Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

SPEAKING IN TONGUES Bíblica! Spenking in Tonques and Contemperan»' Glossolalia

Gerhard F. Hasel

ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY MONOGRAPHS, VOL. 1 (ATSM, 1)

Adventist Theological Society Publications Berrien Springs, MI 4 9 1 0 3

SPEAKING IN TONGUES Biblical Speaking in Tongues ai Contem porary G lossolalia

Gerhard F. Hasel

Adventist Theological Society Publica! Berrien Springs, MI 4 9 1 0 3

Cover design by Giselle Sarli

© by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1991 © by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1994 All Rights Reserved

ISSN 1059-7905

To purchase a copy of this book mail your prepaid order ($ 1 1 .9 5 , postage paid) to: SPEAKING IN TONGUES 9 9 8 4 Red Bud Trail Berrien Springs, MI 4 9 1 0 3 , USA

CONTENTS

PREFACE

9

INTRODUCTION

Chapter I

11

CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN AND NONCHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA . 1. Glossolalia ¡n Contemporary Christianity 2. Glossolalia ¡n Contemporary Non-Christian Religions 3. Glossolalia ¡n Contemporary Linguistic Study 4. Glossolalia in Contemporary Experience 5. Glossolalia and Contemporary Doctrinal Disunity 6. Glossolalia and the Testing of Tongues Endnotes

Chapter II

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE 1. Greek Usage of Glóssa Laleín in the New Testa me nt 2. Alleged Glossolalia Outside the New Testament 3. The Usage of Glóssa and Laléo Outside the New Testament 4. The Usage of Glóssa Laleín in the Septuagint 5. Modern Hypotheses for Glossolalia as Unintelligible Speech 6. Conclusions Endnotes

17 20 24 27 31 35 35 37

41

43 47 49 51 52 54 55

Chapter III

SPEAKINGIN TONGUES IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Chapter IV

Historical Setting Jesús' Prediction of Speaking in New Tongues The Meaning of the Word "Tongues" The Meaning of the Word "New" The Purpose of Speaking in New Tongues

59 60 61 61 63

Endnotes

64

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

67

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

67 68 69 74 75

Historical Setting The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit The Nature of Speaking in Tongues The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues The Scoffers' Reaction to Speaking in Tongues Speaking in Tongues and Modern Source Hypotheses 7. Conclusions Endnotes

Chapter V

Chapter VI

59

76 82 83

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 10

91

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Historical Setting Linkages Between Acts 2 and Acts 10 The Nature of Speaking in Tongues The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues Conclusions

91 92 93 94 94

Endnotes

95

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

97

1. Historical Setting 2. Ephesian "Disciples," Christian Baptism and the Holy Spirit 3. Speaking in Tongues and Prophesying 4. Does Spirit-Baptism Result in Glossolalia? 5. Conclusions

97

Endnotes

98 101 103 104 105

Chapter Vil

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14 1. Historlcal Setting 2. Surveyof 1 Corinthians 12-14 a. 1 Corinthians 12 b. 1 Corinthians 13 c. 1 Corinthians 14 3. Tongues-Speaking Language ¡n Modern Translations 4. Tongues-SpeakingTerminology 5. Tongues-Speaking and the Language of Angels 6. Tongues-Speaking and Speaking Mysteries 7. Tongues-Speaking and Understanding 8. Tongues-Speaking and Hellenistic Mystery Religions 9. Tongues-Speaking and the Upbuilding of the Church 10. Tongues-Speaking as a Sign for Unbelievers 11. Tongues-Speaking and Interpretation 12. Tongues-Speaking and Prophecy 13. Tongues-Speaking and Prayer 14. Tongues-Speaking and Orderly Worship 15. Conclusions Endnotes

109 111 112 113 115 115 116 118 122 123 126 129 133 136 141 144 145 147 150 154

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

INDEX

174

PREFACE

There ¡s nothing more pervasive ¡n contemporary Christianity than "speaking in tongues," technically designated as glossolalia. This topic ¡s part of the larger context of the charismatic movement. It has held the attention of the author of this book for about three decades. He has studied this topic over the years from the Scriptural evidence as well as the múltiple and variegated aspects in contemporary discussions in church commissions, scholarly investigations, and personal contacts around the world. In the last thirty years the charismatic movement has experienced three "waves" of development. The "first wave" appeared around 1900 and manifested itself in the traditional Pentecostal churches in which "speaking in tongues" is perceived as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the key to greater spiritual power. The "second wave" showed up in the 1960s when "speaking in tongues" entered most traditional churches of Christianity, including Methodism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, the Baptist denominations, the Román Catholic Church and so on. This wave is known as neo-Pentecostalism or the charismatic renewal movement. The "third wave" developed in the 1980s. It too is part of the charismatic movement worldwide. It is characterized, among other things, by an emphasis on so-called power evangelism where the forcé of prayer is utilized, particularly for the purpose of miraculous healing. A significant part of the current "third wave" of the charismatic renewal movement is the celebration church movement. The inspiration of the latter is charismatic church renewal as is noted by "third wave" writers. It is ¡mportant to recognize that these three "waves" are a part of the charismatic movement in Christianity at large. By means of these "waves" nearly every Christian denomina­ ro n is being penetrated with the charismatic movement in its various shapes and forms. The forces of the charismatic movement are immense and often quite adaptable to new settings. Thus there is this larger contemporary context of "speaking in tongues" in the charismatic movement in Christianity.

10

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Various parts of this book have been presented in formal and informal ways in a variety of church settings. Appreciation goes to many people for the encouragement and support for this project. I wish to thank Dr. Jack Blanco, chairperson of the Adventist Theological Society Publications Committee and its members, for the encouragement to have this book appear in the series of the "Adventist Theological Society Monographs." Dr. Gordon Hyde and William Fagal have gone the extra mile in making this book more readable by going through the manuscript and offering ma,ny learned and valuable suggestions. Reinaldo Siqueira and Koot van Wyk, doctoral students at Andrews University, have checked references and engaged in other technical assistance. Mrs. Betty Jean Mader has provided fine practical advice and profound Computer skills without which this book would not have seen such speedy publication. I greatly benefitted from the suggestions of many people with whom I have discussed aspects of this topic over the years and whose ñames are too many to mention. Of course, it is understood that I assume all responsibilities for the content and the limitations of this book. Constant encouragement and understanding was provided by my family. The preparation of this work has absorbed more leisure time than one anticipates that rightly beionged to my wife, Hilde. In a real sense her love and unselfishness are a key contribution to this book. Thus I wish to dedícate this book to Hilde as a worthwhile retum for her ¡nvestment in love and support for me and for God's cause. Gerhard F. Hasel Theological Seminary Andrews University

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenon of "speaking in tongues," technically designated as "glossolalia," has been manifested ¡n nearly every Christian denomination in recent years. Some churches have been divided on how to handle this manifestation. There are churches where it has been totally rejected and ¡n others ¡t has been uneasily tolerated or quietly supported. Other churches again have embraced ¡t wholeheartedly. Some congregations have claimed a sweet enrichment and others have been split over it. Glossolalia remains a controversial subject despite its occurrence growth and popularity. The widespread practice of "tongues" Is pervasive in worldwide Christianity. It is unquestionable the fastest growing phenomenon not only among the traditional Pentecostal churches and neo-Pentecostalists, but also among various other charismatics and renewal movements. There are estimates that between 140 and 370 million Christians engage in glossolalia worldwide. These figures suggest that between 7.7% and 20.5% of all Christians engage in glossola­ lia, if one accept the figure of 1.8 billion as the total number of Christians on this globe. A whole new set of questions is being asked today regarding glossolalia. Aside from the issues of whether the Christian usage of glossolalia is from God or, as others hold, from Satan or to be connected with the demonic; whether it is a supernatural phenomenon; whether it is the result of a trance-state, a stimulation of Boca's Area in the left cerebral hemisphere, an altered State of consciousness, a form of hypnosis or hysteria, or a process of learned behavior, there is a another matter that cuts to the very core of the modern concern-namely whether the modern phenomenon of glosso­ lalia is identical with the gift of the Holy Spirit manifested on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Most modern charismatics say that present day glossolalia is not identical with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They claim instead that it is identical w ith Paul's descriptions of the spiritual gifts

12

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

in 1 Cor 12-14. Is contemporary glossolalia as practiced among Christians different from the gift "speaking in tongues" referred to in Acts 2? Are they affirming that there are tw o different kinds of "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament, one in Acts 2 and another one in 1 Cor 12-14? Why do modern glossolalists now usually suggest that they speak in the "language of angels" whereas they said before that they spoke in known foreign languages? Is ¡t true that modern glossolalia is a spiritual and not a rational language? These questions and issues are but a small sample of those that many Christians are asking about today. These matters and many more deserve to be addressed with candor and honesty. Charismatics usually consider "speaking in tongues" as the fulfillment of the Latter Rain promised in Joel 2:28-29. They believe that glossolalia is a final and massive manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the end of time before the Second Corning of Christ. It is a major sign, and for some the sign, of the end. Thoughtful non-charismatic Christians everywhere, who do not belong to Pentecostalism and have not become engaged in neo-Pentecostalism, which developed from the 1960s onward, and are not part of the charismatic renewal movements of the 1970s and 1980s, wonder how they should understand these unique modern developments. Laypersons, church leaders on all levels, theology students and pastors of more traditional Christian churches ask what to make of neo-Pentecostalism and the modern "charismatic renewal movements" where "speaking in tongues," glossola­ lia, is an essential ¡f not the key element. People everywhere ask about "speaking in tongues," its origin, its meaning in personal life, its purpose for the church, and its extraordinary explosión in nearly every denomination. Is this the foundation of Christian and non-Christian ecumenism? Many of the televangelists, radio preachers, faith healers, and others who are Pentecostalists or charismatics engage from time to time in glossolalic speech in their mass media proclamations. They contribute in no small measure to the

INTRODUCTION

13

spread of and ¡nterest ¡n the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues." More than ever before "speaking in tongues" is a phenomenon that has aroused the interest of the masses. The largest church in the world, which I was able to visit once, is the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, Korea, with 400,000 members in 1984, pastored by Paul Yonggi Cho and a pastoral staff in excess of 320 persons. A key element in this congregation is an emphasis on church growth coupled with glossolalia, faith healing and miracles. Other megachurches and metachurches are "tongues-speaking." Charismatic movements are so extensive that a professional society under the ñame of "Society for Pentecostal Studies" was formed. There is also an explosión of literature from so many quarters that average Christians, even scholars, are overwhelmed. It has become nearly impossible for them to keep up with the rapid pace of publications on the subject. We have only to remind ourselves that a 1985 bibliography on "speaking in tongues," which Watson E. Mills published under the title, Glossolalia: A Bibliography, has no less than 1,150 entries. This does not account for the hundreds of Ítems that have been published since. The field of Pentecostal and charismatic renewal movements is so vast that the year 1988 saw a major publishing house in the United States come out with a Dlctlonary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Zondervan Publishing House). I have greatly benefitted from a vast number of these resources in the form of books and articles that I have studied for more than tw o decades. A t one time, people who were nonparticipants in the charismatic movements designated those who were classical Pentecostals in North America as "holy rollers," a term that was used pejoratively. Today respectability for charismatic tongues-speakers is higher than at any other time. When the faith healer, Oral Roberts, left his Pentecostal denominaron in 1967 and joined a prestigious Methodist Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma-subsequently building Oral Roberts University for 200 million dollars—it was clear that "tongues-speaking"

14

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

charismatics had achieved a new level of respectability. This does not mean that all charismatics are welcome at every place and ¡n every denomination. In the latter 1980s three faculty members of the large dispensationalist Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, started "speaking in tongues" as part of their charismatic experience. They subsequently resigned under pressure from their institution. Nevertheless, regardless of what one's personal convictions or feelings are on the subject of "speaking in tongues" (glossolalia), there is by and large a respectability accorded to charismatic Christians that did not exist in the same way before. Very few people are aware of the newest developments in traditional Pentecostalism and particularly in the recent neoPentecostalism. Fewer people yet are informed about the vast number of new insights gained from the most recent literature on "speaking in tongues," or glossolalia. Extensive research has been done by psychologists and psychiatrists on persons practicing glossolalia. Linguists of various specialties have investigated the linguistic nature of glossolalia as a language among Christians and non-Christians, including pagan glossolalists. On the sociocultural side studies have demonstrated that glossolalia is not a uniquely Christian practice. Large numbers of studies have investigated various Biblical aspects of evidence on "speaking in tongues" using a variety of approaches and methodologies. The conclusions of these studies are by no means identical or uniform, reflecting their respective methodological biases and other factors. The approach chosen for the topics of this volume has been to move into a description of the modern phenomena of glossolalia as ¡t developed in the twentieth century. Subse­ quently we do turn to the New Testament in an endeavor to discover what this part of the Word of God has to tell us about Biblical "speaking in tongues." In accordance with this methodology we depict in the first chapter the rise of "speak­ ing in tongues" at the turn of the twentieth century, the appearance of glossolalia in non-Christian religions and the study of glossolalia in both Christian and pagan religions by

INTRODUCTION

15

various authoritative scientists and scholars. Then we turn our attention to the practice of glossolalia ¡n the experience of many modern religious settings and follow up with the questions raised regarding the disunity in teaching and doctrine among those who engage ¡n glossolalia. This chapter concludes with a section on testing of tongues and the way ¡nterpreters of tongues engage in their art. The second chapter gives major emphasis to a linguistic study of the terminology used in the Bible for "speaking in tongues." The purpose of this chapter ¡s to discover what language is used in the New Testament and whether the usage of this language for this Biblical gift is employed in nonChristian texts of the surrounding ancient world. The ultímate aim is to discover whether ancient religions, or practices among ancients, are ¡dentical to those in what the New Testament describes as "speaking in tongues" and whether the New Testament practice is in continuity with practices in ancient pagan religions. The remaining five chapters are devoted respectively to a detailed study of the five passages in the New Testament, Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1-13, 10:44-48; 19:1-7; and 1 Cor 1214, that deal directly and explicitly w ith "speaking in tongues." The purpose of each of these five chapters is to study each passage in its own context, to relate it to previous investigations and yet to let it stand in its Biblical context. Particular focus is given 1) to discovering the origin of "speaking in tongues," 2) to determining from the Biblical context the purpose for which this gift had been given, 3) to relating it to the larger topic of spiritual gifts, and 4) to ascertaining whether the "speaking in tongues" phenomenon in the New Testament is the same in all passages or whether the same word may mean something different, particularly in 1 Cor 12-14. Many charismatics and modern scholars believe that there is a distinction between the passages in Acts and 1 Cor 12-14, even though the same original language is used in them. This matter is sensitive but decisive, from many points of view, to the modern debate on the nature of glossolalia.

16

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The overall purpose ¡s to find out whether the modern phenomenon of "speaking ¡n tongues" (glossolalia), ¡s to be ¡dentified with "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament. If it is, then we seek to know whether it functions ¡n the same way now as in the New Testament. If it is not, then we need to understand what modern glossolalia is and how the Christian is to relate to it. We trust that in this modest effort on our part our Father in heaven and our Lord Jesús Christ will be glorified. After all, the Holy Spirit is promised to God's people in the last days and the Latter Rain of that Spirit (cf. Joel 2:28-29) is desired by every sincere believer.

CHAPTER I

CONTEM PORARY CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN GLO SSO LA LIA

The contemporary phenomenon of "speaking ¡n tongues," which ¡s practiced by millions of Christians around the world at present, is of recent origin ¡n Christianity. Even though there have been attempts by the score to demónstrate that the phenomenon of glossolalia in modern times has roots going back for centuries in Christian practice, it remains certain that it is of recent origin, as will be shown below. The practice of "speaking in tongues," or glossolalia, is part of the Pentecostalism of the twentieth century and the charismatic movement that has spread beyond traditional Pentecostal churches since the 1960s. It is growing at a most rapid pace and seems to have become a part of nearly every Christian denomination around the world. In view of this rapidly spreading phenomenon, there are more and more Christians asking a set of new questions. Bible-believing Christians are asking, Where does "speaking in tongues" origínate from? Who engages in the practice of "speaking in tongues"? Do all Christians need to "speak in tongues"? Is this "speaking in tongues" necessary for a person to be saved? Is "speaking in tongues" the same as the baptism of the Holy Spirit? Is "speaking in tongues" the outpouring of the Latter Rain before Jesús Christ returns in the clouds of heaven? Who endorses "speaking in tongues"? Does "speaking in tongues" lead to a closer walk with Christ? Does the Holy Spirit reveal "new truths" to the one "speaking in tongues"? If "speaking in tongues" derives from the Holy Spirit, does it lead into a full knowledge of all truth of Scripture? Is "speaking in tongues" the future means to unite all Christians into one single church? These questions are but a few of the ones most frequently asked today. There is, however, another set of questions that is asked regardingthiscontemporary phenomenon, becauseglossolalia, or "speaking in tongues," remains for many people a modern

18

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

enigma.1 Bible-believing Christians ask one set of questions which need to be answered from the Bible and a Christian context. In recent years glossolalia--as we shall cali the modern phenomenon of "speaking in tongues"--has received much attention from experts in various fields of study such as scholars, linguists, anthropologists, and scientists. For nearly a century these experts have engaged in scholarly and scientific studies of the phenomenon of glossolalia. They deserve to be heard as well. What have they found? How does it relate to what ¡s already known? What ¡nfluence have these studies had on those who engage in glossolalia? For example, glossolalia has been studied by linguists and anthropologists who attempt to discover whether and/or to what extent it is linked to modern or ancient languages and language structures. Glossolalia has been ¡nvestigated by psychologists and psychiatrists who wish to find out whether it is an aberrant or semi-normal psychological form of human behavior.2 Glossolalia has been scrutinized in recent years by sociologists and behavioral scientists who seek to discover its place in various areas of socio-behavioral patterns of human behavior.3 Another group of researchers has ¡nvestigated the relationship of glossolalia as practiced by Christians with glossolalic phenomena that seem identical in non-Christian religions in the world. It is known now that priests of nonChristian religions, witch doctors, shamans, and other religious persons speak on various ceremonial and religious occasions in glossolalic utterances that have characteristics identical w ith Christian glossolalia. These observations have raised totally new issues and have put glossolalia in a much broader religious context that can no longer be ignored. It is an undeniable fact of the 1990s that scores of researchers and scientists have made great advances in unravelling the glossolalic experience in the modern world. Do their voices deserve to be heard? Do they bring to the attention of the serious person aspects of the phenomena of glossolalia that should no longer be avoided or ignored? It is our responsibility to inform ourselves on these new issues and to bring them to bear on New Testament "speaking in

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 19 tongues." The essential question remains, Are New Testament "speaking in tongues" and modern glossolalia ¡dentical or is there a radical difference between them? This vexing issue deserves renewed attention ¡n view of the new findings in so many fields. We need to define our terms now. The modern phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" is most appropriately designated from a formal point of view as glossolalia (the ñame of which is derived from the Greek terms glóssa, "tongue, language," and the verb laléo, "to speak"). Glossolalia is defined in the recent authoritative Encydopedia o f Religión as a practice of "nonordinary speech behavior that is institutionalized as a religious ritual in numerous Western and non-Western religious communities."4 This up-to-date definition, not typical of older definitions and anomalous in terms of glossolalia is being a typically Christian phenomenon, alerts the reader to the broader picture that has emerged in very recent years in the study of glossolalia. A renowned linguist who has studied Christian glossolalia extensively gave a similar defintion, describing it as "a meaningless but phonetically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."5 This definition is based on a study of Christian "speaking in tongues" that lasted for about a decade or more. It has had a profound influence on Pentecostalism and the charismatic community. Most charismatics today are aware that what is happening in "speaking in tongues," or better, glossolalia, can no longer be defined as the speaking of an unknown living or dead language. Therefore, some have suggested that they speak in the language of angels and not of humans. Both definitions indícate that glossolalia is "non-ordinary speech behavior" in any Christian or non-Christian religious community and that as far as Christians are concerned it is a "human utterance" that bears "no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead." Glossolalia is traditionally identified with "speaking in tongues" mentioned in the New Testament. It has been held

20

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

widely that thé phenomenon today is the gift of the Holy Spirit manifested again ¡n the Christian community at large. For our purposes we shall refer to the modern phenomenon of unintelligible utterances ¡n religious communities as glossolalia and to the New Testament phenomenon as "speaking ¡n tongues." This seems to be sound since the New Testament itself uses the designation of "speaking in tongues." This brief overview of some new matters involving glossolalia w ith their wide-ranging implications calis for more detailed attention which we attempt to provided in the subsequent pages.

1. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY For most Christians glossolalia6 is known as a typically Christian phenomenon, i.e. an experience of the so-called Pentecostal churches and neo-Pentecostal charismatics in many denominations. Glossolalia is likewise a phenomenon that is a characteristic of most churches, denominations, and groups in the modern "charismatic movement." A general umbrella term for all of the latter is "charismatic renewal movement".7 Historically glossolalia and Pentecostalism are modern phenomena,8 leaving aside the Shakers and Irvingites of the nineteenth century, that are said to have begun in 1906 at 312 Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California, in an abandoned African Methodist Episcopal church.9 Pentecostalism was launched there as a worldwide movement from the Azusa Street mission. However, "speaking in tongues," or as we more correctly desígnate it in harmony with the definition above, "glossola­ lia," had its antecedent in 1900 in Kansas. A Methodist minister. Charles Parham, who had started a Bible school, Bethel College (which closed in 1901), in Topeka, Kansas, was hoping to revitalize the church. On Dec. 3 1 ,1 9 0 0 , New Year's night, he laid hands on some of his students. It is reported that Miss Agnes Oznam "began to speak in tongues" on that night.10 Others also began to "speak in tongues," that is, they engaged in glossolalic speech, "and making

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 21 sounds that were not discernible as normal language to the others present."11 Later when Parham moved to Texas an African-American student, William J. Seymour, was in contact with him. On April 9, 1906, the "first Pentecostal effusion carne"12 to Los Angeles at 214 Bonnie Brae Street.13 It ¡nvolved Seymour and the group moved soon to 312 Azusa Street, "where the meetings continued for the next three years."14 Aside from Seymour there was again Agnes Ozman and also Jennie Moore, both of whom engaged in glossolalia in the Azusa Street meetings.15 This is the beginning of modern glossolalia in Christianity in which many other people subsequently entered into from all over the United States and the world. Modern Pentecostalism with its most typical characteristic of glossolalia was thus born at the turn of the 20th century.16 It had its roots in the 19th century Holiness Movement. Watson E. Mills States that from its beginnings "certainly there was no more controversial aspect of charismatic [Christian] religión than speaking in tongues."17 An issue that most students of glossolalia in charismatic Christian faith are hardly aware of is the historical fact that the first persons who practiced glossolalia, that is, the students of Parham, did not study the subject of tongues in the Bible to begin with. Recent investigations demónstrate that glossolalia did not happen as a result of the study of Scripture. "Speaking in tongues," or glossolalia, simply happened, and subsequently students of Parham studied the Bible to find support for this new phenomenon that took place in their meetings. A very early article entitled, "Tongues As A Sign," from September 1906, finishes with a revealing statement, "We have been running off w ith blessings and anointings with God's power, instead of tarrying until Bible evidence of Pentecost carne."18 A key Pentecostal historian reports, "It is significant that this thought [that they spoke w ith other tongues in Acts] developed, not in a revival meeting, but in a Bible school [Parham's Bethel College], not in the midst of camp meeting excitement, but in a group of serious persons who were pondering thoughtfully the relationship of this experience [of glossolalia] to other events, attempting to give it theological substance."19 In other

22

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

words, first carne the glossolalia experience, then students of Parham's Bible school were asked by him to explore the book of Acts to find Biblical evidence for the glossolalia experience. Thus Parham and Seymour became convinced that glossolalia was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that glossolalia was to be identified with the New Testament phenomenon of speaking ¡n tongues.20 From the first occurrence of glossolalia there was the personal conviction that it carne from God and that the Holy Spirit was manifested through glossolalia. As a result, in the mind of charismatics there are tw o sources for the belief that glossolalia was Holy-Spirit-originated. The first was the subjective and personal conviction that it derived from the Holy Spirit and the second was the subsequent ¡nterpretation of Scripture that "speaking in tongues" in Acts and 1 Cor 14 ¡s the same as the glossolalia now practiced.21 A t this point we need to draw tw o important conclusions regarding Christian glossolalia: 1) Whereas Christian glossolalists have claimed from the beginning that there is Biblical support for glossolalia, the fact is undeniable--and we do not say this unkindly-that modern glossolalia does not derive from the study of the Bible but the Bible has been used subsequently to give theological and scriptural support for its use and to give it authenticity. 2) Charismatics who engage in glossolalia point to tw o sources normally for the authenticity of "speak­ ing in tongues." One is the source of personal conviction and the other is the subsequent source of Scripture support. These tw o sources are often in tensión with each other w ith regard to which of them should have primacy or first rank. Since, in historie Protestant Christianity, the Bible and the Bible only is the source of all doctrine and practice, glossolalists usually find the source of personal experience taking precedence. In the 1960s the charismatic movement, with glossolalia, entered a second stage or "second wave"22 in Christian circles in that it broke out of the traditional Holiness23 and Pentecostal24 churches and entered many traditional churches. This outbreak into more traditional churches is usually referred to as neo-Pentecostalism, or "denominational Pentecostalism."25 It is also designated as the "charismatic

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 23 renewal movement." Beginning ¡n the year 1967, Román Catholics have become a part of neo-Pentecostalism.26 Glossolalia is part of the "Catholic charismatic renewal movement."27 It seems to have appeared first among students, priests and nuns of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana.28 From there it spread to various campuses of Catholic universities in the USA and beyond.29 At the ouset various Román Catholic bishops, while still cautious, said that "the movement should a t-this point not be inhibited but allowed to develop."30 Shortly thereafter the Pope designated Cardinal Joseph Suenens to take the leadership of Román Catholic neoPentecostals.31 The Jesuit scholar P. Damboriena reported some time ago, in the very early stages Catholic neo-Pentecostals, that Catholics would "get together in the chapéis of secluded monasteries, spend long vigils speaking and singing in tongues."32 It is reported in 1991 that "in the nearly 25 years since it began, the charismatic renewal movement within the Catholic church has grown to touch some 6 million to 10 million Catholics around the w orld."33 Today prelates, priests, nuns and Catholic lay persons are part of this renewal movement. It has had the blessings of the various popes since it began. While there seem to be strains among some smaller neoPentecostal Catholic communities, there appers to be no lasting change. It is reported that "over the years, the center of Catholic charismatic renewal has shifted from covenant communities to parish prayer groups and diocesan renewal committees."34 There has also been much interest in the World Council of Churches in the charismatic renewal movement.35 It would take us too far afield to describe the large numbers of neoPentecostal advances made in recent years. It is pointed out time and again that neo-Pentecostalism, or the "charismatic renewal movement" as it is now often referred to, is the fastest growing segment in Christianity at large. "Mission statistician David Barrett estimates [in 1991] that of the 1.8 billion people who cali themselves Christians today, about 372 million identify themselves as charismatic/Pentecostal."36 Based on these statistics, about 20% of all who cali them-

24

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

selves Christians are Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal. It ¡s not our purpose to trace the phenomenal growth of the glossolalic movement ¡n Christianity at large. Many experts conclude that neo-Pentecostalism, or the charismatic renewal of the "second wave" of charismatics, ¡s the fastest growing "charismatic" element in Christian churches worldwide. While this is true in the modern situation, it should not deter us from recognizing that glossolalia does not seem to be a uniquely Christian phenomenon. As we shall see below, there are evidences that suggest that the "glossolalic" phenomenon is practiced by persons in other living nonChristian religions also. This may come as a surprise to most Christians who wish to see it purely in terms of the gifts-ofthe-Spirit passages in the New Testament and as a manifesta­ ro n of the Holy Spirit or as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit." It seems appropriate now to turn our attention to current non-Christian religions and the manifestation of glossolalia in them. Although it is not possible to be exhaustive here, we may at least be representative in the following discussion.

2. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY NONCHRISTIAN RELIGIONS Recent studies have indicated that glossolalia is not a uniquely Christian practice. Glossolalia is practiced by a large number of native non-Christian living religions around the world. R. P. Spittler writes in the 1988 edition of the Dictionary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, "Whatever its origin, glossolalia is a human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity ñor even to religious behavior among humankind."37 Felicitas D. Goodman has engaged in extensive research in glossolalia. She reports that glossolalia is found among "the Inuit (Eskimos), the Saami (Lapps), Chukchi, the Khanty (Ostiaks), the Yakuts, and the Evenki, [who] use in their religious rituals secret languages that consist of a mixture of nonsense syllables and the vernacular."38

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 25 There are many examples of unintelligible sounds or glossolalia from all continents and the native religions practiced on them.39 For ¡nstance, "in Japan glossolalia ¡s known to occur in small cultic groups, during sorcerous seances in Hokkaido and northern Honshü, and in the postwar sect known as the Dancing Religión. A full range of glossolalic phenomena is said to occur frequently during the ceremonies of the small cult led by a Genji Yanagida of Mojí City, Fukuoka Prefecture, and in other groups similar to ¡t."40 It is reported that among the Palaung peoples of Burma "a person possessed by a Palé-speaking bre, or 'black magician,' is impelled to talk in the magician's tongue, although at ordinary times he is unable to speak it." 41 In Ethiopia in the zár cult, "the shamans talk to the zárs (spirits) in a 'secret language'."42 In this ¡nstance the picture seems to involve spirit-worship. Goodman notes, "Possession is one of the most frequent ritual occasions for the use of glossolalia. In possession, an entity from the sacred dimensión of reality is experienced as penetrating the respective person."43 She points out that the Spirit is experienced "as power, not as personality, but other spirits—for ¡nstance, those of the dead of the Trobriand Islanders, ancestral spirits in Africa, and various spirits in Haitian Voodoo--have pronounced personality traits that are expressed in glossolalia. . . . The voice of the possessing being differs from that of the possessed practitioner."44 This sounds much like the phenomena associated with seances in spiritualism. " SpirituaUstic glossolalia and related phenomena among spiritual médiums were among the first studied by psychologists near the beginning of the twentieth century," writes R. P. Spittler.45 These are but a few of the many known examples of glossolalia from modern non-Christian religions.46 L. Carlyle May shows that glossolalia in non-Christian religions is present in "Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arctic regions, China, Japan, Korea, Arabia, and Burma, among other places."47 It is also present extensively in African tribal religions.48 As noted above it is not our purpose to be exhaustive, but to reveal that the phenomenon of glossolalia is not unique to Christianity.

26

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The commonality of glossolalia ¡n both Christian and living non-Christian (pagan) religions raises a whole new set of questions. What is the source or origin of glossolalia? What is the purpose of glossolalia? What relationship exists between glossolalia among Christian and non-Christian practitioners? What spirit is at work? Is ¡t the spirit of the dead, as is claimed in some places? Is ¡t of Satanic origin? Is it but a human invention? These and other questions deserve careful thought and study. Is the glossolalic phenomenon, the "pagan glossolalia,"49 in these modern non-Christian religions the same glossolalia as among Christians from the point of view of linguistics and the structures it manifests? Or, is it different? This matter will have our attention in the next part of our discussion, because it may assist in answering another question: Is there a distinction between Christian glossolalia and non-Christian glossolalia? What is the origin of glossolalia? Where does it come from? If there is a distinction, then one may indeed claim that Christianity is unique in its manifestation and Christian glossolalia could then more easily be thought to derive from the Holy Spirit. If there is no distinction, then one has to ask whether the Holy Spirit is the source of the phenomenon in one religión and another spirit the source in the non-Christian religions. Few would be willing to argüe that the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself within pagan ritual and practice, within the crafts of witch doctors, shamans, and priests of pagan religions, in the same way as in Christianity. It now seems quite evident that the phenomenon of glossolalia can no longer be isolated as a unique element of Christianity. This seems to be a new, undeniable factor. Is glossolalia the common experience that unites or combines all religions? Is it the common element of the numinous and supernatural linking Christian and non-Christian religions? If it is the gift of the Holy Spirit, does the Holy Spirit manifest Himself in these religions in this manner, even in sorcerous seances? These questions are being asked today by many people. In view of these issues, can we detect any scientific, linguistic difference between the glossolalic phenomena of Christians and non-Christians? If so, what is it? And if not.

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 27 what are the implications for the use of glossolalia among both Christians and non-Christians? Finally, the disturbing but inevitable question must be raised, Is glossolalia really the gift of the Holy Spirit?

3. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY LINGUISTIC STUDY The highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired [glossolalic] utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired."50 We should be reminded at this point that Kildahl compares religious glossolalia w ith non-religious glossolalia. We have not considered non-religious glossolalia, because ¡t would lead us into another area of study that we do not wish to penétrate at this time. While our study cannot consider non-religious glossolalia at this time, we are cognizant of the fact that glossolalia is also practiced by non-religious people, including atheists and agnostics.51 In other words, the modern practice of glossolalia is not restricted to religious persons alone. It is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity ñor even to religious behavior."52 Modern linguistics is a subject area for scholars and researchers to study of what is and what makes a language. Experts in the field of linguistics have taken much pains to study the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of many years. One of the early investigations was made in the early 1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language.53 Another early study, that of W. A. Wolfram in the year 1966, also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of human language as a system of coherent communication.54 Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics published, after more than a decade of careful research, a massive study of glossolalia from a linguistic perspective.55 In this 1972 study Samarin, together with other linguists, rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be

28

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

understood by another person who knew that language. Samarin concluded that glossolalia ¡s a "pseudo-language." He said, "When the full apparatus of linguistic Science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade language-although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, ¡s a specimen of human language, because it is neither ¡nternally organized ñor systematically related to the world man perceives."56 He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible post-babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological sim ilarityto language without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known languages."57 The main point in his conclusión is that it is not "derived from or related to known languages"--and that means past or present languages. It is, however, "a meaningless but phonetically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."58 The various studies by Professor Samarin are published in many scientific articles and are basic to much of the discussion of the linguistic shape and language nature of glossolalia. In the year 1985 tw o socio-linguists, well qualified experts in the field, one of whom is himself a glossolalist, surveyed the area of investigaron as to whether glossolalia is intelligible human communication. H. Newton Malony's and A. Adams Lovekin's survey of the studies on the nature of glossolalia suggests that "glossolalia is, indeed, a language of a different sense of the word! [namely in the sense of some form of communication]." But they admit that "the weight of evidence, however, suggests that although there is pattern and form, speaking in tongues [Le. glossolalia] is most likely not a known tongue ñor a human language as that term is presently understood."59 This is an ¡mportant conclusión with regard to the debate on whether glossolalia is a known human language. It is important to note that it is their considered conclusión that it "is most likely not a known tongue ñor a human language as that term is presently understood." This conclusión must be a considerable blow to those who still wish to claim that glossolalia is indeed some

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 29 form of ¡ntelligible human language. Another study done by Williams and Waldvogel and published ¡n 1975, a decade before the Malony-Lovekin study was released, concludes that glossolalia "embraces every ecstatic oral-auditory phenomenon . . . [including] verbal effusions that are more likely to be psychological-spiritual projections of inner speech than some authentic language itself."60 Based on these recent conclusions of scholars and researchers who studied glossolalia from a variety of angles and methods of research, we may have no other recourse than to admit that the phenomenon of "speaking ¡n tongues," or glossolalia, is an experience other than speaking in a known human language of the present or the past. On this point the studies of Samarin and those of earlier and later researchers coincide. The psychological anthropologist and linguist, referred to previously. Felicitas D. Goodman, has also engaged in a study of various English- Spanish- and Maya-speaking Pentecostal communities in the United States and México. As others have done before her, she compared tape recordings of nonChristian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as w ell.61 She published her results in the year 1972 in an extensive monograph. Goodman concludes that "when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration--that is, the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation)--they seemed cross-linguistically and cross-culturally ¡dentical."62 What is so ¡mportant in Goodman's study is the identity of the linguistic phenomena of these comprehensive features of glossolalia over various major parts of the world and from different cultures, including both Christian and non-Christian religions. It is Goodman's conclusión that there is no distinction in glossolalia between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions. All forms of glossolalia are "cross-linguistically and cross-culturally identical" as to their segmental structure and suprasegmental elements. Goodman provides another key element for the evaluation of glossolalia as a universal phenomenon in any religión, whether pagan or

30

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Christian. She makes us aware that glossolalia among Christians and non-Christians is the same. There ¡s no distinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia. It seems that these ¡nvestigations, carried on over several decades, point conclusively in the same direction. What is the implication of these studies for an understanding of modern glossolalia? From a scientific and linguistic point of view one can no longer conciude that Christian glossolalia is different from that practiced in non-Christian (pagan) religions. All forms of glossolalia are identical from the point of view of their structures. Goodman drew tw o additional conclusions from her studies. She has established that glossolalia is not derived from a State of hypnosis as believed by some earlier researchers. Goodman holds that glossolalia derives from "neurophysiological changes, collectively and popularly called trance, . . ,"63 Thus she defines glossolalia as "a vocalizaron pattern, a speech automatism that is produced in the substratum of the trance and reflects directly, in its segmental and suprasegmental structures, the neurophysiological processes present in this changed State of consciousness [i.e. the trance]."64 The "association between trance and glossolalia is now accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption," writes Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopedia o f Religión [1987].65 Another important conclusión reached by Goodman addresses the view that glossolalia is simply an involuntary, spontaneous outburst or the like. Goodman indicates in contrast that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behavior, learned either unawarely or, sometimes, consciously."66 Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is given on how to "speak in tongues," i.e. how to engage in glossolalia.67 In short, we can summarize this part of our study of the most current and authoritative as well as the most extensive ¡nvestigations of glossolalia from linguistic perspectives by pointing out that from different avenues of research the conclusión is reached that modern glossolalia, whether Christian or non-Christian, whether Western or non-Western, whether religious or non-religious, is not any known language

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 31 as had been commonly assumed or claimed for a long time. Glossolalia is a form of linguistic expression that is crosscuiturally the same from a linguistic point of view, both in Western and non-Western religions, both in Christian and nonChristian religions, both in relígious and non-religious settings. It is a speech behavior that is learned or can be learned cónsciously or otherwise.68 What are some implications of these findings for glossola­ lia in modern Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism as well as in the charismatic renewal movement? What kind of experience is glossolalia as found in the modern charismatic renewal movements? What kind of "language" is glossolalia? Why is glossolalia practiced in so many religions today? Why can relígious and non-religious persons practice glossolalia? What is going on when a person ¡nterprets someone else's glossolalia?

4. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE Since "speaking in tongues [glossolalia] is present in nonChristian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and in cults such as Mormonism,"69 how can the modern practice of glossolalia in the charismatic renewal movement have such disturbing similarity, ¡f not identity, to like phenomena in pagan, non-Christian religions? Can this be of God? What is the nature of the glossolalic experience? How do charismatics respond to the fact that glossolalia is no human language? J. R. Williams addressed this matter recently: "Charismatics are not disturbed by linguists who claim that glossolalia has no observable language structure, for if such were the case, speaking in tongues would not be spiritual but rational speech."70 He asserts further, "Speak­ ing in tongues is thus understood to be transpsychical; it belongs to the realm of the spirit (pneuma)."7' Thus Wil­ liams plainly holds that modern "speaking in tongues" (glosso­ lalia) is not rational speech. It is "spiritual speech" and belongs to the realm of the spirit. The issue before us is, therefore, if it were to be considered speech that originates from the Holy Spirit, how can it be

32

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

practiced in pagan, non-Christian religions as well? Is the Holy Spirit speaking through the shamans, priests, and witch doctors of other religions and the médiums of sorcerous seances? Not many Christians would feel comfortable in affirming such a conclusión. How is it that a non-religious humanities scholar "taught himself" to engage in glossolalia and can continué to do so at will?72 The Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of truth" and is promised only to the followers of Jesús Christ (John 17). The Holy Spirit is not assigned to be a part of any and every religión that exists in the world today or that has existed in the past. The Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated by non-religious and religious persons as they wish. There is no teaching in the New Testament or in the Oíd Testament to the effect that the Holy Spirit is universally manifested in all religions or that He can be manipulated at will. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune Godhead and as such is a unique Person in the trinity of Christian faith alone. There seem to be but four major options in any attempt to come to grips with the nature of glossolalia as a universal phenomenon of Christian and non-Christian religions, of religious and non-religious persons. The first option is to suggest that glossolalia is derived from and provided by the Holy Spirit. The second one is that it is derived from the counterfeit source, Satan. The third possibility is that it is produced by means of a human learning process (possibly by some kind of a trance or altered State of consciousness) regardless of a religious (Christian or pagan) or non-religious (humanistic or other) environment. The fourth option is that glossolalia may derive from more than one of these options. The first tw o options see glossolalia as deriving from "supernatural" sources. The first option derives it from the Holy Spirit. Bible-believing Christians will agree that it seems hardly feasible to claim that the Holy Spirit is manifested universally in all religions or religious contexts since the Holy Spirit is restricted as a gift to the believing community (1 Cor 12-14; John 14). The second option can be supported, if one considers non-Christian religions to be used by Satanic agencies. The Satanic cannot be ruled out as also intruding into the sphere of Christian life and worship. Satan originated

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 33 glossolalia is accounted for as has been pointed out in the studies cited above. The third option ¡s a more "natural" explanaron, accounting for the universal usage of glossolalia as a learned behavior. The fact that glossolalia can be learned, that ¡t is even "taught" by Pentecostals and other charismatics, that is can be self-taught, and so on, is of utmost ¡mportance. As has been stated in several studies, the Satanic/demonic can take hold of a human being assumedly w ith or without a learning process. The fourth option in explaining the origin of glossolalia holds that it can be of Satanic origin or that ¡t is merely a learned behavior; or that such learned behavior can be used by Satan, and the like. Spittler, who is a charismatic himself, writes that glossolalia "may rise from the speakers themselves, from a demonic spirit, or from the Holy Spirit." Then he goes on to explain that "even ¡f glossolalia occurs in a balanced Pentecostal environment, any one of the three sources [learned behavior, demonic spirit, Holy Spirit] may apply. The discernment of the community is essential." He points out in conclusión that "glossolalia of human [learned] origin [among Christian charismatics] is probably more frequent than recognized."73 Would the Holy Spirit use such a learned but unintelligible form of speaking as one of His gifts? Would He use something that is identical with that used by witch doctors, shamans, and priests of non-Christian (pagan) religions? Would he use something that is also used in seances and in sorcerous meetings by spiritualists? Few Christians would feel comfortable answering this in the affirmative. Basic to answering the question of the origin of glossolalia as deriving from the Holy Spirit is the nature, function, and purpose of Biblical "speaking in tongues" as described and used in the New Testament church. Based on the evidence presented above from these extensive recent studies, contemporary glossolalia may be best understood to be a learned behavior, but seemingly not as one of the unique and universal supernatural gifts given by the Holy Spirit. Glossolalia can be learned; it can be practiced by many persons in many different religious and non-religious settings; and thus can enter the religious arena in any religión,

34

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

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

5. GLOSSOLALIA AND CONTEMPORARY DOCTRINAL DISUNITY An issue that has troubled many people is the question of the unity of the charismatics on most matters of Christian belief and practice. An example of charismatic ecumenical unity in evangelism is a case in point. In August 1991 approximately 3,000 delegates attended the International Charismatic Consultaron on World Evangelisation in Brighton, England. This meeting was organized by the Anglican charismatic leader Michael Harper. A Planning Committee included Vinson Synan, head of the North American Renewal Services Committee; Larry Christenson, renewal leader of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and also Román Catholic and Pentecostal leaders. It may be significant that the Anglican Archbishop George Carey addressed the opening session. While not all Pentecostal denominations were represented ñor all known major figures of neo-Pentecostalism present, it is reported that "Catholic and Protestant charismat­ ics carne together . . . , drawn past their denominational differences by the goal of seeing half the world's population confess Christ as Savior by the year 2000."74 It is the doctrinal denominational differences that remain problematical. A recent writer has raised the question of doctrinal disunity among Pentecostalists and neo-Pentecostalist charismatics: "Is it not inconsistent that a movement which claims to be in direct contact with the Holy Spirit, to have all gifts such as prophecy, apostleship, and the word of knowledge, to communicate directly with God by tongues-speaking and other means, can at the same time inelude Román Catholics, conservative and liberáis Protestants, amillennialists, premillennialists, Calvinists, Armenians, those who deny the verbal inspiration of the Bible, and those who reject

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 35 Christ's vicarious atonement on the cross?"75 These questions are penetrating. They cut to the core of the problem of the origin of glossolalia and its function ¡n Christian life and faith. If the Holy Spirit were at work in all of these charismatic groups of the various Christian churches, the Holy Spirit of whom Christ said that He will "teach you all things” (John 14:25) and "will guide you into all the truth" (John 17:13), the very Spirit which is called "the Spirit of truth" (John 17:13), would He not be concerned to teach anyone among those who engage in glossolalia any truth that would correct any and all of these differences? Many of these differences are foundational for Christian faith; some are actually errors. Is the spirit claimed by Christian charismatics interested in teaching the truth to charismatics? Should the Holy Spirit not have taught them by now that the seventh day of the week is binding upon all believers? Should the Spirit of truth not by now have corrected unbiblical teachings such as incorrect views of the atonement, eternal punishment, and so on? Up until now the spirit claimed by charismatics, whether Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal glossolalists, remains uninterested in producing unity among them based upon what the Spirit has given the true believer in Scripture. Whatever spirit is at work, that spirit seems indeed uninterested in bringing them into all Biblical truth. Why are neo-Pentecostal Román Catholics better Román Catholics, having greaterappreciation for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (the mass),76 and tonguesspeaking Baptists are better Baptists, and tongues-speaking Mormons are better Mormons, and so on?

6. GLOSSOLALIA AND THE TESTING OF TONGUES However one may wish to respond to the various gnawing questions and issues, it seems certain that glossolalia has to be understood in a larger context than that of the uniquely Christian experience. It can no longer be seen as a normal human language. Whatever one's final conclusions may be, there is no doubt that anyone wishing to stay within the confines of the New Testament principie of proving all things

36

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

and holding fast that which is good has to be aware that there is no sure way to test tongues. Dr. Kildahl has run such tests based on a tape recording of a tongue-speaker which he played ¡ndependently before several persons who were known to have the supposed gift of interpretation. Here are the results of his experiment: In order to investígate the accuracy of these interpretations, we undertook to play a taped example of tonguespeech privately for several different interpreters of tongues. In no instance was there any similarity in the several interpretations. The following typifies our results: one interpreter said the tongue-speaker was praying for the health of his children; another that the same tonguespeech was an expression of gratitude to God for a recently successful church fund-raising effort.77 When the interpreters were confronted with their disharmonious responses they offered "the explanaron that God gave to one person one interpretation and to another person another interpretation."78 This evidence of variety of interpreta­ tions79 indicates that tongues-speaking and tongues-interpretation is beyond the realm of verifiability. An interpreter of glossolalia responded to the Lord's Prayer that was spoken in a Pentecostal meeting by one who wished to test the interpretation. The Lord's Prayer was spoken in an African language. The interpreter said that "it is a message about the imminent second coming of Christ."80 Here again there is no consistent correlation in the testing process of interpretation. Is this not another indication that glossolalia is no normal human language and that the ¡nterpretation does not correspond to what has been said? The Biblically-oriented Christian will hold on to what the Bible defines as "speaking in tongues". What does the New Testament language mean? Is the expression "speaking in tongues" used outside of the New Testament for a glossolalic experience? Did ancient religions, which were in existence when the early Christian community developed, such as the Delphic oracle, practice "speaking in tongues"? Is there anywhere in the New Testament any clear definition of the "speaking in tongues" that derives from the Holy Spirit? Is ¡t perhaps provided in Acts 2 where it is a supernatural gift and

CHRISTIAN & N0N-CHRIST1AN GLOSSOLALIA 37 not a learned behavior? What ¡s the purpose of this gift? To whom ¡s ¡t given? Do all believers need to "speak in tongues"? These and other questions shall have our attention ¡n the chapters that follow. ENDNOTES 1 . H. Newton Malony and A. Adams Lovakin, G/ossola/ia. Behavioral Science Perspectivas on Speaking in Tongues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) 3, refer to it as "a modern enigma." 2 . For a current survey of research, see Cyril G. Williams, Tongues o f the Spirít. A S tu d y o f Pentecostal G lossolaliaandReiatedPhenom ena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981) 125-50. 3 .See for examples the recent survey by Malony and Lovekin, pp. 11-93. 4 . Felicitas D. Goodman, "Glossolalia," The Encydopedia o f Religión, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987) 5 :5 6 4 . 5 . William J. Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angeis. Pentecosta/ism (New York, 1972) 2.

The Religious Language o f

6 . From now on in this study we will use the term "glossolalia," a term used in much modern literature on the subject. We do not imply with the usage of this term that it is identical or not identical with "speaking in tongues" as practicad by New Testament believers on various occasions. 7 . J. R. Williams, "Charismatic Movement," Evangélica! D ictio n a ry o f Theology, ed. W alter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1 9 8 4) 2 0 5 -2 0 8 . 8 . V. Synan, "Pentecostalism," Evangélica/ D ictionary o f Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) 8 3 6 . 9 . John P. Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) 18. 10.Sarah E. Parham, The Life o f Charles F. Parham. Founder o f the A p o sto lic Faith M ove m e n t (Joplin, MO, 1930) 3 8 . 11 .Watson E. Mills, "Glossolalia: An Introduction," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 5. 1 2 . William W . Menzies, A n o in te d to Serve. The S to ry o f the Assem blies o f God (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971) 50. 1 3 . Charles S. Gaede, "Glossolalia at Azusa Street: A Hidden Presupposition?" W estm inster Theological Jo u rn a l 51/1 (1989) 77. 14.lbid. 1 S.lbid., with primary sources.

38

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

1 6 . The vast literatura on Pentecostalism and more precisely the phenomenon of glossolalia ¡s collected in Charles Edwin Jones, A Guide to the S tu d y o f the P entecostal M ovem ent, 2 vols. (Hamden, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1983); Walter Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charism atic M ove m e n t ¡n the Churches (St. Louis: Augsburg, 1972); Ira J. Martin, The G if t o f Tongues: A Bibliography (Pathway Press, 1970); Watson E. Mills, Speaking in Tongues: A Classified Bibliography (Sooiety for Pentecostal Studies, 1974). 1 7 . Watson E. Mills, Charism atic Religión in M odern Research. A Bibliography (Macón, GA: Mercar University Press, 1985), p. 13. 1 8 . "The Apostolic Faith M ovement,” The A p o sto lic Faith, no. 1 [Sept. 1906] 2, cited in Gaede, p. 79. 1 9 . Menzies, A n o in te d to Serve, p. 37. 2 0 . Gaede, pp. 78-79. 21 .Ibid., pp. 78-82. 2 2 .5 0 C. Petar Wagner, H o w to Have a Heaiing M in istry W ith o u t M aking Your Church S ic k l (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1988), pp. 12-23. 23.See Charles E. Goodwin, A Guide to the S tu d y o f the H oiiness M ove m e n t (Hamden, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974). 2 4 .For bibliography, see David W . Faupel, The A m erican P entecostal M ove m e n t (Society for Pentecostal Studies, 1972). 2 5 .See Russell Spittler,ed., Perspectivas on the N e w Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1 976). 2 6 .See Vincent M. Walsh, A K e y to Charism atic R enew al in the Catholic Church (Abbey Press, 1971); Kevin and Dorothy Ranagan, Catholic Pentecostals (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1971); Donald Gelpi, P entecostalism : A Theological V ie w p o in t (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1 971). 27.Edward D. O'Connor, C.S.C., "The Literatura of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal 1 9 6 7 -1 9 7 4 ," Perspectivas on Charism atic Renewal, ed. Edward D. O'Connor (Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp. 1 4 5 -8 4 . 28.See the detailed report in K. And D. Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1969). 29.See note 19. 3 0 .50 K. McDonnell, "Catholic Pentecostalism: Problems in Evaluation," Dialog (Winter, 1 9 7 0), 3 5 -5 4 , quotation from p. 54. 31 .Cardinal Joseph Suenens, A N e w Pentecost (Seabury Press, 1973). 3 2 . P. Damboriena, S.J., Tongues as o f Pire. Pentecostalism in Contem porary C hristia nity (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1969) 63. 3 3 . Julia Duin, "Catholic Renewal Charismatic Communities Split by Controversy," C hristianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 55. 3 4 .Ibid., p. 57. 3 5 .See Arnold Bittlinger, The Church is Charism atic (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981).

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 39 36.

"Char¡smat¡cs on Evangelism," C hristianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 52.

3 7 . R. P. Spittler, "Glossolalia," D ictio n a ry o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movem ents, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1 9 8 8), p. 3 3 6 . 38.

Goodman, "Glossolalia,” p. 56 4 .

3 9 . L. Carlyle, May, "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian Rellglons," Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, pp. 53-8 2 . 40.lbid., p. 67. 41.lbld„ p. 65. 4 2 .Goodman, p. 565. 43.lbid. 44.lbid. 4 5 .Spittler in D ictionary o f P entecostal and Charism atic M ovem ents, p. 3 3 6 . 46.For a fine study of glossolalia in a non-Western culture, see A. F. Anisimov, "The Shaman's Tent of the Evenks and the Origin of the Shamanistic Rite," Studies in Siberian Shamanism, ed. Henry M. Michael (Toronto, 1963). 47.Summarized by Spittler, p. 3 3 6 . 48.lbid., p. 3 3 7 . 49.

Designation is that of Spittler, p. 33 6 .

50.

Kildahl, p. 81.

51 .See Spittler, pp. 3 3 6 -3 7 . 5 2 .Spittler, p. 34 0 . 5 3 . Eugene A. Nida, "Glossolalia: A Case of Pseudo-Linguistic Structure," unpublished paper delivered at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Soclety of America in New York, Dec. 28, 1964. 5 4 . W . A. Wolfram, "The Sociolinguistics of Glossolalia" (Master's thesis; Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1966). 55.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and A ngels. 56.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angels, pp. 1 27-28. 57.Will¡am J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia,” Language in S ociety, ed. Dell Haymes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 1 2 1-30. 5 8 .Samarin, Tongues o f M en a n d A ngels, p. 2. 59.

Malony and Lovekin, p. 38.

60.

Williams and Waldvogel (1 9 7 5 ), p. 61, as citad by Spittler, p. 3 4 0 .

61 .Felicitas D. Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A C ross-Cultural S tu d y o f Glossolalia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972). 6 2 .Goodman, "Glossolalia," pp. 5 6 3 -6 4 . 6 3 .Ibid., p. 564. 64.lbid.

40

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

65.lb¡d., referring to Cyril G. Williams, Tongues o fth e S pirít: A S tu d y o f Pentecostal Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981). 66.

Goodman, "Glossolalia," p. 5 6 4 .

6 7 . For example, Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues, pp. 2-4. 6 8 . This is argued by Nida (1964) Wolfram (19 6 6 ) and J. R. Jaquith, "Toward a Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviors: Glossolalia,” A n th ro p o lo g lca l Linguistics 9 (8) (1 9 6 7 ) 1-8. 6 9 . Thomas R. Edgar, "The Cessation of Sign Gifts," Blbllotheca Sacra 145 (1988) 383. 70.

Williams, "Charismatic Movement," p. 207.

71 .Ibid. 72.Referred to by Spittler, p. 3 4 0 . 73.Spittler, p. 3 4 0 . 7 4 . "Charismatics on Evangelism," C hristianity Today (16 Sept., 1991) 52. 7 5 . Edgar, "The Cessation of Sign Gifts," p. 38 5 . 7 6 .In an editorial ¡n R enew ai (June/July, 1974) Michael Harper asked Pentecostal Román Catholics, "Is there anything whlch the Holy Spirlt has shown you which is at variance with the infallibility of the Pope?" Cited in Williams, Tongues o fth e Spirít, p. 103, who notes that Catholics who are tongues-speakers customarily testify that they have "a new appreciation of the liturgy of their church and a profounder experience of the sacraments" (ibid.). 7 7 .Kildahl, p. 63. 7 8 .Ibid. 7 9 . Malony and Lovekin, pp. 2 6 -2 7 . 8 0 . Kildahl, p. 63.

CHAPTER II

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE G REEK LANGUAGE

The purpose of this chapter ¡s to investígate the New Testamentterminology used for "speaking in tongues" and its usage outside the New Testament. In the previous chapter we have looked at the practice of glossolalia ¡n modern times. We have learned that ¡t is a recent phenomenon that had its beginning in modern times around 1900. It has also become apparent that glossolalia is not restricted to Christians alone, but that many other persons, among them priests, shamans, sorcerers and others of other major religions of the world, engage in glossolalia. Linguists and others who have studied the glossolalia phenomenon have informed us that there is no distinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia. We have also seen that glossolalia as practiced today cannot be identified with any known human language from the past or the present. Its articularon and structure do not resemble any human language. We have also found that glossolalia can be learned. This set of new facts, previously largely unknown, causes us to return to the Bible for a new ¡nvestigation of the experience of "speaking in tongues." In view of this new set of facts, the foremost question is to investígate anew what the evidence for "speaking in tongues" is in the Bible itself and how it is to be understood. We must be cautious about the ready identificaron of modern glossolalia with New Testament "speaking in tongues." This identificaron which is so widespread today can only be supported ¡f it can be determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that New Testament "speaking in tongues" is the same as the present phenomenon of glossolalia. It will be the purpose of this chapter to turn to the New Testament itself and to investígate the Greek terminology behind the expression "speaking in tongues." This will involve some technical knowledge and will also involve the claims

42

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

made by others as to how the New Testament words rendered "speaking in tongues" are used. It ¡s customary in such an investigaron to turn to the Greek literature outside of the New Testament in order to discover, ¡f possible, what other ancient writers, more or less contemporary with New Testament writers, meant when they used the same terms. This assumes that they used the same terms, of course. This background from contemporary writers is useful in illuminating the language background of the New Testament. It may provide options in understanding the New Testament terms under investigaron. In the end it may limit the meaning of the terms used in the New Testament. In this comparative procedure we must not, however, read onesidedly from one culture into another. This means that in the end the New Testament must be interpreted on the basis of the Biblical context. The Bible is its own interpreter. The expression "speaking in tongues" is used in the New Testament in only five passages, namely at the end of the Gospel of Mark (16:17), in three places in the book of Acts (Acts 2, 10, 19), and in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Many modern scholars have suggested that the expression "speaking in tongues" (g/óssa laleín) is not uniform in its meaning.1 These scholars claim that there are tw o meanings associated with this Greek expression. The first meaning is found in the Pentecostal experience of Acts 2, where "speaking in tongues" means the miraculous gift of speaking foreign languages not known by the speaker previously. The second meaning is allegedly employed in 1 Cor 12-14 where it is said to be a technical term that refers to some kind of ecstatic unintelligible utterance which is equal to modern glossolalia.2 Other scholars, equally well trained, suggest that the language in the New Testament is uniform and that "speaking in tongues" in every text in the New Testament means the speaking of genuine languages not previously learned. In view of these diverse claims it seems imperative to investígate the expression "speaking in tongues" in some detail in the Greek language. The issue under consideraron in this part of our study is (1) to investígate the basis for the

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

43

modern claim of tw o meanings in the New Testament by a study of the language ¡n the Greek New Testament ¡tself, (2) to study the similarity or variation of usage of the expression "speaking ¡n tongues," (3) to research the usage of the noun g/óssa in the Greek language outside the New Testament, and (4) to investígate the usage of the New Testament expression g/óssa lalefn, "speaking in tongues," in the Septuagint (LXX), the oldest Greek translation of the Oíd Testament (which forms a background of much of the New Testament), and, if present, in other Greek literature outside of the New Testament. It is anticipated that a thorough investigation into these linguistic usages and lexicographical backgrounds will enable us to draw conclusions on the usage of the expression "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament.

