Monday, April 03, 2006

Tongues 2

2. Tongues in Acts
Most Pentecostals understandably make their home in Acts 2 (thus, Pentecost-als ;-). Acts 2 provides for many a direct association between being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Thus for the original Pentecostals (who had their roots in the holiness movement), speaking in tongues was a second or even third "work of grace" for a Christian after conversion. For those like the United Pentecostal Church, who see the Spirit-fillings of Acts as an essential part of conversion, it is a short step to say that you can't even be a Christian if you do not speak in tongues.

There are a number of problems here.

For one thing, the book of Acts does not say anywhere that tongues are always involved when the Holy Spirit fills a person. There are of course three incidents in Acts where tongues are mentioned when the Holy Spirit comes (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). But there are other places where the Spirit comes and tongues are not mentioned (Acts 4:31; 8:17-19; 9:17-19; and the rest of Acts).

A person who argues you have to speak in tongues to have the Spirit is arguing from the silence of the text. I think Acts does indicate that tongues of its sort are an indication that you have the Spirit (e.g., 10:46). But Acts never says the opposite is true: that you will speak in tongues if you have the Holy Spirit. It never says this.

I might also add that 1 Corinthians 12:30 gives me the final answer on the issue of whether all Christians will speak in tongues: "All don't speak in tongues, do they?" In Greek this is a question introduced by me, thus a question expecting a no answer: "Do all speak in tongues? No" is a legitimate translation. And for those UPCers out there, Paul doesn't say, "Do all have the gift of tongues?" He simply says that all do not speak (laleo) in tongues, the same word that Acts 2:4 uses when it says the apostles spoke (laleo) in different tongues.

As a matter of argument, tongues are rarely mentioned in the New Testament as a whole. They feature prominently in 1 Corinthians where Paul is addressing a problem in the Corinthian church. But he doesn't even mention them in his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6-8 (see their absence also in Ephesians 4:7-13). Indeed, they are last on his list even in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In short, a Pentecostal would not have written the New Testament this way--it would not look this way if their emphases were that of the NT authors.

So what of those Pentecostals who would distinguish between tongues as evidence of the Holy Spirit and tongues as a gift, as in 1 Corinthians 12-14? First, this is not a distinction we find the Bible ever making. That's a tell tale sign of a Christian tradition taking over, when the heart of a doctrine is nowhere stated. It's an ingenious way of splicing Acts to 1 Corinthians--just not one the Bible ever says. And I've already mentioned that 1 Corinthians 12:30 argues against this line of interpretation.

Again, if tongues were the evidence of the Holy Spirit, then we would expect it to go hand in hand with any discussion of the Holy Spirit. We would expect John to say the Holy Spirit leads into all truth (John 16:13), convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8), and you will know it because you will speak in tongues. We would expect Romans to say that the Spirit bears witness with our Spirit as we speak in tongues and tells us we are a child of God (Romans 8:16). We would expect Paul to say that the Holy Spirit is a downpayment that guarantees our inheritance (2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:14), God's seal of ownership on us (2 Cor. 1:22), made clear as we speak in tongues. And it would sure be great if Hebrews 6:4 would be a little clearer in telling us that the heavenly gift it has in mind is speaking in tongues--it does relate it to partaking of the Holy Spirit, after all.

A Pentecostal would have told us these things in these passages. The New Testament authors did not. The most logical reason they don't is because they do not think of tongues every time they think of the Holy Spirit.

A second thing to think about is the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are human languages, at least that is the most natural way to take it. I think Charles Carter used to suggest that they were speaking the same thing as 1 Corinthians 14, but that the people were given the gift of interpretation to where they heard it in their own languages. Ingenious! But of course Acts says nothing like this. It is another reading into the text to iron out an issue in our theology.

"They began to speak in different languages [tongues] as the Spirit was giving to them to speak out" (Acts 2:4) ... "... each one was hearing them speak in his own dialect (2:6) ... we hear them speaking in our languages [tongues] the great things of God (2:11)."

It seems to me that the most natural way to take this is that they spoke in different languages and the people heard them in those different languages.

I suspect strongly that the tongues of those who claim that their tongues are the evidence of the Holy Spirit would not pass a foreign language test. Yet this seems to be the tongues of Acts 2.

And while Acts 10 and 19 do not tell us if the tongues are foreign languages or not, the book of Acts itself gives us no basis to consider it anything different from the tongues of Acts 2. That is, Acts never informs us of the 1 Corinthians 14 type of tongues. In the story world of Acts, they do not clearly exist. The burden of proof is thus on anyone who would argue that the tongues in Acts 10 and 19 are angelic languages or prayer languages or ecstatic languages or anything other than the different human languages of Acts 2.

So why does Luke mention tongues these three times?

