The holy spirit gift of tongues

THE HOLY SPIRIT GIFT OF TONGUES
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
GOTQUESTIONS.COM
Question: "What is the gift of speaking in tongues?"
Answer: The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the day of Pentecost in
Acts 2:1-4. The apostles went out and shared the gospel with the crowds, speaking to them
in their own languages: “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
(Acts 2:11). The Greek word translated tongues literally means “languages.” Therefore, the
gift of tongues is speaking in a language a person does not know in order to minister to
someone who does speak that language. In 1 Corinthians chapters 12–14, Paul discusses
miraculous gifts, saying, “Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good
will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of
instruction?” (1 Corinthians 14:6). According to the apostle Paul, and in agreement with
the tongues described in Acts, speaking in tongues is valuable to the one hearing God’s
message in his or her own language, but it is useless to everyone else unless it is
interpreted/translated.
A person with the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30) could understand what
a tongues-speaker was saying eventhough he did not know the language that was being
spoken. The tongues interpreter would then communicate the message of the tongues
speakerto everyone else, so all could understand. “For this reason anyone who speaks in a
tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says” (1 Corinthians 14:13). Paul’s
conclusion regarding tongues that were not interpreted is powerful: “But in the church I
would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a
tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:19).

Is the gift of tongues for today? First Corinthians 13:8 mentions the gift of tongues ceasing,
although it connects the ceasing with the arrival of the “perfect” in 1 Corinthians 13:10.
Some point to a difference in the tense of the Greek verbs referring to prophecy and
knowledge “ceasing” and that of tongues “being ceased” as evidence for tongues ceasing
before the arrival of the “perfect.” While possible, this is not explicitly clear from the text.
Some also point to passages such as Isaiah 28:11 and Joel 2:28-29 as evidence that speaking
in tongues was a sign of God's oncoming judgment. First Corinthians 14:22 describes
tongues as a “sign to unbelievers.” According to this argument, the gift of tongues was a
warning to the Jews that God was going to judge Israel for rejecting Jesus Christ as
Messiah. Therefore, when God did in fact judge Israel (with the destruction of Jerusalem
by the Romans in A.D. 70), the gift of tongues would no longer serve its intended purpose.
While this view is possible, the primary purpose of tongues being fulfilled does not
necessarily demand its cessation. Scripture does not conclusively assert that the gift of
speaking in tongues has ceased.
At the same time, if the gift of speaking in tongues were active in the church today, it would
be performed in agreement with Scripture. It would be a real and intelligible language (1
Corinthians 14:10). It would be for the purpose of communicating God's Word with a
person of another language (Acts 2:6-12). It would be in agreement with the command God
gave through the apostle Paul, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—
should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the
speakershould keepquiet in the church and speak to himself and God” (1 Corinthians
14:27-28). It would also be in accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:33, “For God is not the
author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”
God most definitely can give a person the gift of speaking in tongues to enable him or her to
communicate with a person who speaks another language. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in
the dispersion of the spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12:11). Just imagine how much more
productive missionaries could be if they did not have to go to language school, and were
instantly able to speak to people in their own language. However, God does not seemto be
doing this. Tongues does not seemto occur today in the manner it did in the New
Testament, despite the fact that it would be immensely useful. The vast majority of
believers who claim to practice the gift of speaking in tongues do not do so in agreement
with the Scriptures mentioned above. These facts lead to the conclusion that the gift of
tongues has ceasedor is at least a rarity in God's plan for the church today.

Question: "Did Jesus speak in tongues?"
Answer: The Bible offers no evidence that Jesus spoke in tongues. Many today see
“tongues” as some sort of unintelligible, supernatural form of speech. Biblically, the gift of
speaking in tongues occurs when someone speaks a language he does not know in order to
edify someone who does speak that language (1 Corinthians 14:6).
If Christ were going to speak in tongues, it would have been logical for Him to do so at His
baptism when “the Spirit descended on him like a dove” (Mark 1:10). We know that,
moments after Jesus’ baptism, the Father spoke from heaven in words that all could
understand (verse 11), but we have no record of Jesus speaking in tongues on this or any
other occasion.
Many advocates of today’s tongues movement assume that Jesus must have spoken in
tongues. To bolster their point, they point to passages such as Mark 7:34, in which Jesus
“looked up to heaven . . . with a deep sigh,” and Mark 8:12, when Jesus “sighed deeply in
his spirit” (ESV). However, a sigh is not the same thing as the supernatural gift of tongues.
Anyone can sigh, for any number of reasons, but it is no proof of the Spirit’s power.
We have record of Jesus speaking in Aramaic, the commonest language spoken in Israel at
that time (see Mark 5:41 and Acts 26:14). Most likely, He was also conversant in Hebrew
and Greek, since both of those languages were used as well. But whether or not Jesus ever
spoke with supernatural power in another language, the Bible does not say.
C. H. Spurgeon on Spiritual Gifts
Posted on June 21, 2007 by Mal
The famous Baptist “Prince of Preachers”, C. H. Spurgeon, is often listed among a number
of others by Dispensationalists to support there view that spiritual gifts ceasedshortly after
the beginning of the Church. It might be interesting to see what Spurgeon himself said
about such matters. Here is part of a sermon he gave in 1790, entitled Receiving the Holy
Ghost.

You know, dear friends, when the Holy Spirit was given in the earliest ages, He showed His
presence by certain miraculous signs. Some of those who receivedthe Holy Spirit spake
with tongues, others began to prophesy, and a third class received the gifts of healing. I am
sure that if these powers were given now you would all be anxious to posses them. You
would want to be healing or to be speaking in tongues, or to be working miracles by which
you would benefit your fellow men and glorify God. Now be it never forgotten that those
works of the Holy Spirit which are permanent must assuredly be of greater value than
those which were transitory. We cannot suppose that the Holy Ghost brought forth the best
wine at first and that His operations gradually deteriorated. It is a rule of the kingdom to
keepthe best wine to the last; and therefore, I conclude that you and I are not left to
partake of the dregs, but that those gifts of the Holy Spirit which are at this time
vouchsafed to the church of God are every way as valuable as those earlier miraculous gifts
which are departed from us. The work of the Holy Spirit by which men are quickened from
their death in sin is not inferior to the power which made men speak in tongues. Why, sirs,
men might have the gifts of the Spirit as to miracles and yet might perish after all; but he
that hath the spiritual gifts of the Holy Ghost shall never perish: they are saving blessings,
and where they come they lift the man out of his sinful estate, and make him to be a child of
God.
I would therefore press it upon you this morning that, as you would certainly inquire
whether you had the gifts of healing and miracle-working, if such gifts were now given to
believers, much more should you inquire whether you have those more permanent gifts of
the Spirit which are this day open to you all, by the which you shall work no physical
miracle, but shall achieve spiritual wonders of the grander sort. If we come to weigh
spiritual operations, they are by no means secondary in the judgment of enlightened
servants of God. Have ye then receivedthe Spirit since you believed? Beloved, are you now
receiving the Spirit? Are you living under his divine influence? Are you filled with his
power? Put the question personally. I am afraid some professors will have to admit that
they hardly know whether there be any Holy Ghost; and others will have to confess that
though they have enjoyed a little of his saving work, yet they do not know much of his
ennobling and sanctifying influence. We have none of us participated in his operations as
we might have done: we have sipped where we might have drunk; we have drunk where we
might have bathed; we have bathed up to the ankles where we might have found rivers to
swim in. Alas, of many Christians it must be affirmed that they have been naked, and poor,
and miserable, when they might in the power of the Holy Spirit have been clad in golden
garments, and have been rich and increased in goods. He waiteth to be gracious, but we
linger in indifference, like those of whom we read, “they could not enter in because of
unbelief.” There are many such cases, and therefore it is not improper that I should with
all vehemence press home upon you the question of the apostle, “Have ye received the Holy
Ghost since ye believed?” Did ye receive him when ye believed? Are ye receiving him now
that ye are believing in Christ Jesus?

Â What he thought about the gift of speaking in tongues is not clear, however I believe it is
obvious that he allowed for the continuation of any gifts as and when they are needed."
Question: "What is the gift of speaking in tongues?"
Answer: The first occurrence of speaking in tongues occurred on the day of Pentecost in
Acts 2:1-4. The apostles went out and shared the gospel with the crowds, speaking to them
in their own languages: “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
(Acts 2:11). The Greek word translated tongues literally means “languages.” Therefore, the
gift of tongues is speaking in a language a person does not know in order to minister to
someone who does speak that language. In 1 Corinthians chapters 12–14, Paul discusses
miraculous gifts, saying, “Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good
will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of
instruction?” (1 Corinthians 14:6). According to the apostle Paul, and in agreement with
the tongues described in Acts, speaking in tongues is valuable to the one hearing God’s
message in his or her own language, but it is useless to everyone else unless it is
interpreted/translated.
A person with the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Corinthians 12:30) could understand what
a tongues-speaker was saying eventhough he did not know the language that was being
spoken. The tongues interpreter would then communicate the message of the tongues
speakerto everyone else, so all could understand. “For this reason anyone who speaks in a
tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says” (1 Corinthians 14:13). Paul’s
conclusion regarding tongues that were not interpreted is powerful: “But in the church I
would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a
tongue” (1 Corinthians 14:19).