1. GREEK USAGE OF GLOSSA LALEIN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT The Greek expression g/óssa /a/eín, literally translated "to speak in tongues," is used infrequently in the Greek New Testament. This may come as a surprise to many people who assume that "speaking in tongues" is a pervasive New Testament practice. This assumption regarding the allegedly widespread use in the New Testament may rest on the extensive use of modern glossolalia in recent years. The statistical ¡nformation for the usage of the Greek expression g/óssa /a/eín in the New Testament is as follows. It is used in only three New Testament books: 1. Mark 16:17 2. Acts 2:4, 6, 8, 11; 10:46; 19:6 3. 1 Cor 12-14 a. 1 Cor 12:31 b. 1 Cor 13:1 c. 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 5 (2x) 6, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23, 27, 39 The noun g/óssa, "tongue,” is found unmodified and in the singular five times (1 Cor 14:2, 4, 13, 19, 27). It is found

44

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

nine times in the plural without modifiers (Acts 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor 13:30; 14:5 (2x), 6, 18, 23, 39). It appears with modifiers in the plural in a total of five passages (Mk 16:17; Acts 2:4, 11; 1 Cor 13:1; 14:21). It ¡s suggested that there are eleven expressions in the New Testament that have a relationship to the usage of glóssa lalefn.3 In Acts 2:6 the phrase "speak in his own dialect/language"4 ¡s used and in vs 8 the clause "in our own language"5 appears. These additional phrases are specific definitions, indicating that "speaking in tongues" is the speaking of a known language that some of its hearers were familiar with. There are various phrases in 1 Cor 14, many of which use a form of lalefn, "to speak," (vss 2 [twice], 15 [twice], 16 [twice], 17, 21, 28). We also need to investígate the term glóssa used by itself, i.e. without the verb lalefn, as it appears in the New Testament. The term glóssa appears a total of 24 times6 outside the passages where it is associated with "speaking in tongues." Recent dictionaries of the Greek language inform us that the Greek term glóssa means (1) "tongue" as an organ of speech (Luke 1:64; 16:24; Mark 7:33, 35; Acts 2:26; Rom 3:13; James 1:26; 3:5, 6 [2 times], 8; 1 John 3:18; 1 Pet 3:10; Rev 16:10), (2) "tongue" as in "tongues of fire" in a figurative sense (Acts 2:3), and (3) "tongues" typically in the sense of "language" as a normal means of communication (Rom 14:11; Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).7 It is noteworthy that in the New Testament, outside the disputed "speaking in tongues" passages in 1 Cor 14, the term glóssa does not in any case mean unintelligible, ecstatic speech, heavenly language, angelic speech, or anything like this. We are now in a position to draw some initial conclusions: 1. The noun glóssa by itself always means the organ of the mouth known as "tongue" and in the other New Testament instances it means "language." 2. In but one instance it refers to "tongues as of fire" (Acts 2:3) where a comparative particle is joined to the noun and where it has a figurative meaning. The comparative

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

45

partióle "as" (hoseí) is used to indícate its specific figurative sense. In these New Testament passages there is no usage of glóssa with the meaning of glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible speech or gibberish, leaving aside for the moment the disputed usages in 1 Cor 14. 3. The Synoptic Gospels do not know anything of "tongues" in the sense of glossolalia. Mark 16:17 does not contain it either. However, there is no reason to read a modern phenomenon back into Mark 16:17. 4. The Gospel of John speaks much of the Spirit (John 14, 17) but is totally silent about tongues in the sense of unintelligible speech or as a gift of the Spirit. 5. In Acts 2 there is a clear-cut usage of "tongues." It is clearly defined in both of its usages. The first is the figurative usage of "tongues as of fire" (vs 3) with the usage of the comparative particle as noted above whereby it is used in a figurative sense. The second usage is predominant. It is of "speaking in tongues" in the sense of speaking miraculously intelligible languages understood by bystanders who speak these as their native languages.8 What is meant here is that the "Holy Spirit enabled the believer to talk in other languages, that is, to speak a language which was different from the one they normally spoke."9 It has been pointed out that in Acts 2 "the language is a meaningful language, fully intelligible to the hearers, [which] is suggested not only by what comes in the following verses [after vs 4] but by the word which Luke chooses for 'speaking [apophthéggomai].' This verb is used both in the Septuagint and in classical Greek to indícate solemn or inspired speech, but not ecstatic utterance."10 In other words, what the tongues-speakers in Acts 2 were speaking were "not ecstatic sayings that were unintelligible, but were clearly discernible languages (glossai¡dios dialektos) that were recognized."11 The tongues-speakers in Acts 2 are not glossolalists in the modern sense of the term. They are speakers of human languages that they did not previously know. The people present at Pentecost carne from Rome, various other areas, including Mesopotamia and Arabia, and testified as eye witnesses and ear witnesses that they heard those imbued with the Holy Spirit speak their "own language" (idia dialekto) as Acts 2:6, 8 emphasizes.

46

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

It has been our purpose so far to bracket out from our discussion the disputed passage of 1 Cor 12-14. The reason for this is summarized ¡n a very recent dictionary (published in 1988) that ¡s based on semantic domains: Most scholars assume that the phenomena described ¡n Ac 2.4 and in 1 Cor 14.2 are significantly different in that in one instance people understood it in their own regional language or dialect and in the other instance an ¡nterpreter was required. It is for that reason that many interpret glóssa in 1 Cor 14.2 as ecstatic speech, which was also an element in Hellenistic religions and constituted a Symbol of divine inspiration.12 We have chosen to cite this most recent dictionary since it summarizes the thinking of many. It summarizes the understandings of various modern scholars regarding the tw o types of "speaking in tongues" which are alleged for the New Testament. There has been a change over the last one hundred years on this subject of New Testament "speaking in tongues." In the year 1858, for example, a major Greek-English dictionary of the New Testament concluded as follows: Here, according to the two passages in Mark and Acts, the sense obviously is, to speak in other living languages; comp. Acts 2, 6. 8-11. Others taking the passage in 1 Cor. as the basis, suppose the sense to be, to speak another kind of language, referring it to a person in a State of high spiritual excitement or ecstasy from inspiration, unconscious of external things and wholly absorbed in adoring communion with God, and breaking forth in abrupt expressions of praise and devotion, which are not coherent and therefore not always intelligible to the multitude; . . . Most interpreters have correctly adopted the first meaning; while some again suppose a reference to two distinct gifts.13 It is noteworthy that in 1858 when this dictionary was published there were only "some" interpreters who went for "tw o distinct gifts." The interpretation of glossolalia as ecstatic speech in 1 Cor 14 was followed at that time, some 130 years ago, by but a few interpreters. Today, on the contrary, the majority of scholars adopt the view of tw o

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

47

distinct gifts, one ¡n Acts 2 and another in 1 Cor 14. Walter Bauer's recent standard Greek-English Lexicón of the New Testament, speaks of "a special problem" when ¡t refers to "speaking in tongues" ¡n the New Testament and maintains that in 1 Cor 14 "there is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy."14 This summarizes the majority view of modern scholars today. The issue before the discerning reader is, What has brought about this change in interpretation? What are the reasons that have led the majority of modern scholars of today to posit tw o different experiences, one in Acts 2 and another in 1 Cor 14, but with the same language? What evidence is there for this change? Is there evidence in Hellenistic religions for glossolalia? Is there evidence for ecstatic unintelligible speech from sources outside the New Testament? Our next section is devoted to these questions.

2. ALLEGED GLOSSOLALIA OUTSIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT What has brought about the change in interpretation in the last hundred years of Greek-English lexicography and the interpretation of tongues-speaking in the New Testament? Is it a more extensive study of the Greek usage of glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," in other Greek literature? Is it the discovery of new Greek texts that use the expression of glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," and that demónstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a phenomenon of ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind? Is it a reinterpretation of the New Testament phrase glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," to bring it into harmony w ith the modern practice of glossolalia among charismatic Christians? Is something being read back into the New Testament? These questions are raised in order to sensitize the reader to various possibilities. In order to find a satisfying answer to the change in the lexicography reflected in more recent GreekEnglish dictionaries, it is ¡mportant to investígate the ancient Greek language outside the New Testament. This seems

48

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

particularly mandated by the claim that "ecstatic speech" of an unintelligible kind "was also an element ¡n Hellenistic religions."15 A study by a highly qualified scholar ¡n ancient Greek culture, Christopher Forbes, has produced an analysis of the various arguments and suggestions made over the years by scholars who favor the view that Hellenistic popular religión influenced early Christian inspired glossolalic speech, especially in 1 Cor 14 and other passages in the New Testament that refer to "speaking in tongues."16 We will refer to some of the major points made by Forbes. The ancient philosopher Plato informs us about the Pythian priestess at Delphi who is said to have engaged in a frenzied ecstasy in giving her oracles.17 We must be aware that the Delphic oracle is the major example referred to by many scholars who hold that there is a Greek background for unintelligible, inspired speech. It is customary to refer to the Delphic oracle as the prime example for ancient glossolalia.18 Scholars have carefully restudied these alleged "comparative phenomena."19 It may be surprising, but it is at the same time undeniable, that "there is no decisive evidence to indícate that the Pythian priestess ever spoke her oracles in a form analogous to glossolalia."20 Another very competent scholar, Joseph Fortenrose, who studied these texts of ancient Greek authors independently, concludes that the Pythian priestess at Delphi did not engage in a frenzied or raving ecstasy. She did not take leave of her senses, and she did not engage in "¡ncoherent babbling."21 To the contrary, the priestess at Delphi could provide the oracles in oral or written form in both prose or poetry.22 This is not the result of glossolalic utterance given by inspiration or of ecstatic speech. Furthermore, what the Pythian priestess engaged in is never described in terms of g/óssa lalein, "speaking in tongues," or in any other terminology of unintelligible ecstatic speech.23 There is a statement to the effect that the Pythian "oracles are obscure (asaphe)."24 Does this mean that the Delphic oracles pass from unintelligible language to intelligible language or that someone needs to transíate what is obscure? It does not mean this at all. It simply means that the oracles

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

49

become obscure as they pass from divine language into human language. While they are in fully intelligible language, these "oracles" are simply hard to understand, because they are mysterious and in need of explanation. There is no inference that what is difficult to understand, though spoken/written in plain Greek, is unintelligible speech. What is hard to understand in intelligible language is in no way glossolalia or ecstatic speech. These recent studies of the Delphic oracle remove much of the earlier misinterpretation by scholars. It is demonstrated today that there is no conceptual or linguistic evidence in the Delphic oracles of any glossolalia, "speaking in tongues," or inspired ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind. The recent reassessments of earlier claims by scholars25 who had argued that there is a linkage between glossolalia and Hellenistic religión and who attempted to derive Pauline usage in 1 Cor 14 from this source will not be supported by an analysis of the evidence presently available. This is a sobering assessment for anyone who seeks to interpret either 1 Cor 12-14, or Mark 16:17 and Acts 10 and 19, on the basis of an álleged Hellenistic religious background. It does not exist.

3. THE USAGE OF GLOSSA AND LALEO OUTSIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT What is the meaning of the noun g/óssa in the Greek language outside the New Testament? Does the Greek term glóssa mean in any ancient Greek usage unintelligible speech? The standard lexicons for the period of Greek in the ancient world agree in their listings of meanings for glóssa. Our first attention will be directed to an investigation of the papyri, ancient Greek documents written on material made from reeds. It is widely employed and many texts have been found written on papyri. Friedrich Preisigke's authoritative dictionary of Greek papyri informs us that g/óssa means "tongue, language" and nothing else.26 He lists for the term laléo the meanings "to speak, to communicate, to tell."27

50

SPEAKIÑG IN TONGUES

There is no evidence for any glossolalic utterance ¡n the literature contained on papyri. Everything ¡s on the level of rational and intelligible speech. Moulton and Milligan have assembled Greek terms from papyri and other non-literary sources to ¡Ilústrate the vocabulary of the New Testament. Here too the term glóssa is an organ in the human mouth or in the mouth of animáis, namely the "tongue," or ¡t has the meaning of intelligible human "language."28 Moulton and Milligan note that "while légo calis attention to the substance of what is said, the onomatopoeic laléo points rather to the outward utterance . . ." 29 Still there is no evidence whatsoever that laléo has developed into an expression for glossolalia in the ancient world. It remains a term for intelligible speech. This is the case even in the very chapter in which many modern scholars wish to find unintelligible speech. In 1 Cor 14:19, 29 the verb laléo is used for intelligible speech.30 Moving beyond the papyri and other non-literary sources in our investigation of glóssa, it is necessary to see whether the Greek language that is later than the New Testament knows this term to mean ecstatic utterance or unintelligible speech. Thus we need to turn to patristic Greek literature. The ancient Greek church fathers wrote extensively and left a rich body of Greek literature. In the patristic Greek language glóssa means the "tongue, [as an] ¡nstrument of speech," or "language," and metaphorically a "thong" or an "ingot" of gold.31 Investigations into the subject of "speaking in tongues" among the early Church fathers prior to the third century have led to the conclusión "that when the [early church] fathers clarified the nature of the tongue-speech being practiced they most usually specified them as being xenolalic [i.e. speaking in a known language that the person has not learned by mechanical methods]."32 In other words, the early Church fathers saw the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" in their day as speaking foreign languages miraculously. They also ¡nterpreted 1 Cor 14 in that light. It is noteworthy that the most extensive study that makes a distinction between "speaking in tongues" as intelligible

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

51

speech and unintelligible speech in 1 Cor 14, produced by N. I. J. Engelsen, concluded that the Greek expression "speaking ¡n tongues," glóssa lalefn, ¡s not found outside the New Testament.33 A single exception has been discovered since Engelsen's study was completed. However, ¡t does not refer to unintelligible speech.34 We have exhausted all ancient Greek texts presently known. So far there ¡s not even a single Greek text known to the ancient world that uses the designaron glóssa, the verb lalefn, or the New Testament combination "to speak in tongues," glóssa lalem, in the alleged sense of ecstatic "speaking in tongues." To this day no scholar has been able to point to a single usage of these terms in non-biblical Greek texts to mean glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible speech or of ecstatic utterance. This is amazing in view of the ready impression left by many writers on the subject of tonguesspeaking that the phenomenon of glossolalia was known outside the New Testament in ancient pagan religions from which it was introduced to the church in Corinth and elsewhere.

4. THE USAGE OF GLOSSA LALEIN IN THE SEPTUAGINT Finally we turn to the usage of glóssa lalefn in the Septuagint, which during New Testament times was Judaism's authorized Greek translation of the Hebrew (Oíd Testament) Scriptures. The Greek language of the Septuagint is widely used by New Testament writers in quotations from the Oíd Testament. The question before us is, Does the Septuagint use the expression glóssa lalefn in the sense of unintelligible speech and/or ecstatic utterance? Professor Roy A. Harrisville summarizes the evidence in his famous essay on the Greek language usage of glóssa lalefn: "In the Septuagint, the term glóssa appears together w ith the verb lalefn seven times, four times in the singular unmodified [Job 33:2; Ps 36 (37): 30; 38 (39):4 (3); Jer 9:4(5)], and three times in the singular with modifiers [Ps 108(109):2; Isa 19:18; 2 8 :1 1]."35 Here is evidence of the

52

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

¡dentical usage of the phrase under investigaron in the New Testament. Regarding the entire Corpus of usage of glóssa in the Septuagint and also in those cases where it approximates most closely the linguistic usage of the New Testament, Professor Harrisville concluded that the "Septuagint translator appears to have known nothing of a technical term for speaking in tongues"36 in the sense of unintelligible speech. In every instance of usage of g/óssa or the combination of glóssa lalein in the Septuagint, the reference is to a normal "tongue" in the sense of language. In no instance is glossolalia in view. Thus the Septuagint usage is in harmony with any other usage of these terms in Greek literature outside the New Testament. As a matter of fact the Septuagint usage of the expression ^/dssa laletn supports the view that in other usages outside the Septuagint, that is, in the New Testament, this phrase simply means to speak in normal human languages. We may summarize the evidence presented on the expression glóssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," by stating that this phrase is never used outside the New Testament for what is today designated as glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible speech or ecstatic utterance. Such usage is not known in the Greek language and literature of the ancient world, as the key recent studies on this subject unanimously indícate. Thus it becomes more and more difficult to interpret the Pauline usage in terms of ecstatic unintelligible speech. There is no outside support for this interpretaron contrary to what earlier scholars were apt to claim.

5. MODERN HYPOTHESES FOR GLOSSOLALIA AS UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH It may be very surprising to the student of the modern phenomena of glossolalia that there is no linguistic or other evidence whatever for glossolalia or ecstatic utterances in the world outside the New Testament. In view of this fact there are not many options for persons who wish to interpret the experience of 1 Cor 14 in terms of glossolalia. Professor

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

53

Harrisville has stated the ¡ssue ¡n precise terms: "Unless we assign to the NT authors total responsibility for coining the nomenclature under discussion, we shall have to continué our search for that point at which the technical terms for speaking in tongues penetrated the NT."37 There are tw o major hypotheses for assigning to the Greek expression glóssa laleín, "to speak in tongues," the technical meaning of "an unintelligible utterance"38 in 1 Cor 14. One hypothesis suggests that the expression was developed by Paul himself as a technical term to combat the experience of some Christians in Corinth. The second hypothesis ¡s that the "technical term had its birth in preChristian Judaism" particularly in pre-Christian Jewish sources connected with Qumran.39 These hypotheses have immense difficulty. There is no demonstrable step from any specific usage in Biblical or extraBiblical language or literature to show that the meaning of the expression "speaking in tongues" moves from speaking normal languages, to the meaning of a supposed unintelligible ecstatic speech. The fact that Paul is credited with coining a new technical term indicates that its supporters are forced to admit that there is nothing outside the New Testament that will support the view that glóssa laleín, "to speak in tongues," means glossolalia anywhere in the ancient world. They are forced to credit Paul with the innovation, because they have been unable to find evidence elsewhere. Johannes Behm in his article on glóssa, "tongue(s)," written in the Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament, argües that Acts 2:3, 4 cannot have given rise to the technical term glossolalia.40 He is undoubtedly correct. Scholars who wish to suggest that the verb laleín, "to speak," supposedly an onomatopoeic term, gave rise to glossolalia41 have also no sound íinguistic support for their view, except some of their own guesses.42 Why should Paul invent a technical meaning of some sort simply because he combats a misuse of a spiritual gift? Those who have argued that there is some sort of origin for glossolalia in Jewish or Hellenistic circles are countered by Engelsen's conclusión, "He [Paul] may have had predecessors in this, but they have left no trace."43 This means that

54

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

hypotheses built on alleged analogues ¡n the Jewish or Hellenistic world of Paul lack any direct or indirect support from any written ancient sources. Such material is not available. What about the sectarian Jewish community from Qumran? Did ¡t leave any trace of an experience of glossolalic utterance or ecstatic speech? Although there is no evidence for glossolalia from Qumran, it is suggested that glossolalia aróse out of the community of Qumran. Qumran neither provides the "missing link" to the supposed Pauline usage of glóssa lalefn as a technical term for glossolalia ñor does it support its hypothetical origin.44 No one has been able to demónstrate any clear linkage from either Qumran or other pre-Christian Jewish circles for the origin of glossolalia. The fact remains that there is no evidence whatever ¡n Qumran or in circles connected with Qumran regarding anything even similar to modern glossolalia or to what is described in 1 Cor 14. In plain language, this means that the hypothesis of an origin of alleged Pauline glossolalia being dependent on Jewish or other circles still lacks the required support from presently available sources. It is noteworthy that those who have constructed the hypotheses under discussion are the very ones who admit to the lack of contemporary evidence that glóssa laleín, "to speak in tongues," ever meant glossolalia in the sense of ecstatic unintelligible utterance outside the New Testament.

6. CONCLUSIONS There is no consensus among modern scholars as to the origin of an alleged glossolalia that Paul supposedly has in mind in 1 Cor 12-14. To the present time there is no evidence for the phenomenon of glossolalia from any of the available written Greek or other sources. Neither is there evidence to charge Paul with an invention of something, namely glossolalia, in a form similar to or identical with what is practiced today in certain Christian and non-Christian religions. From the point of view of interpretaron, it does not seem to be sound to read into the New Testament a modern

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

55

phenomenon--in this case glossolalia as practiced by Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostal charismatics and as used ¡n other non-Christian religions on various continents. If this procedure were to be followed we would engage in a method of eisegesis (a reading into a text what is not there) and not in proper exegesis (a reading out of the text what the text itself has). There is but one clear and definitive passage in the New Testament which unambiguously defines "speaking in tongues" and that is Acts 2. If Acts 2 is allowed to stand as it reads, then "tongues" are known, intelligible languages, spoken by those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit and understood by people who carne from the various areas of the ancient world to Jerusalem. We may raise a question of sound interpretation. Would it not be sound methodologically to go from the known definition and the clear passage in the New Testament to the less clear and more difficult passage in interpretation?45 Should an interpreter in this situation attempt to interpret the more difficult passage of 1 Cor 12-14 in light of the clearer passage of Acts 2? Is this not a sound approach? Evidence outside of the Bible is not available to support any glossolalia in the New Testament. It is methodologically unacceptable simply to read today's practice of glossolalia in the charismatic movement back into the New Testament. Let us interpret the Bible by the Bible where the same linguistic phenomenon is under discussion. This methodology is linguistically consistent and hermeneutically sound. It has stood the test of time over the centuries.

