of the mind. In 1 Cor 14:29 the ¡nstruction isgiven for two or three "prophets" to "speak" (laléo) and they

speak ordinary languages. In 1 Cor 14:34, 35 women are notpermitted to "speak" (laléo). This is once more ordinaryspeech in normal human language. Thus the verb laléo isemployed by Paul in 1 Cor 14 in the context of tongues-speaking (vs. 9), speaking by prophets (vs. 29), and womenspeaking in church (vs. 34, 35). These contexts demand thatlaléo refers to ordinary human language. We may agree with

the conclusión of J. M. Ford that "Paul's use of laletn [theinfinite of laléo] does not militate against the argument thattongues are a human language."41

This conclusión is confirmed by the quotation of Isa28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 where the lips of strangers, that is, the

Assyrians, will "speak" (laléo) to the people of Israel in "othertongues," which are languages42 that are not understood bythose who speak only Hebrew.

We may suggest on the basis of the foregoingconsiderations that there is no compelling terminologicalreason leading to the conclusión that the terminology of"speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 12-14 is in any sense differentfrom the remainder of the New Testament. There is likewiseno compelling reason for tongues-speaking in Corinth to referto glossolalia in the sense of "the broken speech of persons

in religious ecstasy"43 or the like.We will remain with the definition of the locus c/asslcus

on tongues-speaking, namely the Acts 2 passage whichrelates the events of the Day of Pentecost. It is the only NewTestament passage which contains a definition of tongues-speaking. It is our suggestion (1) that there is but one gift oftongues provided by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, (2)

that tongues-speaking is the same in the entire NewTestament, which is supported by the same terminology, the




context of the Holy Spirit's work, and the uniqueness of earlyChristian tongues-speaking, and (3) that it ¡s non-ecstatic innature.44 The following parts of our investigaron of

tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 12-14 will reveal whether thissuggestion, based on linguistic and terminological fields of

study, is sound.

5. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND THE LANGUAGE

OF ANGELS

One hypothesis for interpreting Pauline "speaking in

tongues" employs 1 Cor 13:1 as a key. It claims thatspeaking in tongues is "the speech of angels in which thesecrets of the heavenly world are revealed."45

Is Paul really attempting to equate speaking in tongueswith tongues of angels? His words read, "If I speak in

tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisygong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1).What is known about the language of angels? A few

passages in Jewish literature speak of the speech of angels.This language is said to be an "angelic dialect" (Greek aggelike dialekto)46 found in the apocryphal Testament of Job, datedto either the first century B.C. or the first century A.D.47 Inthis document there is a reference to three daughters, one of

whom makes an "utterance in the speech [Greek dia/ektos] ofangels" (48:3).48 Further reference is made to "the dialectof archons" (49:2), the "dialect of the cherubim" (50:2) andthe "distinctive dialect" (57:2) in which each daughterspeaks.49 It is to be noted that in every instance in thisJewish document the designation for "speech/dialect" is theGreek word dia/ektos. Paul, on the other hand, does not use

this term in 1 Cor 13:1 in his reference to the tongues ofangels. Paul employs the term g/óssa, "tongue," instead ofdia/ektos, "dialect." Thus, in this single document from theancient world which refers to the language of angels, there isno genuine parallel on terminological grounds, to say nothingof ideological grounds.

Stuart Currie's study of angelic language reveáis that

there is no evidence for the use of angelic language by




humans and there ¡s no guidance as to how it might berecognized.50 F. F. Bruce suggested that one need not infer

that the power to speak with angels' tongues was actuallyclaimed by Paul or the Corinthian church.51We must recognize that Paul spoke hypothetically52 ¡n

1 Cor 13:1, as the Greek conditional clause ¡ndicates. Pauluses the conditional partióle ean,53 " if ," followed by thesubjunctive /a/<5.54 This type of conditional clause in theGreek language is one that does not speak about reality. Paulseems to say with hyperbole that if all linguistic possibilities,including angelic speech, were at his disposal and yet helacked love, it would mean nothing. "The supposition is thatPaul does not speak in the tongue of angels, . . ."55

The nature of the conditional clause with the hypotheticalnature of Paul's sentence in 1 Cor 13:1 makes it clear that thekey to Paul's understanding of "speaking in tongues" is notfound in this text. Thus modern glossolalists will find it

difficult from a syntactical, linguistic, and comparative pointof view to appeal to this sentence as a proof for the identityof the glossolalia they practice.

6. TONGUES-SPEAKING AS SPEAKING MYSTERIES

Paul develops the preference of prophecy by contrastingit throughout 1 Cor 14 with tongues-speaking. In 1 Cor 14:2the person who "speaks in a tongue" is "speaking mysteriesin the Spirit" (NRSV ).56

The NASB translates "in his spirit he speaks mysteries."This versión allows the alternative translation in themargin,57 but it takes the term "spirit" as the human spirit in

which the tongues-speaker speaks.The KJV reads simply "in the spirit" (so also the NKJV,JB and other versions), leaving undecided whether it is thehuman spirit or the Holy Spirit. The translation "in the spirit"is possible, but it is unlikely that "in his spirit" (so also NIV) iscorrect, because the word "his" is not present in the originalGreek text.

Paul maintains that speaking in tongues at Corinth is a

spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30) prompted by the Holy




Spirit.58 Therefore, the reference to "spirit" within this largercontext ¡s best taken to be the Holy Spirit. In this case the

Holy Spirit is the source of speaking "mysteries."The "mysteries" which the tongues-speaker speaks are

not secrets or "secret truths." The word "mysteries" in thewritings of Paul is a very important term. This is true also ofthe New Testament as a whole.59 Paul is the one who mostextensively explains the "mystery."

The term "mystery" (Greek mystérion) is employed

several times in 1 Corinthians (2:[1 ], 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2;15:51). "But the word attains its most significantdevelopment in Colossians and Ephesians, where it is used noless than ten times."60

It is instructive to see how Paul employs this term, andmore precisely, the plural form which is also used in 1 Cor14:2. The plural form is used in but three instances in 1Corinthians and no more in the New Testament. It appears

first in 1 Cor 4:1. Paul insists in this text that he and his co-workers be recognized as "stewards of God's mysteries"(NRSV). God has "mysteries" which Paul and his fellowworkers have been installed to oversee as stewards. Thesedivine "mysteries" are the full "breadth of Christianteaching."61

The second passage is found in 1 Cor 13:2. It refers to

"mysteries" in the context of Paul's claim that "¡f I understandall mysteries and all knowledge, . . . but do not have love, Iam nothing." It has been suggested that "Paul uses the word[mysteries] for the eschatological decree of God . . ."62 Thisimplies that God has made known by revelation His decreeand plan that once was hidden from man.

"Mystery" is used in the singular in 1 Cor 15:51, "Listen,

I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all bechanged, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the lasttrumpet" (NRSV). The "mystery" here is the revelation of the

fact that some will not die and that all will be changed in amoment's time when Christ comes for the second time.

1 Cor 2:7 employs the term "mystery" for the first timein this letter. Paul affirms, "But we speak God's wisdom in amystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined beforethe ages to our glory" (NASB). In the larger context of his




argument ¡n chapter two, Paul uses the term "mystery" tosubsume the whole divine plan of salvation as disclosed by

God within this single comprehensive term.63 A "mystery"¡s invariably something that is revealed by God with regard toChrist and the proclamation regarding Christ.64 This idea ofrevelation is basic to the idea of mystery.

These usages ¡n 1 Corinthians show that "mysteries" aresomething positive. A mystery was once hidden by God andhas since been revealed by Him. This is in harmony with the

usage of the singular in other Pauline writings. A. Robertsonand A. Plummer seem to be right on the mark when theyexplain, "mystérion in the N.T. commonly means 'truth aboutGod, once hidden, but now revealed'."65 Here in 1 Cor 14:2the "mysteries" are the truths of God once hidden by Himabout the plan of salvation that are now known and revealedin their fullness. By means of the Holy Spirit the tongues-speakers speak these "mysteries," that is, God's truth and themessage about Christ once hidden and now fully revealed.But these "mysteries" are not "understood." Paul means thatthe tongues-speakers may speak indeed the very "mysteries"or truths of God which were once hidden and which are nowrevealed, but even if they speak them, as they do by meansof the Holy Spirit, they will not be useful, if they are notunderstood.

The key idea in 1 Cor 14:2 is that people, the hearers,must receive a benefit from the spiritual gift of speaking intongues. If there is no understanding, then the one whospeaks in a tongue speaks to God only, because humans areunable to understand the tongues-speaker who proclaimsdivinely revealed "mysteries."

If rightly understood, this important opening verse on

tongues in 1 Cor 14:2 does not suggest that the tongues-speaker speaks in his own spirit only to God and that this isthe purpose of tongues-speaking. It does not mean that histongues-speaking is ecstatic in nature as a production ofnonsense syllables, simply because it is not understood by thehearers. It does not say that what is spoken are "mysteries"or unknown "secrets" and therefore are unintelligibleproductions brought forth by babblings.

We have seen that the "mysteries" that were once hidden




are true supernatural disclosures by God about Christ. The

"mysteries" "denote the Christian preaching by the apostlesand teachers"66 ¡n 1 Cor 4:1. In another letter Paul himselfasks the Ephesians to pray for him to be able "to make knownwith boldness the mystery of the gospel" (Eph 6:19, NRSV).

1 Cor 14:2 then does not suggest that tongues-speakingis glossolalia in the sense of unintelligíble speech of nonsensesyllables in which "mysteries" in the sense of hidden"secrets" are spoken that are only known by God. This text

is in harmony with tongues-speaking as a speaking of apredictable known human language by which God's revealed"mysteries" are made known to humankind.

7. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND UNDERSTANDING

The concept of understanding has emerged as a theme ofgreat importance for Paul's entire discussion on speaking intongues in 1 Cor 14. Verse 2 States, "for no one understandshim" (NIV) or "them" (NRSV). The words "him/them" are notin the original text and are supplied by translators.

We need to investígate carefully what is meant by theword "understand" and who it is that does not understand.

On the latter point, the text is explicit that those who hear theone speaking in a tongue do not understand the tongue-speaker. Since there is no "understanding" by the hearers,the tongues-speaker speaks to God but not to people. Eventhough the tongues-speaker speaks, and he is heard, he is notunderstood. He speaks with the proper intention of the gift oftongues only when people, the listeners, also understand.

The fact that the people do not understand what thetongue-speaker says does not mean that his speech isecstatic, or that it is unintelligíble babbling, or that he is usingmeaningless nonsense syllables. It simply means that thereis no one is there who understands the foreign language thathe speaks. Therefore, Paul insists that there be one presentwho is able to "interpret" (vss. 13, 27). We will address theissue of "interpretation" in detail below.

The issue of understanding is related to a verse thatcomes later in the chapter but deserves consideraron now.




1 Cor 14:9 States, " If in a tongue you utter speech that is notintellígible, how will anyone know what ¡s being said?"(NRSV). The first part of the sentence is more correctlytranslated "unless you utter by the tongue speech" (NASB,NKJV), indicating that the "tongue" is the organ in the mouthof the speaker67 by which words or speech comes forth.

The "speech" is said to be "unintelligible" (NRSV, NIV,etc.) or not "clear" (NASB), not "easy to be understood"(KJV) or not "easy to understand" (NKJV). The Greek word

eusemos, which is used in this text, appears in no other placein the New Testament. In the Greek language outside of theNew Testament it means, "easily recognizable, clear,distinct."68

Is this "speech" of which Paul speaks, which literallytranslated means "word" (Greek lógos), glossolalia in thesense of "unintelligible babblings of nonsense syllables thrown

together in meaningless combinations by the subconsciousworkings of man's mind?"69 Is the "speech/word,""unintelligible," or difficult "to understand" or not "easilyrecognizable," or not "clear," because only God understandsit and it is inaccessible to human understanding? Is it notunderstood because the "speech/word" is unintelligible initself?

These questions focus on the nature of the unintelligibility

of the "speech/word." There is no evidence that wouldsuggest that the Greek term lógos, normally meaning"word,"70 used by Paul here and normally translated"speech" in this text, ever has the connotation of beingunintelligible in itself. It may be suggested on the basis of theusage of the term lógos that the "speech/word" is not"unintelligible" in itself as if it were garbled speech. But it is

not "recognizable" and "clear," because the hearer does notunderstand it to be part of his native language. He hearssomething, a "sound" (Greek phoné), as vs. 11 states--andthe same word means "language" in vss. 12-13--but unless the"speech/word," which is a phoné in the sense of"language,"71 is ¡nterpreted in the sense of being translated,it is not understood and remains unclear and unintelligible to

the hearer.These considerations lead to the conclusión that the




matter of understanding is hearer-based and not speaker-based. What the tongues-speaker speaks ¡s ¡n itself neithergarbled babbling ñor nonsense syllables. It is speech in a

language which is not understood by the hearer. This conceptseems to assist further in clarifying the issue of the nature oftongues-speaking. The unintelligibility rests with the hearer(s)and not necessarily in what is spoken by the tongues-speaker.

The verb translated "understand" in 1 Cor 14:2 is theGreek term akoúo. This Greek term has special connotationswhich throw much light on the issue of understanding. It

contains the thought that the "people" actually heard the"speech/word" (lógos) and "language" (phoné) of thetongues-speaker, but they were unable to understand itsmeaning. It is correct to conclude that the Greek phrase"does not mean that tongues were inaudible, or that no onelistened to them, but that no one found them intelligible."72The intelligibility of what was spoken did not seem to rest inthe nature of the "sound" (phoné) or "speech/word" (lógos), but in the nature of the people's ability to understand them,as we have already seen.

The same Greek terms, that is, the verb akoúo, "understand," together with the nouns "tongues" (glóssa) and"language" (phoné), are used in the Septuagint, the oldesttranslation of the Oíd Testament into the Greek language, ina very important passage. These combinations of words are

used together in Gen 11:1-9 in connection with the story ofthe confusión of tongues at the Tower of Babel. In Gen 11:7the Septuagint reads that God "confused their tongues (Greekglóssa), in order that they shall not understand (Greek akoúo) each the language (Greek phoné) of his neighbor."73

The fact that Paul used terminology employed in his ownGreek Bible in this unique combination and in this special

manner seems to demónstrate that the unintelligibility of whatwas spoken does not mean that human languages were notused. As a result of the confusión of "tongues" (glóssa) atthe Tower of Babel the new "language" (phoné)7* of eachneighbor was simply not "understood" (akoúo) by others. Forhearers to be unable to "understand," then, means that theyparticípate ¡n an audible hearing without perceiving themeaning of the language spoken. This parallel from the Tower




of Babel experience ¡ndicates that the tongues-speaking giftis a reversal of the confusión of tongues/languages broughtabout at the Tower of Babel, in order to facilítate the will ofGod in the communication of the Good News to people of alltongues/languages.

Another important insight emerges. 1 Cor 14:2, ifcorrectly understood, does not teach that speaking in tonguesis intended as speech directed to God. Many modernglossolalists suggest that glossolalia is a gift that is directed

to God based on 1 Cor 14:2. This text, however, does notmake this claim. In this text speaking in tongues is audiblecommunication of the divine "mysteries" of the plan ofsalvation as embodied in Christ that is now revealed by Godby means of the Holy Spirit. It remains meaningless for thehearers as long as there is no ¡nterpretation, that is,translation, to make this "language" (Greek phoné) of the

tongue-speaker accessible to those who do not understandthe "speech/word" (lógos) spoken.Paul makes the point that due to certain circumstances

which make it impossible for those who hear a personspeaking in a tongue/language the speaker speaks to God(14:2, 28), because God is not limited to a given humanlanguage. God is the originator of all spiritual gifts and ifthere is no one who understands the speaker'stongue/language, it is still understood by God. Let usremember that Paul's whole point in 1 Cor 14 is that speakingin tongues is for the upbuilding of the church and not forprívate edification.

8. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND HELLENISTIC

MYSTERY RELIGIONS

A widely practiced method in the modern period of biblicalinterpretaron is to interpret 1 Cor 14 with the aid of religio-historical parallels from Greek mystery religions. Thushistorical-critical scholars seek to interpret 1 Cor 14 on thebasis of certain religious surroundings in Hellenism from the

time before, during, and even after Paul.Long ago R. Reitzenstein claimed that "one has to admit




that the 'manifestatíons of the Spirit' in Christianity are notunique but belong to the mystical ecstasy of Hellenism. It ¡scharacteristic that Paul recognized so clearly the danger whichrested ¡n the adoption of this form of the [pagan] cult without,however, daring to remove it completely."75 Reitzensteinmade Paul into a man who compromised ¡n the area ofreligión. Was Paul that kind of a man?

An article by Johannes Behm in the Theo/ogicalDictionary of the New Testament may serve as another typical examplein which parallels are used to establish that tongues-speaking

in Corinth was ecstatic speech associated with thesurrounding culture. He writes, "In Corinth, therefore,glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance. One of itsforms of expression is a muttering of words or sounds withoutinterconnection or meaning. Parallels may be found for thisphenomenon in various forms and at various periods andplaces in religious history."76 He refers to Greek religión

where there is supposedly "a series of comparable phenomenafrom the enthusiastic cult of the Thracian Dionysus . .. to thedivinatory manticism of the Delphic Phrygia, of Bacides, theSibyls e tc ."77 Behm cites a number of texts in the Greeklanguage. While he speaks of "parallels" and "comparablephenomena," none of the examples he cites ever uses theexpression "speaking in tongues," referring instead tomanticism and various forms of divination. Is Behmcomparing apples with oranges?

The recent commentary on 1 Corinthians by ChristianWolff refers to examples of religious enthusiasm in ancientwritings such as those of Eurípides, Plato, Aeschylus, Livius,and Plutarch.78 Wolff is nontheless unable to cite a singleexample of glossolalia or speaking in tongues from the ancientHellenistic world.

Hans Conzelmann, who wrote a prestigious commentaryon 1 Corinthians, States that if one desires "to unlock [thephenomenon of tongues], one is to proceed on the basis ofthe religio-historical parallels, . . . which are expressedespecially in mantic divination as it is especially connectedwith Delphi."79 Aside from the hermeneutical problemsraised by this approach, scholars are not united on the

question of whether Hellenistic parallels are to be sought in




the mantic divination of the cult of Apollo at Delphi or in theorglastic cult of Dionysus.

Gerhard Delling, who himself resorts to this method,nevertheless cautions that "¡t is from the New Testament thatthe crucial material must come for the drawing of a clearpicture. With regard to this question parallels from otherreligions permit of only limited conclusions as a help inevaluating the occurrences in the primitive Christiancongregations."80 Delling is aware that the alleged parallelsare not really describing the same phenomena.

H. Kleinknecht considers "speaking in tongues" at Corinthas "a reflection of Pythian prophesying."81 At Delphi the

Pythia, or priestess, stammers forth obscure expressions aswell as understandable prose when caught up in the "spirit"and moved to ecstasy (Greek ekstásis). The physical effectsof Pythian ecstasy are "streaming hair, panting breath, violentfilling or seizing or snatching away in a Bacchantic frenzy."82

In Delphi that which Pythia brings forth is ¡nterpreted bypriests who are in a State of self-control (Greek sophron).63

If Paul had described in 1 Cor 12-14 phenomena such asthese would he not have chosen at least some of theterminology connected with these concepts from thesurrounding religions? The nature of the cult at Delphi isconsistently described as the work of the mantis or"soothsayer, diviner." Paul never uses this word. He doesnot use any of the terms known to describe the activity inHellenistic cults.

The physical experience of the mantis or "diviner" is"ecstasy" (Greek ekstásis) so that once caught up in a frenzyhe is incapable of assessing what he sees and says.84 Incontrast, Paul shows that the one speaking in tongues isalways in control.85 He says that only tw o or three should

speak in sequence and then be ¡nterpreted. The tongues-speaker can keep silence (1 Cor 14:28) and tongues can becontrolled so that they can come in orderly succession (vs.27).86

Various ancient writers refer to ecstasy and manticism.These terms and concepts are not used anywhere in the NewTestament in passages that refer to speaking in tongues.

There are, of course, a variety of definitions of ecstasy.87




The prime example is the reference by Plutarch to the Delphicoracle.88 It is often claimed that ¡n the oracle at Delphi "a

mantic .. . sought divine inspiraron that enabled her to speak¡n an ecstatic manner."89 This kind of statement is typicaland could be duplicated many times. However, recentreevaluation and renewed study of this phenomenon ¡n theDelphic oracle has led to the considered conclusión that "thereis no decisive evidence to indícate that the Pythian priestessever spoke her oracles [at Delphi] in a form analogous to

glossolalia."90 The priestess at the Delphic oracle was ableto communicate her oracles in either oral or written form andin either prose or poetry.91 The fact that these oracles wereperceived to be "obscure" (Greek asaphe) does not mean thattranslation was needed or that the oracles were inunintelligible language. It simply means that it was difficult tofigure out what the plain words in which the oracle was

delivered really meant when applied to an individualsituation.92Examples which are cited by various scholars as

"parallels" from the ancient Hellenistic world need carefulreassessment. They do not deal with tongues-speaking orglossolalia but with prophecy and mantic manifestations. Theplain fact is that there is no example known to this day fromthe ancient world which uses the language that Paul or other

New Testament writers employ when they refer to "speakingin tongues." Despite the fact that even respected newresources refer to unintelligible "ecstatic speech" as "anelement of Hellenistic religions,"93 no scholar yet hasbrought forth any evidence for an ancient practice that equalsmodern glossolalia or that is identical with or truly parallel tothe New Testament "speaking in tongues." Evidently the

alleged "parallels" are lacking the essential elements to be trueparallels.

Whether the gift of tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 is interpretedas glossolalia or as speaking previously unlearned humanlanguages, the gift of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthiansremains unique in the ancient world. This gift is, therefore,unable to be interpreted on the basis of alleged "comparable

phenomena,"94 which in reality do not exist. Paul does notshare the notion of the Greek mystery religions in which the




dark utterances of the possessed person are "obscure" evenfor the one who utters them.95 These crucial differences

must neither be overlooked ñor must they be allowed to bepushed ¡nto the background. Sound scholarly methodologywill always be sensitive to similarities as well as differencesin comparative methodology. If this proper methodology ¡snot given due recognition, a distorted picture arises. Thus wewould caution readers on the subject of tongues-speaking tobe careful regarding claims of parallels found in ancient

Hellenistic or other religions.

9. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND THE UPBUILDING

OF THE CHURCH

Paul employs three pictures from the realm ofcommunication (1 Cor 14:6-8), in order to characterize"speaking in tongues" as practiced in the Corinthiancongregaron and the benefit it is to be to the church.

The first argument comes from his own visit to theCorinthian believers. "But now, brethren, if I come to youspeaking in tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speaktoyou either by way of revelation or of knowledge or ofprophecy or of teaching?" (1 Cor 14:6, NASB).

The fourfold listof "revelation, prophecy, knowledge, andteaching" consists of foundational ways of communicating thetruth of God to the Corinthians. It has been suggested thatrevelation and prophecy make a pair that refers to "thereception or possession of information (it is in prívate thatmen 'receive' or 'have' revelations, and only God gives them:1 Cor 2.10, Phil. 3.15; . . .)."96 This point has much merit.

The second pair of terms, that is, knowledge andteaching, "refers to the communication of information (a

prophecy or teaching is publicly spoken or written by men toothers: 1 Tim. 1.18, 2 Pet. 1.21, Rev. 1.3; Mk. 4.2, Ac.5.28, Rom. 16.17, 2 Jn. 10)."97 Here Paul is coming backto speaking in tongues, that is, to the communication of thecontení of God's revelation. If speaking in tongues does notserve to communicate, how can it benefit the church?Speaking in tongues is for the benefit of the church; it is not




for the benefit of the person who is the tongues-speaker.The key ¡dea is, "What shall ¡t profit you.” Paul ¡nsists

that tongues-speaking ¡s to profit the church. If it is merespeaking without achieving the desired result of profiting thechurch, what benefit is there in it? In tongues-speaking thespeaker is to communicate a "revelation, prophecy,knowledge, and teaching," that is, a message from God thatis provided for the upbuilding of the church. Thus thetongue/language in which the tongues-speaker speaks is to be

understood; if it is not understood, then an interpreter ortransistor is to be used so that it reaches its intended goal andfunctions for its designed purpose.

The other tw o arguments of Paul in 1 Cor 14:7, 8 comefrom two spheres where musical Instruments are used tocommunicate a message to others. Musical instruments,whether flute or harp, may produce an ordered sequence ofdistinguishable notes, i.e., a recognizable tune, and thus may

speak to a person's very soul. "An aimless jangle meansnothing."98 A soldier must recognize whether the trumpetis blown for the purpose of calling advance or retreat, if it isto be of any use.

The issue is intelligibility and unintelligibility. What goodis there in speaking in a tongue itself, if it is unintelligible tothose for whom it is intended? It does not serve its

designated purpose. Speaking in a tongue/language is toserve the purpose of being intelligible.

The aim of these examples is clear. The decisive point isthat the meaning of what is spoken be comprehensible fromthe "sounds" made. The purpose is that the content of themessage can be taken up into the hearers' consciousness andappropriate actions may follow. But these characteristics are

absent from the one who "utters by the tongue speech" (1Cor 14:9). This "speech" (/ógos) is "not clear" (eusemon) or"distinct" or "easily recognizable."99 It has been pointed outthat this speaking in tongues "was not a matter merely ofstammering, but the inspired person in the church at Corinthspoke a language which was unintelligible to most of the

others."100Due to the fact that it could not be understood by others,

it could not bring about its desired results. Therefore, he who




is speaking ¡n a tongue/language ¡s "speaking into the air" (1Cor 14:9). The latter expression was proverbial101 and

meant that if no ¡nterpretation is provided such speaking doesnot profit the hearers. "The other man is not edified" (1 Cor14:17), says Paul later. The only one edified is the speakerhimself (1 Cor 14:4), but this is not the purpose for which thegift of tongues was bestowed.

Paul's third illustration comes from the realm of humancommunication (1 Cor 14:10-12). All kinds of humanlanguages were spoken at the commercial and politicalmetrópolis of Corinth with its two adjoining harbors, "anddifference of language was a frequent barrier to commonaction. Moreover, it was well known how exasperating itcould be for two intelligent persons to be unintelligible to oneanother." 102

Paul writes, "How many different kinds of sounds103there are, or may be, in the world" (vs. 10, NEB), but no

race104 is "speechless [aphonon]"'105 (vs. 10b). The ¡deaof vs. 10 is that there are so many kinds of speeches, sounds,and languages in the world and that no man knows them all.On the basis of this picture Paul proceeds to show that if aperson does not know the meaning of the speech in whichhe/she is addressed, "I shall be to the one who speaks abarbarían [foreigner, NRSV], and the one who speaks will be

a barbarían [foreigner, NRSV] to me" (vs. 11, NASB).The designation "barbarían" is an onomatopoeic termused for a person who speaks a strange language, i.e., he isa non-Greek person, simply a "foreigner."106 The idea isthat the language of a Greek person was "Greek" to anyonewho did not understand it and vice versa; the language of a"foreigner" was "Greek" in the sense of being foreign to thenative Greek speaker, who did not have any knowledge of thelanguage of the "foreigner." Paul's remark recalls the self-pitying complaint of Ovid while in exile on the Black Sea: "Iam a barbarían here because no one understands me, and thestupid Getae laugh at my Latín speech."107 This illustrationregarding the "foreigner" reveáis once again that in 1 Cor 14Paul means language when he writes about "tongue."

Paul's illustration indicates that if someone gives a speech

in a language which is not understood by the hearer, no




meaningful communication takes place. This he applies to the

situation ¡n the church at Corinth. He acknowledges (vs. 12)the eagerness of the Corinthians for spiritual gifts(,pneumatikon).108 He himself had just urged them "todesire the spiritual gifts" (vs. 1). However, if no meaningfulcommunication takes place by means of a "revelation orknowledge or prophecy or teaching" (vs. 6), ¡t ¡s not servingits specific public purpose of building up the church (vs. 12).

Paul does not condemn speaking in tongues, but he points

out its limitation when it ¡s not understood and when it doesnot serve its designed purpose in upbuilding the church.

Repeatedly Paul emphasizes that the spiritual gifts,whether speaking in tongues or prophecy or any other gift, areto have one primary function and that is the "building up" ofthe church (1 Cor 14:3, 5, 12, 26). This recapitulates theargument of Paul in 14:1-5. Paul exhorts the church member

who has the gift of speaking tongues/languages to build upand to edify the church and to refrain from self-edification.

10. TONGUES-SPEAKING AS A SIGN

FOR UNBELIEVERS

In 1 Cor 14:20-25 Paul comes to speak for the first timeabout the impression gained by unbelievers when they entera church assembly and hear church members simultaneouslyspeaking in tongues. The reaction of the unbelievers will notbe favorable. "If, therefore, the whole church comes togetherand all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter,will not they say you are out of your mind?" (1 Cor 14:23,NRSV). Paul appears to be describing a hypothetical case forthe sake of ¡Ilustraron.109

The "all" that speak in tongues in vs. 23 can hardly meanthat every single member of the Corinthian congregaronspoke in tongues, because the word "all" is used again in thecase of prophesying in vs. 24, where it is used approvinglywith regard to this gif t.110 If the word "all" means looselythat there were many who spoke in tongues, then the

impression is left that various members spoke in tongues andwhat was said could not be understood by "outsiders or




unbelievers," because there was too much confusión from thesimultaneous speaking of foreign languages.

The "outsiders" (Greek idiotai) mentioned here in 1 Cor14:23 are neither Christians from other congregations ñor arethey catechumen of the Corinthian church.111 Light is shed

on this group of people by the present context. It mentionsthem in combination with "unbelievers" (Greek apistoi). Thelatter term is self-explanatory. Since the "outsiders" arementioned together with the "unbelievers" the "outsiders"

seem to be non-Christians.112 The term "outsider" is theobjective description of the one who is not a Christian and thedesignaron "unbeliever" may denote a person's subjectiveexperience to what has been communicated from thegospel.113

These "outsiders or unbelievers" may be of Greek or non-Greek background. These two terms do not specify whether

they are only Greek or also non-Greek foreigners. They arenot to be construed as identical with the "foreigner" (Greekbarbaros) of vs. 11. The picture that Paul draws is clear. Ifunbelieving outsiders, on entering a church meeting, hear themembers of the congregation speak in tongues or languageswhich they do not know, they may conclude that the speakersare "mad" (NASB) or "out of your mind" (NKJV, NRSV).

The Greek word used for "mad" or "out of your mind" is

mainesthe. It can refer to a person who has broughtincredible news (Acts 12:15) as a statement of surprise. Heis called "mad/out of his mind." Paul protested in his defensebefore Festus that he was not "out of his mind" (Acts 26:25).These examples, in which the same term is employed, indícatethat this word does not refer to madness in the sense ofinsanity as such.