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson A SERIES OF THREE SERMONS
Transcript
[Prayer] Father, we thank Thee again for the holy Scriptures and for the opportunity to
open them and read them and study them. We pray that we may not be over them but
under them, subject to them. And, may the Holy Spirit be our teacher and guide; for since
he is the author of Holy Scripture, it is he that is best able to teach it. And we pray, Lord,
that Thou wilt guide the human instrument; guide each one of us who listen. May we sense
just exactly that teaching, which will build us up in our faith and draw us closer to Thee.
So, we commit this hour to Thee and pray Thy blessing upon each one of us.
In Jesus’ Name. Amen.
[Message] Now, this is the first in our series of studies on The Holy Spirit and the Gift of
Tongues. And, providing my schedule holds out, I yesterday, indicated to Mr. Prior and he
announced that it would be a two-part series, but I think it would be much better for us if
we try to do a fairly thorough job. And so, I’m going to devote three times to it instead of
two. And tonight, we will look, we’ll introduce the subject and look at the evidence of the
Book of Acts. And then, next time, we will consider Roman numeral II in our outline,
which I’ve put up there, which is part of the outline, the evidence from 1 Corinthians. And
then the last hour, we will consider the evidence of history and seek to give an
interpretation of some of the things that are happening today in the so-called Tongues
movement.
So, this is our first study and I think that we should begin where the subject begins with
Acts chapter 2, verses 1 through 13. And so will you turn there? And let’s read as our
Scripture reading for tonight, Acts chapter 2, verse 1 through verse 13. In the study of the
Holy Spirit, we have often referred to Acts chapter 2, and it is surely one of the most
important chapters in the Bible on the subject of the Holy Spirit, particularly, from the
historical standpoint. And so we should be very familiar with the things that happened on
that day, which was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in the coming of God’s
Spirit to inaugurate the age of the Spirit. Now, Luke writes.
“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all
the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of
fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began
to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at

Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised
abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard
them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to
another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in
our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the
dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia,
and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,
Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the
wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to
another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.”
The Holy Spirit and the Gift of Tongues. The events of the last decade, concerning the gift
of speaking in tongues, have made the topic of speaking in tongues of some significance to
Evangelicals. And, by the term Evangelicals, I mean all who have genuinely believed in our
Lord, Jesus Christ.
While modern Pentecostalism’s beginning is usually traced to meetings in a former
Methodist Church at 312 Azusa Street, in Los Angeles. Some, I might say incidentally,
trace the movement to Topeka, Kansas, and some evidences of speaking in tongues then,
January the 1st, 1901, five years before the meetings in Azusa Street. Still, a new and more
important beginning was made on April the 3rd, 1960. On that date, Dennis J. Bennett,
who was rector of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California, entered into the
pulpit on Sunday morning and spoke to his congregation and told them that he had had an
experience of speaking in tongues. He was askedto resign, which he did, and the event
drew considerable publicity to the tongues movement. In fact, it gave it a kind of
nationwide publicity. The church split as a result of his action and the modern, or the
contemporary, tongues movement really began to take off with that event.
Now, it began to spread through many of the major denominations and today, there is a
tongue movement of sorts, in almost all of the major denominations: The Baptists, both
Northern and Southern, The Presbyterians, not too many in the Presbyterians, but still
some. In the Reformed Church, in the Episcopal Church, in the Methodist Church, in fact,
almost all of the denominations that we know have groups within them that speak in
tongues.
About eight years ago, Mrs. Jean Stone came to Dallas. I’m looking at a clipping which is
entitle “Trinity Movement Told by Speaker in Dallas.” You will notice, throughout the
tongues movement, of course, and almost everyone has noticed this, that women are
prominent in the movement. Now, I think this is a fact that all would agree is true, even
those who are involved in the movement. It is not, of course, true to say that they are only
women or, necessarily, that women control the movement. But, they are very prominent in
it. Mrs. Stone, who was a wife of an executive in California, came. She was here in Dallas as

a representative of the BlessedTrinity Society. She was, then, the editor of Trinity
magazine, and a magazine designed to influence Episcopalians about the Pentecostal
Movement in a “sensible, intellectual manner.” She attempted, while she was here in
Dallas, to stir up interest in it and, with the reporter, when he askedher to speak in
tongues, she responded by speaking in tongues for him. The paragraph, which records that,
is, “After the meeting, in another room, Mrs. Stone honored an individual request to speak
in tongues. She prayed quietly in English then spoke softly for a moment a melodic
combination of sounds.”
Now, Mrs. Stone became a leader in the Episcopalian Church and in its movement. And,
the magazine for some time, I have not looked at it in recent years so I don’t know the
status of it, had some influence. She claimed that as a result of speaking in tongues, people
began tithing almost automatically, they began reading the Bible with new understanding,
they have more love and charity, heavy drinkers stopped drinking, and we have seen
dramatic healings. These are quotations from what she said when she was here.
Now, this movement not only became entrenched in some of the major denominations, but
it affected some of the more Evangelical groups. For example, in the InterVarsity Christian
Fellowship Chapter at the University of Yale, there broke out the movement there, and a
number of the students were involved in speaking in tongues. This was true of not only that
InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Chapter but others over the country. It also broke out in
Campus Crusade and about five or six or sevenyears ago, Bill Bright, personally, put his
foot down, and said that no staff member of Campus Crusade would be retained as a staff
member if he continued to speak in tongues or push the movement or speak in tongues
publicly. I had a conversation with him, when he was reaching that decision. I just
happened to be there and he told me about what had happened in the movement.
But, not only did it break out in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and in Campus Crusade
for Christ, but also in some of the strong Christian colleges, there were groups that spoke
in tongues. And, in fact, still are groups that speak in tongues. When I was on the campus
of Wheaton College, just a few years ago, as speakerat their religious emphasis or spiritual
life week, there was a group of students that were speaking in tongues then. There have
been groups that have been involved in speaking in tongues at Westmont College at Santa
Barbara, on the Pacific Coast. Usually, these are small groups. As far as I can tell, with one
or two exceptions, the faculty members at these two leading Christian Colleges have not
been in sympathy with the movements. One man, who was in the music department at one
of the schools, became involved. But, so far as I know, no faculty member of stature in the
academic side of the work was involved. But there were groups that were involved in it.
Now, I think, we should begin by pointing out this; and I hope we don’t have to stress this,
but still, I believe that we should say it over and over because, amazingly, though we say
this over and over again, many do not seemto really allow it to sink in. It is of the utmost

importance that we test this question from the word of God and not from human
experience. Experience must be, always, secondary to the word of God, for the simple
reason that our experiences are capable of different interpretations. We may think our
experience teaches us one thing, but in reality our experiences are often very delusive. And,
because they are delusive, it is possible for us to be deceived. And, therefore, we must
always test everything that we are interested in by the word of God. And this is of the
greatest importance in the matter of tongues.
As you know, you’ve heard me refer to several conversations that I’ve had with different
people in which, as we have sat down to discuss the things from the word of God, when I
open the word of God, now, this is not true of everybody, I’m not trying to suggest that
everybody who believes in tongues is not willing to look at the Bible. That is not true. There
are books set forth by people who believe in tongues attempting to show from the Bible that
this is the teaching of the New Testament. But, I’ve had this experience a number of times
of sitting down with average persons who have become involved in the tongues movement
and, frequently, after I open the Bible and begin to talk about it, they will say things to me
like this. “Well, Dr. Johnson, I didn’t come, or I don’t intend to argue the question with
you from the Bible. I’ve had the experience of speaking in tongues. And, consequently,
anything that you say would really be beside the point, because I have already spoken in
tongues.” And that, of course, for them has settled the question. It is, of course, an
interpretation of their experience. They do not realize this. It is an attempt to interpret an
experience that they had.
Now, I always try to say at this point, “I don’t question that you have had an experience.
But the thing I am questioning is, is this the experience of speaking in tongues as set forth
in the Bible? That is the important thing.” And, if you in this audience, have spoken in
tongues; there may be some here who have, I want to urge you to have your mind open to
what the Bible says. And, also, to realize that you are a human being; and because you are,
your whole nature is corrupt, it is blind, it is hardened, and it is possible for us as long as
we are in the flesh to be deceived. It is possible for me to be deceived. It is possible I am
deceived in what I am saying. I don’t think so, but it is possible. And we should realize that.
The thing that we should always do is to go to the Bible. What does the Bible have to say
about this? And so, I stress this again, because I think this is really the heart of the
problem. People are not willing to go to the Bible.
Some want to go to the Bible. They think that, perhaps, they could not understand the
Bible. And so, from that standpoint, they don’t go to the Bible. But others, and these are
the ones I am particularly speaking to, do not it appears to me want to go to the Bible to see
what the Bible itself has to say on this question.
Now, to show you how deceptive experiences can be, let me remind you of an experience
that men and women shall have during the time of the great tribulation. We are told in the