ENDNOTES 1 .See, for example, standard dictionaries such as Johannes Behm, "glóssa," Theologica/ D ictio n a ry o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publ. Co„ 1964) 1 :7 1 9 -2 6; J. B. Tyson, "Tongues, Speaking with," H arper's Bible D ictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemaier (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publisher, 1 9 8 5) 1 0 8 1-8 2 .

56

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

2.See W . Grundmann, "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte ¡n seinem theologisohen Sinn,” Studia Theologica, ed. F. L Cross (Berlín: Akademie Verlag, 1964) ll:584-94; Frank W . Beare, "Speakíng in Tongues: A Critical Survey of the New Testament Evidence," JBL 83 (I964) 2 2 9 -4 6 (reprínted in Watson E. Mills, ed., Speakíng in Tongues. A Guido to Research on Glossoialia [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986] 107-26); Stuart D. Currie, "Speaking in Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament Bearing on G/óssais Lalein,” Interpretation 19 (19 6 5 ) 2 7 4 -9 4 (reprinted in Mills, ed., Speaking in Tongues, 83106); Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular Religión," N ovum Testam entum 2 8 /3 (1986) 2 5 7 -7 0 . 3 . This information is provided by Roy A. Harrisville, "Speaking in Tongues: A Lexicographical Study," Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Modern Research, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 36, and n. 10, upon whom we are heavily dependent for the statistical information and the summaries. 4 . Acts 2:6 té ¡día diaiékto laloúnton. 5 . Acts 2:8 té ¡día diaiékto hemón. 6 . Mark 7 :3 3 , 35; Luke 1:64; 16:24; Acts 2:3, 26; Rom 3:13; 14:11; Phil 2:11; James 1:26; 3 :5 (3 times), 8; 1 Pet 3:10; 1 John 3:18; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 16:10; 17:15. 7 . Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicón o f the N e w Testam ent and Other Early Christian Literatura (2nd ed.; Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) 162; Walter Bauer, G riechisch-deutsches W órterbuch zu den S chriften des Neuen Testam ents u n d der frühchristiichen L iteratur, ed. Kurt Aland und Barbara Aland (Berlín: New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988) 324; Joseph Henry Thayer, The N e w Thayer's Greek-English Lexicón o f the N e w Testam ent (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981) 1100-

1101. 8.See among the many expositors, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A T ransiator's Handbook on the A c ts o f the A p o stie s (London: United Bible Societies, 1972) 3 4 -3 6 . 9.lbid., p. 3 5 (emphasis in the text). lO.lbid. 11 .William G. MacDonald, "Glossoialia in the New Testament," Speaking in Tongues, ed. Watson E. Mills, p. 129. 12. Johannes P. Louw, Eugene A. Nida et al., Greek-English Lexicón o f the N e w Testam ent Based on Sem antic Domain (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) 1 :3 8 9 -9 0. 1 3 . Edward Robinson, Greek and English Lexicón o f the N e w Testam ent (rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1858) 149. 1 4 . Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, p. 162. 1 5 .Louw and Nida et al., pp. 3 8 9 -9 0 . 16.Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular Religión,' Novum Testam entum 2 3 /3 (1986) 2 5 7 -7 0 .

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

57

17.lt ¡s typical that interpraters by the soore assert that there was "eostatio speech" or "speaking ¡n an ecstatic manner" at the Delphic Oracle and/or in Pythian religión. See, for example, C. M. Roebeok, Jr., "Tongues Gift of," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1988) 4 :8 7 2 , and the discussion in Forbes, pp. 2 6 9 -7 0 , who cites as typical examples such scholars as N. I. J. Engelsen, L. T. Johnson, T. W . Gillespie, P. Roberts among others. 18.The widely quoted articleby F. Behm, 'g ló ssa ," T he o lo gicalD ictionary o f the N ew Testam ent, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19 6 4), l:72 2 , also refers to Plato's reference to the Delphic Oracle in Phrygia, quoting the Greek text in extenso. See alsó above n. 17. 1 9 .50 Behm, "glóssa," p. 7 2 2 . 2 0 . Forbes, p. 2 6 0 . 2 1 . Joseph Fortenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1 9 7 8) 2 0 4 -2 1 2 . 2 2 . Forbes, pp. 2 6 2 -6 3 . 23.lbid„ pp. 2 6 7 -6 8 . 2 4 . Cited from Dio Chrysostom by Forbes, ibid., p. 268. 2 5 . Typical for this is N. I. J. Engelsen, Glossolalia a nd O ther Forms o f Inspired Speech A c c o rd in g to 1 Cor. 12-14 (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 1970), who argües extensively that Paul distinguishes between intelligible and unintelligible speech. He has been followed uncritically by many writers. Forbes concludes, "Engelsen's attempt to parallel Christian glossolalia in Greek and Hellenistic religious phenomena is, however, marred by many errors of both method and interpretation, and his conclusions are largely to be rejected" (p. 2 69). 2 6 . Friedrich Preisigke, W órterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Heidelbergr Selbstverlag, 1924) 1:299. 2 7 . Friedrich Preisigke, W órterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925) 2:3 "sprechen, mitteilen, erzáhlen."

(Berlín:

2 8 . James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek T estam ent lllu s tra te d from the Papyri and o th e r N on-Literary Sources (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1952) 128. 2 9 .Ibid., p. 3 6 8 . 3 0 .50 correctly Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Jo urnal o f Theological S tu d y 17 (1969) 3 0 4 . 3 1 . G. W . H. Lampe, A P atristic Greek Lexicón (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1962) 3 1 6 . 3 2 . Harold Hunter, "Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis," Jo u rn a l o f the Evangélica! Theological S ociety 2 3 /2 (1980) 1 3 5 . See also Currie, p. 105, with slightly different conclusions. He points out, however, that ¡t is not possible to determine whether the Greek phrase glóssa lalein in the NT "can be used appropriately to describe the current 'speaking in tongues' phenomena" (ibid.). 3 3 . Engelsen, p. 2 0 . This is supported by Harrisville, p. 4 1 .

58

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

3 4 . Harrisv¡lle, p. 41, has found one instanoe of glóssa lalein in profane Greek. It is found in a reconstructed line of a hymn to Imouthes-Asclepius from the library of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri citad in Harrisville, p. 41 n. 34. 3 5 . Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, 39. 36.lbid., p. 41. 37-lbid., p. 43. 38.So

Behm, p. 7 2 2 .

3 9 . Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 4 4 -5 0 . 4 0 . Behm, pp. 7 2 5 -2 6 . 41 .See for instance Bastiaan Van Elderen, "Glossolalia in the New Testament," Bulletin o fth e Evangélica! T heologicalS ociety 7 (1964) 5 3 -5 8 ; William E. Richardson, L itú rg ica i Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthians 14 :26 c-3 3 a and Its Im plications (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 1983) 8991. 4 2 . Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, p. 50, rejects a Paulina origin by opting for an origin "in pre-Christian, Jewish sources." 4 3 . Engelsen, p. 20. 4 4 . Harrisville, pp. 4 4 -4 8 . 4 5 . There are some scholars who on the basis of their form-critical and redactioncritical analyses of Acts 2 claim that the olearer passage is 1 Cor 1 4. They seek to move on that basis from 1 Cor 14 to Acts 2. They claim that in Acts 2 there is a deeper layer of tradition which is identical to the alleged glossolalia in 1 Cor 14, but later editors have redactad Acts 2 to make the gift one of intelligible languages (see Chapter IV below). This approach lacks the support of the plain meaning of the text of Acts 2, it lacks the support of the ancient manuscript tradition, and it is solely based on modern reconstructions that are too subjective to carry weight. It is best to employ the "cióse reading" approach to the text.

CH APTER III

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE G O SPEL OF MARK

In this part of our study, we shall investígate the New Testament phenomenon of the promise of the gift of tongues as stated by Jesús Christ the risen Lord. This means that we shall begin a careful study of the New Testament passages that refer to tongues-speaking. In the succeeding chapters we will continué with a study of New Testament references to "speaking in tongues" in chronological order.1

1. HISTORICAL SETTING The first individual to speakabout the gift of tongues was Jesús Christ himself. He referred to this matter only once, according to the gospel record. The passage under consideration is Mark 16:17. It belongs to the so-called "longer ending"2 of the Gospel of Mark. This "longer ending" has been the subject of study for a long period of time. There are good reasons for this section to remain in our modern Bible translations.3 It would be too technical a matter to pursue in some detail the issues relating to the debate about the "longer ending" of the Gospel of Mark. For our purposes we consider it to be a genuine word of the Risen Lord. The setting of this prediction puts it in the context of several statements made by Jesús to His disciples after His resurrection and shortly before His final ascensión. The context reveáis that it is spoken by Jesús when He commanded His disciples to preach the gospel in all the world (vs. 15) and when He promised them the power to perform miracles (vs. 17). One of these miracles is the ability "to speak in new tongues."

60

SPEAKING IN TONGUES 2. JESUS' PREDICTION OF SPEAKING IN NEW TONGUES Jesús predicts the following: And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My ñame they will cast out demons, they will speak with new4 tongues (Mk 16:17, NASB).6

With regard to Mk 16:17 a number of considerations should have our attention: a) This ¡s the only reference to speaking in tongues ¡n the Gospels. Significantly, it comes from the mouth of the Lord Himself. It unique appearance here should not diminish its significance. b) This reference to "new tongues" comes in the form of a prediction made by the Risen Lord to His eleven disciples (vs. 14) within the context of reaffirming the Great Commission to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" (vs. 15). Here Christ repeated the mándate to evangelize the whole world. It is within this context of evangelization that the Risen Lord speaks of the accompanying "signs" of casting out demons (cf. Acts 8:7; 16:18; 19:12) and the speaking in or with "new tongues." The "sign" nature indicates in this instance that Jesús is speaking of a miracles which the disciples would engages in. Since Jesús is speaking to his disciples. He does not refer to the sign-miracles of vs. 17 as something that will come to His disciples when they began to believe. They are signs that will manifest themselves as they remain in a State of faith and faithfulness. c) The reference is to a future occurrence as the future tense of the verb indicates (Greek laíesousin), i.e., during the future, when Christ's followers would take up the commission of the Lord, this sign of "speaking in new tongues" would be manifested among believers. d) The "sign" of "speaking in new tongues" is as much a miracle as the other signs mentioned in vs. 17. Each one of them is supernatural in origin and nature.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN MARK

61

e) The nature of the "sign" which would accompany the future proclamaron of the Good News by believers, consisting of an experience which would enable them to "speak with new tongues" (Greek g/ossais la/esousin kainais). What does the crucial phrase "new tongues" mean?

3. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "TONGUES" The Greek word for "tongues" ¡s glóssa. We have observed in the previous chapter that this word is used with a variety of meanings in the New Testament and in the Greek language ¡n general. We may summarize as follows: a) It is employed with reference to the "tongue" as an organ of speech (so Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 1:64; Rom 3:13; 14:11; Isa 3:5f.; 1 Jn 3:18; 1 Pet 3:10; Rev 16:10; Acts 2:26).4 *6 It is, however, generally agreed that this is not what it means here in Mark 16:17. b) Another meaning of the word for "tongue" is "lan­ guage" (Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15; Acts 2:6, 11).7 The meaning "languages" is the meaning employed in Mark 1 6:17 by the NAB (New American Standard Bible) which translates "new languages."8 This versión seems to reflect the intention of the original Greek word glóssa. The Translator's Handbook on the Gospel o f Mark, published first in 1961, explains that "tongues" here means "languages" on the basis that "the meaning here is the same as that in Acts 2:411, . . ." 9 This suggestion finds linguistic and contextual support, as will be shown below.

4. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "N EW " The adjective "new" in the phrase "speak in new tongues” translates the Greek adjective kainais10 which can have a variety of semantic meanings.11 A few English translations render this Greek term with the word "strange"

62

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

(NEB, TEV). These translations are based on the dynamic translation method which does not follow the historie, literal word-for-word translation. The dynamic translations have the tendeney to introduce the translator's understanding.12 The meaning "strange" ¡s never used ¡n the New Testament when the Greek term ¡s kainais, as is the case here. This difference may be ¡llustrated by the comparison between the tw o words for "new" used ¡n the Greek language of the New Testament. One is the Greek word kainos, used here ¡n Mark 1 6:17 in the plural form kainais, and the other is the Greek term neos. "Of the tw o most common words for 'new ' since the classical period [in Greek], namely neos and kainos, the former signifies 'w hat was not there before,' 'w hat has only just arisen and appeared,' the latter 'w hat is new and distinctive' as compared with other things. neos is new in time or origin, i.e., young, with a suggestion of immaturity or of lack of respect for the oíd . . . . kainos is what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive, better than the oíd, superior in valué or attra ctio n ,. . . " 13 We have to balance this definitional distinction with the fact that the Synoptics "use kainos from time to time with the same meaning as neos in order to distinguish the new . . . from the oíd already in existence, . . .” 14 Based on these definitions the term "strange" is ill-chosen. The meaning of the Greek term kainais in Mark 16:17 seemsto indícate "new" in the sense of something unknown in this manner and at the same time marvelous to the one speaking ¡t.15 It is "new" in the sense of a language which the speaker had not learned previously.16 It is "new" in the sense of a miracle that makes it possible to speak with tongues not learned. It is a miracle joined to other miracles that the Lord had promised in Mark 16:17. The idea then is clear. To speak with "new tongues" means to speak in "languages" which were "new" to the speaker, i.e., those, which he had not acquired by normal learning processes, though they could have been acquired in this way under normal circumstances. There was also a new quality to the language spoken.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN MARK

63

5. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN "NEW TONGUES” It seems to be self-evident that Mark 16:17 ¡s to be closely linked with Acts 2, because the phraseology ¡n both passages ¡s very cióse. We read in Mark 16:17 "speak ¡n new tongues" and ¡n Acts 2:4 "speak ¡n other tongues." Only ¡n these tw o passages we find adjectives joined to the phrase "speak ¡n tongues" (cf. 1 Cor 14). This adjectival usage of a term links these passages together from a linguistic point of view .17 There ¡s another linkage between Mark 16:17 and Acts 2. These passages are linked together on the basis of the theological principie of prediction and fulfillment. Mark 16:17 contains the Lord's prediction of this miracle. It finds its great fulfillment in the miracle of tongues-speaking at Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2) a few weeks later. The immediate context of this Markan statement on the gift of tongues puts it undeniably within the framework of the commissioning of the Lord's disciples between Jesús' resurrection and ascensión. Jesús' disciples were to receive the marvelous power of the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were to go forth to proclaim the Good News of what Jesús had achieved for all mankind, first in Israel, and then to all nations, tongues, and peoples. During their previous ministry the disciples were restricted to Israel (Mt 10:1-11:1, esp. 10:6) and Samaría (Lk 10:1-16), but now the ministry of the followers of Jesús, "those who believe" (Mk 16:17), was to go far beyond the borders of Palestine. During their earlier, more restricted ministry, the disciples were equipped by their mother tongue(s) to preach the gospel, but now "a new endowment was promised. The disciples were to preach among other nations, and they would receive power to speak other tongues. The apostles and their associates were unlettered men, yet through the outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, their speech, whether in their own or a foreign language, became puré, simple, and accurate, both in word and in accent"’8. The Risen Lord

64

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

made a prediction as far-reaching as the Great Commission and thereby determined the purpose in the use of the gift of speaking ¡n tongues. It is suggested that a) the disciples would be able to speak "new tongues," that ¡s, foreign languages which were "new" to them and b) that they would be able to speak all languages with a flawless newness.

ENDNOTES

1 .We do not mean the chronology of the documents in which these passages are found but the chronology of the development of the NT church. 2 . Mk 1 6 :9 -2 0 is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but are omitted by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bobiensis (Oíd Latín), Sinaitic (Oíd Syriac) and some other manuscripts (cf. E. Nestle, N ovum Testam entum Graece [25th ed., Stuttgart, 1963], p. 1 36). Both Eusebius and Jerome attest that these verses were wanting in almost all Greek MSS known to them. There are traces of these verses in Justin Martyr (A p o l. i 45), but the earliest definite witness to this longer ending of Mark is in Irenaeus (iii.10.6). Although many commentators hold that this longer ending of Mark is not an original part of the gospel, M .-J. Lagrange, Evangile salón S aint M aro (5th ed.; Paris, 1 929), pp. 4 5 6 -4 6 8 , affirms the canonicity of this passage. According to the Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible Com m entary, ed. F. D. Nichol (Washington, D.C., 19 5 6), V, 6 5 9 , the "Textual evidence favors the so-called Longer Ending” over the "Shorter Ending." 3 . For discussions on the longer ending of Mark, see B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, The N e w Testam ent in the O riginal Greek, With Introduction a nd A p p e n d ix (London: Macmillan & Co., 1882) Appendix, 2:28-51; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (New York: Macmillan and Company, Limited) pp. 3 3 3 -3 6 0 ; B. B. Warfield, A n Introduction to the Textual Criticism o f the N e w Testam ent (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886) pp. 1 9 9 -2 0 4 ; C. S. C. Williams, A lte ra tio n s to the Text o f the Synoptic Gospels and A c ts (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951) pp. 4 0 -4 4 ; R. G. Bratcher and E. A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel o f M ark (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961) pp. 5 1 7 -5 2 2 ; W . F. Farmer, The L a st Twelve Verses o f M ark (London/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1974) pp. 1-124. 4 . The adjective "new ” (kainais) is omitted from certain MSS (Ephraemi Rescriptus [original reading], Regius, St. Gall [037], Athos [044], Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Bohairic, Armenian) but is attested in most of the best manuscripts and should be accepted as original (so among many C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel A cco rd in g to S t.M ark [CGTC; Cambridge, 1963], p. 4 7 4 ). 5 . KJV: "new tongues”; RSV:”new tongues"; JB: "new tongues"; NEB: "strange tongues"; TEV "strange tongues"; NAB: "new languages"; NIV "new tongues"; NRSV "new tongues."

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN MARK

65

6 . W . F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón o f the N e w Testament (Chicago, 1957), p. 161 (hereafter citad as Arndt and Gingrich). Also J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testam ent (London, 1952), p. 128. This meaning is attested also generally in Greek, so H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicón (Oxford, 1940), I, 353; F. Preisigke, W órterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Heidelberg, 1924), I, 2 9 9 , and E. Kiessling, W órterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 58. 7 . This meaning is attested in all lexicons mentioned in note 6 above. Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 3 5 3 , also gives the meanings of "an obsolete and foreign word, which needs explanation" and anything shaped like a tongue such as a "reed or tongue of a pipe," or the "tongue or thong of leather, shoe-latchet,” or the "tongue of land," or the divinatory "marking on the liver." 8 .Supra, note 5. 9.R. G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, Transiator's Handbook on the G o s p e io f Mark (Leiden, 1 961), p. 5 1 2 . 1 0 .On the textual questions, see V. Taylor, The G o speiA ccording St. M ark (London, 1 963), p. 61 2 , omits this word from his Greek text, but Cranfield, St. M ark, p. 4 7 4 , defends its authenticity. 1 1 .See Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, pp. 3 9 4 f., and J. Behm, "ka in o s ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testament, ed G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans 19 6 5), 3:4 5 0 ff. 1 2 .See Eugene H. Glassman, The Translation Debate. W hat M akes a Bibie Transiation Good? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981) pp. 4 8 -5 2 . 1 3 . Behm, "ka in o s ," 3:4 4 7 . 1 4 . H. Haarbeck, H.-G. Link, and C. Brown, "New," The N e w In ternational D ictionary o f N e w Testam ent Theology Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), p. 6 7 1 . 1 5 . Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 3 9 5 . T. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicón o f the NT (New York, 1 8 89), p. 119: "To speak with new tongues which the speaker had not learned previously." 1 6 .See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicón o f the NT, p. 119: "To speak with new tongues the speaker had not learned previously." See also Bratcher and Nida, Gospei o f M ark, p. 51 2 . 1 7 . The authoritative Greek grammar of F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W . Funk, A Greek G ram m ar o f the N e w Testam ent and Other Early Christian Literatura (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 254, explains that we have in Mk 16:17 an ellipsis of an adjective where heterais, "other," which properly belongs to the phrase "as it is designad in the narrative where the phenomenon first appears (A 2:4)." According to this grammar Mk 16:17 and Acts 2:4 are closely linked together, although the adjectives differ. 18. Ellen G. White, The Desire o f A g e s (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1940) p. 8 2 3 .