There is a twofold line of connection between thispassage in 1 Cor 14:22, 23 and Acts 2:13. The first pertainsto the reaction of unbelievers when exposed to speaking intongues. In Acts 2:13 a particular group charged mockinglythat the ones speaking foreign languages were drunk. This isstated by those who could not (and/or did not want to)understand what the disciples on the Day of Pentecost were

saying. Here in 1 Cor 14:23 Paul warns that the unbelieveror outsider might be adversely affected, if he listens to what




he does not understand in a disorderly church Service.The picture that Paul draws of such a church Service may

be depicted in the following way. If a member of theCorinthian church would speak in a tongue/language (Coptic,

for instance), and there were no "outsiders or unbelievers"who would know this tongue/language, how would theoutsider know what is said (1 Cor 14:9) and how would Godbe benefitted? And if another tongues-speaker arises to speakthe language of the Nabateans simultaneously, and a third one

to speak a language of the Parthians, and so on, unbelievingoutsiders, visitors to the church, would listen to them, butsince they speak simultaneously and since outsiders wouldnot necessarily understand any of these languages, theywould be led to conclude that these people are "mad."

Paul's yardstick for the evaluation of spiritual gifts,particularly tongues, is the edification or building up of thechurch. Since such usage of tongues/languages as Pauldescribed does not produce a positive result in unbelievingoutsiders, they are neither "convicted" and "called toaccount" (1 Cor 14:24) ñor are "the secrets of the heart. . .disclosed" (1 Cor 14:25a). Thus the purpose of speaking intongues/languages, namely building up the church, is notachieved. The unbelieving outsider is not "falling on his face,. . . [does not] worship God and declare that God is really

among you" (1 Cor 14:25b). This is the crucial end resultthat is to be achieved. It is the very purpose of tongues-speaking. The "outsiders or unbelievers" are to be brought toconversión and ought to acknowledge and worship God. Butif they cannot understand what is being said, what good is it?How can it achieve its God-given purpose? How can it buildup the church?

Paul notes with emphasis that these things areaccomplished by prophecy, but should also be accomplishedby speaking in tongues. The decisive criterion remains the"building up" of the church. Paul is at pains to make clearthat speaking in tongues is an activity engaged in for thechurch. It is to have a positive effect for the mission andadvancement of the church.114 It is to contribute to thechurch's growth.

The second direct connection of tongues-speaking in 1




Cor 14 with Acts 2:1-13; 10:45-46; and 19:1-6 pertains tothe ultímate aím of speaking in tongues. It ¡s to serve the

mission and the evangelistic thrust of the church, namely, thewítness to and the conversión of the "outsider or unbeliever."Therefore, Paul insists that tonguse-speaking ¡s not a sígn forbelievers (vs. 20). Speaking in tongues/languages was notgiven to be a prívate, personal matter as such; it is rather amatter of a spiritual gift whose real purpose could only berealized if it would result in the "building up" of the church by

bringing "outsiders and unbelievers" to conversión and theworship of the true God.Paul makes the point that "tongues are a sign not for

believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not forunbelievers but for believers” (vs. 22, RSV). The Greektextis actually even more precise. It does not say that "tonguesare a sign," but that they "are for a sign." This means thattongues are intended to serve the purpose of a sign.115

They have the function of a sign.The word "sign" (Greek semeion) has a particular

significance in the New Testament. It is primarily a tokenwhich has behind it a particular message to be conveyed (cf.John 20:30, 31). The gift of tongues has a particular object.It has a specific function and intention as a sign for"unbelievers" who may be either Jews (Acts 18:1-17; 1 Cor

14:21) or Gentiles.116 Though Paul does not explicitly Statewhat kind of "sign" it would be, the context helps in definingits function and purpose.

1 Cor 14:21 is closely connected with the followingverse. In vs. 22 Paul uses a citation somewhat freely takenfrom Isa 28:11.117 He writes, "In the Law it is written,'With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this

people; And yet for all that, they will not hear me,' says theLord" (vs. 21, NKJV). What point does Paul make with thiscitation from the Oíd Testament?

A detailed study would be needed, but space does notallow it to be done extensively now. The context in Isaiahindicates that the men with the "other tongues" are the Assyrians. The designaron "other tongues" is the compoundGreek term heteroglóssois, which is ¡ncorrectly rendered into

English as "strange tongues" (NASB, NRSV, etc). In the




Greek of Paul's day ¡t actually refers to a "foreignlanguage"118 and is so to be understood here. The "otherlips” and the "foreign tongues" are, ¡n the words of WayneGrudem, "the lips and tongues of foreign (Assyrian)invaders,"119 whom the hearers will not understand. TheHebrew hearers do not know the "foreign languages" of theseinvading Assyrian forces .

This quotation makes some important points that cannotescape our attention. First of all, ¡t refers to "foreignlanguages" as a means of communication which hearers do

not understand. This comparison is revealing, because ¡tseems to imply that what is happening in Corinth is the same."Foreign languages" are brought in by means of the tongues-speakers, but they do not bring about the desired results sincethey cannot be understood by the hearers. Paul makes thepoint that in the past God used other languages with apurpose. He used the Assyrians to speak to the Israelites,

who did not understand the languages spoken by them. Theyneeded a translator. Now God uses the gift oftongues/languages to convince the unbelievers that the Gospelmessage bears the signet of Heaven.120

The second point is unusually important. Behm Statesthat "tongues are a legitímate sign of overwhelming power(14:22)."121 To some who will be convinced and convictedamong the "unbelievers" to whom this sign of speaking intongues is directed, it will be a sign of salvation, but to otherswho refuse to listen, it will be a sign of judgment.122 Thisdual result on the part of unbelievers is after all dependent ontheir own reaction to the message which is to come to themthrough those speaking in tongues.123

In this case again it appears that there is a connectionwith tongues in Acts 2. Many were saved but others refused

to listen and turned in derision against those who spoke intongues. The mission purpose of tongues is againemphasized: Tongues are to be for a "sign" by whichunbelievers are confronted with the Good News. They revealthemselves in the way they react to what they hear either bybecoming believers or by rejecting the gospel invitation. It isthe intention of the gift of tongues/languages that there will

not be a false reaction (1 Cor 14:23). Therefore, there must




be certain requirements of order and so on which will makethis spiritual gift most effective. One of them is

interpretation. We shall turn our attention to this next.

11. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND INTERPRETATION

How can tongues--wh¡ch are not readily understood bythe members of the church and certainly not by unbelievingoutsiders for whom they are primarily intended--be made toserve the church for their intended missionary purpose?Paul's consistent answer is that ¡f no one in the congregationunderstands what is said in tongues, then "let one interpret"(1 Cor 14:27). This counsel is specific. If speaking intongues is to benefit the believing community, and especiallythe unbelieving outsider, that is, if tongues-speaking is usedfor its appointed purpose--which is the edification and the

building up of the church (vss. 3, 5, 12, 26)~then the speaker"in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret" (vss. 13,15),124 or some other member of the church is to "interpret"(vss. 27-28). As a matter of fact, "interpretation" is also aspiritual gift (1 Cor 12:10, 30).125

In our attempt to determine the nature of tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 12-14, and what Paul understood ¡t to be,

we must also determine the exact meaning of the term"interpret" as used by Paul. In 1 Cor 12-14 Paul employstheGreek verb diermeneuein, "interpret," four times (1 Cor12:30; 14:5, 13, 27).

This same verb is employed outside of the NewTestament in 2 Mace 1:36. In this text it has the meaning "totransíate" a Hebrew term into a Greek term.126 In the NewTestament the same word is also used with the meaning "totransíate" in Acts 9:36.127 The meaning "to transíate" anormal language into another normal and known language istypical for the usage of this verb inside the New Testamentand outside of it.128

Paul employs the Greek noun hermeneía, "interpretation,"tw o times in 1 Cor 12-14 (1 2:10; 14:26). This noun is notemployed elsewhere in the New Testament. This term

appears three times in the Septuagint. In two of the three




usages ¡t means "translation" (Dan 5:1; Prologue to Sirach,14),129 and once it means "satire" (Sirach 47:17).

Paul once uses the Greek noun diermeneutés (1 Cor14:28) which is usually translated "¡nterpreter" in EnglishBibles. It is a word that is not known in the Greek languageoutside of the New Testament until it appears again centurieslater, in Byzantine writers. The standard Greek-Englishdictionary by W. Bauer gives the meanings for 1 Cor 14:28"¡nterpreter/ translator."130 In the Septuagint of Gen 42:23the cognate term hermeneutés is rendered as

"transla to r/ '131 A study of the Greek verb hermeneueín and its cognates

in the Septuagint and New Testament,132 apart from theseven usages in 1 Cor 12-14, reveáis that in nineteen of thetwenty-one cases it refers to "translation."133 Thisevidence134 warrants the conclusión that the terms used byPaul for "interpreting" speaking in tongues carry with them,

in the words of Professor J. G. Davies, "the strong suggestionof translatihg a foreign language."135

This conclusión of "interpretation," meaning "translating"speaking in tongues is further supported by Paul's quotationof Isa 28:1 1 in 1 Cor 14:21. As we have seen above, the

Assyrians w ill speak to the Israelites in "foreign languages,"because the latter rejected the plain and clear message of the

prophets in their own Hebrew language.To this ¡s to be added that 1 Cor 14:10, 11, in which one

does not uhderstand a speaker of a foreign language, carrieswith it the emphasis that foreign languages are involved.Even a scholar such as Behm, who suggests that "in Corinth

. . . glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance,"136 isforced to note that "an impression is left of speaking inforeign languages (14:10 f 21 )."137 This is not only animpression, it is a very strong case that Paul made through

the choice of the terms he employed.We need to address the issue that the Book of Acts

makes no mention of the "interpretation/translation" issuewhich is important in 1 Cor 12-14. In Acts 2 no translationis needed because there were hearers in the crowd for whomthese tongues were native languages in which the tongues-

speakers spoke the Good News to them. In 1 Cor 12-14 the




situation is different not because the Corinthian Christiansspeak in unintelligible glossolalia,138 but because there areno hearers who speak the languages spoken by those who areengaged in tongues-speaking. The tongue-speaker whospeaks a language not understood by the hearers needs atranslator. Although Luke in Acts does not refer to the clusterof words connected with hermeneia, "translation," in hisreports of tongues-speaking, he nevertheless uses one wordfrom this cluster for the idea of translation from one languageto another. In Acts 9:36 it is stated that "a certain disciple

[is] named Tabitha, which istranslated [diermeneuo] Dorcas"(NKJV). Thus Acts supports the idea that the cluster ofwords based on hermeneia means to "¡nterpret" in the senseof "transíate."

On the basis of our investigation of alleged parallels oftongues-speaking with phenomena in Greekreligions, we havecome to recognize that there are no true parallels for the New

Testament phenomenon. On the one hand, there is noglossolalia of unintelligible speech known in these religionswhich any scholar has been able to document and, on theother hand, there is no miraculous speaking of normal foreignlanguages known in them either. Our investigation of theterminology for "interpretation" in the New Testament andoutside of the New Testament favors the conclusión thattongues-speaking in Corinth is the miraculous speaking ofunlearned foreign languages.

It is appropriate at this time to return to the diviner ormantic (called mantis139 in Greek enthusiastic religions) whoutters obscure and dark sayings without seemingly beingcapable of assessing what he sees and says. He is joined bya person called sophron,140 a self-controlled man whostands at his side, prays,141 and then proceeds to give the

"exegesis" (Greek exegetai) of the pronouncements andvisions.142 There is a decisive difference in the languageused by Paul in his choice of words for "translating" or"interpreting," which is not duplicated in Hellenisticenthusiastic religions. For his emphasis on "translating" or"interpreting", Paul does not use the language of thephenomena in these religions where the term "exegesis"

appears. Does the difference between the terminology of




Greek enthusiastic cults and the terminology used by Paul notsuggest that Paul is ¡ndeed speaking about somethlng which

dlffers fundamentally from the phenomena of enthusiasts inpagan religions? One can hardly avoid this conclusión.

14. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND PROPHECY

It may be helpful to investígate first how Paul's language

and emphasis differed from that of phenomena of paganreligious cults of his day when it come to the topic ofprophecy.

In both the cult of Delphi and the cult of Dionysus manticdivination is identified as prophesying.143 Paul, on the otherhand, makes a clear distinction between "prophecy" and"speaking in tongues." They are completely sepárate spiritual

gifts (1 Cor 12:8-11, 28-31; 14:1-5).144 A crucial distinction appears also with regard to thepossession of the spirit (Greek pneúma). In Dionysianpossession the sacred spirit comes "when the god fully entersthe body [and] he gives the ecstatic power to declare thethings to come [in the fu tu re]."145 The "spirit" in 1Corinthians is not called "sacred" (Greek hiereu) as in the cultof Dionysus.146 It is called "holy" (Greek hagion) as in allof Paul's writings and notably in 1 Cor 6:19; 12:3 (cf. 10:1-22; 12:4-13). Paul distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the spiritof paganism by his use of a decisively different adjective.

The goal of the orgiastic Bacchic nights ismainesthai,147 "to be out of one's mind." This is theopposite of what Paul desires for the one speaking in tongues(1 Cor 14:23). Let it be said clearly that those who seek to

interpret 1 Cor 14 with the aid of ecstatic cults of Hellenismare forced-against the distinctions stressed by Paul--totransfer phenomena of pagan mantic "prophecy"148 onto theones speaking in tongues in Corinth. But the two experiencesare completely sepárate and distinct from each other.

The designation for the frenzied phenomena of the god Apollo at the shrine of Delphi is "divine frenzy" (Greek theia

manía).149 In this State of mantic frenzy a revelation fromthe gods will comes forth in oracular words, but still in normal




language. Likewise with the Sibyls who engaged ¡n prophecy.These women, when caught up in sudden trances, changed

color, had dishevelled hair, panting breasts, foaming mouths,and engaged ¡n frantic gestures.150 They uttered mysticsayings in oracular form. These pagan ecstatic phenomenaare part and parcel of heathen "prophecy" or divination, butno glossolalic experience is ever recorded or hinted at ¡n thesepagan religions.

As regards the Pythia's trance-like State in the oracle atDelphi, E. R. Dodds notes that "the god entered ¡nto her andused her vocal organs as if they were his own, exactly as thesorcalled 'control' does in modern spirit-mediumship."151The picture of the Delphic oracle drawn by this scholar is thesame as in medium-possession in spiritualism. This is, ofcourse, not what we discover to be the case in the NewTestament in general or in 1 Cor 12-14 in particular.

N. Engelsen, following others,152 maintains that

speaking in tongues and prophecy in Corinth are not distinct.This is important for him, because there is no special word forunintelligible inspired speech in ancient Greek. From thisEngelsen postulates that intelligible and unintelligible inspiredspeech were not distinguished in Christian times andbefore.153 He also concludes that speaking in tongues inCorinth is the result of a trance State and that tongues-

speaking is thus an ecstatic experience of unintelligiblespeech, or glossolalia.154These suggestions by Engelsen have been refuted by

studies indicating that New Testament prophecy is not theresult of a trance experience.155 Paul, it must be noted,does not link tongues-speaking to any trance experience. Heavoids any such association. Both prophecy and tongues arespiritual gifts; they are sepárate from each other, but theyderive from the same Holy Spirit source. Prophecy is the giftthe Corinthians are to strive for more than tongues (1 Cor14:1).

13. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND PRAYER

The phrase to "to speak . . . with my mind" in 1 Cor




14:19 deserves attention. Invs. 19 "speaking with my mind"is not contrasted with "speaking with my sp irit"156 but with"speaking in tongues."157 The term "mind" (noüs) refers to

the thinking, reasoning, reflective, and purposing aspect ofman's consciousness. It is part of man's ¡ntellectual nature assuch.158 It is evident then that Paul intended to say that ina congregation he would rather speak a few words withrpan's rational, reflective, and purposing aspect for the sakeof building up the members of the church than many words ina "tongue/language" which does not communicate with them

because it is not understood.In 1 Cor 14:14 Paul States, "For if I pray in a tongue, my

spirit prays but my mind is unfru itful." Here and in thefollowing verse "mind" and "spirit" are contrasted. The words"my spirit" (vs. 14) and simply "spirit" (Greek pneuma) in vs.15 are best understood to be "the Holy Spirit as given tome."'59 It is the divine Spirit at work in the individual.160

The prayer spoken in "a tongue" is Spirit-given just astongues-speaking itself is a gift of the same Spirit. As it iswith prayer so it is with singing (vs. 15). Both "to pray" and"to sing" in "a tongue" are Holy Spirit derived. The HolySpirit provides the "tongue/language" and by means of thattongue/language the Holy Spirit provides either prayer orsinging.

The two texts (vss. 14, 15) under discussion do not limit

tongues-speaking to prayer and singing. But neither do thesetexts affirm that prayer and singing produced with tongues-speaking are only for the tongue-speaker alone. Uninterpretedand untranslated Spirit-inspired tongue-speaking may edify thetongue-speaker (vs. 4), but in the assembly of the churchwhere this gift manifests itself the one who "prays" and"sings" in a tongue/language does so to bring a blessing to

others who are to give their assent by their "Amen" (vs. 16).But if the ones attending the church Service do "not knowwhat you are saying" (vs. 16), then the purpose of tongues-speaking is unfulfilled, that is, "the other man is not edified"(vs. 17). The edification of the church is primary.

What does it mean for the "mind to be unfruitful" (1 Cor14:14) when a tongues-speaker prays or sings in a

tongue/language? Paul insists, "I shall pray with the spirit [i.e.




Holy Spirit which ¡s ¡n him] and I shall pray with the mindalso; I shall sing with the spirit [i.e. Holy Spirit which is ¡n him]

and I shall sing with the mind also" (vs. 15).The term "mind” in these texts is a translation of the

Greek word noüs, a rich term with twenty-four usages, ofwhich twenty-one are in Paul's letters. The point that Paul ismaking in 1 Cor 14:14, 15 is that the person who speaks ina tongue/language is not "out of his mind," rather he "retainshis noüs [mind] even though he is seized by the pneüma

[Spirit]. The noüs [mind] is present, though inactive."161Does Paul not stress the idea that when completecommunication takes place, the mind is to function? It hasbeen emphasized that "it must not be overlooked thatspeaking w ith the mind is also a work of the Holy Spirit."162There is thus no contrast between the work of the Holy Spiritand the functioning of the human rational capacity of themind.

It appears that the context of 1 Cor 14:14, 15 is again ofprimary significance in the understanding of these texts. It isunwise to interpret them by means of philosophical orHellenistic religious backgrounds.163 In vs. 13 Paul writes,"Therefore let the one who speaks in a tongue pray that hemay interpret." Paul says that speaking in a tongue is fromthe Spirit. "For ¡f I pray in a tongue, my spirit [the Holy Spirit

which is in me] prays, but my mind is unfruitfu l." For the"mind" to become fruitful, it seems, means thatinterpretation/translation is to take place. Through"interpretation/translation" thechurch is edified (vs. 12). This

is precisely the point of vs. 16 also, where the ungifted is tosay "Amen," but is unable to do so, because "he does notknow what you are saying.” If there is "translation" of the

tongue/language, then "the other man" is "edified" (vs. \7). In the context, the issue remains the matter of understandingwhat is said and the matter of the edificaron of the church.

14. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND ORDERLY WORSHIP

Two mistakesare made regarding tongues-speaking; bothmust be avoided. One is to overemphasize the importance of




"speaking in tongues." Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals ofthe charismatic renewal movement are bound together by thecommon bond of glossolalia. They identify speaking in

tongues with glossolalia and place unusual emphasis on thispractice for the believer. Such emphasis does not harmonizewith the rarity of the gift depicted in the New Testament.The other mistake ¡s the opposite tendency to deprecíate thePauline and Lukan passages of the New Testament ontongues-speaking,164 in order to attack the charismaticrenewal movements and Pentecostalism of today.

The careful student of Scripture will be aware of thesetemptations and attempt fully to let the Biblical text speak foritself. We have seen from many angles and variousconsiderations-'linguistic, terminológica!, contextual,exegetical, comparative, and so on--that Paul ¡s bestunderstood when one does not equate speaking in tongueswith glossolalia. The manifold reasons for this are stated inthe various sections above.

Paul stresses repeatedly that tongues-speaking originatesfrom the Holy Spirit just as any other spiritual gift (1 Cor12:10 f., 28, 30; 14:1 ff.).

Paul does not consider "speaking in tongues" at Corinthas a counterfeit manifestation.165 First, Paul wants all ofthe Corinthians believers "to speak in tongues" (1 Cor 14:5b).Paul's criterion for measuring the valué of prophecy and

tongues is the edification and building up of the church (1 Cor14:4, 5, 26).

Secondly, Paul commands, "Do not forbid speaking intongues" (1 Cor 14:39).166 He warns of its misuse andprovides rules for its proper use.

In the second part of 1 Cor 14 Paul writes on a subject ofmajor concern. The gift of tongues-speaking should be

regulated and not be misused for selfish purposes. If there isno interpreter/translator in public meetings, it is best to keep"silent in the church," because in this case the tongues-speaker speaks only "to himself and God" (1 Cor 14:28).

This cali for orderly worship does not mean that thisspiritual gift is to be hindered by prohibiting its practice. Paulthus continúes to maintain that legitímate "speaking intongues" has a legitímate place, if its proper function and




designed purpose are maintained.Thirdly, Paul thanks God "that I speak in tongues more

than you all" (1 Cor 14:18). This affirmative reference provesthat Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, himself possessed thegift of speaking ¡n tongues. One cannot help but be reminded¡mmediately of Peter, the apostle to the Jews, who alsopossessed the gift as it was manifested at Pentecost (Acts2 :2 ff., 14 f f 10:46; 11:15). Is this not another link betweenthe gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14?

If Paul were to speak in 1 Cor 14 about a counterfeit gift,it would be most incongruous for him to daré to claim that itcomes from the Holy Spirit, should be desired, and that hepossesses it himself. This can hardly be inspired diplomacythrough which Paul put himself on the same level as JheCorinthians in order to bring them to higher ground. Paulsurely wants to bring them to a regulated, proper use and aright purpose in their practice of speaking in tongues.

Although Paul speaks in tongues more than all theCorinthians, and thus as a missionary to Gentile peoples andnations he has much use for this gift, he says that "in thechurch I would rather speak five words167 with my mind, inorder to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue"(1 Cor 14:19). Though Paul has the occasion more often tospeak in tongues,168 his primary concern is "to instruct

others" in the church. This is an application of the criterion ofthe building up of the church. Paul knows that 10,000 wordsspoken in a tongue/language not understood in a givencongregaron will not profit that church. By contrast, a shortmessage that is understood will achieve the goal of anyspeech in church, namely its edification.

Paul shows that the gift of tongues in Corinth is genuine

but misused, for it does not fulfill its designed purpose ofbuilding up the church. Accordingly Paul introduces regulatingprincipies which would assure and maintain orderly worship (1Cor 14:26-28):

1) All things should be done for edification, namely thebuilding up of the church (vs. 26). This is the basic principieof the entire instruction on tongues in 1 Cor 14, which wehave explored above.

2) There should be only tw o or three speakers in tongues,




"at most three" (vs. 27). This restriction indicates that therewere larger numbers of tongues-speakers in Corinth. Paul

scales down the number of tongues-speakers ¡n the churchService to at most three.

3) Tongues-speaking should by done "by course" (KJV),or "each [shall speak] ¡n turn" (RSV, NRSV), or "one at atime" (NEB, NIV), or "one after the other" (TEV) as vs. 27indicates. Paul establishes a regulation that there shall besequential order and not simultaneous tongues-speaking.

There shall not be more than one tongues-speaker at onetime.4) There should be an ¡nterpreter/translator present so

that the matter spoken in a tongue/language in the churchmay be translated and all be blessed and edified by it (vs. 27)

5) If there is no transistor available, tongues-speakersshould keep silent in the church, and speak to themselves and

to God (vs. 28).Evidently the orderliness of the Service is to contribute to

the worship attitude of the entire congregaron. The God tobe worshiped is a God of order (1 Cor 14:40). He is "not aGod of confusión but of peace" (vs. 33). This instruction onliturgical order in worship is given for "all the churches of thesaints" (vs. 33). It is universal for all early Christian churchesand for all churches in the future. Paul's teaching is still valid

and carries its own Biblical authority for today.

15. CONCLUSIONS

The contextual study of 1 Cor 12-14 which we haveengaged in throughout this chapter gives full support to the

identity of terminology and usage of tongues-speaking in theentire New Testament. The above study has shown that it issound to consider speaking in tongues as the same spiritualgift throughout the whole New Testament. It is mostreasonable to conclude that tongues-speaking throughout theNew Testament is the same gift of miraculously speaking

unlearned foreign languages.169Undeniable links bind together the entire New Testament

phenomena of speaking in tongues ¡nto one unbreakable




chain.

1. Jesús predicted that believers "w ill speak with new

tongues" (Mark 16:17). This was fuifilled not only atJerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, but also in such othermetropolitan centers as Caesarea ¡n Judah, Ephesus ¡n AsiaMinor, and Corinth in Greece. Each of these cities was madeup of inhabitants and visitors that were separated by languagebarriers. People from many countries and regions, eachhaving their own native tongues, would pass through theseplaces. Jesús not only commanded that the Good News

should be preached to all mankind but He also providedthrough the Holy Spirit the gift of miraculously speakingforeign languages to accomplish this goal and teach thesepeople of different language backgrounds the way of Christ.

2. According to Mark 16:17 Jesús stated that amongother things the speaking of new languages would be a "sign"(Greek seme/oo) in the sense of an occurrence that is contrary

to the usual course of nature for those who would thus hearthe gospel message. It was to be a "sign" of a miracle forunbelievers that the commission was of divine origin. In 1Cor 14:22 Paul explains that "tongues are a sign (semeion)not for believers but for unbelievers." He makes the pointthat the gift of speaking foreign languages is to convince theunbelievers with overwhelming power that the proclamationof the kerygma bears the signet of heaven. Anyone who willbe convinced can gain salvation; for the person who deridesthis manifestation it will mean judgment.

3 . - In Acts 2:13 some contemptuously mocked thedisciples who were speaking in foreign languages by chargingthat they were drunk. Unbelieving outsiders might reactsimilarly, if they were to attend the disorderly tongues-speaking meeting of the church at Corinth. Paul notes that if

the tongues are not understood by the outsider, he may thinkthat the speakers are mad (1 Cor 14:23). False impressionscould arise and the genuine manifestation of speaking foreignlanguages could be misinterpreted.

4. This bring us to another link in the chain that connectsand unifies the New Testament phenomenon of speaking intongues, i.e., its purpose. The Risen Lord had connected the

speaking in tongues with the Great Commission to evangelize




the world (Mk 16:15-18). At Pentecost the first fruits of thepromise were experienced when 3,000 were added to the

infant church (Acts 2). Then the gift carne to the GentileChristians ¡ncorporating them in the task of evangelism both¡n Caesarea and Ephesus (Acts 10:45, 46; 19:1-6). In 1 Cor14 Paul emphasizes time and again that speaking in tonguesshould be used for the building up of the church (14:4, 5,12,26). This is why he says that this gift ¡s for unbelievingoutsiders. They too should be drawn into the fellowship ofbelievers and all should experience further growth in theirChristian experience and engage in evangelism.

5. Luke reports in Acts 19:6 that after the twelve"disciples" in Ephesus were converted and had received theHoly Spirit they were enabled to speak in tongues and theyalso prophesied. It is significant that here in Ephesus tonguesand prophecy are associated with Paul. This finds its directcorrespondence in 1 Cor 14 where Paul repeatedly speaks

about both. The link between prophecy and tongues isestablished by the fact that both are a manifestation of theHoly Spirit in Ephesus and Corinth. The cióse association oftongues and prophecy goes all the way back to the firstmanifestation of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost where Petertw ice referred to prophesying (Acts 2:17,18). However, Paulmakes it abundantly clear that the gift of tongues and the gift

of prophecy are two distinct spiritual gifts, by no meansidentical.6. It can hardly be accidental that the two great giants of

the early church, Peter and Paul, the proclaimers of the GoodNews to the Jews and the Gentiles respectively, are bothassociated in Acts with the manifestation of speaking intongues, about which Paul again speaks in 1 Cor 12-14. Godused those occasions and the prestige of these pillars of theearly Church in order to spread the Good News with tonguessupernaturally bestowed by the Holy Spirit.

7. Internal indications in 1 Cor 14 point strongly in thedirection of identifying speaking in tongues with the HolySpirit's supernatural ability of speaking foreign languages notlearned previously, as it had been ¡dentified explicitly in Acts2. The striking identity of terminology and linguistic usage of

the expression "speaking in tongues" both in Acts and 1 Cor




12-14 put this ¡dentification on sure footing.8. Other links between the Gospel of Mark, the Book of

Acts, and 1 Corinthians extend from the origin, nature,function, purpose, and persons ¡nvolved with the signcharacter of this spiritual gift. On this basis the NewTestament phenomenon of speaking in tongues in these threedocuments of the New Testament-Mark, Acts and 1Corinthians--is presented as one single spiritual gift ofspeaking unlearned languages bestowed for the purpose of

evangelizing the world. It was to demónstrate that God is onthe side of the infant church, to get it going, to break downbarriers between Jews and Gentiles, and to provide a token ofHis múltiple gifts for the upbuilding of the church as the bodyof Christ.

Our investigation into all major ramifications of the issueof "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament has revealedthat it is given by the Holy Spirit to believers for a specificpurpose and that it is His design that it should be used in thisway. We have seen as well that tongues-speaking in the NewTestament is not given to everyone, but to those whom theSpirit chooses. There is no command that every believer is toengage in tongue-speaking. There is no statement in the NewTestament that tongues-speaking is the key to greater spiritualpower. There is a statement that tongues-speaking should

cease (1 Cor 13:8). The specific meaning of this particularstatement is much debated. It has been argued that it wasonly needed in New Testament times (B. B. Warfield) and thattongues-speaking would cease in and of itself (M. F. Unger).

A truce proposal for the tongues controversy suggests thatcontemporary glossolalia should neither be sought ñor shouldit be forbidden. This compromise has found support from

various quarters. If any contemporary glossolalia is to beidentified with the New Testament gift of tongues-speaking,then it will have to be demonstrated that it matches the NewTestament definition and specifications for "speaking intongues," including its source, its purpose, its nature, itsorderliness, its outreach design and so on. The proof for this¡dentification cannot rest in personal experience or inecclesiastical approval, but must be securely grounded iníhetotal witness of Scripture on this subject. The Bereans "were




examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these thingswere so" (Acts 17:11). Every responsible Christian will dolikewise and hold on to that which is found to be sound onthe basis of Scripture.

ENDNOTES

I.See above Chapter I for details of these modern investigations.

2.The reader may wish to consult the representativo bibliographies in the following

dissertations: N. I. J. Engelsen, Glossolalia and O ther Forms o f Inspirad Speech

A ccord in g to 1 Cor. 12-1 4 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1970);

WilliamE. Richardson, Litúrg ica! Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthlans 14:26c -33a and

Its Implications (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1983).

3.See P. C. Millar, "In Praise of Nonsense," in ClasslcalMediterranean S pirituality, ed.