13th chapter of the Book of Revelation that when the Beast, the anti-Christ, through his
lieutenant the false prophet, has an image of himself set up in the temple in Jerusalem, that
the second beast is going to do great wonders upon the earth. In Revelation chapter 13 and
verse 13, we read or verse 12:
“And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and
them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And
he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the
sight of men.”
Now, I think this is one of the most amazing things in all of the Bible; that the false prophet
during the time of the great tribulation period, is going to be able to call down fire from
heaven. Now, it is obvious that this is going to be one of the lying signs, as Paul calls them,
that the beast is going to be able to perform. And, if you will just remember for a moment,
that in the Old Testament when Elijah had his conflict with Baal, the thing that determined
that Jehovah was the true God, was the fact that fire came down from heaven and
consumed the sacrifice that Elijah had prepared. That was the evidence that Jehovah, the
God of Elijah, was the true God. You can see how deceptive it is going to be during the time
of the great tribulation when the false prophet turns to heaven and calls down fire from
heaven, perhaps evenaccompanying it with a little scriptural exposition of 1 Kings chapter
18, and how in that passage in the Old Testament that was the indication that Elijah’s God
was the true God. And so, I can just imagine him saying, for I feel sure that they will be
acquainted with the scriptural records, I can just hear him saying that just as the fire came
down from heaven demonstrated that Elijah’s God, Jehovah, was the true God, so the fire
that I’ve caused to come down from heaven demonstrates that the beast whose image that
we have set up is truly god.
Now, everyone who sees that is going to have the experience of seeing the fire come from
heaven, but they’re not going to be able to interpret that experience unless they go to the
Bible, the word of God. So, please remember and bear this is mind in every doctrine,
experience is no guide or standard for Bible doctrine. Now, our experiences should
confirm, illustrate, the teaching of the word of God, but first of all is the teaching of the
word of God; second, our experience.
Now, this is particularly a warning addressed to you who are somewhat emotional in
character. Now, we are made up of intellect, will, and emotion. Some of us are more
intellectual than others. Now, that does not necessarily mean that you are, thereby, in the
sight of God more meritorious before him. Some of us are more emotional than others.
That, the same way, is no indication that this is meritorious before God. Now, I’m
particularly speaking to those who are emotional in nature. I’ve always felt that the truths
of the Bible should have an emotional response. As far as I can tell, the only body that
should not have an emotional, as well as an intellectual response, to the word of God is that

body over which a sheet has been pulled. So, it seems to me, that sometimes in our attempt
to be intellectual in the truths of Scripture, we have neglected the emotional side. But, at
the same time, it is possible for us to be so emotional that we do not listen wisely to the
teaching of Scripture. So, if you are emotionally inclined, if your nature is along that line,
you are in a special danger because this, the appeal of movements such as this, in my
opinion, is strongly to the emotional side of men.
Oswald Chambers said something, which I’ve quoted more than once. I didn’t like all of his
doctrine, but he was a Christian man and he said some very, very good things. And he said
“There is no authentic impulse of the Holy Spirit that is not wedded to the words of the
Bible.” I thought that was a very good statement and I’ve quoted it over and over for about
twenty years. “There is no authentic impulse of the Holy Spirit that is not wedded to the
words of the Bible.” In other words, for all of our experiences in connection with the Holy
Spirit, we should have the text of Scripture that supports them. He goes on to say “To
recognize this is the only way to be safe from dangerous delusions.” So if you have had
some experience; a dream, you think, a vision, you think, or speaking in tongues, you think.
You should have some text of Scripture properly interpreted, properly interpreted, which
supports that which you have. And you should be required to have that. And that should be
true for every experience that we have.
Now, we’re taking the position that the principle of temporary gifts is a biblical principle.
And for those of you who are here tonight and you were not here as we discussed
permanent gifts and temporary gifts, you may feel that I’m taking a position that is not
justified, and the question is settledif we take this position. Now, I don’t think it is settledif
we take this position, but for you let me just suggest this to you. In the introduction to the
last message that I gave on temporary spiritual gifts, I argued this point for about fifteen or
twenty minutes, giving a number of reasons why I thought the biblical principle of
temporary gifts is established in the word of God. You remember, we talked about
prophets, we talked about apostles, we talked about history, we talked about the purpose of
gifts, and so on and sought to show that it is a biblical principle that some of the spiritual
gifts that were given were given for a temporary experience, for a time, and others were
given for the whole church age.
Now, some people balk at that and they think that that is a weakness of the position that I
have. I do not think so. I do not know of anything a priori that requires God to give only
permanent gifts. It seems to me, philosophically unsound to say that God can only give
permanent gifts. It is also philosophically unsound, it seems to me, to say that God can only
give temporary gifts. The only way we can settle a question like that is to look, again, at the
Bible. And we saw that there have been no apostles in the biblical sense, since the time of
Paul. And that establishes the principle of temporary gifts. We took up the question of
apostles, the use of that term in connection with Barnabas and others, and proved, I hope
to the satisfaction of all who listened, that the term apostle had two senses: one, the sense of

simply a messengerof the local church, and in that sense, we might have an apostle today.
But an apostle in the sense of an authoritative person who had seenour Lord in his
resurrection, that gift concluded with the apostolic age and we have had no apostles since
then.
Now, we had a student at seminary, who was a very close friend of mine, and tell it not in
Gath, publish it not in Ashkelon, lest the uncircumsized Philistines of other churches hear,
but he used to attend Believers Chapel. And, he wrote a master’s thesis on the subject of
apostleship. And, I’ve always felt and I’m going to say this with a smile because I don’t
really believe this in the ultimate, but I always think that the greatest mistake he made was
not coming to me to give him a little advice before he wrote it. [Laughter] But, anyway, he
wrote this master’s thesis and his position was that there were apostles today.
Now, he paid me a great complement when he finished writing it and I quizzed him a little
bit about it. He told me that he thought I was an apostle. Well, I appreciated him for
designating me one of his apostles [more laughter] but I gave him back the complement
and told him I didn’t want to be that kind of an apostle, because as far as I can tell in the
Bible, there is no such gift. So anyway, if you are here in the audience tonight and you have
questions about temporary gifts, I urge you to get the tape, the last tape, and listen to what
I had to say there. And if after listening to it, you’re still unconvinced, I’ll be glad to sit
down and discuss it further with you.
Now, I’m saying this because, you see, one of the basic tenets of the tongues movement is
everything that happened in the early days of the Christian church ought to happen today.
Now, as we’ve been going through the Book of Acts, on Sunday, I have taken time out here
and there to point out the various things as we have gone along that are not happening
today and have not happened since the days of the Book of Acts. And there are so many in
the Book of Acts that it’s amazing that people would say that everything that happened in
the early days of the church ought to be happening today.
But, Kathryn Kuhlman who, she is a woman, Kathryn Kuhlman, in a Time Magazine
article last September, September the 14th, made this statement to the reporter who wrote
about her and her healing work. He said this. And I must say I have been in Kathryn
Kuhlman’s meetings some year ago and I am happy to report that she has become more
conservative through the years. And I hope that as the Lord gives her further time, so that
she can become evenmore conservative and abandon some of the things that she still
believes in. But I want to read the paragraph before the one I am particularly interested in
because it indicates that she is having a spiritual pilgrimage. And as the years go by she is
becoming more and more biblical. Beyond her repeated assertion that it is all the work of
the Holy Spirit operating through Jesus Christ, Kathryn preaches no theology of healing.
She no longer believes that faith necessarily earns healing. She used to. Or that lack of faith
necessarily forbids it. She used to. She has seentoo many non-believers cured; too many

believers go away still lame or sick. Now, you’ll notice again, she is still basing her doctrine
on experience not on what the Bible teaches. She refuses to promise individual healings. “I
can’t” she explains [Laughter] “That’s the sovereign act of God.” Now, I must confess,
that’s the only time I’m everembarrassed, as a Southerner, when I have to pronounce “I
can’t” by itself. I still sound like a countryman when I do it. So I like to have two three
other words with it. [More laughter] Anyway, she says “That’s the sovereign act of God.”
And, you know, that is precisely what I believe about healings; that they occur as the
sovereign act of God.
Now, she goes on to say “She does see her ministry as a return to the supernatural element
in the ancient Church. Now, this is what I am interested in, particularly. “Every thing that
happened in the early Church” she insists “we have a right to expect today. This is exactly
what we are going to get back to again.” Now, notice that statement. That, I think, is the
cornerstone of the views of those who believe in healing and speaking in tongues and the
miraculous. “Every thing that happened in the early Church, we have a right to expect
today. This is exactly what we are going to get back to again.”
Now, if Miss Kuhlman were here, I would ask her this one question. “Are we going to get
back to resurrections again? Or, further, are we going to get back to the resurrection of
Jesus Christ, again? That occurred in the experience of the early first century Christians.
Are we going to get back to that? Is it not obvious to us, as we study the Bible, that there
were things that happened in the early Church that happened only once?” Why, I think
that should be obvious to us. But, nevertheless, that is of the greatest importance to the
movement.
Now, Professor Warfield, who in many ways was the greatest theologian of the twentieth
century, to this point, although in certain fields his theology is not to be recommended too
highly, but he was a tremendous, tremendous theologian. He was a professor of theology at
Princeton Theological Seminary, after having been professor at Western Theological
Seminary. He is one of those rare theologians who was first of all a New Testament
professor and then became a professor of Systematic Theology. And, consequently, his
theology is based upon the exegesis of the text, the Greek text of Scripture. Today, we have
lots of theologians who don’t evenknow how to read a Greek New Testament. If you put it
in their hands, they couldn’t even read it. They might be able to look up a few words in it,
but as far as really handling the text is concerned, they could not do it at all.
When I was at Basel, Switzerland, studying and sitting at the table with Professor Karl
Barth, there were about forty Americans there, most of them, young men, some older men
who were already professors in American universities and seminaries, such as I was. And I
think one of the most amazing things to me was the fact that, of this forty or fifty men who
were sitting around discussing the theology of Professor Barth, there were the night I was
there, so far as I remember, there were three people who had a Greek New Testament with