It is interesting to me that the interpretation Peter gives of the tongues in Acts 2 is a Scripture from Joel that sees prophecy as a primary feature of the coming of the Spirit. This fits with the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are used for missionary purposes--not for personal edification as the "evidence" of the Spirit turns out to be in the UPC. One of Luke's special emphasis is that the gospel is for the whole world and to the ends of the earth. How appropriate that the prophetic message be given to people from all over the world through the ability to speak in their languages!

I believe Luke mentions the tongues in Acts 10 to make it clear that the experience of the Gentiles wasn't different in any way from the experience of Jews on the Day of Pentecost. This was a very important point so that Jewish Christians could not claim any superiority over Gentile Christians. Again, tongues in Acts 10 serve an important corporate purpose.

Similarly, I believe that Acts 19 mentions tongues to make it doubly clear that being baptized by John the Baptist was not the same thing as being baptized by the Spirit. The tongues emphasize this point. Again, tongues serve to make a theological point here.

A final note. The text of Acts 2, presenting us with events on the Day of Pentecost, has proved to be extremely important as a sacrament of revelation both to Wesleyan and Pentecostal communities of faith. Indeed, this text is more important to us than to most other Christian communities. A good deal of our past identity is tied up with a particular reading of this text. Without closing the doors to these sacramental means of theological grace, we might also keep in mind an original meaning concern in the process.

While we have four gospels, we have only one Acts. Those gospels are often quite unique from each other and can differ both in arrangement and emphasis. Indeed, in some instances we might be quite misled if we had only one of them.

For example, we would not know that Mary and Joseph came from Nazareth to Bethlehem if we didn't have Luke. We would think they had always lived in Bethlehem and only moved to Nazareth after Jesus was born (from Matthew). Similarly, we would not know that Jesus spoke in parables or cast out demons if all we had was John.

Here's the warning: if we had second volumes to Matthew, Mark, or John, they would likely differ as much from Acts as Luke differs from Matthew, Mark, and John. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly how they would differ.

So we probably should not take Acts to be a straightforward videotape of events in the life of the early church. This fact argues against basing the core of one's theology on a specific way of reading between the lines of the specifics of Acts. And that is exactly what Pentecostals tend to do.

15 comments:

S.I. said...

I know of one main supporting argument for tongues being part of the "second work" of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It points to when Paul visited some new Christians, he asked whether they had been filled with the Holy Spirit. When he laid hands on them and prayed, they were filled and spoke in tongues (Tongues=direct result of being filled with holy spirit being the interpretation). Of course, when I looked it up I could only find one such reference in Acts 19:1-6 (and I was under the impression that it happened more than once. A good Pentecostal might also wave around Acts 2:3-5ish (Acts really does seem to be the ovrall book of choice). Perhaps a less disillusioned Pentecostal could provide stronger support than what I have presented.

S.I. said...

and less typos:-)

Anonymous said...

You wrote: This fits with the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are used for missionary purposes--not for personal edification as the "evidence" of the Spirit turns out to be in the UPC. One of Luke's special emphasis is that the gospel is for the whole world and to the ends of the earth. How appropriate that the prophetic message be given to people from all over the world through the ability to speak in their languages!

Though I am clearly involved in a Pentecostal organization, I would have to agree that the scripture does not point to tongues as the necessary "evidence" of the Holy Spirit. Having said that, however, I must take exception to your statement that the tongues of Acts were intended for missional purposes. I would suggest that idea is more reflective of your own tendency to read a preconceived suppostion into the text. Truth is, no where in scripture do we have evidence of anyone speaking in tongues for the purpose of evangelism at any time. It is always either for personal edification or as personal expressions of praise and worship. In Acts 2, the effect of such was to draw a crowd who then asked questions. This was not the purpose of tongues, but rather the effect. It then afforded Peter the opportunity to present a message to the people. The scripture does not tell us that he did so by speaking in tongues. Again, no where in the scripture is tongues used for this purpose.

Ken Schenck said...

Hey Stephanie, it is very important in my understanding of Acts not to see the people Paul is talking to at Ephesus as Christians.

In my understanding, they knew and had experienced John's Baptism in anticipation of the Messiah. But it seems pretty clear to me that they did not know much of anything about Jesus (19:4). If they did, they only knew him before his death and resurrection (is this why they can be called disciples even though they seem to know so little?). They don't seem even to know about Christian baptism.

So they're not even Christians and may not even know that Jesus is the Messiah. UPC use this passage to argue that you must be rebaptized in the name of Jesus only if you have been baptized in the name of the Trinity, but clearly that's not the issue. The issue is that these individuals aren't even Christians.

My understanding...

Ken Schenck said...

Pastor Burt, thanks for giving thoughts from a standpoint of experience! I don't mean to say that all tongues are for missional purposes. I actually think most tongues are more like what the Corinthians experienced, which were personally edifying. I read your blog and agree with you that there's nothing wrong with tongues being personally edifying.

But I do think they were for missionary purposes on the Day of Pentecost because I think Peter interprets them as the kind of prophetic speech Joel foretold... and no doubt personally edifying even then!