A . H. Armstrong (London, 1986); A. C. Thisel to n, " The 'In terpretar on ' of Tongues;

A New Suggestion in the Light of Greek Usage in Philo and Josephus," Journal o f

Theological Stud y 30 (197 9), 15-36.

4 . For a penetrating study on this by a former historical-oritioal scholar of major

standing, see Eta Linnemann, Wissenschaft oder Meinung? Anfragen und

A lternatlven (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hánssler Verlag, 198 6); Engl. translation by R. W.

Yarbrough, M storica l Criticism o f the Bible. Methodo logy or Ideology? (Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker, 1990).

5 . For a representativa listing of scho lars holding to this view , see the final note in this

chapter.

6.Strabo, Geography, VIII, vi, 20.

7 . H. S. Robinson, "Excavations at Ancient Corinth, 1 95 9-19 63 ," Klio, 46 (1965),

289f f .

8 . H. Conzelmann, Dar erste Korintha r (Gdttingen, 1969), p. 139; F. F. Bruce, 1 and

2 Corinthians (New Century Bible; London, 1971), p. 66.

9 . This is the mo st widely held date and is adoptad by Hom , Seventh-day A dv en tist

Bible Dictionary, p. 224; D. Guthrie, The Paulina Epistles. New Testament

Introduction (2nd ed.; London 1963). Earlier dates have been suggested recently by

C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, 1968), p. 8; "early

months of 54, or possibly even 53"; Conzelmann, Der erste Korinther, p. 16 n.31,

spring of 55; Bruce, 1 an d 2 Corinthians, p. 25, "probably A.D. 55."

10.So Bruce, 1 an d 2 Corinthians, p. 66.

11 .David L. Baker, "The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1 2-1 4," EvangélicaI Quarter/y

46 (1974) 228, writes, "In 12:1 tonpneumatikon has sometimos been taken to refer

to 'spiritual men' but more often to 'spiritual gifts' and, although either translation is

possible, the use in 14:1 and the parallelism with charismata (esp. 12:31) favor the

latter . . . ."

12.K. Maly, Mündige Gemeinde (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), p. 186.




13.See Wal ter F. Otto, Dionysius (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1939). Christian Wo lff , Dererste

Brief des Paulus an día Korinther "Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen

Testament, 7/II" (Berlín: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), pp. 98-99.

14.See above Chapter II.

15.Conzelmann, Dar erste Korinther, p. 246, rightly points out that in vs. 7 Paul's

emphasis is placed upon the words "common good."

16.lnterpreters of "tongues" are not included separately in this list, but they are

mentioned in 12:30.

17.1 Cor 12:10a, b, 28, 30; 13:1,8; 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 26,

27, 39.

18.1 Cor 12:10, 28; 14:6, 9, 13, 19, 26, 27, 39.

19.1 Cor 12:30; 13:8; 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 23.

20.Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Jou rnal o f Theological Study,

N.S. 17(1966), 299-307.

21 .C. M. Robeck, J r., " Tongues, Gi ft o f," The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia, ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 4:872.

22.See E. A. Nida and C. R. Tabor, The Theory and Practica o f T ranslation (Leiden:

E. J. Brill, 1969); Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living Wo rd o f God (Mountain

View, CA: Pacific Press, 1980), pp. 100-105.

23.1 Cor 12:10a, b, 28, 30.

24.24.1 Cor 13:1, 8.

25.1 Cor 14: 2, 4, 5a, b, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 26 , 27 , 39 .

26.1 Cor 12:30; 13:1; 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39.

27. Among those who have interpreted the term glóssa as ecstatic unintelligible

utterance are: C. Clemens, "The 'Speaking in Tongues' of the Early Christians,"

Expository Times 10 (1898/99), 344-352; Lindsay Dewar, "The Problem of

Pentecost," Theology 9 (1924), 249-259; W. S. Thomson, "Tongues at Pentecost,

Acts ii ," Expository Times 38 (1926/27), 284-286; F. C. Synge, "The Spirit in the

Pauline Epistles,” Church Quarterly fíeview 119 (1934), 79-93; Ira J. Martin,

"Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church," JBL 63 (1944), 123-130.

2 8 . L¡ddell and Sco tt, A Greek-English Lexicón, I, 353 . On thi s po int, see F. Lübker,

Reallexikon des klassischen A ltertum s (8th ed., 1914), 418f.

2 9 . Robert H. Gundry, " 'Ecstatic Utteranc e' (N.E.B.)?" Jou rnal o f Theological Study

17 (1966), 299-307.

3 0 . Lk 1:64; 16:24; Mk 7:33, 35; Acts 2:26; Ro 3:13; 14: 11; James 3:5f.; 1 Jn

3:18 ; 1 Cor 14:9; 1 Pet 3: 10 ; Rev 16:10.

31 .Acts 2:6, 11; Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13: 7; 14:6; 17:1 5.

3 2 . Gundry, " 'Ecstatic Utterance'," 2 99-302 .

3 3 . Ford, " Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues'," p. 277 .

3 4 . H. W. Beyer, " heteros," Theological Dictionary o f the N ew Testament, ed. G.

Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 2:703.




35.Delllng, Worshíp in the New Testament, p. 32: "Clearly glossais lalein is a

technical term (it is used without the article)."

36.Seo A. Blass, F. Debrunner and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar o f the N ew Testament

and O ther Early Christian Literatura (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1961),

p. 254 #480 (3), on Acts 2:4.

37. Engolsen, Glossolalia, pp. 92-93, 100, 161, 176, 191.

38 . L. Carlyle May, " A Su rv ey o f Glossolalia and Relatad Phenomenain Non-Christian

Rellglons," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research in Glossolalia, ed. Watson E.

Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 54. Mays deais wl th varlous ancient

phenomena which he sees parallel to glossolalia, but he ¡s unable to polnt to a single

direct analogy.39. J. Goettmann, "La Pentecote premíeos la nouvelle création," Bible et vie

chrétienne 27 (1959), 59-69.

40.See Rlchardson ¡n note 2 above.

41. J, Massyngbaerde Ford, "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues',”

Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 277.

4 2 . Theodor Zahn, Die Aposte lgesc hichte des Lucas (Lelpzlg/Erlangen, 1922), p. 104 .

4 3 . Arn dt, Glngrlch and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 162.

4 4 . David L. Baker, "The Interpretatlon of 1 Corlnthians 12-14," Evangélica!Quarterly

46/4 (1974), 230 n. 23, polnts out that Paul understood speaking in tongues

pro bably " to involve speaking ¡n foreign languages." He argües against the ecstatic

nature of speaking in tongues: "But the rules which Paul glves for the control of the

gift in 1 Cor 14 :2 6-33, tog ether with the experlence of those wh o exerclse ¡t,

indícate that it is something which ¡s under the indlvidual's control, and that ¡t should

not therefore be described as ecstatic" (pp. 229-30).

4 5 . W. Bousset as quoted by Behm, ' 'glóssa," 1 :726 n. 20. Reitzenstein also favors

thls derivation and assoclatlon, see Arndt, Glngrich and Danker, Greek-English

Lexicón o f the New Testament, p. 162 . See also Stuart D. Currie, "'Speaking in

Tongues' , ” Interpretation 19 (1965), 278-79, reprlnted in Speaking in Tongues. A

Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1986), pp. 91-92.

46.See Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 93.

47.So R. Thornhill, "The Testam ent of Job ," ¡n The Ap oc ryp ha l Oíd Testament, ed.

H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 618; R. P. Splttler,

"Testament of Job," The Oíd Testam ent Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Ap oc alyptic

Literatureand Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesw orth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,

1983), p. 829.

48. Translation of Thornton, p. 646. The renderlng of Splttler (see prevlous note),

"she spoke ecstatically ¡n the angelic dialect" (p. 866), ¡s ¡nexact.

49 . These translations are from Splttler, pp. 86 6-6 7.

50. Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 94.

5 1 . S o B r u c e , 1 a n d 2 C o r i n t h i a n s , p . 1 2 5 .




5 2 . Robertson and Plummer, First Corínthians, p. 314.

53 . The AV translation " though I speak" ¡s not supported by the Greek conditional

clause, unless ¡t is understood ¡n a subjunctive sansa, "though I should speak."

54. Conzelmann, Dar erste Korinther, p. 262 n. 27, says that "the language does not

require an equation o f speech of angels and speaking ¡n ton gues." E. Andrews,

"Tongues, Gift of," IDB (1962), 4:762, States with regard to this allegad equation:

"Thls is meanlngless speculatlon."

5 5 . Ford, " Tow ard a Theology of 'Speaking in Tong ues' ," p. 277.

56 . There is an interesting Western textual variant: " but the Spirit speaks.” Thls

varlant is not original but reflects an early understandlng of the original text. See K.

Aland, M. Black, B. Metzger and Al ien Wikgren, The Greek New Testament

(Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelgesellschaft, 1966), p. 608.

57 . NASB margin reads, "Or, by the Spirit .”

58.50 rightly Bruce, 1 and 2 Corínthians, p. 130; Barrett, The First Epistle to the

Corínthians, p. 315; F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day A dv en tist Bible Commentary, VI,

788: "That is, under the influence of the Spirit,. . ."

5 9 . G. Bornkamm, "musterion in the New Testament," Theological D ictionary o f the

New Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:817-24.

60 . G. W . Barker, " Mystery ," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G.

W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:453.

61 .Ibid.

62.Wolff, Der erste B rief des Paulos an die Korinther, p. 121.

63.50 R. E. Brown, "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion,"

Bíblica 39 (1958), 437.

64. Bornkamm, "mysterion in the New Testament," pp. 819-20.

65 . A. Robertson and A. Plu m m er,/) Critica! and Exegetical Com men tary on the First

Epistle to the Corínthians (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), p. 306.

66 . Willi am F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker, Greek-English

Lexicón o f the New Testament an d Other Early Chrístian Literature by W. Bauer (2nd

ed.; Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1979), p. 530.

6 7 . Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corínthians, p. 309.

6 8 . Arn dt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 326.

69. William G. MacDonald, "Glosso laliain the New Testam ent," Speaking in Tongues.

A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1986), p. 139.

7 0 . Arnd t, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, pp. 477-79.

71 .So Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 871.


7 3 . Alfred Ralphs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Württem bergis che Bibelanstalt, 1962),

1:15: ” deute ka l katabántes sugchéom en eke i autón ten glóssan, hiña mé akoúsosin

hékastos ten phonén toú plesíon."




35.Delling, Worship in the New Testament, p. 32: "Clearly glossais lalein ¡s a

technical term (it is usad without the article)."

36.Sea A. Blass, F. Debrunner and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar o f the New Testament

and O therE arly Christian Literatura (Chicago, IL: Univarsity of Chicago Press, 1961),

p. 254 #480 (3), on Acts 2:4.

37. Engelsen, Glossolalia, pp. 92-93, 100, 161, 176, 191.

3 8 . L. Carlyle May, " A Surv ey of Glossolalia and Relatad Phenomena in Non-Christian

Religions," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research in Glossolalia, ed.Watson E.

Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) , p. 54 . Mays deais wi th various ancient

phenomena wh ich he seas parallel to glossolalia, but he is unable to point to a single

direct analogy.

39. J. Goettmann, "La Pentecote premices la nouvelle création," Bible et vie

chrétienne 27 (1959), 59-69.

40.See Richardson in note 2 above.

41. J. Massyngbaerde Ford, "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues',"

Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 277.

4 2 . Theodor Zahn, DieA postelgesc hichte des Lucas (Leipzig/Erlangen, 192 2), p. 104.

4 3 . Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 162.

4 4 . David L. Baker, " The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1 2-14," Evangélica! Qu arterly

46/4 (1974), 230 n. 23, points out that Paul understood speaking in tongues

pro bably " to involve speaking in foreign langu ages." He argües against the ecstatic

natura of speaking in tongues: "But the rules which Paul gives for the control of the

gift in 1 Cor 14 :26-33 , together with the experience of those who exercise it,

indícate that it is something which is under the individuaos control, and that it should

not therefore be described as ecstatic" (pp. 229-30).

4 5 . W. Bousset as quoted by Behm, "glóssa ," 1 :7 26 n. 20. Reitzenstein also favors

this derivation and association, see Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, Greek-English

Lexicón o f the New Testament, p. 162. See also Stuart D. Currie, " 'Speaking in

Tongues' ," Interpretation 19 (1965), 278-79, reprinted in Speaking in Tongues. A

Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1986), pp. 91-92.

46.See Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 93.

4 7 .So R. Thornhill, " The Testament of Job ," in The Ap oc rypha ! Oíd Testament, ed.

H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984), p. 618; R. P. Spittler,

"Testament of Job," The Oíd Testam ent Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: Ap oc alyptic

Literatura and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesw orth (Garden City, NY: Doub leday,

1983), p. 829.

48. Translation o f Thornto n, p. 646. The rendering of Spitt ler (see previous note),

"sha spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect" (p. 866), is inexact.

49 . These translations are from Spittler, pp. 86 6-67 .

50. Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 94.

5 1 . S o B r u c e , 1 a n d 2 C o r i n t h i an s , p . 1 2 5 .




5 2 . Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, p. 314.

53 . The AV translation " though I speak” is not supported by the Greek conditional

clause, unless ¡t is understood in a subjunctive sense, "though I should speak."

54. Conzelmann, Der erste Korinther, p. 262 n. 27, says that "the language does not

require an equation of speeoh of angels and speaking in ton gues." E. Andrews,

"Tongues, Gift of," IDB (1962), 4:762, States with regard to this alleged equation:

"This is meaningless speoulation."

5 5 . Ford, "Tow ard a Theology of 'Speaking in Ton gu es',” p. 277.

56. There is an interesting Western textual variant: " but the Spirit speaks." This

varian t is not original but reflects an early understanding o f the original text. See K.

Aland, M. Black, B. Metzger and Al ien Wikgren , The Greek New Testament

(Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelgesellschaft, 1966), p. 608.

5 7 . NASB margin reads, "Or, by the Spirit."

58.50 rightly Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 130; Barrett, The First Epistle to the

Corinthians, p. 315; F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day A dve n tist Bible Commentary, VI,

788: "That is, under the influence of the Spirit,. . ."

5 9 . G. Bornkamm, "musterion in the New Testament,” Theological D ictionary o f the

New Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:817-24.

6 0 . G. W. Barker, " Mys tery," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G.

W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:453.

61 .Ibid.

62.Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, p. 121.

63.50 R. E. Brown, "The Semitio Background of the New Testament Mysterion,"

Bíblica 39 (1958), 437.

64 . Bornkamm, ” mysterion in the New Testament," pp. 819-20.

6 5 . A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Crítica! and E xegetical C ommentary on the F irs t

Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1914), p. 306.

66 . William F. Arnd t, F. Wilbur Gingrioh and Frederick W. Danker, Greek-English

Lexicón o f the Ne w Testament and Other Early Chrístian U terature by W. Bauer (2nd

ed.; Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1979), p. 530.

6 7 . Robertson and Plummer, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 309.

6 8 . Arndt, Gingrioh and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 326.

69 . William G. MaoDonald, "Glossolalia in the New Testam ent," Speaking in Tongues.

A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1986), p. 139.

7 0 . Arndt, Gingrioh and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, pp. 477-79.

71 .So Arndt, Gingrioh, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 871.

7 2 . Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, p. 306.

7 3 . Alfred Ralphs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttg art: Württemb ergisc he Bibelanstalt, 1962),

1:15: ” deüte ka¡ katabántes sugchéomen eke i autón ten glóssan, hiña me akoúsosin

hékastos ten phonen toú plosión.'




7 4 . The Greek term phoné ¡s the word used for " language" at the introduotion of the

Tower of Babel experienoe in the sentenoe, "And all the earth was of one lip, and

there was one language (phoné) to all” (Gen 11:1, Septuagint).