them. One was Professor Barth, who was able to read the New Testament. And when he
discussed something, he would pull out a battered Greek Testament and open it up and
look at the Greek text to support what he was saying. I had my Greek New Testament and
the fellow with me, who was a graduate of a Baptist Seminary on the coast in California, an
independent Baptist seminary, who is now a professor at Westmont College, also had his
Greek New Testament. And we were the three, out of about forty or fifty men who were
there.
Now, Professor Warfield, I think, was a very wise man and he had this to say about this
idea that because it happened in the early Church, it must happen today. He said “The
fundamental error underlying the whole miracle thirst, is the failure to distinguish between
the epoch of the creation of salvation, that is, the great saving works of death, burial,
resurrection, the ascension of the Son of God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, where when in
which our salvation was created through the work of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit
and that of its appropriation.” Let me read it again. “The fundamental error underlying
the whole miracle thirst, is the failure to distinguish between the epoch, or the age, of the
creation of salvation and that of its appropriation.” In other words, we fail to realize that
those things that happened in the early days of the Church were involved with the creation
of the saving work of God. Through the work of Jesus Christ, the work of our Lord, the
work of the Holy Spirit, and the authenticating miracles designed to authenticate those
great saving facts to place in the early days of the Christian Church.
Now, we are living in the age of the Christian Church in which these great events, which
have taken place by the work of God and have been authenticated by the Holy Spirit, are
being appropriated. And if we do not distinguish these two aspects of the age of the church,
we shall fall into error.
Now, coming to our outline, Roman I – The evidence of the Book of Acts. Now, remember,
Acts is the factual history book of the early church, and so when we want to see what
happened historically in the early Church, we turn first of all to the Book of Acts. It
contains three definite occurrences of speaking in tongues, chapter 2, verse 4; chapter 10,
verse 46; chapter 19, verse 6. Now, I think it is of the greatest importance that we look at
these passages, and so I am going to ask you to turn to chapter 10 of the Book of Acts, in
which Peter is in the house of Cornelius, preaching the Gospel there, Gentiles were there,
Jews were there, and we read, in Acts chapter 10 in verse 44.
“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard
them speak with tongues, and magnify God.”

Now, we need not read on. He doesn’t say anything more about that. Chapter 19 in verse 6,
remember that strange incident in which the Apostle Paul met the disciples of John the
Baptist, twelve of them, who had been wandering about in the background of the Christian
movement, had not come into contact with anything that had happened, apparently, since
the preaching of John, and finally they met Paul, there were twelve of them, in the city of
Ephesus. Paul came in touch with them. He recognized that there was something missing in
their experience and he said to them, verse 2. “Did you receive the Holy Ghost when you
believed?” Now, I’ve translated the Greek text as it should be rendered, “Did you receive
the Holy Ghost when you believed?” Because you see, that’s the normal thing in the
Christian age in which Paul is. They said unto him “We have not so much as heard
whether there be any Holy Ghost.”
Now, of course, they did not mean they had never heard of his existence, for John the
Baptist that was one of his great doctrines, the doctrine of the fact that he would baptize
them with water, there would come one who would baptize them with the Holy Spirit. They
mean “We have no so much as heard whether he has come,” that is, in fulfillment of the
promise that John made. “There be any Holy Ghost now.”
“And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s
baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ
Jesus.”
In other words, in the Old Testament, men believed in the coming one. Now, we look back
to the one who has come.
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul
had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues,
and prophesied.”
Now, you have read all of the occurrences in which the speaking in tongues is specifically
mentioned in the Book of Acts, chapter 2, verse 4, on the day of Pentecost; chapter 10 in the
house of Cornelius; chapter 19 at Ephesus when Paul spoke to these disciples of John the
Baptist. These are the three specific references to speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts.
There are no other specific references to speaking in tongues in the Book of Acts. Three of
them, that is all.
Now, there is one passage in which we may have a “speaking in tongues,” but it is not
explicitly said to be speaking in tongues. It may, however, have taken place then. And that
is in chapter 8, when Philip came down to Samaria and preached the word there and many
received the Lord, Jesus, believedin him. The apostles heard about it and they went down
in order to authenticate this movement. And so, two of them were sent: one by the name of

Peter, the other by the name of John. And when they came, well, let’s read the story,
beginning with verse 15.
“Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy
Ghost: For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”
Now, it does not say that they spoke in tongues. However, the next verse says.
“And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was
given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay
hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.”
So, it is possible since it states that when Simon saw that through the laying on of hands the
Holy Ghost was given, it’s possible that that means that he saw the evidences of the coming
of the Spirit, which might have been speaking in tongues. It is, of course, not necessarily so,
they could have just been happy enough to have convinced him that a tremendous change
had taken place. But it may be an instance of speaking in tongues.
It will not affect our doctrine, one way or the other. In fact, it fits in very neatly with what I
am going to say. But, still, I want you to know.
Now, here we, then, to sum up what we have in the Book of Acts, we have three specific
cases in which speaking in tongues is mentioned: Pentecost, Caesarea, in Cornelius’ house,
Ephesus, and the disciples of John the Baptist, one possible place in Samaria when Peter
and John came down and laid hands on Philip’s converts. Now, that’s all that the Book of
Acts has to say about speaking in tongues.
Now, let’s go to capital A – The biblical terminology. The New Testament makes it clear,
and this is particularly true of the Book of Acts, that speaking in tongues was a speaking in
known languages. Now, let’s stop here and I want to point out a few things. The first place,
the New Testament speaks about, our English text speaks about “speaking in unknown
tongues.” Turn over to 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and let me show you an occurrence of this
term. 1 Corinthians chapter 14, verses 1 and 2, page 1224, 1 Corinthians , Paul writes.
“Follow after love, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesize. For he that
speakethin an unknown tongue.”
Now notice “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue.” Now, if you’re a careful reader of
the Authorized Version, you will notice immediately that the word “unknown” is in italics.
That means that the translators have supplied it. It is not in the Greek text. The Greek text
reads simply “speaking in tongues” not “unknown tongues” but speaking in tongues. So
that’s the first thing we need to know about the terminology of the New Testament. When

we read “speaking in unknown tongues” we are to forget about the word unknown. It’s
simply “speaking in tongues.” Whatever tongues may be, it is not “unknown” tongues.
Now, secondly, in the Book of Acts, we are told that they spoke in “other tongues.” In Acts
chapter 2 in verse 4, we have that expression.
“And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues.”
Now, the Greek word that is used here is heteros. Now, heteros is a word that means
“other” in the sense of different. For example, I have a pen in my hand. Now, I might go
into a drug store or a place where they have educational materials and ask for some pens
that I may use with an overhead projector. And they may bring them out to me and I may
buy them. And, I may go to my teaching assignment and I pull out these pens, and someone
takes a look at them and they say to me “How do you like them?” And I say “Well, I like
them very much.” And this person would say “Well, I’d like some of them.” And I’ll say
“Well I’m going back there today, let’s go together and we’ll get some.” And so I walk in
and I put this down on the counter and I say “I want another set of these pens.” Now, there
is a Greek word for “another” which means another of the same kind. That’s the word
allos. For example, when Jesus said “I am praying the Father that he may send you
another Comforter when I’m gone.” It’s another of the same kind; the Holy Spirit and the
Son are alike in their attributes and in other features.
But now, if I did not like these and I went back to the store and I put them on the counter
and said “I want another set of pens.” And I wanted to indicate that I didn’t like these, I
wanted a different kind of pen, I would use in Greek, the Greek word heteros from which
we get the word “heterodoxy.” Now, that would mean another of a different kind. Now,
that is the word that is used here. “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to
speak with ‘different’ tongues.” Well, what does he mean? Well, he means that there were
some that were speaking Parthian. There were some that were speaking Persian. There
were some that were speaking the language of the Phrygians. There were some that were
speaking the language of the Mesopotamians. They were speaking with “different”
tongues; so “other” tongues.
Now, again, the reference is not to “unknown” tongues but to known tongues. But now,
there’s another term here in Acts chapter 2 in verse 6, we read
“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that every man heard them speak in his own language.”
“In his own language.” Now, that is a different word from the word usually rendered
“tongue.” The word rendered tongue, ordinarily, is the term glossos. But this word is the
word dialektos from which we get the English word “dialect.” Now that term in the Book of