CHAPTER IV

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN A CTS 2

The most explicit and significant passage on the gift of speaking in tongues is presented in Acts 2:1-13.1 In this passage Luke, the associate of Paul, gives an account of the great Day of Pentecost. It was a day of dramatic change for the primitive Christian Church. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was the early rain experience of the Holy Spirit. It enabled the first Christians to come down from the Upper Room and to engage in the proclamaron of the Good News as never before. This experience changed the early Church into a true missionary movement, despite the extraordinary obstacles it would face in overcoming tradition, prejudice and other formidable obstacles. God showed Himself to be on the side of the new community and with the power and presence of the third Person of the triune Godhead God's cause would succeed. In the gift of "speaking in tongues" God provided the means to overeóme the natural obstacle limitating the quick and efficient communication of the Gospel.

1. HISTORICA!. SETTING The Day of Pentecost took place on the 50th day after the Passover (Lev 23:15f.; Num 28:16; Deut 16:9-12),2 placing the events of Acts 2 seven weeks after the crucifixión of Jesús. The Risen Lord appeared to His disciples over a period of forty days (Acts 1:3; cf. 1 Cor 1 5:3-7)3 and spoke to them about the "kingdom of God." On the day of His ascensión Jesús Christ gathered His disciples together and in His last conversaron with them He enjoined them to stay in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) until the promised Holy Spirit (John 14) would come upon them. The last words of the Risen Lord to His disciples were: "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come

68

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

upon you; and you shall be my witnesses ¡n Jerusalem and ¡n all Judea and Samaría and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8, RSV). After Jesús Christ had thus assured the disciples that they would receíve the Holy Spirít—the sine qua non for the fulfillment of their comm¡ss¡on2 *4--which conferred the miraculous power to perform the "signs" promísed before (Mk 16:17f.), He was received out of their síght ¡nto heaven (Acts 1:9-12). The Hoiy Spirít was promised; the early Church was to await His coming in Jerusalem, the last place they would have chosen for themselves so soon after the terrible events leading to the crucifixión of their Lord.5 The disciples, however, were obedient to Christ's command. They waited with the women,6 Jesús' mother, and His brothers (cf. 1 Cor 9:5)7 in the Upper Room in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14) for the gift of the Holy Spirít. The promise of the coming of the Holy Spirít would be experienced in a few days' time. The time of waiting was a time of preparation. The followers of Jesús devoted themselves to prayer (Acts 1:14), numbering at that time in Jerusalem about a hundred and tw enty. The infant community of faith was bound together in a spirít of unity8 through prayer (Acts 2:1). The time was ripe for the outpouring of the Holy Spirít.

2. THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT When the disciples were all gathered together at the dawning of the Day of Pentecost, suddenly the whole house9 where they were sitting was filled with a sound of a rushing "wind" (pnoe).10 The celestial visitation was not only audible but also visible. There were "tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each of them" (Acts 2:3, NASB). Both the rushing wind and the "tongues as of fire" are emblems of the power of the Holy Spirít. They were tw o signs11 which manifest the coming and continued presence of the Holy Spirit. The appearance of "tongues as of fire" does not mean

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

69

that fire fell down from heaven, but that the "tongues" (g/ossais) looked l¡keu flames of fire, forking in such a way as to touch each one of them. It provides "visual evidence that the Spirit is given them as individuáis."13 Luke endeavored to avoid giving the ¡mpression that the noise from the sky (heaven) and the fire-like tongues were mere natural phenomena. In each case he made the point that the noise was "like" (hosper) that of a strong rushing wind and the tongues were "like" (hoseí) flames of fire. That "the wind and fire he mentions were not those known to nature"14 is evident from the use of these tw o comparative partióles.15 This emphasis of the report of Acts shows that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was no mere subjective experience.16 This is further supported by the verb translated "appeared" (ophthesan) in vs. 3a. This term was deliberately chosen to suggest that what the followers of Jesús witnessed w ith their own eyes had a corresponding reality. The experience cannot be explained away as the product of their imagination. The report in Acts 2:3b emphasizes that the Holy Spirit "rested" (ekathisen) on each of them.17 The subject of the verb "rested" could be either "tongue" (understood from "tongues" earlier)18 or less possibly "fire ,"19 or most likely the Holy Spirit of the next verse.20 Although the Greek is not clear on the subject of the verb, the verb itself (kathizo) means "to sit down, rest." It indicates through its meaning a permanent settling down, while the aorist tense21 here suggests the inception of the gift of the Holy Spirit. The phrase "and it rested on each one of them" implies (a) that the Holy Spirit was received by each one individually present in the house and (b) that this was no momentary experience restricted to the Day of Pentecost. It was a permanent endowment lasting throughout the lifetime of the person who had received this g ift.22

3. THE NATURE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES The audible and visible aspects of the presence of the

70

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost ¡s evident. Now a third aspect ¡s added: "And they were all filled w ith the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4, RSV). The word "gave" is used to depict the gift nature of speaking in tongues.23 The gift of speaking in tongues is not a learned experience. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit to believers. This is in contrast to the practice in Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism with their so-called "tarrying" meetings. In these meetings "groups of people would 'tarry' and be taught how to expand their consciousness in order to bypass the ¡ntellect"24 so as to be able to engage in glossolalia. It is of crucial importance to inquire into the meaning of the words, "they began to speak in other tongues." As soon as the Holy Spirit filled those present in the Upper Room an external effect was manifested. There was no period of apprenticeship; there was no period of being taught, and there was no time of learning: "They began" (erxanto) to speak25 right away. The Holy Spirit causes the disciples to speak out boldly (2:4c). The term used by Luke is rendered as "utterance" (NKJV, NASB) or "ability"(NRSV). The actual word used is apophthéggesthai,26 and in non-biblical Greek it means "to speak out loudly and clearly," "to speak with emphasis."27 The "bold" speech of those endowed with the gift of tongues does not desígnate ecstatic speech, but a speaking that is distinct, emphatic, loud and clear.28 The phrase of importance is that they spoke "in other tongues." The NRSV, a dynamic translation, renders this phrase with "in other languages." The first term which needs careful attention is "tongues" (Greek g/ossais), the traditional rendering of the original word in English translations. The Greek word used here in Acts 2 is identical with the one in Mark 16:17. In our discussion of Mark 16:17 in Chapter III and in our linguistic discussion in Chapter II it has been shown that the Greek term "glóssa," that is, "tongue," in its various usages can mean in the Greek language (a) "tongue" as an organ and instrument of speech and (b) "language" in the sense of a native or foreign language or

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

71

dialect.29 In Chapter II above we have studied the broad issues of the term "tongue" ¡n the Greek language, to which the reader may return for a review of the evidence. The term "tongues" ¡n vs. 4 ¡s clearly defined by Luke ¡n Acts 2. In vss. 6 and 8 he equates this term with "languages." In the latter tw o verses we do not find the Greek word glóssa but the Greek term dialektos. The term dialektos means "language of a nation or región."30 In Acts 1:19 the term dialektos means the vernacular language of a country.31 It has the same meaning in Acts 2:6, 8. Some have suggested that no true foreign languages are meant in Acts 2:6, 8, but "dialects,"32 an ecstatic spiritlanguage,33 a "supernatural Esperanto,"34 or an ordered Hebrew recitation of fixed liturgical passages.35 These proposals come to grief on the basis of the equation of "tongue" and "language" in vss. 4 and 11 aside from vss. 6 and 8 in Acts 2.36 In Acts 2 there is a scholarly consensus of opinión supporting the equation of "tongues" w ith "dialects" that mean "languages."37 "By speaking other languages, the believers provide the evidence that the Holy Spirit is performing a miracle."38 Additional considerations lend strong support to the position that the "tongues" are indeed "languages." First, notice that the hearers who have not yet attained to faith are not endowed with the gift of interpretation. They understand the believers who speak in tongues without recourse to interpretation or translation. Second, the people are amazed and bewildered (Acts 2:7). "The crowd detects that the speakers are not foreigners but Galileans"39 who could not have learned these foreign languages in any natural way. This demonstrates that the listening crowd does not think that they are heafing a "spirit-language," "supernatural Esperanto," or something else, or a speech a Galilean could engage in as well as any other person. The utter amazement was caused by the fact that these unlearned Galileans suddenly spoke in the native mother tongues of the various listeners. Luke was not recording a miracle of hearing, as has been supposed by some, namely that the disciples spoke in their own language, but people understood what they were saying, each in his own tongue. This view was held by some of the

72

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Fathers of the Church, but ¡t has not found serious support subsequently. Luke explicitly records that "each one heard them speaking in his own language" (Acts 2:6). The word "them" indicates that they are hearing the Christians speak each in the language of respective hearers. An additional reason against the view that the miracle at Pentecost was one of hearing rests in the problem that the miracle is thereby transferred from the disciples to the unconverted multitude. To this should be added the fact that speaking in tongues began before there was an audience (Acts 2:4). This miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit carne upon the believers only. It enabled them to speak in different human languages, so that the ¡nternational group of listeners (vss. 5, 9-11) heard them in their own mother tongues (vss. 6 ,8 ,1 1 ). Those who do not believe do not particípate in this miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. This point seems very important in view of the fact that in modern times glossolalia is practiced by believers and nonbelievers, that is, by Christians and non-Christians, and even by non-religious persons such as agnostics and atheists. The gift of Acts 2 is not universal in nature; it is a gift restricted to those who were waiting in proper preparation for the gift of the Holy Spirit which had been promised only to the followers of Jesús. In Acts 2 non-believers are privileged to hear the Good News of "the mighty works of God" (vs. 11), so that they too may join the fellowship of believers. However, non-believers are not endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit. The adjective "other" (heteros) in the phrase "to speak in other tongues" in Acts 2:4 deserves attention. The Greek term heteros here has the meaning of "different, foreign,"40 so that the phrase has been properly translated as "to speak in foreign tongues."41 The phrase "to speak in other ( = foreign) tongues," States H. W. Beyer, "means speaking in various languages which were different from the mother tongue of the speakers and which were previously unknown to them ."42 This linguistic specification does full justice to the later expression that each one heard them in his "own language"

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

73

(¡día dialekto), as vs. 8 explicitly States. It also fits the enumeration of the languages of the ¡nternational group of listeners. To put ¡t differently, Luke's use of "other" and "ow n" ¡mplies that he did not mean by "other tongues" at Pentecost a type of glossolalia which is characterized by ¡narticulate, unintelligible speech which is in need of interpretation because no one can understand it. Luke wishes to communicate by ever so many means that the miraculous gift of speaking in other languages at Pentecost was the ability to speak articúlate, intelligible, foreign languages which had not been learned by the speakers previously and which were not learned at that time.43 We may concluded from the testimony of those enumerated in the long list of countries and peoples44 from "every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5) that they were witnesses of the miracle of the believers' speaking in tongues.45 To say that the gift of speaking foreign languages was quite superfluous at Pentecost since all who were present would have been able to speak or understand either Aramaic or Greek, is only to say what Luke himself must have known. The point is that Luke was not so foolish as to suggest that this gift was bestowed upon the disciples even though they could make themselves intelligible to their hearers without it.46 The reaction of the listeners who were "hearing them speaking in their own (hemeterais) tongues" (Acts 2:11) testifies to their conviction that they as "Jews and proselytes" (2:9) recognized what was spoken to be their "own native language" (2:8). It is well to keep in mind that the "proselytes" were not obliged to learn Hebrew or Aramaic.47 The phenomenon of speaking in tongues at Pentecost is depicted by a well-known writer in the following insightful manner: The Holy Spirit, assuming the form of tongues of fire, rested upon those assembled. This was an emblem of the gift then bestowed on the disciples, which enabled them to speak with fluency languages with which they had heretofore been unacquainted.... Every known tongue was represented by those assembled. This diversity of language would have been a great hindrance to the proclamation of the gospel; God therefore in a miraculous

74

SPEAKING IN TONGUES manner supplied the deficiency of the apostles. The Holy Spirit did for them that which they could not have accomplished for themselves in a lifetime. They could now proclaim the truths of the gospel abroad, speaking with accuracy the languages of those for whom they were laboring. This miraculous gift was a strong evidence to the world that their commission bore the signet of Heaven.48

This summary of the Pentecostal phenomenon reflects what the text of Acts 2 says.

4. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES We must ask, What was the purpose for providing the gift of speaking foreign languages? As we have seen in the previous sections, the Holy Spirit carne upon the believers gathered together in the Upper Room49 and each one was endowed with the Holy Spirit. Thus they were enabled to speak intelligible foreign languages. Based on the prediction of Jesús, as recorded in Mark 16:17 and its context, the purpose of the gift of tongues was to provide the Communications means for the evangelization of the world through the proclamation of the gospel (cf. Mk 16:16ff.). The words of Jesús recorded in Acts 1:5, "You will be baptized w ith the Holy Spirit in a few days," found their fulfillment in Acts 2 in the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Those assembled in the Upper Room carne down and entered into the streets, miraculously speaking in foreign languages previously unknown to them. As the crowds, which included many from different regions and countries, heard that "sound," undoubtedly the speaking of foreign languages (vs. 4),50 they gathered together and witnessed the proclamation of "God's deeds and power" (vs. 11). The poclamation of God's deeds and His power ¡nvolved the "telling in all languages then spoken [of] the story of His [Christ's] lite and m inistry."51 The final result of this experience and the preaching of Peter at Pentecost (2:14-41) was that three thousand souls were baptized on that day (vs. 41). The reaping of the first

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

75

fruits of the worldwide harvest was accomplished at Pentecost through the miraculous gift of communicating the Good News to all those from the various parts of the ancient world who were present ¡n Jerusalem at this festal occasion. The purpose of the gift of "speaking in tongues" ís to emphasize that God had lifted any linguistic barriers to the proclamation of the Good News. Furthermore, the gift of tongues as manifested through the Holy Spirit reveáis that by means of this gift of audible communication the church has become worldwide. The 120 that were assembled were enlarged into a worldwide church with persons from all the civilized world of that day.

5. THE SCOFFERS' REACTION TO SPEAKING IN TONGUES There were "some" (Greek heteroi)52 persons among the hearers who contemptuously mocked by saying, "They are full of sweet w ine"53 (2:13, NASB). These scoffers implied that the tongues-speakers were drunk. Who were the scoffers? "One may think of Jerusalem Jews who did not know foreign languages"54 and of those who dismissed the miraculous event w ith a sneer55 by suggesting that the tongues-speakers were drunk. There ¡s an element here that made some hearers56 amazed and thoroughly perplexed. Some people continued to be confused, for they were unable to account for this miracle in a natural way. These unbelievers, or ancient secularists, can be equated with "the world [which] begins w ith rid¡cule\ then afterwards it proceeds to questioning (4:7); to threats (4:7); to imprisoning (5:18); to infHcting stripes (5:40); to murder (7:58).1,57 As God performs miracles for all human beings to see and to hear, there will always be unbelievers who, while the evidence is before them, refuse to accept the truth. In mocking and scoffing, such people harden their hearts so that they cannot see and are unable to hear (Isa 6:910 ). It is appropriate here to point to a relationship between Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14. The fact that certain members of the

76

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

crowd were able to accuse those who first received the Spirit of having had too much sweet wine appears to be related to the charge of "outsiders" that church members speaking with tongues ¡n Corinth must be out of their minds (1 Cor 14:23).58 If a non-Christian comes into a congregation, the unbelieving non-Christian may be led to conclude that the Spirit-filled tongue-speaker is mad. In Corinth, however, there was an additional confusión caused by the disorderiy way in which things took place.

6. SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND MODERN SOURCE HYPOTHESES The relationship between the reaction of the hostile group on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:13) and the reaction of the non-Christian visitor in the Corinthian congregation with the implied reference to "tongues" in each case has led certain scholars to hypothesize that in its present form Acts 2:1-13 unites tw o different sources of the Pentecostal experience. One announces the commencement of speaking in tongues in terms of glossolalia, that is, inarticulate, unintelligible, ecstatic utterance, and the other source consists of a miracle of speaking intelligible, known, foreign languages. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the various source hypotheses which have been developed by historicalcritical scholars over the years. Therefore, we will limit our discussion to representative examples. A t the end of the earlier high tide of source hypotheses among historical-critical scholars appeared the study by F. Spitta.59 He claimed as long ago as 1891 that there were tw o basic sources. The "historical source A" which supposedly contained Acts 2:1a, 4, 11-36, reflecting "speaking in tongues" in terms of unintelligible speech as he supposed was the case in 1 Cor 14. The remainder of Acts 2 comes from a "legendary source B," namely the voice of God which speaks to the Jewish people. Vss. 3b and 7f. were inserted by a later editor who thus spoke of a human linguistic miracle.60 O. Bauernfeind, in his 1939 commentary, ascribes to

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

77

Luke's source only the miracle of the descent of the Holy Spirit and the miracle of the languages.61 He claimed that "¡t is no long step" from the miraculous understanding of glossolalia by a single "interpreter" (1 Cor 14:28) to the "miraculous understanding on the part of a whole company, or at least many of them ."62 Even critical scholars find the step rather long, the more so since it merely leads to the conclusión proposed by H. Wendt that the disciples spoke in an ecstatic "spirit-language" which each hearer understood as if it were his mother tongue even if he knew that it was not so!63 In 1957 C. S. C. Williams conjectured an original (Aramaic?) source in which the Twelve are depicted as filled w ith the Holy Spirit and were sent forth into twelve parts of the world. Luke altered this source in order to let a gradual progression of missions evolve.64 Different still ¡s the hypothesis propounded by E. Trocmé65 in 1957. He suggests that in Acts 2:1-6, 12-13 Luke was ¡ndebted to a source which reported how divine grace had removed the confusión of languages ¡ntroduced in the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1 -9)66 by bestowing a "supernatural Esperanto" based on a midrash of Ex 19.67 Luke then ¡ntroduced the idea of foreign languages in vss. 7-8, 11 . Lutheran bishop Eduard Lohse is much more cautious. He postulates that Luke used only one oral tradition, but Luke himself transformed the "speaking in tongues" from ecstatic, unintelligible speech into the miracle of foreign language.68 In his recent commentary on Acts Emst Haenchen points out that Luke "could not count on much help from sources: there was no ancient or uniform tradition."69 But Luke was a theologian who reshaped the idea of the Risen Christ's transmitting to His disciples the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) under the influence of the Jewish Pentecost experience into a story with an ecstatic speech incomprehensible to most listeners but comprehensible to some.70 Basic for our attempt to evalúate the various written and/or oral source hypotheses is the need to recognize the assumptions and presuppositions at work among critical scholars. It must be pointed out first of all that these

78

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

scholars, representative of a much greater number, share the common conviction that the supposedly original Pentecostal experience of "speaking in tongues" consisted of glossolalia and not of known intelligible languages. The question to be raised is, On what foundation is this supposition based? The consistent answer is that 1 Cor 14 proves that the original gift was glossolalia, unintelligible speech. In other words, historical-critical scholars wish to know the precise nature of the experience in Corinth, derived through an interpretaron of 1 Cor 14 with the aid of reconstructed contemporary phenomena in pagan religions which supposedly influenced the church in Corinth. In Chapter II above we indicated how this common suggestion that glossolalia was known from pagan religions is without support from ancient sources. It will not do to create a background on which to interpret 1 Cor 14 and then to read this reconstruction back into Acts 2. This smacks too much of circular reasoning and using a hypothesis that remains unproven as the foundation for another hypothesis. Another basic assumption is that the Pentecostal experience of Acts is to be ¡nterpreted by means of 1 Cor 14-the key to the understanding of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is the speaking in tongues in 1 Cor 14. In this way, the movement in understanding begins in 1 Cor 14 and moves to the earlier experience reported in Acts 2. In terms of the chronology of events, however, Acts 2 is an experience that precedes that of 1 Cor 14. There can be no doubt on this issue. No one wishes to deny a connection between the experience of the Christians in Corinth and those in Jerusalem at an earlier time. There is indeed a connection on phenomenological grounds, on linguistic grounds, on theological grounds, and on missiological grounds. However, on the basis of the chronology of the manifestations of "speaking in tongues," there can be no question regarding the fact that the initial experience took place at Jerusalem at Pentecost. The experience of tongues at Corinth took place about tw o decades later. On this basis alone the starting point for the investigation and interpretation of the gift of tongues has to be Acts 2, i.e., the earliest manifestation.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

79

Every scholar who employs source hypothetical theories is torced to come to the conclusión that the tongues-speaking phenomenon in Acts 2 in the presently available Greek text, which is very well supported textually, is to be understood in terms of real languages. It is this inevitable conclusión that does not seems to square in their mind with their understanding of 1 Cor 14. Is it methodologically sound to hypothesize that there are layers of sources and redactional activity going on in Acts 2 simply because this earlier phenomenon of tongues does not agree with a problematical interpretaron of 1 Cor 14 by modern scholars? This matter raises serious methodological questions.71 There is a time-honored principie of Biblical interpretation. It has a history reaching back to the Reformation and into the New Testament itself. It is the principie that the Bible is its own interpreter. It is known from the history of Christianity as the Protestant principie of sola scriptura-th e Bible alone. Space does not permit a treatment of the various ramifications of this hermeneutical principie. Paul recommended "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13, KJV). The idea is to put together spiritual things on the basis of the inspired word of knowledge (12:8; cf. 10:12). Peter's injunction is that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20; RSV). Bible-believing Christians have historically followed the principie of letting the Bible speak in matters pertaining to spiritual things, letting it be the solé rule of authority in matters pertaining to doctrines and practice. The present writer maintains that we must continué to let the Bible be its own interpreter, "comparing scripture with scripture."72 The ¡dea that the Bible is the only and unique "standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms" applies in the strict sense to everything that claims to be a hermeneutical key for the interpretation of Scripture. This means that tradition does not determine the correct interpretation of Scripture.73 It also means that philosophy does not provide the key to the interpretation of Scripture, ñor does the comparative approach of the history-of-religions school, ñor any other external key extraneous to the inspired Revelation. To put it differently, experience, tradition, philosophy, Science

80

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

or extra-Biblical religions do not determine the correct meaning of Scripture. The reason for this rests ¡n the fact that, as the uniquely ¡nspired Divine revelation, Scripture is to speak for itself and must be allowed to speak for itself. Most generally this means that interpretation is nothing else than allowing the text to speak for itself; ¡t is the process of making ¡t clear and establishing what the text actually says, and thus enabling it, as it were, to speak for itself, taking it as it reads in its obvious meaning. It must not be assumed that in every case or in most instances the meaning of a Scriptural passage is in every case or in most instances so obviously clear as to render hard effort and devoted labor for its understanding unnecessary. The subject matter is Scripture as the Word of God. As such it must interpret itself. The contrast is between the Word of God and a word of man (experience, tradition, philosophy, Science, etc.). The latter is not the ultímate key for the meaning of the Bible as the Word of God.74 These hermeneutical considerations provide the basic framework and the sure foundation for the discussion of the respective Biblical texts on speaking in tongues. As stated above, this study continúes to move in chronological order and at the same time from the clear passage of Acts 2:1-13 to the less clear or obscure ones in other parts of the New Testament. Another consideraron, and possibly one of the most important in the minds of scholars, is to follow the hearers who were perplexed by the experience of the tonguesspeaking believers (Acts 2:13). This perplexity is used by modern scholars to insert in Acts 2 the view of unintelligible speech, that is, glossolalia. This has led them to hypothesize "that in its present form Acts 2 unites tw o different accounts of which one narrates the commencement of speaking with tongues in the early Church and the other a miracle of speaking in foreign languages."75 It must be pointed out that there is no objective evidence for reading an unintelligible type of speech into Acts 2:13. Neither this text ñor any other text in Acts 2 makes a claim for unintelligible speech. Perplexity at people suddenly speaking the languages of other people does not make such speaking into unintelligible speech.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

81

A foreign language that ¡s not understood by another person ¡s still a foreign language, but not ecstatic, unintelligible speech. If someone spoke in Nabataean76 which was intelligible by those in the crowd who carne from Arabia (Acts 2:11), then it could hardly be expected that it was understood by those who carne from certain parts of Asia. Some of the latter may have had a knowledge of Lydian, or other local languages, which others could not understand, and so on. In addition, there were undoubtedly some in the crowd who were ¡ll-disposed toward the Galilean Christians (Acts 2:17).77 Only fifty days earlier key Jewish leaders succeeded in their plot to kill Jesús. Now some hearers who may have plotted to murder Jesús could not admit that a miracle had taken place. Therefore, the malicious declaration was voiced that these men were drunken with new wine.78 There is no contextual support for the claim that those who charged that the disciples were drunk understood the disciples to practice unintelligible speech, i.e., glossolalia. If it would have been an ecstatic, unintelligible speech, Galileans could have spoken this as well as any other person, but Galileans could not have learned foreign languages in any natural way. The foreign Jews, however, testify: "Each one of us is hearing the language proper to the country in which he was born" (Acts 2:8).79 Unless one accepts the assumption that there was no miracle of foreign languages at Pentecost, which runs counter to the express testimony of the hearers, there is not the least support for the assumption of sources. Hypotheses based on such assumptions do not create confidence in the soundness of the conclusions of such research. Various source hypotheses of some historical-critical scholars raise the serious problem of ¡ntegrity. Since the historical-critical scholars mentioned above assume that the original experience at Pentecost consisted of something other than real human languages, and since the present, final text of Acts 2 unmistakably indicates that the experience was the miraculous speaking of foreign languages, the conclusión needs to be drawn is that Luke (or some editor) deliberately misrep-resented what he knew to have been glossolalia or some other form of unintelligible speech.80 The idea of a

82

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

willful distortion on the part of the Biblical writer ¡s not convincing. There were too many eyewitnesses and earwitnesses to tell the truth, if the truth had not been reported correctly by a Bible writer. The recent trend in many circles of scholarship is to consider the author of Acts as a reliable historian.81 This militates against making Luke (or an editor) a willful distorter of actual facts. History writing in Acts is sound.82 The question as to whether or not there are underlying detectable sources83 behind the account of Acts 2:1-13 has been the subject of some studies. NI. Adler has demonstrated against the supporters of earlier source-hypotheses that the report of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which resulted in the permanent endowment of the disciples to speak foreign languages in Acts 2:1-13 is as a whole linguistically Lukan.84 Eduard Lohse has recently concluded that "literary criticism is unable to disentangle the written source or sources which Luke might have had before him. Both linguistically and stylistically the account is wholly Lukan, . . ," 85 The recent negative reaction to source hypotheses by another critical scholar may be added. Ernst Haenchen writes that Luke "could not count on much help from sources"86 for they cannot be traced. It is inevitable to conclude that the source hypotheses developed by various historical-critical scholars concerning the passage of Acts 2:1-13 do not commend themselves. They have led to radically contradictory results and are based on unproven assumptions and presuppositions. They reflect the subjective nature of the source-critical enterprise.

7. CONCLUSIONS Let us summarize our major findings on the origin, nature, function, and purpose of "speaking in tongues" in Acts 2:113 : 1) The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was a fulfillment of the coming of the Spirit promised by Jesús Christ himself (Lk 24:36-51; Mk 16:15-17; Acts 1:1-11; cf. Jn 14:15-17, 25f.; 15:26f.; 16:5-11, 12-15).

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

83

2) The reception of the Holy Spirit by the believers in the Upper Room was a real and not an ¡maginary phenomenon. It actually happened and changed the early Church from a largely Jewish community into a community of faith consisting of believers from the known civilized world of that day. 3) The Holy Spirit was received individually. The gift of the promised Spirit was not a manifestation on the masses as such, but it was a gift to the 120 who were in the Upper Room and who were of one accord, seeking and waiting for the Lord to bestow this gift on each one individually. 4) The external and audible effect of the reception of the Holy Spirit was the ability of the believers in the Upper Room "to speak in other tongues" (Acts 2:4). 5) The ability "to speak in other tongues" means a miraculous enabling to speak fluently living foreign languages previously unlearned and unknown to the speaker. 6) The purpose of the spiritual gift of miraculously speaking foreign languages as a continuing gift was meant to provide the infant Church with the means of communicating the Good News to the world. 7) The spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages by Jesús' followers was a sign to unbelievers that their commission was of divine origin. 8) The gift of speaking foreign languages was permanent and not a temporary or unrepeatable event.

ENDNOTES

1 .We agree with other Interpreters in maintaining a cióse relationship between all five NT passages referring to speaking in tongues (cf. J. Behm, "g lóssa," Theological D ictíonary o f the N e w Testam ent [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], 1 :7 2 2 ). Acts 2 is the second passage to be considered in chronological order, because the Pentecostal experience was the first manifestation of the gift of speaking in tongues. "Whatever the date of Acts, its early pictures of the Church and her doctrine are prePauline," States C. S. C. Williams, A Com m entary on the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (New York, 1 9 5 7), p. 61. See also W . L. Knox, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Cambridge, 19 4 8), pp. 8 0 ff. There is still much difference of opinión on the date of Acts. The "age of tendency-criticism" which compromised the historical reliability of Acts and argued for a 2nd cent. A.D. date is now over and its thesis refuted (cf. Ernest

84

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Haenchen, The A c ts o f the A postles. A Com m entary [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971], pp. 15-24). See also P. Feine, J. Behm, and W . G. Kümmel, Introduction to the N T (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), p. 132. A number of other scholars who claim that Acts was written ca. 70 after Luke was written (W. Michaelis, A. Wikenhauser, C. S. C. Williams, 0 . Michel, P. Benoit, T. W . Manson). There are a number of scholars who place Acts shortly before A.D. 64, i.e., before Paul's death, so earlier Sahlin and Koh and from different points of view more recently, see F. F. Bruce, The A c ts o f the A postles. The Geek Text w ith Intro d u ctio n and Com m entary (2nd ed.; London, 1951), pp. 1 ff.; Ídem, Com m entary on the Book o f A c ts (London, 1968), pp. 20ff.; E. M. Blaiklok, The A c ts o f the A p o stle (London, 1 959), pp. 16ff J. Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Anchor Bible; Garden City, N.Y., 19 6 7), pp. XLVI-LIV. 2 .See also Josephus, A n tiq u itie s III, 2 5 2 . 3 .See C. F. D. Moule, "The Post-Resurrection Appearances ¡n the Light of Festival Pilgrimages," NTS, 1 (19 5 7 ), 5 8 ff., for the various localities where Jesús appeared. 4 . K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, eds., The Beglnnings o f C hristianlty (London, 1933), IV, 8. 5 . J. A. E. Hull, The H o ly S pirít ¡n the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Cleveland, 1968), pp. 4 7 f., 81 f f . 6 . The "wom en” (Acts 1:14) were in all likelihood those who supported Jesús (Lk 8 :2 f.; 2 3:49, 55; 2 4 :10) and not the wives of the disciples or of Jesús' brothers. 7 . At first Jesús' brothers were antagonistic to Him (Mk 3:21; Jn 7:5) but later they changed (1 Cor 9:5). The natural inference is that not only James but Jesús' other brothers attached themselves to the infant church in Jerusalem. 8 . Earlier jealousies, such as were revealed in their failure to heal the demonpossessed boy (Mk 9 :1 4 -2 9 ), their striving for high positions (Lk 2 2 :2 4 ), and refusal to wash one another's feet (Jn 13:3-7), had been removed by the increased understanding which Jesús provided them during the forty days of post-resurrection instruction (Acts 1:3ff.) and the ten days of earnest prayer during their period of waiting for special endowment of the Holy Spirit (1:14 ff.). 9.Some have taken the term "house" (o lko s) to refer to the temple precincts (Th. Zahn, Ole A p ostelgeschlchte des Lucas [Leipzig, 1 919], l:77; H. J. Holtzmann, Die A p o ste lg e sch lch te [HKNT; Tübingen/Leipzig, 1901], 1:31). If Josephus on one occasion {A n tiq u itie s, VIII. 3 .2 65 ff.) employs the term "house" {olkos) for the Temple which he elsewhere designates naos, the context clearly indicates what he means. Here this ¡s not the case. Luke consistently refers to the Temple as fo hieron (22 times). The only other locality where the disciples met during the ten day period of waiting ¡n Acts is the Upper Room (1:13). According to Lk 2 4 :5 3 , they were "continually in the temple, blessing God." Holtzmann (p. 26) suggested that the Upper Room is to be located in the Temple. Haenchen, A c ts , p. 153 n. 2, points out that this rests upon "the false equatlon of Acts 1:13 with Luke 2 4 :5 2 f.... In fact Luke 2 4 :5 3 would seem to correspond with Acts 2 :46." So also H. H. Wendt, Die A p o stelgeschlchte (Gottingen, 1913), p. 7 2 . 10-This term means either "wind" or "breath." See Arndt and Gingrich, A GreekEngllsh Lexicón, p. 6 8 6 . For speakers of the Greek language this term and the Greek word for spirit/wind {pneum a) were closely related, so Haenchen, A c ts , pp. 167f.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

85

11 .Hull, The H o ly Spirit, pp. 58f. 12 . The Greek reads hosei, danoting comparison, cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek G ram m ar o f the NT, p. 219 # 4 2 5 (3 ). 1 3 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 168. 1 4 . Hull, The H o ly Spirit, p. 59. 15. The frequent reference to the phrase "tongues of fire" ¡n Enoch 14:8-15; 71:5, does not próvida a real parallel to the phrase "tongues like of fire" in Acts 2:3 . The former denotes an element of divinity but the latter is a descrlption of a phenomenon which in its physical appearance may be compared to fiery tongues. 1 6 . Cf. H. J. Cadbury, "Acts and Eschatology," The Background o f the N T and its Eschatology, eds. W . D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge, 19 5 6), pp. 3 0 3 f. 1 7 . NEB translates with a participle, "and resting on each of them," and thereby misses the faot that in the Greek the word is not a participle but a main verb. 1 8 .50 Munck, A c ts o f the A postles, p. 13. 1 9 .Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 8 2 , suggests both "tongue" and "fire" as possible subjects. 2 0 .50 Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 3 9 1 ; Hull, The H o ly Spirit, p. 58. 21 .On the basis of the Greek grammar and syntax one may best understand this as an "ingressive (inceptive) aorist" whereby the action may be contemplated to denote entrance into that State or condition. Cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar o f the NT, p. 171 # 3 3 1 ; A. T. Robertson, A G ram m ar o f the Greek N T in the Light o f H istó rica ! Research (London, 19 1 4), # 834; E. de W . Burton, S yntax o f the M oods a nd Tenses in N T Greek (Edinburgh, 18 9 8), # 41; C. F. D. Moule, A n Idiom-Book o f N T Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1959), p. 10. 2 2 .Hull, The H o ly Spirit, p. 58: "The mention o f 'restin g on each one' strongly implies that this was no momentary lapse of the Spirit but one that was permanent (cf. John 1:32)." F. D. Nichol, ed., SDABC, VI, 137: "Even though the fiery-appearing tongues remained upon the believers for only a brief time, the effects of the visitation lasted for the lifetime of the faithful Christians who received the Spirit." 2 3 .50 correctly Gottfried Schille, Die A posteigeschichte des Lukas "Theologischer Handkommentar zum NeuenTestament" (Berlín: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983), p. 96. 2 4 .G. R. Osborne, "Tongues, Speaking in,” Evangelical D ictio n a ry o f Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 19 8 4), pp. 1 1 0 2 -1 1 0 3 . 2 5 .Sea H. Jaeschke, "Lalein bei Lukas," BZ 15 (1971), 1 0 9 -1 1 4 . 2 6 . The term apophtheggom ai means to speak in a bold or inspirad way, but not ecstatic speech. See Haenchen, A c ts , p. 168; J. Behm, "apophtheggom ai," TDNT, I (1 9 6 4 ), 4 4 7 ; Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicón, p. 101. 2 7 . Behm, p. 4 4 7 . 2 8 .Schille, Die A p osteigeschichte des Lukas, p. 96.

86

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

2 9 .Supra, n.21. In Patristic literatura these two meanings are also the only ones known. Sea G. W . H. Lampe, A P atristic Greek Lexicón (Oxford, 1968), p. 3 1 6 .2 9 .2 2 30.Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-Engiish Lexicón, p. 184; of. R. Munz, "Über glotta und dialektos," G lotta, 11 (1 9 2 1 ), 8 5 -9 4 . 3 1 .50 correctly Haenchen, A c ts , p. 169 n. 2. 3 2 . H. E. Edwards, "The Tongues at Pentecost; A Suggestion," Theology, 16 (19 2 8 ), 2 4 8 -2 5 2 ; R. O. P. Taylor, "The Tongues at Pentecost," Expository Times, 40 (1 9 2 8 /2 9 ), 3 0 0 -3 0 3 ; R. F. Stoll, "The First Christian Pentecost," Ecclesiastical Review, 108 (1943), 3 3 7 -3 4 7 . 3 3 . A. Wikenhauser, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te (4th ed.; Regensburg, 1961), pp. 3 9 f., who follows Wendt. 3 4 . E. Trocmé, Le ’Livre des A c te s ' e t Thistoire (Paris, 19 5 7), pp. 2 0 2 ff. 3 5 .50 first G. J. Sirks, "The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit," HTR, 50 (19 5 7 ), 8 5 f., followed by C. S. Mann, "Appendix III. Pentecost in Acts," in Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 2 7 5 . Mann himself admits that "this hypothesis,... must remain sub ju d ic e ,” because there is no evidence for the kind of liturgical readings presupposed for the hypothesis. 36.There is a general consensus of opinión among scholars of all schools of thought that Luke wishes us to understand that those endowed with the gift of tongues were enabled to make themselves understood in all languages. 3 7 .50 again Schille, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te des Lukas, pp. 9 3 -9 6 . 3 8 .Simón J. Kistemaker, N e w Testam ent Commentary, Exposition o f the A c ts o f A p o s tle s (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990) p. 8 1 . 39.lbid. 40.A rndt and Gingrich, A Greek-Engiish Lexicón, p. 3 1 5 . 41 .So the NAB and F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (London, 1945), p. 10. 4 2 . H. W . Beyer, "heteros," Theological D ictlonary o f the N e w Testam ent (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1964) 2 :7 0 3 . 4 3 . Among the large number of scholars who have interpreted the speaking in tongues at Pentecost as referring to intelligible, foreign languages are: D. Brown, "The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter ii, The Day of Pentecost," Expositor, 1 (1875), 3 9 2 -4 0 8 ; J. Behm, "glóssa," Theological D ictio n a ry o f the N e w Testam ent (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1964), I, 7 2 5 ; A. Beel, "Donum linguarum juxta Act. Apost. ¡i. 1-13," Collationes Brugensis, 3 5 (1 9 3 5 ), 4 1 7 -4 2 0 ; S. Lyonnet, "De glossolalia Pentecostés euisque significatione," Verbum Dom ini, 2 4 (1 9 4 4 ), 65 -7 5 ; E. Andrews, "Tongues, Gift of," In te rp rete r's D ictio n a ry o f the Blble (Nashville, 1962), IV, 671; F. W . Beare, "Speaking with Tongues. A Critical Survey of the NT Evidence," JBL 83 (1964), 237; J. D. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia," Jo u rn a l o f Theological Studles, 3 (19 5 2 ), 2 2 8 -2 3 1 ; R. H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)," Jo u rn a l o f Theological Studies, 17 (19 6 6 ), 2 9 9 -3 0 7 ; S. Aalen, "Zungenreden," Biblisch-historisches H andw órterbuch (Gottingen, 1966), III, 2 2 4 9 f.; Th. Zahn, Die A p o ste lg e sch ich te des Lukas (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1 9 1 9), pp. 9 3 ff.; A. Steinmann, Die Apostelgeschichte

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

87

(Bonn, 1 934), p. 29; Foakes-Jackson, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 11; HermannW. Beyer, "h a te ro s ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testam ent, G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 2 :7 0 2 -7 0 4 ; E. Lohse, "Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberiohtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," EvTh, 13 (1953), 4 2 4 ; G. Kretschmar, "Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten," ZKG, 61 (1 9 5 4 /5 5 ), 235; Bruce, C om m entary on the Book o f A c ts , pp. 59ff.; Munck, The A c ts o f the A postles, pp. 14f.; G. Stáhlin, Die A postelgeschichte (Góttingen, 1 967), p. 33; Hull, The Holy S pirit, p. 62; Haenchen, A c ts, pp. 168f.; Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 81. 4 4 . Kretschmar, "Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten," 23 5 , emphasizes that "Luke put equal weight upon the meaning of glossa as language, which is shown primarily in the catalog of nations,...." 4 5 . For studies on the regions of the world mentioned by Luke, see Haenchen, A c ts , pp. 16 5 ff. 4 6 . Hull, The H oly Spirit, p. 62. 4 7 .So Philo, cf. Haenchen, A c ts , p .1 7 1 . 4 8 . E. G. White, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Mountain View, Calif., 1 9 1 1 ), pp. 39; 40; cf. E. G. White, The S tory o f Redemptlon (Washington, D.C., 1 9 4 7), pp. 2 4 2 -2 4 4 , 24 6 . 4 9 . Acts 1 :13. According to H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, K o m m e n ta r zum Neuen T estam ent aus Talm ud und M idrasch (München, 1 9 7 2ff.), II, 5 9 4 , upperrooms used to "serve the learned as a place of assembly, study and prayer." They were normally rooms in the upper story of large houses. Sometimes they were also let as dwellings. In the home of the mukhtar's house of an Arab village today there is likely to be an upper room, medhafeh, for entertainment of guests. See 0 . R. Sellers, "Upper Room," IDB (19 6 2 ), IV, 73 5 . 5 0 . With Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 8 3 . It could include also the "sound" of vs. 2. 51 .White, A c ts o f the A postles, p. 40. 5 2 . The Greek term suggests "others of a different kind" not "others of the same kind" as would be suggested by alio!. This indicates that a different class of speakers is meant in vs. 13 as compared to that of vss. 5 -12. 5 3 . The term gleukos occurs only here in the NT, but is found in Aristotle (3 8 4 -3 2 2 B.C.) with the meaning "must" in the sense of unfermented grape juice (M eterologica 3 8 8 .b.9 -1 3 ). Since the vintage of the new year carne not till August, it has been suggested that this must refer to fermented wine sweetened with honey (so Strack and Billerbeck, K om m entar zum NT, II, 614). It is not necessary to assume that this was fermented wine because new wine could be kept from golng sour. Columella, an agriculturalist living at the first century A.D., preserved instructions on how to keep unfermented grape juice (On A g ricu ltu ra 12, 21, 1). The same is true of Virgil (70 -1 9 A.D.), who provides information in Georgis 1, 2 9 5 -9 6 , and Pliny, N aturaI H is to ry 14, 11, 8 0 . See Samuele Bacchiocchi, VJine in the Bible. A BíblicaI Study on the Use o f A lc o h o llc Beverages (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectivas, 1989), pp. 1 7 9 -8 2 , for the proof that gleukos in Acts 2:13 means unfermented grape juice. 5 4 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 171.