7 5 . R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres (Leipzig, 1904; repr. Darmstadt, 1966), p. 58.

7 6 . Behm, "glóssa ," Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, 1:722.

77.lb¡d.

78. Wolff, Dar erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, pp. 98-99.

79. Conzelmann, Der erste Korinther, p. 276.

80. Dell¡ng, Worship in the New Testament, p. 32 (¡talics his).

81 .H. Kleinknecht, "pneuma," Theological Dictionary o f the N ew Testament, ed. G.

Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 4:346; so also S. Eitrem, "Orakel und

Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike,” A lbae Vigiliae 5 (1947), 42.

82. Kleinknecht, "pneuma,” 6:345.

83. Plato, Timaeus, 71e-72a.

84. Plato, Timaeus, 71 e-72: ” No man, w hen in his mind Inous], attains prophetic truth

and insplration, but when he [the divlner] receives the ¡nspired word elther his

understanding [phroneseos] is bound with sleep or he is changad by distemper or

some possession [enthusiasmon]. But he who would understand w hat he remembers

to have been said, whether in a dream [onar] or when he was awake, by the

divinatory [mantikes] and enthusiastic [enthusiastikes] nature, or what he has seen,

must first recovar his reason [logismo], then he will be able to explain [semaines]

rationally what all such words and apparitions mean and w hat indications they afford

to this m an or that, of past, present or fu ture good and evil. But while he contin úes

in frenzy Imanen tos], he canno t h imself judge the visions which he sees or the words

which he utters....And for this reason ¡t is customary to appoint diviners or

¡nterpreters o f the true inspi ration.” Mos t of the Greek tex t of this section is found

in Behm, " glóssa," 1 :7 22 . The above translation largely follows the one of Jo w ett

as quoted by F. C. Conybeare, "Tongues, Gift of," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11 th ed.

(New York, 1911), XXVII, 9f.

8 5 . Ford, " Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongu es'," p. 278 .

86 .So J. Mo ffatt , The First Epistie o f Paul to the Corinthians (London, 1938), p. 21 5.

87 . Wayne A. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington: University

of America Press, 1982), pp. 150-52.

88. Plutarch, Morada, 432, 438, 758.

8 9 . C. M. Robeck, Jr ., "Tongues, Gift of," International StandardBible Encyclopedia,

ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988). 4:872.

90. Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular

Religión,” Novum Testamentum 23/3 (1986), 260.

91 .Ibid., pp. 262-63.

92.lbid., pp. 268-70; see also Joseph Fortenrose, The Deiphic Oracle (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1978), pp. 204-12.




9 3 .So still Johannes P. Lou w, Eugene Nida, et al., Greek-English Lexicón o fth e New

Testament Based on Semantic Domain (London/New York: United Bible Societies,

1988), 1:389-90.

94.See also above Chapter II.

95. Conzelmann, Der erste Korinther, p. 276.

96. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, p. 138.

97.lb¡d„ p. 139.

98. Morris, The First Epist/e o f Paul to the Corinthians, p. 192.

9 9 . Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicón, p. 326.

100 . Gerhard Delling, Worship in the New Testament (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 33.

101 .Ovidius. Naso, Am . I. 6, 42 : " daré verba in ventos ." Cf. A. Otto, Sprichwórter

der Rómer (Leipzig, 1890), p. 364.

102 . Robertson and Plummer, First Corinthians, p. 310.102.

10 3. The Greek word here is phone wh ich is by many translated as "l anguage" (RSV,

NAB, NASB; Conzelmann, Barrett, Bruce, H. Lietzmann and W . G. Küm mel, Korinther

i, ii [Tübingen, 196 9], p. 71 ). How ever, the meaning of " language" is doubtful in the

only other NT text where it is suggested, i.e., 2 Pet 2:16, by Arndt and Gingrich, A

Greek-English Lexicón, p. 87 9. The regular meaning of this term is "sound, tone,

noise, voi ce." It is used w ith these meaning con sistently in the frequent NT

passages. The LXX reads in Gen. 11:7, in the co ntext of con fusión of languages,

that God said, "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their languages [glossan ],

that they may not understand one another's speech [phonen]."

10 4. The Greek expression kaiouden is inexact so that comm entators have suggested

that Paul intends that the word ethnos, "race," is to be understood (cf. Lietzmann

and Kümmel, Korinther, p. 71; Conzelmann, Der erste Korinther, p. 274 n. 8) where

he points out that genos, " kinds," does not fi t. He is cor rect in this, because " to say

that nothing is without a voice of some kind would hardly be true," Robertson and

Plummer, First Corinthians, p. 31 0. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p.

319, foliows also Lietzmann, Kümmel, Conzelmann.

105 . This term is in paranomasia with the term phone. Some interpret it as indicating

"unintelligible" on the basis of vs. 11, but this idea comes only in the following

sentence.

10 6. H. Windisch, "barbaros," Theological Dictiona ry o f the N ew Testament, ed. G.

Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1:546-553.

107.0vid, Tristia V. x. 37f.

10 8. This plural is here used for pneumatikon of 14:1. The term in 14:1 2 "stresses

a little more the truth that the gifts f or which the Corinthians were 'zealots' had their

origin in the Holy Spirit,” writes L. Morris, The First Epistle o f Paul to the Corinthians

(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963), p. 194.

10 9 . The Greek conditional clause ("mo re probable futura condition" ) mak escl ear that

we always must distinguish between the fact and the statement of the fact. The

cond itional clause deais only w ith the statement . See Robertson, Grammar o f the

Greek NT, p. 1005.




110.50 correctly Robertson and Plummer, First Corínthians, p. 317.

111 .With Lietzmann and Kümmel, Korinther, p. 73, against J. Weiss.

112.Cf. H. Schlier, "idiotas ," Theological Dictionary o f the Ne w Testament, ed. G.

Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:217.

113.50 Lietzmann and Kümmel, Schlier, Conzelmann, Barrett among other

commentators.

114. Conzelmann, Dar erste Korinther, p. 285, explains that up to 14:21 speaking in

tongues "was considerad esoterically, as a process in the church and its result upon

it, but from now on [vss. 22ff.] ¡t ¡s considered with regard for the mission."


11 6.W. G. Bellshaw, "The Confusión of Tongues," BibUotheca Sacra (April, 1963),

148f., restricts this too narrowly to Jews only.

117.lt agraes only loosely with either the Hebrew tex t or the LXX. On this

notoriously difficult passage, seeGrud em, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corínthians, pp.

185-205.

1 18 . Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-Eng/ish Lexicón, p. 314.

119. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corínthians, p. 190.

120 . With the Seventh-day Ad ve ntist Bible Commentary, V l :791.

121 .Behm, "glóssa," 1:722.

122.One must refrain from making the "sign" function in a merely negative way as

a "sign of judgement" (so Robertson and Plummer, Lietzmann and Kümmel, Barrett,

Bruce, et a/.). Conzelmann, Der erste Ko rinther, p. 285, makes the point that Paul

draws only one thought from the citation, namely that tongues are a "sign" for

unbelievers.

12 3. J. M. P. Sweet, " A Sign for Unbelievers: Paul's Attitu de to Glossolalia,"

Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1 986), pp. 144 -46 , infers that Paul may be adopting a piece

of early Christian anti-Jewish polemic. But it is very diff icul t to have any certainty

on this at all.

12 4. The RSV gives the impression in its translation of 14:5 that two diff erent

persons are meant by the one who speaks in tongues and the one who ¡nterprets.

But the Greek text indicates that the subject of diermeneue ("interpret") is not a

supplied tis but "he who speaks in a ton gu e." Here the KJ V, NEB, NAB, NASB, etc .,

are co rrec t in translating "one who speaks in tongues, unless he [the one who speaks

in ton gues] ¡nterprets." See G. Henrici, Krítisches Exegetisches Handbuch über den

ersten Brief an die Korinther (7th ed.; Gottingen, 1888), p. 396; Conzelmann, Der

erste Korinther, p. 277.

125. H. Weder, "Die Gabe der hermeneia (1. Kor 12 und 14)," in Wirkungen

herm eneutischer Theologie, eds. H. F. Geisser and W. Mostert (Koln, 1983).

126 . A . Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (7th ed.; Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt,

1962), p. 1102.




127.Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-EngHsh Lexicón, p. 194. Polybius (ca. 210- 1 20 B.C.), the greatest histo rian of Hellenism, employs the same verb with the

meaning " transíate" (III. 22,3 ). In the famous Letter of Aris teas the Septuagint is

said to have been "translated” from the Hebrew, with the same verb used (lines 15, 308, 310).

1 28.lb id .

12 9 . This is again the olear meaning in the Letter of Aristeas (1 1 .3 , 11, etc.).

130. Arnd t, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-EngHsh Lexicón o f the New Testament by

W. Bauer, p. 194.

131.See, for instance, [S. Bagster], The Septuagint Versión o f the Oíd Testament

with an English Translation (London: S. Bagster and Sons, 1879), p. 57.

132.We have also to consider hermeneuo, which is used in all instances in the LXX

and the NT with the meaning of "transíate” (Job 42:18; 2 Esdr 4:7; Esdr 10:3; and

in John 9:7; Heb 7:2; Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-EngHsh Lexicón, p. 310) and the cognate methermeneuo which always means "transíate” in the LXX and the

NT (Prologue of Sirach, 1. 23; Mt 1:23; Mk 5:41; 15:23f.; John 1:38, 42; Acts

4:36; 13:18; Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 498).

133.Once reference is made to a satire or figurativo saying (Sirach 47:17) and

another time the meaning is "to expound" (Lk 24:27).

13 4. This point receives attention in every single stud y by scholars of various

persuasions because it is of considerable significance.

13 5. J. G. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia,” Journa l o f Theological Studies, 3

(1952), 230.

136. Behm, "glossa,” 1:722.

137.lbid.

13 8. This is the hypothesis of R. P. Spittler, " Interp retar on of Tongues, Gift of,"

Dictionary o f Pentecostaland Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and

Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) p. 469.

13 9. This is the expression used by Plato, Timaeus, 71 e.

140. Plato, Timaeus, 72a.

141 .Ibld.: proseiken.

142. Pollux, Onomasticon, VIII, 124: " exegetai d ’ ekaiounto h o i ta pe ri ton allon

hieron didaskontes.” Pollux from Nauticratis in Egypt was professor of rhetoric in

Athens in 178 A .D.143 . Cf. Behm, ' 'glossa,” 1:722ff .

144. Grudem, The G lft o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, p. 176.

145. Eurípides, Bacchae, 29 8-3 00 Í. Eurípides lived from 48 0-4 06 B.C.

146. Eurípides, Bacchae, 161.

147. Delllng, Worship in the New Testament, p. 39.




14 8. Cf. Reitzenstein , Poimandres, pp. 219ff.; H. Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes

und der Geister (Góttingen: Vandenh oeck & Ruprecht, 1 899), pp. 72 ff .; Lietzmann

and Kümmel, Korinther, pp. 68ff.

14 9. Cf. K. Latte, "The Corning of the Pvthia," Harvard Theological fíeview 33

(1940), 9-18.

150.See the description by Virgil, Aeneis, vi. 46, 98.

151. E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1959), p. 70.

15 2. G. Born kamm, "Faith and Reason in Paul," Early Chrístian Experience (New York:

Harper & Row, 1969), p. 38, and others.

153. Engelsen, Glosso/alia, p. 189.

1 54.lbi d., pp. 20-21, 60, 139 -40, 204 -205 .

155. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, pp. 155-76; Terrance Callan,

"Prophecy and Ecstacy in Greco-Román Religión and in 1 Corinth ians," Novum

Testamentum 27 (1985), 125-40.

15 6. G. Bornkamm, Gesammelte A ufsátze (München, 1959), II, 134.

157.50 correctly Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 322.

1 58 .R. C. Dentan, " Mi nd ,” /OS (196 2), 3 :383 .

159.50 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 320; cf. Bruce, 1 and 2

Corinthians, p. 131.

1 60.W o lf f, Der erste Brief des Pau/us an die Korinther, p. 133.

16 1 . F. Behm, "noús," Theological Dictionary o f the N ew Testament, ed. G. Kittel

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:959 n. 37.

16 2 . G. Harder, "Reason, Mind, Understanding," The Ne w International Dictionary o f

New Testament Theology, ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978),

3:129.

163. Behm, "noús," 4:958: " Thereis no connection w ith the philosophical or mystico -

religious use (of noús]." Later on he States, " There is no need to suppose th at Paul

is equating noús and pneüma after the manner of Hellenistic mysticism" (p. 959).

164.0n these extremes, see Sweet, pp. 240-45, 164.

165.H. Chadwick, "All Things to All Men," New Testament Studies 1 (1954/55 ),

268.

1 66.Fo r the textu al p roblem arising out of t he variants , see Conzelmann, Der erste

Korinther, p. 291 n. 62 . The tex t of P46 wi th en before glossais is original.

16 7. The num ber " five" is a typic ally round numb er. See Strack and Billerbeck,

Kom mentar zum NT, 3:461.

16 8. The Greek of 1 Cor 14:18 does not read that Paul speaks " in more tongues," bu t

that he speaks in tongues either "more than all of you put together" or "more than

any of yo u." The latter translation is suff icient for Paul's argum ent.




169.As a sample of scholars from the twentieth century, belonging to various

religious persuasions and theological schoois of thought, who have supported the

position that in 1 Cor 12-14 Paul speaks of foreign languages as he refers to

"speaking in tongues," we may cite the following: H. Bertrams, Das Wesen des

Geistes nach der Ans chauun g des Apos tles Paulus (Neutestamentliche

Abhandlungen, IV /4; Münster , 1913), p. 39; W. Reinhard, Des Wirken des Heiligen

Geistes nach den Briefen des Apo stle s Paulus (Freiburger Theologische Studien, 22;

Freiburg, 1918),pp. 120, 133; H. Horton, 77ie G iftso fthe Spirí t (Nottingh am, 1934),

p. 150; J. D. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia," Jou rnal o f Theological Studles 3

(1952), 228-231; W. Rees, "1 and 2 Corinthians," A Catholic Commentary on Holy

Scripture, ed. Dom B. Orchard (London: Nelson, 1953), pp. 1095-96; S. L. Johnson,

Jr. " The Gift o f Tongues and the Book of Acts ," Blbllotheca Sacra (Oct., 1963), 340;

Charles W. Cárter, "I Corinthians and Ephesians,' The Wesleyan Blble Commentary,

ed. Charles W. Cárter (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans , 196 5), 5 :21 4-22 2; S. Aalen,

"Zungenreden," Biblisch-hlstorisches Handwórterbuch, eds. B. Reicke und L. Rost

(Góttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 3: 22 49 -50 ; R. H. Gundry, " ’Ecstatic

Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Journal o f Theological Study 17 (1966 ), 299 -307 ; W . Harold

Mare, "1 Corinthians," The Exp ositor's Com mentary o f the Blble, ed. Frank E.

Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 10: 27 1-81 ; J . Massyng baerde

Ford, ."Toward a Theolo gy of 'Speaking in Tongu es'," Theological Studles 32 (1971),

3-29, reprinted in Speaking in Tongues. A Gulde to Research on Glossolalia, ed.

Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 26 3-9 4; Norman Hillyer,

"1 and 2 Corinthians," The Eerdmans Blble Commentary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A.

Motyer (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 1067, 1069-70: "ecstatic

speech in language usually un kn ow n." G. F. Rendall, ’ lch rede m eh r ais ¡hr alie ¡n

Zungen' (Stuttgart; Sch weng eler Verlag, nd); Wolfgang Bühne, S pie lm lt dem Feuer

(Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 1989); and others.



SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aalen, S. "Zungenreden." BibUsch-histarisches Handwórterbuch. Eds. B.Reicke and L. Rost (Góttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 3:2249-2250.

Adler, N. Das erste christliche Pfingstfest, Sinn und Bedeutung des Pfingstberíchtes, Ag 2, 1-13. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 18.Münster: Aschendorff, 1938.

Aland, K., M. Black, B. Metzger and Alien Wikgren. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelgesellschaft, 1966.

Andrews, E. "Tongues, Gift of." Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4: 671-672.

Anisimov, A. F. "The Shaman's Tent of the Evenks and the Origin of theShamanistic Rite." Studies ¡n Siberian Shamanism. Ed. Henry M.Michael. Toronto: Artic Institute of North America, 1963.

Arndt, W. F. and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-EngHsh Lexicón o f the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

____ , F. W. Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-EngHsh Lexicón o f the New Testament and Other Eariy Christian Literature. 2nd ed.Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.

Bagster, S. The Septuagint Versión o f the Oíd Testament w ith an English Translation. London: S. Bagster and Sons, 1879.

Baker, David L. "The Interpretaron of 1 Corinthians 12-14." Evangélica! Quarterly 46 (1974), 224-234.

Barker, G. W. "Mystery." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed.

G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3: 451-455.Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New

York: Harper & Row, 1968. ____ . Luke the Historian in Recent Study. 2nd ed. London: Epworth Press,

1970.Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wórterbuch zu den Schriften des

Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. Ed. Kurt andBarbara Aland. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.

Bauernfeind, Otto. Die Apostelgeschichte. Góttingen: A. Deichert, 1939.Beare, Frank W. "Speaking in Tongues: A Survey of the New Testament

Evidence." Journal o f Bíblica! Literature 83 (1964), 229-46.Beel, A. "Donum linguarum juxta Act. Apost. ¡i. 1-13." Collationes

Brugensis 35(19351,417-420.Behm, Johannes. "noús." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.

G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4: 951-960. ____ . "apotheggomai." Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Ed.

G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1: 447. ____ . "glóssa." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel

(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1: 719-26.

____

. "kainos." Theological Dictionary o fth e New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3: 447-450.

Bellshaw, W. G. "The Confusión of Tongues.” Bibliotheca Sacra 120(1963), 145-153.

Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament. Ed. A. R. Fausset.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877.

Bertrams, H. Das Wesen des Geistes nach der Anschauung des Apostles Paulus. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, IV/4. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913.




Beyer, H. W. "heteros." Theological Dictionary o fthe New Testament. Ed.G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 2: 702-704.

Bittlinger, Arnold. The Church ¡s Charísmatic. Geneva: World Council of

Churches, 1981.Blaiklok, E. M. The Acts o f the Apostle. London: Tyndale Press, 1959.Blass, F„ A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar o f the New

Testament and Other Early Christian üterature. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1961.

Bornkamm, G. Gesammelte Aufsátze. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1959. ____ . "musteríon in the New Testament." Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:817-824.

____ . "Faith and Reason in Paul." Early Christian Experlence (New York:Harper & Row, 1969), 29-46.

Bratcher, R. G. and E. A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel o f Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, D. "The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter ¡i, The Day of Pentecost."Expositor 1 (1875), 393-408.

Brown, R. E. "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion."Bíblica 39(19581,426-448.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts o f the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introductlon and Commentary. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1951.

____

. Commentary on the Book o f Acts. London: Marshall, Morgan andScott, 1968. ____ . 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1971.Bruner, Frederick D. A Theology o f the Ho/y Splrlt: The Pentecostal

Experlence and the New Testament Witness. Grand Rapids,MLEerdmans, 1970.

Burgess, Stanley M. and Gary B. McGee, eds., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charísmatic Movements. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan PublishingHouse, 1988.

Burton, E. de W. Syntax o f the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek. Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1898.Cadbury, H. J. The Book of Acts in Hlstory. New York: Harper, 1955. ____ . "Acts and Eschatology." The Background o f New Testament and ¡ts

Eschatology. Eds. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1956), 300-321.

Caird, G. B. "Chronology of the New Testament." Interpreter's Dictionary o f the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1: 599-607.

Callan, Terrance. "Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Román Religión and in 1Corinthians." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985), 125-140.

Chadwick, H. "All Things to All Men." New Testament Studies 1 (1954-1955), 261-275.

Chase, F. H. The Credlbillty o f the Acts o f the Apostles. London:Macmillan, 1902.

Ciernen, C. "The 'Speaking ¡nTongues' ofthe Early Christians." Expository Times 10(1898-18991,344-352.

Conybeare, F. C. "Tongues, Gift of." Encyclopedla Britannica. 11 th ed.(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 27: 9-10.

Conzelmann, H. Der erste Brlef an die Korinther. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1969.Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. CGTC. Cambridge:




Cambridge University Press, 1963.Currie, Stuart D. "Speaking in Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New

Testament Bearing on Glóssias Laleín. " Interpretation 19 (1965), 274-

94.Damboriena, P., S.J. Tongues as of Fire. Pentecostalism ¡n Contemporary Christianity. Washington: Corpus Books, 1969.

Davies, J. D. "Pentecost and Glossolalia." Journal o f Theological Studies 3 (1952), 228-231.

Delling, Gerhard. Worship ¡n the New Testament. Philadelphia: WestminsterPress, 1962.

Dentan, R. C. "Mind." Interpreter's Dictíonary o f the Bible. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 3: 383-384.

Dewar, Lindsay. "The Problem of Pentecost." Theology 9 (1924), 249-

259.Dibelius, M. Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles. London: SCM Press, 1956.Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching andits Development. London: Hodder

and Stoughton, 1936.Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1959.Duin, Julia. "Catholic Renewal Charismatic Communities Split by

Controversy." Christianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991), 55.Dupont, Jacques. The Sources ofActs. New York: Herder & Herder, 1964.Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of Sign Gifts.” Bibliotheca Sacra 145

(1988), 371-386.Edwards, H. E. "The Tongues at Pentecost: A Suggestion." Theology 16

(1928), 248-252.Eitrem, S. "Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike." Albae Vigiiiae

5 (1947), 42-58.Engelsen, N. I. J. "Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech

According to 1 Cor. 12-14." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, YaleUniversity, 1970).

Farmer, W. F. The Last Tweive Verses o f Mark. London and New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1974.Faupel, David W. The American Pentecostal Movement. Wilmore, KY:Society for Pentecostal Movement, 1972.

Feine, P., J. Behm and W. G. Kümmel. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.

Filson, F. V. "Ephesus and the New Testament." Bíblica! Archeologist 8(1945), 73-80.

Finn, T. M. "The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 32 (1988), 17-26.

Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The Acts of the Apostles. London: Hodder and

Stoughton, 1945.Forbes, Christopher. "Early Christian Inspired Speech and Hellenistic Popular

Religión." Novum Testamentum 28/3 (1986), 257-70.Ford, J. Massyngbaerde. "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues'."

Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. WatsonE. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 263-294.

Fortenrose, Joseph. The Delphic Oracle. Berkeley: The University ofCalifornia Press, 1978.

Gasque, W. Ward. A History o f Criticism o f the Acts o f the Apostles. Tübingen: Mohr, 1975.




Gelpi, Donald. Pentecostalism: A Theological Viewpoint. Mahwah, NJ:Paulist Press, 1971.

Gempf, Conrad H., ed. The Book o f Acts in the Settíng o f Hellenistic History. Tübingen: Mohr, 1989.

Glassman, Eugene H. The Translation Debate. What Makes a Bible Trans/ation Good? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981.

Goettmann, J. "La Pentecote premices de la nouvelle création." Bible et Vie Chrétienne 27 (1959), 59-69.

Goodman, Felicitas D. "Glossolalia." The Encyclopedia o f Religión. Ed.Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), 5:563-566.

____ . Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cuiturai Study o f Glossolalia. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1972.

Goodwin, Charles E. A Guide to the Study o f the Holiness Movement. Hamden, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1974.Green, E. M. B. "Ephesus." The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas.

2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 380-382.Grudem, Wayne A. The Gift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington, DC:

University of America Press, 1982.Gmndmann, W. "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte in seinem

theologischen Sinn.” Studia Theoiogica. Ed. F. L. Cross (Berlín: Akademie Verlag, 1964), 2: 584-94.

Grundy, Robert H. "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Journal o f Theological

Study 17 (1969), 299-307.Guthrie, D. The Pauline Epistles. New Testament Introduction. 2nd ed.

London: Tyndaie Press, 1963. ____ . The Gospel and Acts. New Testament Introduction. London: Tyndaie

Press, 1965.Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apodes. A Commentary. Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1971.Harder, G. "Reason, Mind, Understanding." The New International

Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 1978), 3: 122-134.

Harper, Michael. An editorial in Renewal (June/July, 1974). Quoted inWilliams, Cyril G. Tongues o f the Spirit. A Study o f Pentecostal Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press,1981), 103.

Harrisville, Roy A. "Speaking in Tongues.” Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1986), 39-43.

Hasel, Gerhard F. Understanding the Living Word o f God. Mountain View,CA: Pacific Press, 1980.

____

. Biblical Interpretation Today. Washington, DC: Biblical ResearchInstitute, 1985. ____ . "The Totality of Scripture versus Modernistic Limitations." Journal

of the Adventist Theological Society 2/1 (1991), 30-52.Hoekema, A. A. What About Tongue-Speaking? Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1966. ____ . Holy Spirit Baptism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972.Hollenweger, Walter. The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the

Churches. St. Louis: Augsburg, 1972.Holtzmann, H. J. Die Apostelgeschichte. HKNT. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr,

1901.




Hommel, E. "Ein uralter Hochzeitsgebrauch im Neuen Testament."Zeitschríft für die NeutestamentHche Wissenschaft 23 (1924), 305-310.

Horri, S. H. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Washington, DC:Review and Herald, 1960.Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament ¡n the Original Greek, With Introduction

and Appendix. London: Macmillan, 1892.Horton, Harold. The Gifts o f the Spirit. Nottingham: J. F. Lamb, 1934.House, Colín. "Defielment by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of

koinos/kionoo in Acts 10-11.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 21 (1983), 143-54.

Hull, J. A. E. The Holy Spirit in the Acts o f the Apostles. Cleveland: WorldPublishing Co., 1968.

Hunter, Harold. "Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis." Journal of the Evangélica! Theological Society 23/2 (1980), 125-137.

J. B. T. "Tongues, Speaking with .” Harper's Bible Dictionary. Ed. Paul J. Achtemaier (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publisher, 1985), 1081-82.

Jaeschke, H. "Lalein bei Lukas.” Biblische Zeitschríft 15 (1971), 109-114.Jaquith, J. R. "Toward a Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviors:

Glossolalia.” Anthropological Linguistics 9/8 (1967), 1-8.Johnson, S. L. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca

Sacra 120(19631,309-311.Jones, Charles Edwin. A Guide to the Study o f the Pentecostal Movement.

2 vols. Hamden, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1983.Kasemann, E. "The Disciples of John the Baptiste in Ephesus." Essays on

New Testament Themes (London: SCM Press, 1964), 136-148.Kiessling, E. Wórterbuch dergríechischen Papyrusurkunden. Amsterdam: A.

M. Hakkert, 1969.Kildahl, John P. The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues. New York: Harper

& R o w ,1972.Kistemaker, Simón J. New Testament Commentary. Exposition o f the Acts

o f Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990.

Kleinknecht, "pneuma." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 6: 332-359.Knox, W. L. The Acts of the Apostles. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1948.Kretschmar, G. "Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten." Zeitschríft für

Kirchengeschichte 66 (1954-1955), 209-253.Lagrange, M. -J. Evangile selon Saint Marc. 5th ed. París: J. Gabalda,

1929.Lake, K. and H. J. Cadbury, eds. The Beginnings of Chrístianity. London:

Macmillan, 1933.

Lampe, W. H. The Seat of the Spirit. London: Longmans, 1951.Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicón. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.Latte, K. "The Corning of the Pythia." Harvard Theological Review 33

(1940), 9-18.Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. A Greek-Engiish Lexicón. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1940.Lietzmann, H. and W. G. Kümmel. An die Korínther /, II. Tübingen: Mohr,

1969.Lohse, E. "Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen

Geschichtswerkes." Evangelische Theologie 13 (1953), 422-436.




____ . "pentekoste." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed. G.Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 6: 44-53.

Loisy, A. Les Actes des Apótres. Paris: E. Nourry, 1920.

Louw, Johannes P., Eugene A. Nida et al. Greek-English Lexicón o f the New Testament Basedon Semantic Domain. London and New York: UnitedBible Societies, 1988.

Lübker, F. Reallexikon des k/assischen Altertums. 8th ed. Leipzig: B. G.Teubner, 1914.

Lyonnet, S. "De glossolalia Pentecostés euisque significatione.” Verbum Domini 24 (1944), 65-75.

MacDonald, William G. "Glossolalia in the New Testament." Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986).

Malony, H. Newton and A. Adams Lovekin. Glossolalia. Behavioral Science Perspectives on Speaking ¡n Tongues. New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1985.

Maly, K. Mündlge Gemelnde. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk, 1967.Mann, C. S. "Appendix III. Pentecost in Acts." in Munck, J. The Acts o f the

Apostles. Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 271-275.Martin, Ira J. "Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church." Journal of Blblical

Literature 63 (1944), 123-130. ____ . Glossolalia, the G lft o f Tongues: A Bibllography. Cleveland, TN:

Pathway Press, 1970.May, L. Carlyle. "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-

Christian Religions.” Speaking ¡n Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986),53-82.

McDonnell, K. "Catholic Pentecostalism: Problems in Evaluation." Dlalog 5:4 (1970), 35-54.

Meyer, Heinrich A. W.. Krltlsches Exegetlsches Handbuch über den ersten Brlef an die Korinther. 7th ed. Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1888.

Mills, Watson E. "Glossolalia: An Introduction." Speaking in Tongues: A Classifled Bibllography. Wilmore, KY: Society for Pentecostal Studies,1974.

____ . "Glossolalia: An Introduction." Speaking in Tongues. A Guide toResearch on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1986).

Moffatt, J. The First Epltle o f Paul to the Corlnthians. London: Hodder andStoughton, 1938.

Morris, L. The First Eplstle o f Paul to the Corlnthians. Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1963.

Moule, C. F. D. "The Post-Resurrection Appearances in the Light of FestivalPilgrimages." New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958), 58-61.

____ . An Idiom-Book o f NT Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1959.

Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar o f the New Testament. 3rd ed.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908.

____ , and George Milligan. The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testamentlllustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London:Hodder & Stoughton, 1952.

Munck, J. The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1967.




Munz, R. "Über glotta und dialektos." Glotta 11 (1921), 85-94.Nestle, E. Novum Testamentum Graece. 25 ed. Stuttgart:

Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1963.

Neubauer, A. "The Dialects of Palestine ¡n the Time of Christ.” Studia Bíblica 1 (1885), 51-58.

Newman, Barclay M. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Acts o f the Apostles. London: United Bible Societies, 1972.

Nida, Eugene A. "Glossolalia: A Case of Pseudo-Linguistic Structure."Unpublished paper delivered at the 39th annual Meeting of theLinguistic Society of America in New York, Dec. 28, 1964.

____ . and C. R. Tabor. The Theory and Practice o f Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969.

Norris, F. W. "Christians only, but not the only Christians (Acts 19:1-7."fíestoratlon Quarterly 28 (1985-1986), 97-105.

Ogg, G. "Chronology of the NT.” The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D.Douglas. 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 223-228.

Osborne, G. R. "Tongues, Speaking in." Evangélica! Dictionary o f Theology.Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 1100-1103.