S.I. said...

Pastor Burt, how do you interpret 1 Corinthians 14? I'll paste from verse 20 on:

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21 In the law it is written:

“ With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,”[b]

says the Lord.
22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe. 23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus[c] the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

From this passage, I don't see tongues being limited to the purpose of personal edification and praise and worship.

S.I. said...

again, not that they can't edify or worship God, but the addition of "always" sends up some flags for me.

S.I. said...

Schenck,

Wait a second--I realize these people were originally following John, but I would still consider them to have the same "status" as Christians just like God's faithful remnant in the OT. If there's something I may not be considering, clue me in.

Ken Schenck said...

Oh, I'm fine with the idea that they might have been pre-Christians who would be in the kingdom, like Abraham, for example. But in my opinion, the "that without which" in Acts, Paul, and Hebrews is the Holy Spirit... if someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his (Rom. 8:9), Spirit is seal of God's ownership (2 Cor. 1:22), etc... I think Acts 2:38 is about becoming a Christian and the most crucial part is receiving the Holy Spirit so that your heart is purified of past sins (Acts 15:9). In Samaria they are baptized but have not received the Holy Spirit = problem. They call out Peter and John to go lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14-17).

So I would say that in the NT, the single most essential element in "getting saved" is receiving the Holy Spirit.

That's what I meant...

Anonymous said...

Steph... Thanks's for the question. You can find my discourse on tongues at the following link: http://pastorburt.lifewithchrist.org/permalink/21103

My point isn't that it is not possible for tongues to be used as a way of communicating the gospel in anther language, but rather that this is not the primary purpose of the gift. Furthermore, experientially, it is nowhere to be found in the scripture. That is worth noting and should bear strong weight in considering any view of the purpose of tongues in the church (both then and now!). In addition, I don't believe that Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is an "interpretation of tongues" because verse 11 already tells us the general content of what was being said. No interpretation is therefore necessary. Rather, his sermon is a way of capitalizing on the natural curiosity produced by this sudden proclamation of tongues. When quoting Joel, Peter interprets the prophet and explains what is happening. This is not the same as interpreting the tongues themselves. Again, we see a difference between the purpose of tongues and the potential effect of tongues on others. So with all due respect to Ken, I don't see tongues as being utilized for the intended purpose of evangelism, even on the day of Pentecost. It's more of a side effect. It seems much more true to the text that the tongues manifestation was more directly a sudden evidence and effect of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (though I would agree it goes too far to then argue that tongues must necessarily always be an evidence of the Holy Spirit's infilling).

Ken Schenck said...

Pastor Burt, I'm not sure if we're saying completely different things or not (if so, fair enough). I'm not suggesting that there was a two part--tongues then interpretation. I'm suggesting that they spoke in other languages and that the content of their speaking was to tell the great things of God (2:11), which I assume primarily involved evangelism and perhaps talk of things that were going to take place (e.g., the coming times of refreshing, like 3:19-20).

Anonymous said...

Ken,
I appreciate the dialogue. I'm sorry if I come across as argumentative, that is certainly not my intent. The assumption you make in the latter part of your above comment illustrates a difference in pentecostal theology regarding this passage. Pentecostals believe that when a person speaks in tongues he is speaking to God (because of 1 Cor. 14)and not to men. Because of this, the Acts passage (2:11) is understood as a bunch of bystanders overhearing the disciples speaking in tongues, not as them being the targeted recipients of those tongues. Wonders being declared are then understood to be references to personal and corporate proclamations of praise and worship. This seems to be more true to the text and to the whole of scripture, IMHO. :-)

Keith Drury said...

This is certainlly a good discussion on "tongues" (and one of the most reasonable ones i've heard--at least so far)... I think it calls for a more complete blog or article from Ken Schenck.

kerry kind said...

Ken, I love to watch you practice your craft. Your most telling arguments remain unanswered, e.g.:
"A Pentecostal would have told us these things in these passages. The New Testament authors did not."

This made me wonder, however, about which of our favorite Wesleyan positions might it be said: "A good Wesleyan would have told us these things clearly. The New Testament authors did not."

Ken Schenck said...

Ha! That's a can of worms! I do think it's true that John Wesley would not have written Romans quite the way Paul did. And I don't think John Fletcher or Phoebe Palmer would have written Acts quite the way Luke did.

But I do believe Paul and the New Testament consistently teach that Christians should not sin, that they cannot logically be slaves to sin. I believe that Paul does call Christians who are "fleshly" or "carnal" to become "spiritual." And Paul calls on the Thessalonians to be holy in their entirety.

So I don't think the NT authors packaged the key doctrine of our past in the neat ordo salutis of our past or that they conceptualized things like "sin nature" quite the way we do. But I think the basic components are there to be re-presented in our categories, just as God originally presented these truths in the categories of the biblical authors.

My attempt to fish with the worms after opening the can (rather than letting them just run loose all over the place)...