Acts always refers to a known language, not an unknown language, a known language.
“Each heard them speaking in his own language.” Verse 8, we have.
“And how hear we every man in our own tongue .” It’s translated tongue, but it’s really
this same word. “Our own language.” And then in verse 11, the other term is used. “Cretes
and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues (our glossos) in our tongues the
wonderful works of God.”
Now, it becomes evident then that glossos as dialektos both of these terms refer to known
languages. So, what they spoke on the Day of Pentecost was not some ecstatic gibberish.
They spoke known languages; languages that you could have understood if you had been a
native of that particular place. What happened then was this; this great crowd of people
were gathered on the Day of Pentecost and when the Holy Spirit came upon them to
baptize them into one body, to fill them and permanently indwell them, they were given the
gift of speaking in a language, which they did not understand. And, here was Peter, over
here, speaking the language of the Parthians. And one of his Jewish friends standing by in
the temple area where they were said, “Well, listen to that old fisherman. Why he’s never
been outside the land of Palestine and here he is preaching.” And people over here from
that part of the land are coming up and saying “I’m understanding him. He’s speaking my
language.” And this was going on all over the place. Consequently, it’s no wonder that
people were startled and amazed and confounded, because God was, obviously, performing
a mighty miracle in the midst of these Jewish people by enabling them to speak languages
that they had never studied.
Now, then that raises some interesting questions about the modern tongues movement.
Originally, the modern tongues movement did not claim to speak in known languages.
They were convinced that the New Testament taught that it was simply ecstatic speech.
And so they spoke a form of gibberish, ecstatic speech. Well, they might call it heavenly
language, but it was the kind of language that no one understood. Now, the New Testament
then from the Book of Acts seems to plainly teach that what we have here is a known
language.
Now, Eugene Nida, who probably knows more about languages than any other man alive,
for Dr. Nida has been head of the American Bible Society’s division of publication of the
languages and the Bibles, which the Wycliffe Bible translators have put out through the
years. I don’t know how many languages this man knows. He knows every language there
is to know, practically. Not in the sense that he can speak them all, but he is a master. You
can put a language, an absolutely new language, in front of Eugene Nida, and it isn’t but
just a relatively short time before he has broken that language down into its component
parts. He is an amazing character. Everybody knows that about him. He is just an
astounding man; this has been his life time study. He’s a brilliant man and no matter where
Wycliffe translators translate, they send in their work to him to be sure that they are on the

right track. And they’re the ones speaking the language. But, he has that ability to take a
language and just break it down and come to completely understand it.
Now, it’s an interesting thing, I think, that Eugene Nida has testedscores of “tongues”
tapes, scores, as he puts it or as it has been put concerning him. He has analyzed scores of
“tongues” tapes and has concluded that it is nonsense. Nonsense! None of the speaking in
tongues that he has listened to can be classified as a language. Now, that’s an amazing
thing. That is really an amazing thing.
Now, that’s very interesting because, you see, remarkable claims are made by the modern
“glossalalics,” which is the technical term for people who speak in tongues, claims have
been made that they speak French, German, Latin. Ah, Latin that reminds me of Pat’s
book “A New Song.” [Laughter] Now, Pat Pat Boone, Tom. Now, Pat in his book says that
one time, I’ve forgotten exactly the situation, whether he and his wife were lying on the bed
and she suddenly began to utter a few phrases. But she began to speak in what he called
Latin; she was making sounds like “ouway de oum.”
Now, I happen to know a little Latin. I took eight years of Latin. And this was here prayer.
Now, that was a great piece of Latin, two words, which she had probably heard chanted
somewhere, but anyway, the interesting thing was that in one place he makes reference to
the fact that he suddenly heard her saying, I think, the precise Latin that as he put it was te
amo dominus, te amo dominus.
Now, the striking thing about that, of course, is that while it means obviously, “I love you
Lord,” I love you, Lord. It’s really incorrect Latin because, you see, it should be the
“vocative” case rather than the “nominative” case of dominus. It should be Te amo domine
not dominus. So, are we to assume that the Holy Spirit has committed a common error in
Latin. And that is not the only thing but in the next page or so he makes reference again to
the fact that they were saying a certain thing in Latin and again, this time, the Latin was all
right but his translation was wrong.
So I don’t know. It’s so pitiful, so pitiful that I hardly know how to comment upon it
without seeming very hard and crass and sour, which I don’t intend to be. But I want to tell
you, it does not create a great deal of assurance in me about the rest of the things that I
have seenin that book.
Well now, I’m going to read you, at this point, a letter that was written to Christianity
Today by William Welmers, Professor of African languages at the University of California
at Los Angeles, UCLA. And, I think, this is a very interesting letter because it bears on
what we see here in the Book of Acts. He says in comment on an article that appeared in a
preceding issue “Comment can be little more than supplementary, but a little seems
appropriate. The citation of 1 Corinthians 14:14-19 from the Authorized Version without
indicating italics is deceptive. Nowhere does the Greek speak of an “unknown tongue.” The

word “unknown” is an interpretative addition by the translators. It may or may not be a
valid interpretation. Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is very
sure that Paul uses glossos here with reference to the physical organ and that the activity
consists of speech-like noises rather than using a language known or unknown.
Yet Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:1 “Though I speak with the tongues of men and
angels” seemto imply that language as a systemof communication is involved and not
merely ecstatic babbling. The possibility of interpretation reinforces the idea that
something definable as language, a secondary meaning of glossos is indeed intended. Not all
of the references in Acts to “being filled with” or “full of the Spirit” can be taken to
describe a special outpouring of the Spirit. Certainly, Acts 13:52 is one of Luke’s typical
summary sentences. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is never once described with
reference to an individual but always in connection with the church of Christ. First the
Jews, then the Samaritans, then the Gentiles and finally, the strange group at Ephesus with
one foot in each dispensation, in each of these cases, the gift of speaking in tongues was
clearly given to every person, eventhe numbers mentioned in some cases.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit belongs to the church as a body, the Body of Christ, with
absolutely no individual selectivity and with the ability to speak in new languages as an
initial evidence of the supernatural character of this universal church. This was
communication. In Corinth, it must potentially have been if interpretation was possible. At
worst, it was a highly specialized type of ecstatic glossalalia. Thayer refers to a minister
who claims to have witnessed to foreigners in their own languages, Polish is mentioned.
Fine. I hope he did. Also mentioned is Coptic Egyptian. The latter must have been in a
spiritualist séance because there have been no native speakers of Coptic Egyptian for a
good many years. I fear this is typical of the mistake, though perhaps sincere, claims of
modern glossalalics.
I am the more concerned about the statement that a group of government linguistics
experts sought to analyze for Christianity Today a tape of his glossalalia, but found it
unrecognizable, though one said it sounded like a language structurally. The fact that there
are some three thousand languages in the world, many of them unknown to most of us that
is, is not entirely relevant. We do know something about representative languages of every
known language family in the world. I am, by no means, unique among descriptive linguists
and having had direct personal contact with well over a hundred languages representing a
majority of the world’s language families and in having studied the Scripture of languages
of virtually every reported type, if a glossalalic were speaking in any of the thousand
languages of Africa, there is about a 90% chance that I would know it in a minute.” That’s
an interesting statement from another linguist.
“Now, I have also had the opportunity of making a sympathetic study of an alleged
instance of speaking in tongues. And I must report with out reservation that my sample

does not sound like a language structurally. There can be no more than two contrasting
vowel sounds and a most peculiarly restrictive set of consonant sounds. These combine into
a very few syllable clusters, which recur many times in various orders. The consonants and
vowels do not all sound like English, the glossalalic’s native language, but the intonation
patterns are so completely American English that the total affect is ludicrous. My sample
includes an interpretation. At the most generous estimate, the glossalalic utterance includes
ten or elevensentences or stretches of possibly meaningful speech. But, the interpretation
involves no less than fourteen distinct and independent ideas. There simply can be no
match between the tongue and the interpretation.
I am told that Dr. E. A. Nida of the American Bible Society has reported similar
impressions of glossalalic recordings. Our evidence is still admittedly limited. But from the
viewpoint of a Christian linguist, the modern phenomenon of glossalalia would appear to
be a linguist fraud and monstrosity given eventhe most generous interpretation of 1
Corinthians 12 through 14.”
In connection with this, Pat Boone said in his book that, and I could only find this in the
book, that the only thing that was eversaid in tongues was really a few little scattered
statements like “Hail God” and “I love you, Lord.” That was all. And when he set forth the
reasons why he thought this was a good thing to speak in tongues, he said it was just “good
to speak to God and tell him that you loved him in different languages.” Well, you didn’t
need to speak in tongues to do that? You could use Latin. You could use Hebrew. You
could use Greek. You could use French. And you could tell God that you love him in
different languages, if you wished, but I don’t really think that God would especially be
blessedif we tell him Je t’aime or “I love you,” in English. It would seemto me that he is
just as happy over the English as he is with the French. And, I must say that as far as I’m
concerned, it seems nonsense.
But now, capital B and, I think, we can, with what we’ve said, hasten through the
remainder of our subject for tonight. The context and teaching of Acts 2. The messages in
known languages then were evidently given for two purposes. First, they were given as a
sign for authentication of the reception of the Holy Spirit. That is evident in each case in
Acts. They received the Holy Spirit; they spoke in tongues. This was a sign to authenticate
the reception of the Holy Spirit and, thus, the new Christian movement.
You must remember, that up until this time, God had been speaking through the Jewish
people, from the days of Abraham on down. He had confined himself to speaking in and
within the theocratic movement. But now, he is going to begin to speak to the whole of the
world. And, in order to authenticate the change that was taking place, he gave the gift of
the Holy Spirit and as the sign of it, speaking in tongues. Now, it was a sign, primarily then,
to the Jews. And, as we shall see in 1 Corinthians, when we come to that, Paul says that “It

is a sign not to them that believe, but to them that believe not, who belong to this people.”
That is, the Jews.
Now, because of its semi-official character, apostles were present in every case in the Book
of Acts. In Acts 2, in Acts 10, in Acts 8 if we call that an experience of speaking in tongues,
in Acts 10, in Acts 19, in every case, apostles were there. In evercase, it affected the whole
of the group that was there. In every case, the reception of the Spirit was indicated by the
coming of the Holy Spirit and the speaking in tongues was designed to authenticate that
coming of the Holy Spirit and, thus, the Christian movement that that involved.
The second reason that tongues were given, apparently, and I think this is an incidental
reason; not as important as that, is that it was also a sign, indirectly, of judgment on the
Jews. Now, that would be evidence because God was now speaking in, as the Old
Testament prophesy prophesized, he is now speaking to this people in their disobedience by
blessing others who were not of that people. We shall see more of that later on.
Now, from the Acts 2 occurrence then we would know that Jews are in the Body of Christ.
The Holy Spirit has come, the church is being formed, the Holy Spirit is given to all who
believed, they are formed into one body by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and God has
attestedto what is happening on the day of Pentecost.
Capital C – The context and teaching of Acts 10. We can sum this up, I think, in just a
sentence or two. Jews are present again, as the apostolic message is authenticated by the
Holy Spirit and tongues. Judgment perhaps inferred. From Acts chapter 10, we learn that
not only are Jews in this new Christian movement, but Gentiles also are in the Body of
Christ. Cornelius and his group were baptized by the Holy Spirit, and they were given the
gift of tongues in authentication of the message and in authentication of what God was
doing in this new movement. Gentiles are included.
Capital D – The context of Acts 19. Again Jews are present, as the apostolic message, again,
is authenticated by the Spirit and the gift of tongues, and form this instance we learn that
the Old Testament’s saints, who are still living at the time of the new movement, are
incorporated by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ.
So, what we have learned by these three occurrences is that God is now speaking in this
new movement, in this new age, authenticating the message of the apostles, Jews, Gentiles,
Samaritans if that is a genuine instance, and evenOld Testament saints like John the
Baptist’s disciples who had not heard of the movement are formed into one body. And the
gift of tongues is designed to authenticate the coming of the Spirit, which has bound them
together in unity.

To sum up then, the evidence of Acts is that tongues were known languages, not ecstatic
gibberish. Second, the gift of tongues was given primarily for authentication of the
reception of the Holy Spirit and incorporation into the Body of Christ.
It was designed to be a testimony to Jews, primarily, as the Old Testament prophesized.
Now, that we shall get into when we discuss 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Well, this is the
beginning of our study. Now, next week, I’m going to bring you on tape an illustration of
speaking in tongues, incase you have never heard anyone speaking in tongues, you’re going
to hear someone speak in tongues next Monday night. And then we’re going to talk about
the evidence of 1 Corinthians chapter 14.
Now, let’s bow together in prayer.
[Prayer] Father, we thank Thee for Thy word. We pray that we may be subject to it. As we
study this important subject, may, O God, we find Thy mind and thy word.
For Jesus’ sake. Amen.
[Message] Tonight is the second in our series of studies on The Holy Spirit and the Gift of
Tongues and will you turn with me to 1 Corinthians chapter 12. And will you listen as I
read, beginning at verse 4, perhaps, I should begin with verse 1 through verse 11, and then
we will begin at verse 28 and conclude the chapter, 1 Corinthians chapter 12, verse 1. Paul
says.
“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. Ye know that ye
were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, evenas ye were led. Wherefore I give
you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and
that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are
diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but
the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which
worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by
the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the
same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another
discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of
tongues: But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as he will.”
Verse 28 gives us another listing of the spiritual gifts. Nine were listed in verses 4 through
11. Now we have some more. Verse 28.

“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly
teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of
tongues. Are all apostles?”
Or, remember, if you have been in our series of studies on spiritual gifts, we should render
this verse. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not
teachers, are they? All do not work miracles, do they? All do not have the gifts of healing,
do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
“But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent road.”
Now, we’re dealing with the fallout in 1971, from the meetings that took place at 312 Azusa
Street in Los Angeles in 1906. It is there that the modern tongues movement began. And
the movement has, since April 3, 1960 and the experience of Dennis Bennett announcing to
his congregation of Episcopalians that he was speaking in tongues, made significant inroads
into other than Pentecostal groups, vast claims are made for the speaking in “unknown
tongues” or “fluent accents” as it is called. For example, this week, I’ve been reading the
testimony of a German Lutheran who is pastor and director of the Lutheran church in one
section of Germany. He had visited the United States, visited some of the churches in which
tongues were being spoken.
And, in them, he says “During my stay in America in different Lutheran churches, I came
across a new kind of spiritual awakening in which the New Testament charismatic signs
have come into evidence and are practices with great discipline and order. I had
opportunities to take part in different worship services in which these gifts of the Spirit
were in evidence. I was impressed with the solemn liturgical beauty of these services.
Everywhere they hold themselves strictly to the instructions of the Apostle Paul in 1
Corinthians chapter 14, verse 26, and following. The life of a congregation is [now notice
these words] is made fruitful in unexpected ways. That which otherwise functions through
excellent organization occurs among those involved in the awakening very spontaneously
and independently. The members of the congregation visit one another. They manifest a
personal concern for those outside the church. They pray for the sick and they contribute
their money and their time to the ministry of the church. The pastor pointed out to me that
one of these congregations, which has experienced the awakening, had shown a new
recognition of social problems and set about solving them.”
Now, I’ll stop the reading there. There are a few more paragraphs, but that says essentially
what Mr. Bittlinger is trying to say and that is that speaking in tongues, the evidence of the
charismatic gifts has made the churches more fruitful and has evenbrought them to an
awareness of the social problems that exist in our society today. And he has also said, by
way of his own comment, that they have observed carefully the instructions of 1
Corinthians chapter 14, verse 26, and following.

Now, I’m not trying to debunk what Mr. Bittlinger has said, but I only want you to
remember that you must read statements like this with a great deal of discernment. For
example, Pastor Bittlinger’s comment that they are engaging in the exercising of the gifts in
accordance with 1 Corinthians 14:26 and following is an assertion of his without any proof.
And, of course, we may not regard the exhibition that takes place in the churches as being
in accordance with 1 Corinthians chapter 14 in verse 26 at all. But, I think, we can, at least,
say in fairness to him that he is probably trying to set forth what he honestly feels to be
truly in accord with 1 Corinthians chapter 14.
Now, the interesting thing about this is that if we were to believe all of the things that men
say about this, it would be a truly amazing movement. But there are other sides to this
question. For example, this afternoon, just before the meeting, I got a call from out west
and a woman wanted to ask me a few questions about speaking in tongues and speaking in
tongues is just about to cause a split in their church, a Methodist church, in this particular
area. And so the things that transpire when tongues are spoken are not necessarily as
Pastor Bittlinger has said it.
As you may know, there has been considerable interest in the Roman Catholic Church in
speaking in tongues. And, not long ago 1969 to be exact, two young people, a young couple,
both with degrees in theology from Notre Dame, authored a book called “Catholic
Pentecostals.” And in this book, they go on to say that through the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, they have been led to a greater love for Mary; they have been led to greater
veneration for the Pope; they have been led to greater devotion to the Roman Catholic
church; to increased regularity of the observance of the Mass; and more power in
witnessing to these things that have just been set forth here.
I think all of us who study the Bible would come to the conclusion that the Bible, while it
regards Mary as a remarkable woman, blessedamong women, does not in any way
countenance the worship of Mary or the veneration of Mary. But, it would seemthat
according to their testimony, this leads to a greater devotion to Mary, a greater veneration
of the Pope, who is only a man, a greater devotion to the Roman Catholic Church and
increased regularity at the Mass in which, in my opinion, we have that which is not only
contrary to the New Testament but is actually a death-blow to the Cross of Jesus Christ
and its significance if we are to believe what has historically been said about the Roman
Catholic Mass.
And so here on one hand, we have Lutherans claiming that this has produced great
fruitfulness in their church and Roman Catholics claiming on the other side that it has
produced a greater worship of the Pope and love for Mary and other things which, as far as
I can tell, are obviously unscriptural. Now, I’m not going to suggest that either one is lying;
that is not true. They are, perhaps, honestly believers in what they are saying. But, it
should be obvious to us that that is not necessarily true.

What is the value of the experience of speaking in tongues? One of its saner proponents has
offered these two values. And he, too, is a Lutheran. He has suggested: first, that the chief
value, the first value, is an awareness of entering a vast new spiritual realm, to use his
terms. “One understands the Bible a great deal better after he has had the baptism of the
Holy Spirit and has begun to speak in tongues.” He went on for a few sentences to extol the
virtues of this experience for understanding the Bible. Now, if I could believe that that was
true, then I would express some hope for this movement. Because, I think, if it were really
true that they were understanding the Bible better, then we would have nothing to worry
about because it wouldn’t be long before they would be saying, we’re not sure that what the
experience we had was really according to the word of God.
Now, I think, it also should be obvious to us, if we have known anything about the study of
the Scriptures that there has, so far as I can tell, been no advance in Bible knowledge as a
result of the tongues movement. In fact, it is distinguished and characterized by a failure to
understand the Scriptures almost entirely. It is a movement directed toward experience
and not toward the understanding of the word of God.
Now, secondly, Mr. Christiansen, who is a Lutheran pastor, has said, “Its use in private
devotions has led to resulting self-edification.” Now, this is a startling thing and I think it’s
so startling because it becomes evident that the very thing that Mr. Christiansen is extolling
is the thing that the Apostle Paul does not. Now, that what he is saying is a rather universal
claim. That is, through speaking in tongues we edify ourselves, and that is real good. I
received a card today from a young lady, whom I know real well from another city, and she
said “Would you please send me the name of a book, or one of your tapes, or anything
concerning tongues. It has hit [she mentions a certain city] among new Christians like a
storm. Also, what does 1 Corinthians 14:4, concerning self-edification mean?” Now, we’re
going to talk next Monday night about 1 Corinthians chapter 14 and I hope that we will be
able to explode a lot of nonsense that has been said about this chapter. But, I am going to
refer to this at the present moment and ask you to turn over and read 1 Corinthians
chapter14 and verse 4, with me.
“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth
the church.”
Now, it would seemas you read this sentence, if you took it out of its context, that the
apostle is suggesting that this is a very good thing. “He that speakethin an unknown tongue
edifieth himself.” There it is self-edification. But, of course, if we read only that particular
part of the sentence and if we fail to see it in its context then we are going to have a
distorted view of what Paul is really saying in this place. And, unfortunately, young
Christians do not know enough to study the context of Scripture and study it well. And
older Christians, when they know better, rarely take the time to do it. And so the result is
that among Christians they frequently reach down, pick a little clause out of its context, not

knowing precisely what it means, quote it, make it mean something that it does not mean in
its context.
Now, Mr. Christiansen says that “In speaking in tongues, we are self-edified and one
becomes more filled with Jesus.” But, when you look at this text, it becomes obvious that
Paul is not praising tongues, he is depreciating tongues.
He has said in verse 3, well, let’s read verse 2. “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue
speakethnot unto men, but unto God:” [In other words, the only person who can
understand a person who speaks in tongues is God. Now, that’s not a sign of praise. That’s
a sign of depreciation of the gift. Only God can understand a person who speaks in tongues.
It does not edify anybody. And then he goes on to say “For no man understandeth him;
howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to
edification, and exhortation, and comfort. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth
himself.” He doesn’t edify anybody. He doesn’t edify the church. He edifies only himself.
It’s a purely selfishthing is what Paul is saying “For he that prophesieth edifieth the
church.”
Now, this is an amazing thing and this, I think, points to the truth that the characteristic
thing about the movement is its ignorance, its unacquaintedness with the word of God. For
you see, in this text, the striking fact is that the very text by which Paul depreciates tongues
in relation to prophecy, is the text with which glossalalists praise its value. Now, isn’t that
an amazing thing?
Further, in 1 Corinthians chapter 12 in verse 5, we read now “There are differences of
administrations.” The Greek word is the word ministrie, ministry. Now, a ministry is
something that one does for someone else. There are diversities of ministries. In other
words, the gifts were given by God not for self-edification. They were given for the
edification of the whole Body of Jesus Christ, the Church. And so here is a person speaking
about self-edification when Paul says the gift is designed to be a service to others. Further,
in chapter 13 in verse 4, we read “Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love
voideth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, [Now notice] seeketh
not her own.” Or as the Greek text puts it literally “Does not seek the things of itself.” And
the very term that is translated “self” in self-edification or himself, is the term that is used
there. In other words, the man who is filled with the spirit and really walking in the Holy
Spirit is the man who is not interested in self-edification; he is not seeking the things of
himself, he is interested in the service of others.
Now, Mr. Spurgeon put it well when he said “I looked at Christ and the Dove of Peace
came into my heart. I looked at the Dove of Peace and it flew away.” Now, you see, when
we began to speak, about the things that have happened to us, and the benefits that we
obtain, we take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and also the scriptural intention of the gifts of

God. Tongue talking, when the mind is absent, often is only a neurotic narcissism or self-
love.
Now, what have we learned from the Book of Acts. Well, last time we learned these things,
I hope. Speaking in tongues was done in a known language; that is, a language unlearned
by the speaker. I was reading today another tongues speaker who said that when he
discovered he was speaking in tongues, he began to utter a few phrases in Latin, which he
had had as a high school student. Now, that’s not speaking in tongues if you happen to
remember, Quadrupe tate quo tems, sonatu, quatatum, de la compum. Well, you haven’t
begun to speak in tongues. You’ve just remembered some of the things you learned a long
time ago. And so when a man speaks in tongues in the Bible, he spoke in a known language
but one that he did not know, which he had never learned, but which others recognized was
their language. Now, we saw that in every case of the Book of Acts. It is a known language.
Not ecstatic speech, not ecstatic gibberish. It was not something by which you simply put
phrases together, sounds together, which had no structure and could not be called a
language.
Second, we learned that speaking in tongues authenticated the reception of the Holy Spirit.
That is, in the three instances in the Book of Acts, which are given us, the three definite
instances, they followed the reception of the Holy Spirit. So that speaking in tongues was an
authentication of the reception of the Holy Spirit and, thus, an authentication of the new
Christian movement or this new movement, a Christian movement. The authentication, we
saw, was directed primarily to Jewish people in accordance with Paul’s words in 1
Corinthians chapter 14, verse 21 and 22, which we shall discuss next Monday night, the
Lord willing.
Thirdly, speaking in tongues was never done privately in the Book of Acts. It was never
done privately in the Book of Acts. In Acts chapter 2, it was public. In Acts chapter 10, it
was public. In Acts chapter 19, it was public.
And, further, if we do have speaking in tongues in Acts chapter 8, it is not definite,
remember, that too was public. In other words, there is no evidence of any private speaking
in tongues. As a matter of fact, I think I’m going to be able to show you so that even the
most doubtful of you will no longer doubt, that so far as 1 Corinthians 14 is concerned,
there is no evidence that there was everany private speaking in tongues. Now, I know what
you’re going to say “Paul said he spoke with tongues more than all. He that speakethin an
unknown tongue edifieth himself, only God understands him.” Yes, that’s right, if there is
no interpreter around in the Church,
But now, let’s come to the second point in our outline: The evidence of 1 Corinthians. And,
first of all, capital A – The evidence of 1 Corinthians chapter 12. But before we look 12,
now, I want to introduce 1 Corinthians 12 through 14 by noting a few introductory things,

which I want you if you are taking notes, to put down. First of all, 1 Corinthians is the only
other book in the New Testament, beside the Book of Acts, in which there is a definite
reference to the gift of tongues.
There are twenty-one New Testament Epistles and only one mentions the gift of tongues.
Now, I think that should be important for us. It should suggest to us the fact that speaking
in tongues did not have a prominent place in the early church. If it is only alluded to in one
of Paul’s Epistles and only one of the epistles of the New Testament, it must be something
that the early Church did not take to be a prominent thing. Isn’t that interesting? Now, I
know that Paul spends three chapters on that gift in 1 Corinthians. But that only tells us
that the apostle regarded the abuse of tongues as a very serious error. And, therefore, he
devoted a great deal of time to it in the one church in which there was this abuse of the gift
of tongues. So remember that.
Now, secondly, the first error in Corinth was the according of the gift a prominent place. In
Paul’s lists of the gifts, you will notice that he puts tongues and interpretation of tongues
last. He gives us one list in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, in the first part of the chapter verses 4
through 11, tongues are placed last. He gives us another list in verse 28 and, further, adds
the words “first, second, third” and when he reaches the end of the list in verse 28, what
should be at the bottom of the totem pole but “diversities of tongues.” Now, notice, he has
said first, second, third and finally, tongues. Now, if we have a third listing in the form of
questions in verses 29 and 30, which it certainly seems that we could have, for he starts
with apostles and winds up again with tongues. We have three listings in one chapter of the
gifts and Paul puts them last each time, tongues.
Now, of course, Paul has some other listing of gifts in Ephesians chapter 4, he lists gifts and
also in Romans chapter 12, he lists gifts. And the apostle forgot all about tongues when he
wrote those lists down, for he does not mention tongues at all there. So he has given us,
then, a couple of lists at least in chapter 12 and tongues are at the bottom. He has given us a
couple of more lists in Ephesians and in Romans, and he has not evenmentioned tongues at
all. One other apostle has given us lists of spiritual gifts, and that is Peter. And in 1 Peter
chapter 4, Peter mentions spiritual gifts and he, like Paul in Ephesians and Romans, does
not mention speaking in tongues. So the first error in Corinth was the according of this gift
a prominent place.
Now, Paul states that very plainly when he says “Covet earnestly the best gifts.” He says in
chapter 14, verse 1, “Follow after love, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may
prophesy.” Verse 5 “I would that ye all spake with tongues [I wish that ye all speak with
tongues] but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that
speakethwith tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.” And
then, of course, tongues becomes like prophecy and teaching and so on. So the first error

was according tongues a prominent place. The second error was the according of prophecy
an insufficient place. That is evident from chapter 14 and we need not go into that again.
Third, the third error was that they exercisedthe gifts in the wrong way. They often
allowed people to speak in tongues without an interpreter. And further, they allowed
females to use the gift of tongues, apparently, in their meetings. And so 1 Corinthians
chapter 14 is given us in order that there may be proper regulation of the exercise of the
gifts in the meeting of the church and that the women be exhorted to keepsilent.
Now, I noticed that when Mrs. Jean Stone, whom I do not know personally, I’m sure that
she is a very lovely person. Well, I’m not sure. I hope that she is. Really, she could be an old
battle-axe, as far as I’m concerned [Laughter] but I would imagine not. And I noticed,
however, that when she spoke in tongues for the reporter, there was no one there to
interpret. Now, I grant, that she was requested to do it and she did it. But according to the
New Testament here, and Paul “You shouldn’t use the gift of tongues if there is no
interpreter nearby.”
Now, I had an experience in Calgary, a few weeks ago, and I mentioned it to some of you,
but others of you didn’t hear it. So I must tell you. I was coming back from Calgary,
Alberta, after Easter weekend, having preached there in a conference. And I was in the
waiting room of Western Airlines, in the morning, a very manish woman came in with a
Bible under her arm and a big rough voice like she had been engaged by one of the oil and
natural gas companies and had been working in the fields north of Edmonton. And she
began to pass out tracts, and I certainly admire her for that. And she came over to me and
I was sitting there and she didn’t know I was a preacher. And she handed me a tract and I
said “Thank you very much, I’m a Christian.”
And she said “Oh, Brother, that’s wonderful that you are standing up for Jesus and giving
a public testimony for him.” And then she said “Where do you come from?” And I said
“Well, I come from Dallas, Texas.” She said “Oh, we’ve been down there spreading the
word all over the place.” [Laughter] And we engaged in a little conversation and it became
evident that she was a woman preacher and had been down to Texas and been lots of places
preaching the word. And so I thought well, I don’t have anything to do now but just to be
my normal nasty self. [More laughter] And so I said to her “Now tell me, since you are a
woman preacher, what did Paul mean when he said ‘Let your women keepsilence in the
churches?” I said it nicely. [More laughter] You would have been proud of me, really.
And she said “Oh, well, that simply means that the women were to keeptheir children from
making noises in the meeting and disturbing them.” Now, if having the experience of
speaking in tongues, and she was one who had had the experience and spoke in tongues,
made you a more acute Bible student, well then I must say that certainly seemedto me a

puerile interpretation of that text and absolutely unique, for no other interpreter has ever
thought of that meaning of that text. [More laughter]
Now, I want to say another thing before we look here at the evidence of 1 Corinthians 12.
We proceed, as I said the other day, on the basis that the Bible teaches that tongues were
known languages. That the clear teaching of the Book of Acts, guides us in the places in
which we might be in doubt, although, I think, we shall see when we finish 1 Corinthians
14, that that chapter, too, supports the idea that tongues were a speaking not in ecstatic
language but in known languages which had not been learned by the speaker, but which
were known by others when they spoke.
Dr. Walvoord, who is the president of Dallas Seminary, told a story which I cannot
document at all. It may not be true. But he told it as if it were true. He said that a student
at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles went to a Pentecostal meeting in Los Angeles some
time ago and he stood up in the meeting when the time came for people to stand up and
speak in tongues, and he had memorized the Hebrew text of Psalm 1. And so he got up and
he recited the Hebrew text of Psalm 1, in the meeting. And when he sat down, a woman
interpreter stood up and began to interpret. And she said that he had just spoken words in
praise of women preachers. [Laughter] And so he immediately stood up and objected and
he said “Well, all I did was, actually, recite the Hebrew text of Psalm 1.” And according to
Dr. Walvoord, they threw him out of the meeting. [More laughter] Now, I must say, the
attitude in which he went to that meeting was probably not the best, but it does throw a
great deal of light on the science of interpreting the people who speak in tongues.
Now, let’s turn more seriously to the text of 1 Corinthians chapter 12, capital A in our
outline – The context and teaching of 1 Corinthians chapter 12. You’ll notice that we’re
going to try to cover A and B and then we’re going to save 1 Corinthians 14 for next time,
plus a few lessons from the history of the movement of speaking in tongues.
Now, the evidence of 1 Corinthians chapter 12. In the very first verse of 1 Corinthians 12,
Paul lets us know that what he is saying in these three chapters 12, 13, and 14, about
spiritual gifts is something that is an answer to a question that they have sent to him. “Now
concerning spiritual gifts.” A number of times in the epistle, Paul says that. For example,
back in chapter 7 in verse 1, he says “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto
me.” And verse 25 “Now, concerning virgins.” In chapter 8, verse 1, the same expression in
the Greek text “Now concerning [we have as touching] concerning things offered unto
idols.” He takes up that subject in chapters 8 through 10, so that when he comes to chapter
12, verse 1, he says again “Now concerning spiritual gifts.” And so, evidently, the
Corinthians had written Paul and they had said to him, “Now we’d like some information
about certain things. We’d like to know about things sacrificed to idols. We’d like to know
about the subject of marriage. We’d like to know about the subject of virgins. We’d like to

know about spiritual gifts.” And so in verse 1, we have the beginning of Paul’s answer to
their question. “Now concerning spiritual gifts.”
If you will look at your text carefully, the word “gifts” is in italics and Campbell Morgan,
among interpreters, has suggestedthat perhaps the opening verses do not have to do with
spiritual gifts but just the spiritualities, I think, as he puts it. But the evidence for spiritual
gifts is very strong when we realize that in the 4th verse, we do have “Now there are
diversities of gifts.” And the word “charisma” is used which is the term for spiritual gifts.
And so I am inclined to think that in verse 1 we should translate it as the Authorized
Version has done it. “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you
ignorant.” Apparently, some were ignorant about spiritual gifts and there are many
ignorant about them in nineteen hundred and seventy-one. And the first thing that he does
is to warn them that speaking in tongues is not like the old ecstasy and gibberish that
characterized their heathen idolatry. For you see, speaking in tongues is not a unique
Christian phenomenon. It took place in places outside of Christianity. The Mormons,
today, regard it as one of the teachings of their church. We believe in tongues. We’ll talk
about that next time. So, you see, the Corinthians had been exposedto heathen religions in
which they did have the experiences of speaking in, what is called speaking in tongues in
the twentieth century. Speaking in fluent accents or speaking in ecstatic gibberish. And so
he warns them. He says “You know that you were Gentiles, carried away, swept away.”
Now, if there is a better term to describe what is happening to a lot of people within the
Christian movement today, particularly, the immature ones, I don’t know what it is.
“Carried away unto these dumb idols, evenas ye were led.” In other words, the first thing I
want to tell you is that the use of the spiritual gifts is not in any way to be compared with
those old experiences you had as a non-Christian. “Wherefore I give you to understand,
that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say
that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” In other words, if you are really led by the
Holy Spirit then you will be acknowledging the deity, the supreme deity and lordship, of
Jesus Christ. That is the characteristic of the person who is really under the influence of
the Spirit. He doesn’t talk about the Spirit, he talks about Jesus Christ and what he has
done for him at the Cross at Calvary and the benefits that flowed from it. So Paul begins
there warning them against being swept away by ecstasy, as they were when they were
unbelievers. Seizure is not spiritual. You should be led of the Spirit not led away by ecstasy.
Now, he makes these points in these verses. The first point, the gifts are not rewards for
effort; they are presents of grace. Verse 4 “Now there are diversities of spiritual gifts.” And
the word that is used in that text in the Greek is the word charisma. Now, charisma is a
term, which is derived from the Greek word for grace, which is charis. And so, a charisma
is a grace gift. So the very first thing that we learn about the spiritual gifts is that they are
presents of grace. They are not anything. They are not gifts that rewards for effort. They
are not signs of dedication. They are gifts of God in grace.

The holy spirit gift of tongues

The holy spirit gift of tongues

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to The holy spirit gift of tongues

Similar to The holy spirit gift of tongues (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The holy spirit gift of tongues