Otto, A. Die Sprichwórter und sprichwórtüchen Redensarten der ñómer. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1890.

Otto, Walter F. Dionysius, Mythos und Kuitus. 2nd ed. Frankfurt: V.

Klostermann, 1938.Parham, Sarah E. The Life o f Charles F. Parham. Founder o f the Apostolic Faith Movement. Joplin, MO: Tri-State Printing Co., 1930.

Parvis, M. M. "Archeology and St. Paul's Journeys in Greek Lands. Part IV:Ephesus." Bíblica! Archeologist 8 (1945), 66-73.

Preisigke, Friedrich. Wórterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden.Heidelberg and Berlín: Selbstverlag, 1924-25.

Ralphs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: WürttembergischeBibelanstalt, 1962.

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveler and the Román Citizen. 3rd ed.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1965.Ranagan, Kevin and Dorothy. Catholic Pentecostals. Mahwah, NJ: PaulistPress, 1971.

Reinhard, W. Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach den Briefen des Apostles Paulus. Freiburger Theologische Studien, 22. Freiburg:Herder, 1918.

Reitzenstein, R. Poimandres. Leipzig: Teubner, 1904. Repr. Stuttgart:Teubner, 1966.

Richardson, William E. "Liturgical Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthians 14:26c-33a and Its Implications." (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 1983).

Robeck, C. M., Jr. "Tongues, Gift of." International Standard Bible Encydopedia. Ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1988), 4: 871-874.

Robertson, A. and A. Plummer. A Criticai and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1914.

____ . A Grammar o f the Greek NT in the Light o f Histórica! Research.London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914.

Robinson, Edward. Greek and English Lexicón ofthe New Testament. Rev.ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1858.




Robinson, H. S. "Excavations at AnCient Corinth, 1959-1963." Klio 46(1965), 289-305.

Samarin, William J. Tongues o f Men and Angels. The ReUgious Language

o f PentecostaUsm. New York: Macmillan, 1972. ____ . "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia." Language ¡n

Society. Ed. Dell Haymes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1972), 121-30.

Schille, Gottfried. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas. TheologischerHandkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Berlín: EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt, 1983.

Schlier, H. "¡diotes." Theological Dictíonary o f the New Testament. Ed. G.Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3: 215-217.

Schroyer, M. J. "Aquila and Priscilla," Interpreter's Dictíonary of the Bible

(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1: 176.Schürer, Emil. The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jesús Christ

(175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Rev. by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar.Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987.

Sellers, O. R. "Upper Room." interpreter's Dictíonary of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4: 735.

Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Ed. F. D. Nichol. 10 vols.Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1956.

Sirks, G. J. "The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit."Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), 77-89.

Spitta, Friedrich. Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren geschichtlicher Wert. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung desWaisenhauses, 1891.

Spittler, R. P. "Glossolalia." Dictíonary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee. (GrandRapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 335-341.

Spittler, Russel, ed. Perspectives on (he New PentecostaUsm. Grand Rapids,MI: Baker, 1976.

StShlin, G. Die Apostelgeschichte. GSttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1967.Steinmann, A. Die Apostelgeschichte. Bonn: Hanstein, 1934.Stoll, R. F. "The First Christian Pentecost." Ecclesiastical Review 108

(1943), 337-347.Stonehouse, N. B. "Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Spirit."

Westminster Theological Journal 13 (1950-1951), 1-18.Strack, H. L. and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus

Talmud und Midrasch. München: Beck, 1972ff.Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1964.Suenens, Léon Joseph, Cardinal. A New Pentecost. New York: Seabury

Press, 1973.Sweet, J. M. P. "A Sign for Unbelievers." New Testament Studies 13

(1966-1967), 240-257.Synan, V. "Pentecostalism." Evangélica! Dictíonary o f Theology. Ed. Walter

A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 835-839.Synge, F. C. "The Spirit in the Pauüne Epistles." Church Quarterly Review

119 (1934), 79-93.Taylor, R. O. P. "The Tongues at Pentecost." Expository Times 40 (1928-

1929), 300-303.Taylor, V. The Gospel According $t. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1963.




Thayer, Joseph Henry. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicón of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981.

Thayer, T. H. Greek-English Lexicón of the NT. New York: American Book

Co., 1889.Thomson, W. S. "Tongues at Pentecost, Acts ¡i." Expositor/ Times 38(1926-1927), 284-286.

Trocmé, E. Le 'Livre des Actes'etThis toire. París: Presses Universitaires deFrance, 1957.

Unger, M. F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,MI: Kregel, 1972.

Van Elderen, Bastiaan. "Glossolalia in the New Testament." Bulletin o f the Evangélica! Theological Society 7 (1964), 53-58.

Walsh, Vicent M. A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church. St.

Meinrad, IN: Abbey Press, 1971.Warfield, B. B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism o f the New

Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886.Weinel, H. Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister. Góttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899.Wellhausen, J. Kritlsche Analyse der Apostelgeschichte. Berlín:

Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914.Wendt, H. H. Kritisch-Exegetisches Handbuch über die Apostelgeschichte.

7th ed. Gdttíngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888. ____ . Die Apostelgeschichte. GSttíngen: Vandenhoeck &Rupprecht, 1913.White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Mountaín Víew, CA: Pacific Press,

1905. ____ . The Acts o f the Aposties. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911. ____ . The Desire o f Ages. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1940. ____ . Early Writings. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1945. ____ . The Story o f Redemption. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,

1947.Wikenhauser, A. Die Apostelgeschichte. 4th ed. Regensburg: Friedrich

Pustet, 1961.

Williams, Cyril G. Tongues o f the Spirit. A Study o f Pentecostal Glossolalia and Related Phenomena. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981.Williams, C. S. C. Alterations to the Textofthe Synoptic Gospels and Acts.

Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951. ____ . A Commentary on the Acts o f the Aposties. New York: Harper,

1957.Williams, J. R. "Charismatic Movement." Evangélica! Dictionary of

Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 205-208.

Windisch, H. "barbaros." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.

G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1: 546-553.Wolfram, W. A. "The Sociolinguistics of Glossolalia." (Master's thesis,

Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1966).Wolff, Christian. Dererste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Theologischer

Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 7/II. Berlín: EvangelischeVerlagsanstalt, 1982.

Zahn, Theodor. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Deichert,1919.



INDEX

Africa 29

agnostics 27

angelic dialect 1 22

anthropologists 18

Aphrodite 111

Apol lo 112

apostleship 34

As syri ans 139

athelsts 27

Azusa St ree t 21

Azusa St reet Miss ion 20

babbllng 48, 125, 128

baptlsm 9 1 ,9 8 , 99of the Holy Splrlt 22 , 55, 103

Splrlt- 103 barbarían 135

barrlers 153

Bereans 153

black magician 29

Borneo 29

broken speech 47 , 121

Catholic charlsmatlo renewal 23

Catholics, Román 23

Ceasarea 92, 151

charismatlc(s) 103, 109

movement 20, 55

renewal 12 ,13,20

renewal movement 23

Cho, Paul Vongi 13

church 133assembly 136

up buildlng 110, 134, 136, 138, 152, 153

circumcision 95

com mon good 114

com munic atlon 27, 136

compromiso 153

confusión 137

of tong ues/langu ages 129

consciousness 146

altered State of 32

conversión 91, 139

Corlnth 51, 110, 111 , 112, 144, 151, 152

Cornellus 92, 100

Cult

of Appolo 131

of Delphi 144

of Dlonysus 131 , 144

enthuslastic 130, 144

dancing religión 25

Delphi 48, 130, 131, 144

Oracle 48 , 49 , 132, 145

dialects 71

angelic 122

Diana 98

dionysus 130

disciple(s) 98, 99 , 152

dlvinatlon 144, 145

divinar 131, 143

divorce 112

doctrine 22, 79

earwitnesses 81

ecstasy 48, 116, 121, 131

mystlcal 130

ecstatic 29, 47 . 224

experlence 145

religions 48

" Speaklng in Tongues" 51

speech 46, 48, 49, 54, 70 , 109, 132

Splrlt-language 71

utterance 51, 52, 116, 119, 142 ecumenism 12

edif icaro n 1 10, 1 29, 138, 141, 146,

147, 149

eisegesls 55

ellipsls 120

enthuslams 113

Ephesus 97 , 112, 151

Esperanto 71,77

Eucharistlc Sacrifica 35

evangellsm 152

evangelizaron 74

exegesls 55 , 143

experlence 22, 80

extra-Biblical religions 79

eyewitnesses 81

faith healing 13

f lrst frults 74

forelgner 135, 137

frenzy 144

Galileans 71

gentlle mission 100

gentlle(s) 94 , 139, 152, 153

glft(s) 93 , 95, 114, 121, 149

glóssa 19, 43, 44, 49, 50, 53

glóssa la/eín 43 , 44, 47 , 51, 53

glossolalia 1 1 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 2 8 , 3 0 , 3 1 ,

34, 51, 52, 53, 54, 109, 113,

120, 129, 132, 142, 148

definition 19

in Chris tlan religión 10, 18 , 20

¡n non-Christlan religions 1 4 ,3 0

¡nterpreter of 36

non-rellgious 27

pagan 25 , 26

religious 27

spirítuallstlc 25

unintelligible 143

glossoialic speech 48

God-fearer 91Good News 75 , 94, 110 , 140 , 152

gospe l 126,137,140

Great Commissio n 151

Greek(s) 42, 112



INDEX 175

hearing 128

Hellenism 129,144

Hellenistic religions 48 , 132 historical-critical

method 109

scholar 75 , 81 , 129

history of religions 109

holy 144

holy rollers 13

Holy Spirit 32 , 92 , 100, 113, 147, 152

baptism of 22

hyperbole 132

hypnosis 11

hypothesis 78

Identification 153

idols 112 , 113

Indonesia 29

ingot 50

insanity 137

intelligibility 128

intelligible 128, 134

interpretaron 35,55, 114, 126, 141, 142

Interpretar 36, 109, 141, 142, 150Irvingltes 20Isis 112

Japan 25, 29Jerusalem 55, 93

Jewis h tradition 94Jews 98, 112, 139, 152, 153Judaism 91

judgem ent 151

know ledge 124, 133, 136

laleín 44laléo 50

lalling 120

language(s) 27, 44, 71 , 117, 128, 134, 135, 143

angelic 109

barrier 94, 151

fagade 28

forelgn 28, 73, 75, 77, 80, 81,

83, 93, 102, 110, 137, 140, 142, 150, 151, 152

human 28, 117, 121, 126

intelligible 20, 42, 49, 55, 77

living 46

native 142

of a nation or región 71

own 72

strange 135

unintelligible 48 , 49

unlearned 143

-pseudo 28

latter rain 12, 16 laying-on of hands 99 , 100, 101

learned behavior 33

¡égo 50

Levantinas 112 lexicography 47

l inguis ts 28,31,41

literary criticism 82

love 115

mantic 143, 144

manticism 131

Mantís 131

marriage 112

medium(s) 25, 32

-possession 145

mind 146, 147, 149

miracles 13, 75 , 151

miraculous gift 72

mission 101

musical instruments 134

mysteries 123, 124, 125

my stery 124, 125, 126

religions 129, 132

nature 153

nonsense syl lables 1 2 5 ,1 2 6 ,1 2 8

oracles 49order 150orderliness 153otherTongues 72,83

outs ider(s) 136, 137, 138, 151Ovid 135

Oznam, Agnes 20paganism 144papyri 49

parallels 131, 132, 143

Parham, Charles 2 0 ,2 1 ,2 2

Paul 104

peace 150

Pentecost 45, 68, 151

pentecostalism 12, 17, 148, 149

denominational 22

neo- 12, 22

pentecostalists 109

Peter 104

philosophy 79, 80

possession 25

prayer 146

priestess 48, 132

Pythian 48

priests 32

proclamation 74 , 75, 93

prophecy 34, 102, 113, 114, 115,

132, 133, 136, 144, 145, 152

prophesying 136, 144

prophetic ecstasy 102

psychiatrists 18

psychologists 18

purpose 153 Pythia 131




Qumran 54

Rabbinic traditions 91

religionsenthusiastio 143

Greek 143

pagan 111

restad 69

revelation 79, 103, 124, 133, 136

Roberts , Oral 13

Romans 112

sacred 144

salvation 151

Sanhedrln 104

Satan 1 1 ,32 , 33

Science 79 , 80

Scripture 22, 153, 154

seances 25

Second coming 12

second wave 22, 24

secret language 25

self-edif ication 114,136

Septuagint 51, 52, 119, 128, 141, 142

Serapis 112Seymo ur, William J. 21, 22

shakers 20

Shamans 18, 25, 32

Sibyls 130 , 145

sign 94 , 101 , 102, 139, 140, 151

ot judg ement 140

of salvation 140

singlng 146

Sola Scríptura 79

soothsayer 131

sorcerous seances 32

sounds 135

source(s) 75 , 82, 153

source-hypotheses 82

speaking in tongues 22, 30, 34 47,

53

s p e e c h 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 9

angelic 123

automatism 30

behavior 19

bold 70intelligible 50 , 51

Latín 135

rational 31

spiritual 31unintelliglble 49, 51, 52, 71 , 80,

81, 121, 127, 143, 145

Spirit 14 4, 146

Spirit-mediumship 145

Spirit-worship 25

spiritual

gift 110, 112 , 113, 125, 136,

144, 152

power 153

spiritualism 145

spiritualistic glossolalia 25

Stephen 104

sub jective experience 69

sw eet wine 75

taboo 91

tarrying meetings 70

teaching 133, 136

thong 50

tongue(s) 44, 101 , 102, 115, 118 ,

119, 142, 149, 152

(as) of fire 44 , 68

foreign 140

gift of 116

of angels 1 22, 1 23

strange 139

tongue-speaker 76

Tow er of Babel 128

tradition 80

trance 30 , 32

experience 145

-State 11

transíate 143 translation 142, 143

dynamic 118

formal 118

translator 142, 150

tribal religions 25

Trinity 32

trumpet 134

tru ths of God 1 25

Twelve 100

unbelievers 136 , 137, 140, 151

understanding 1 26

unintelligibility 128 , 134

unintelligible ecstatic utterances 130

unintelllgible utterances 20, 43, 53 , 54

upbui ld ing 114,115,129

Upper Room 67, 83

utterances, mysterious 119

Voodoo 25

wind 68

wi tch doctor(s) 18, 25, 32 witnesses 68

word 127

of God 80World Council of Churches 23

worshlp 148, 150

xenoglossia 28

xenolalia 50

Yanagida Genji 25



ABOUT THEBOOK

Speaking in Tongues is an up-to-date discussion of contemporary "speaking intongues" as practiced by millions of Christians. This book reveáis that speaking ¡n

tongues ¡s also carried on in non-Christian (pagan) religions. The issues raised bythis common practice are immense for the Christian believer. }

It is the purpose of this book to investígate the nature of speaking in tongues by

Christians and non-Christians. Based on the conclusión that both phenomena in thecontemporary world are the same linguistically, the crucial question is raised whether

contemporary speaking in tongues is to be identified with "speaking in tongues" inthe New Testament. Five of seven chapters are devoted to a penetrating study of

the New Testament evidence for "speaking in tongues."

This volume investlgates the relationship of the contemporary usage of tongue-speaking, technically called glossolalia, in non-Christian usage, from the angle o1

linguistic and other studies and compares it with New Testament "speaking intongues" as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It addresses tough questions such as whethertongue-speaking is from God, the demonic, or other sources, whether tongue-speaking will unite all churches and religions, whether all Christians need to "speakin tongues," whether Paul in 1 Cor 12-14 is referring to the same gift of tongues as

Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

Documents

Transcript of Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel