Yuku free message boards

Morganites,

You seem interested in the subject of tongues. It is an interesting subject, one that I've devoted a lot of thought to over the past 5 or 6 years. I used to attend an Assemblies of God church, and for a very short time I tried to convince myself that I had the gift of tongues.

The first mention of tongues in the NT is by Jesus in Mark 16:17, if you take that to be genuine Scripture like I do. Jesus said those that heard and believed the apostles' preaching would "speak in new [Gr. kainais] tongues" (RSV). Kainais means new in the sense of "that which is unaccustomed or unused, not new in time, recent, but new as to form or quality, of different nature from what is contrasted as old" (Vine, W.E. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996. 430-31). These languages that the early Christians would speak were languages that they were not accustomed to speaking, not languages that did not exist on earth.

These languages are the "other tongues" (Gr. heterais glossais) of Acts 2:4, just as Vine points out in his dictionary. As to your specific question -- whether "tongues" as of fire is the same word as "tongues" the languages -- yes, the same Greek word is used.

The question for the biblical interpreter is the nature of the gift of tongues. Were tongues understandable languages, or were they "heavenly languages" (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1) or ecstatic gibberish? I think clearly in Acts 2 the tongues were actual languages. Glossais ("languages," 2:4) is used as a synonym for dialekto ("dialect," 2:8), which refers to "primarily a conversation, discourse...came to denote the language or dialect of a country or district" (Vine 352). Furthermore, the text clearly says that the men understood the apostles' speech.

Where interpreters are divided is 1 Cor 12-14, where the Corinthians caused a great raucous about tongues. Noted pastor and teacher John MacArthur understands the "tongues" in 1 Cor 12-14 to refer to ecstatic utterances of a pagan, gibberish nature. Here are some of his comments.

"Although it is not indicated consistently in some translations, the distinction between the singular tongue and the plural tongues is foundational to the proper interpretation of this chapter. Paul seems to use the singular to distinguish the counterfeit gift of pagan gibberish and the plural to indicate the genuine gift of a foreign language (see note on v. 2). It was perhaps in recognition of that, that the King James Version (KJV) translators added consistently the word 'unknown' before every singular form (see vv. 2,4,13,14,19,27). The implications of that distinction will be noted as appropriate. Against the backdrop of carnality and counterfeit ecstatic speech learned from the experience of the pagans, Paul covers 3 basic issues with regard to speaking in languages by the gift of the Holy Spirit: 1) its position, inferior to prophecy (vv. 1-19); 2) its purpose, a sign to unbelievers not believers (vv. 20-25); and 3) its procedure, systematic, limited, and orderly (vv. 26-40)" (MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible, New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997. 1751).

"The carnal Corinthians using the counterfeit ecstatic speech of paganism were not interested in being understood, but in making a dramatic display. The spirit by which they spoke was not the Holy Spirit, but their own human spirit or some demon; and the mysteries they declared were the type associated with the pagan mystery religions, which was espoused to be the depths that only the initiated few were privileged to know and understand. Those mysteries were totally unlike the ones mentioned in Scripture (e.g., Matt. 13:11; Eph. 3:9), which are divine revelations of truths previously hidden (see notes on 12:7; Eph. 3:3-6)" (MacArthur 1751).

One could approach the tongues in 1 Cor this way. But I think MacArthur is incorrect. For several reasons I think the tongues in 1 Cor are of the same nature (ie, real languages) as those in Acts 2.

1. It is the natural interpretation, since Paul gives no indication of using "tongues" in any other sense than the natural.

2. No real distinction exists between the singular "tongue" and plural "tongues," as though some significance were to be attached to the sing/pl forms. It is natural that Paul should refer to a single person speaking in a single language.

3. Paul says that the tongue "edifies" the speaker. For Paul, edification has to do with building up the cognitive faculties. See, for example, 14:2, 6-12, 16-19. In view of this fact, it seems only natural that the "tongue" which the person spoke was a real language, otherwise how could he have edified himself (14:4)?

4. While all of the background information on pagan tongues seems interesting, Paul provides no indication that he is dealing with that issue. Although he does refer to the Corinthians' pagan background (12:2 -- and they may have been involved in the pagan mystery religions and the ecstatic vocal manifestations), he seems to presume that they have the genuine, biblical gift of tongues as manifested in Acts 2 (12:7, 10-11, 28; 14:26).

Other reasons, especially linguistic arguments based on the Greek text, could be cited, but I think these objections are sufficient to demonstrate that John MacArthur is probably misunderstanding the text. I think we have every reason to believe that the gift of tongues in 1 Cor was the same as that in Acts 2, and that all of the NT references to the gift of tongues refers to the same manifestation of foreign languages.

Of course, other issues in the tongues discussion focus on the purpose of the gift, as well as its duration. But those issues can be covered in another discussion.

Hope this helps.

-Keith