88

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

5 5 .lt may be suggested that some with vastad ¡nterest were eager to explain the miraculous natura of the observable phenomenon in a natural way. Cf. Bruce, The Book o fA c ts , p. 65. 5 6 . Th¡s means that there are two opposlng groups among the hearers: one defending the miraculous experience of the early believers as recognizing their glft as foreign languages and the other hostile to the gift. Luke frequently introduces two opposing groups, see Acts 5 :3 4 ff.; 14:4; 1 7 :1 8ff.; 23:6ff.; 28:2 4 . 5 7 . John Albert Bengel, Gnomon o f the N ew (Edlnburgh: Clark, 18 7 7), 2 :5 2 6 .

Testament, ed. A. R. Fausset

5 8 . This parallel is further suggested on the basis that in the pagan mystery religions the prophetic oracle was believed to come through the "Spirit" but manifestad itself as if the "inspirad" person were full of wine. Ecstasy and drunkenness are important aspects in the interpretaron of pagan ecstatic phenomena. Cf. H. Conzelmann, Der erste B ríe f an die K orínther (Góttingen, 1969), p. 2 86 n. 25. 5 9 . Friedrich Spitta, Die A p ostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen u nd deren g e schichtlicher W ert (Halle, 18 9 1). 6 0 . Recently Haenchen, A c ts , p. 29, expressed his amazement to "how ingeniously the whole of Acts has been dismembered into these two sources without leaving too much of a surplus to be attributed to the editor.... Spitta's skill in dissection is as astounding as his trust in the editor’s skill in comblnation." 6 1 .0 tto Bauernfeind, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te (Góttingen, 1939), p. 55. 6 2 Jbid., p. 56. 6 3 . H. Wendt, Kritisch-Exegetisches Handbuch über die A p o stelgeschichte (7th ed.; Góttingen, 18 8 8), pp. 6 4 f. Cf. Haenchen, A c ts , p. 172. 64.

Witliams, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, pp. 6 1 -6 5 .

6 5 . Trocmó, Le ’Livre des A c íe s', pp. 2 0 2 -2 0 6 . 6 6 . The ¡dea that the speaking in tongues ¡s a reversal of the confusión of tongues at the Tow er of Babel receives increasing attention by scholars. See Davies, JTS, 3 (1 9 5 2 ), 2 2 8 ff.; Bruce, The Book o f A c ts , p. 64: "The event was surely nothing less than a reversal of the curse of Babel." So already K. Lake, "The Gift of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost,” The Beginnings o f C hristianity (London, 1933), 5 :1 1 4 f . 6 7 .lt is claimed that Philo could already be dependent on this supposed midrash. 6 8 . E. Lohse, "Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," Evangelische Theologie, 13 (19 5 3 ), 4 2 4 ff.; Ídem, "p e n te ko ste ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Raplds Mi: Eerdmans, 1 9 6 8), 6 :51. 6 9 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 173. 7 0 Jbid., pp. 174f. 7 1 .See Gerhard F. Hasel, B iblical In te rp re ta ro n Today (Washington, DC: Biblical Research Instituto, 1 9 8 5), fordetailed informatlon on historlcal-critlcal methods and their implications for faith. 72.Ellen G. White, The G reat Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905) p. 5 9 5 .

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

89

73.This was the problem against which the reformer Martin Luther fought. The sola scrip tu ra principie refuted the Catholic hermeneutical principie which claimed that the revelation to which Scripture bears witness cannot be rightly understood apart from the Tradition representad in the Church and its Magisterium. 74.See Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Totality of Scripture versus Modernistic Limitations,” Jo u rn a l o f the A d v e n tls t Theological S ociety 2/1 (1991) 3 0 -5 2 . 75.Beyer, "h a te ro s," 2:703. 7 6 .In NT times Arabia referred to the kingdom of the Nabataean Arabs, then at the height of their power under Aretas IV (9 B.C.-A.D. 4 0 ), with its famous capital Petra. 7 7 . The reference to the fact that the infant church in Jerusalem was made up of Galilean disciples is interesting from the point of view that the Eleven were all from Galilee (Mk 3:14). The Risen Lord appeared to the disciples in Galilee as well as in Jerusalem. The Galileans were known to have had peculiarities of speech (cf. A. Neubauer, "The Dialects of Palestina in the Time of Christ," Studia Bíblica, 1 [1885], 51), and could therefore be easily identified (Mt 2 6 :7 3 ). The stressing of the Galilean origin of those who now spoke foreign languages meant to guarantee that they could not have learned the different foreign languages as their mother tongues (cf. Haenchen, A c ts , p. 169 n. 3). 7 8 . E. G. White, A c ts o f the A post/es (Mountain View, Calif., 1 911), p. 40: "The priests, determined to account for the miraculous power of the disciples in some natural way, declared that they were drunken from partaking largely of the new wine prepared for the feast." 7 9 . The present writer's translation. 8 0 .On this problem, see Hull, The H o ly Spirit, pp. 62ff. 81 ,C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent S tu d y (2nd ed.; London, 1970), pp. 2 6 ff., contains a useful summary of the views of a number of modern scholars. Attention should be given also to H. J. Cadbury, The Book o f A c ts in H isto ry (New York, 1 955). On the subjects of historiography and sources in Acts, see D. Guthrie, The Gospeis and A c ts . N ew Testam ent intro d u ctio n (London, 1 965), pp. 3 2 1 -3 4 4 . 8 2 .See particularly, W . Ward Gasque, A H isto ry o f Criticism o f the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Tübingen: Mohr, 1975); Jacques Dupont, The Sources o f A c ts (New York: Herder & Herder, 1964); Conrad H. Gempf, ed., The Book o f A c ts in the S etting o f H ellenistic H isto ry (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989). 8 3 . Dupond, The Sources o f A c ts , p. 166, writes, "Despite the most careful and detailed research, it has not been possible to define any of the sources used by the author of Acts in a way which will meet with widespread agreement among critics.” 8 4 . N. Adler, Das erste christliche P fingstfest, Sinn und Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes, A g 2, 7-f3(Neutestam entliche Abhandlungen, 18,M ünster, 1938), pp. 3 2 -3 5 . 8 5 . Lohse, "p en te ko ste ," 6:51. 8 6 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 173.

CHAPTER V

SPEAKING IN TON GUES IN A C T S 10

The third passage ¡n the New Testament which mentions speaking ¡n tongues takes us to Acts 10. Thus the reader of the book of Acts is transferred from the first manifestation of tongues among Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) to the Gentile city of Caesarea (Acts 10:1,24).

1. HISTORICA!. SETTING The first baptism of Gentiles is mentioned in Acts 10 as taking place in the city of Ceasarea. It was performed after the conversión of Cornelius, a Román centurión (vs. 48), and only after many difficulties had been overeóme in breaking down the barriers which Judaism had built up between Jews and non-Jews. An ángel appeared to Cornelius, a pious man who as a "God-fearer" (vs. 2)1 took part ¡n synagogue Services.2 In the eyes of the Jews such people were still considered unclean and profane and could not associate w ith Jews in normal life.3 Therefore, Jews would not fellowship at a table with such non-Jews, even a God-fearer. It is not that they were unclean or profane from the point of view of the Hebrew Bible, the Oíd Testament, but from the perspective of Rabbinic traditions which separated Jews from their non-Jewish contemporaries.4 The ángel ordered Cornelius to send for the apostle Peter who was in Joppa. In the meantime Peter, still steeped in traditional Jewish taboos regarding non-Jews, was prepared through a visión to overeóme his inherited Jewish Rabbinic prejudices and consent to visit a Gentile (vss. 10-16). When the Holy Spirit ordered Peter to go with the messengers, he willingly obeyed and entered the house of Cornelius (vss. 2325). After Peter had reported his experience (vss. 26-29) and Cornelius his (vss. 30-33), Peter "opened his mouth" (vs.

92

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

34),5 preaching a sermón "peculiarly appropriate to the occasion."6 He proclaimed the life and work of Jesús before the Cross, and also His death and resurrección, including Christ's commission to preach to the people (vss. 34b-43). As Peter was still preaching "the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word" (Acts 10:44). The hearers upon whom the Spirit had fallen were "Cornelius, his kinsmen and cióse friends" (vs. 24). The Holy Spirit did not fall on Peter and the other Christians who had come with him from Joppa.7

2. LINKAGES BETWEEN ACTS 2 AND ACTS 10 The experience of "speaking in tongues" in Caesarea ¡s very significant. It contains crucial parallels to the experience of the original followers of Jesús in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost. They may be listed as follows: 1) Both groups were believers.8 2) The Holy Spirit "fell" (epepsenf suddenly10 on both groups. 3) Both groups experienced the same outward manifestation among others, namely "they heard them speaking in tongues" (vs. 46). 4) Both groups spoke for God and what He had done. 5) The designation "speaking in tongues" is employed in both situations. 6) Both groups experienced something that was "heard" (akouo) by others. 7) Both groups experienced something new from the Holy Spirit which they had not experienced in this way before, although the Holy Spirit was already at work in them. 8) Both groups function in major cities in which there were populations of differing language backgrounds. The expression "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais) of vs. 46 is explicitly identified with the manifestation of tongues-speaking at Pentecost through the words "just as we have" ( / j o s kai hemeis)" in vs. 47. This linkage is of true importance in identifying the experience of the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) with the experience on the Day of Pentecost.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 10

93

In Acts 2:11 the hearers report that they "heard" them "telling . . . the mighty works of God." This phrase ¡s equivalent12 to what was "heard" in Caesarea, namely "glorifying God" (Acts 10:46, NAB). The connection here ¡s found in a) the fact that in both experiences something specific was "heard" (akouo) and b) what was heard was what God had accomplished in Jesús Christ. Both groups of believers received the gift of speaking foreign languages in cities of ¡mportance, Jerusalem and Caesarea respectively. The City of Jerusalem was the wellknown Jewish city with minority segments of population who spoke foreign languages. At the annual feast days Jerusalem was filled with people from the entire Jewish Diaspora, from the civilized world of that day. Caesarea was the Román metrópolis of Judea on the Mediterranean shore. It was located in the great caravan route between Tyre and Egypt and was thus a celebrated commercial and maritime trading center. It was given to Herod the Great by Ceasar Augustus in 30 B.C. Herod rebuilt it into a showcase of the East. A mixed population was produced by Greek culture and Román influence. There was also a powerful minority of Jews ¡n the city. A knowledge of foreign languages by believers would aid them in the proclamation of the gospel message in Caesarea and among the people traveling through this metropolitan center.

3. THE NATURE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES The identity of the tw o manifestations of tongues in both Acts 2 and 10 is further stressed by Peter, the eyewitness in Acts 11:15: "The Holy Spirit fell on them [in Caesarea] just as on us in the beginning." Peter made the connection between the tw o events when he reported to the brethren ¡n Jerusa­ lem. He affirmed that "God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us [at Pentecost] when we believed in the Lord Jesús Christ" (vs. 17). Peter was convinced that the gift of speak­ ing in tongues by the believers in Caesarea was "the same gift" (Greek ten ¡sen dorean) of miraculously speaking foreign

94

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

languages as the gift which he and the other followers of Jesús received on the day of Pentecost.13

4. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES The bestowal of the same gift--speak¡ng foreign languages--upon the Gentile believers ¡n Caesarea served as an irrefutable outward sign for Jewish Christians of God's acceptance of the Gentiles on an equal basis,14 especially since the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon believers only.15 The descending of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles "indicates that the Gentiles are part of the church and on equal footing with the Jewish Christians.” 16 The gift of tongues signifies that both Gentile and Jewish Christians share alike ¡n the task of evangelizing the world. Both have also been endowed with the same spiritual gift which breaks down the language barrier and makes possible fluent communication of the Good News among all men.

5. CONCLUSIONS Acts 10 reveáis the following points: 1) The barriers developed in Jewish tradition between Jews and Gentiles are removed in the church. The Holy Spirit ¡s no respecter of persons. 2) As Peter and the other Jewish believers had experienced the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pente­ cost, in the same manner the Gentile but "God-fearing" Cornelius and his household experienced the outpouring of the same Spirit in the same way. Both outpourings, one on Jewish believers and the other on Gentile believers, belong to each other in terms of their origin, nature, and purpose. 3) Speaking in tongues in Acts 2 and Acts 10 consists of the same gift of which the apostle Peter is a witness. It ¡s the miraculous speaking of foreign languages for the purpose of proclaiming the Good News to everyone. 4) The Holy Spirit comes to Gentile "God-fearers" in

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 10

95

Caesarea before they are baptized, ¡ndicating that a) the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism may go together and b) that the rite of circumcision ¡s no longer needed for new Christians. What counts for Christians ¡s the circumci­ sion of the heart. 5) Luke does not need to explain the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, because Peter himself malees the linkage between the Pentecostal experience and the experience of the Gentiles in Caesarea. Both phenomena are idéntica! and both are manifestations of the Holy Spirit on believers. Peter indicates that in Acts 2 and 10-11 the coming of the Holy Spirit ¡s a gift. ENDNOTES 1 .The God-fearers were Gentiles who worshiped God but who were not integrated into Jewish society. See Emil Schürer, The H isto ry o f the Je w ish People in the A ge o f Jesús Christ (17 5 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 3 :1 7 3 -7 4 ; T. M. Finn, "The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features," J o u rn a l fo r the S tu d y o f the N e w Testam ent 32 (19 8 8 ): 17-26; Colin J. Hemer in The Book o f A c ts in the Setting o f H eilenistic H istory, ed. Conrad H. Gempf (Tübingen: Mohr, 1989), pp. 4 4 4 -4 7 . 2 . Bruce, The A c ts o f the A post/es, p. 215. 3 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 3 4 6 ; Kirsopp Lake, "Proselytes and God-fearers," The Beginnings o f C hristianity (London, 1933), V, 7 4-96. 4 . Colin House, "Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of ko inos/koinoo in Acts 1 0-11," A U S S 21 (1983) 1 4 3 -5 4 , shows that this was a defilement of Rabbinic tradition and not supported by the OT. 5 . Bruce, The Book o fA c ts , p. 22 4 , makes the point that this expression "¡s one that is used to introduce some weighty utterance." 6 .So Foakes-Jackson, The A c ts o f the Aposties, p. 9 3 . This sermón is not a Lukan interpolation in the Cornelius story as argued by M. Dibelius, Studies in the A c ts o f the A p o s tie s (London, 1956), pp. 1 10f., and accepted by Haenohen, A c ts , p. 3 5 1 , among others. Against the form-critical approach to this sermón see C. H. Dodd, The A p o s tlic Preaching and its D eveiopm ent (London, 1 936), p .5 6 ; Bruce, The Book o f the A c ts , pp. 22 5 f. 7 . With Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stie s, p. 95; Haenchen, A c ts , p. 353; e t al., against Wendt, A p ostelgeschichte, p. 185. 8 . Although there is no explicit reference to faith in the immediute context of Acts 1 0 :4 6 f., it is inevitably implied. It is definitely indicated in Peter's report of Acts 1 1 :1 7 with his words "when we believed in the Lord Jesús Christ" clearly meaning that the Holy spirit carne upon the Gentiles when they believed. Cf. Bruce, The Book

96

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

o f the A c ts , p. 230. 9 . The same verb is used for the descending of the Ho|y Spirit both at Pentecost ¡n Jerusalem (Acts 11:15) and here in Caesarea (10:44). 1 0 . Cf. W . H. Lampe, The Seal o f the S p irit (London, 1951), p. 66. 11 .So correctly Wendt, Handbuch über die A postelgeschichte, p. 254; Zahn, Die A postelgeschichte des Lukas, p. 3 6 1 . 1 2 . Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 22 8 . 1 3 . Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 95: "The talking ¡n other languages is described in terms similar to those in ii 11; . . 1 4 . F. H. Chase, The C redibility o f the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (London, 1902), p. 79, has made the suggestion that the experience of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in Caesarea was the "Pentecost of the Gentile world." This will have to be qualified. In spite of the many distinct parallels between Pentecost and the experience in Caesarea, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in Caesarea is subordínate to Pentecost and intimates the significance of Pentecost for the salvation of the Gentiles (cf. N. B. Stonehouse, "Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Spirit," W estm inster Theological Journal, 13 [1 9 5 0 /5 1 ], 8) and signifies that the Gentile believers are also included in the Great Commission to evangelizo the whole world. 1 5.See above, n. 8. 16.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 3 9 9 .

CHAPTER VI SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN A C T S 19

Speaking ¡n tongues appears in the book of Acts for the third and last time in chapter 19:1-6. Again it appears in connection with a major metropolitan city, Ephesus. The city, however, is in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and not in Palestiñe where Jerusalem and Caesarea were located. Now speaking in tongues appears with the Gentile mission under the leadership of Paul. Thus in Acts 19 we have a change of location and a change of the missionary.

1. HISTORICA!. SETTING Christianity seems to have gained a foothold in Ephesus through Aquila and Priscilla, staunch friends of Paul (Acts 18:1-3; 1 Cor 16:9),’ who had to leave Rome when all Jews were expelled by the edict of Claudius (ca. A.D. 49).2 Paul made a short visit to Ephesus on his Second Mission­ ary Journey (Acts 18:18-21). While Paul was prevented by the Holy Spirit on an earlier occasion from entering Asia (Acts 1 6:6), there is ampie evidence that Paul considered Ephesus an important city for spreading the Good News. Paul carne again to Ephesus on his Third Missionary Journey and stayed there for over tw o years (Acts 19:8, 10). During that time the experience of speaking in tongues took place. Ephesus was a major city of the ancient world. Ephesus had surpassed Pergamum in significance when the Romans made it the capital of the province of Asia. It was the province's most important city, on the west coast of what is now Asiatic Turkey. Ephesus was located on the Cayster River and was a crossroad for the Coastal highway that went from south to north. This highway stretched east to Laodicea and to the región of Phrygia where Pisidian Antioch was located. Ephesus was the leading commercial center; just three miles

98

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

from the city was a large harbor. A t one time the sea had reached Ephesus but in Paul's day silt had closed the city's original harbor to ships. Ephesus served both as a great export center at the end of the Asiatic caravan route and also as a natural port for ships from Rome. The goddess Diana made the city famous (Acts 19:27, 35), but the emperor cult was not neglected. The goddess Artemis, identified by the Romans as Diana, was the goddess of wild animáis, wild nature, and particularly of fertility and childbirth. Artemis, or Diana, was the Anatolian Magna Mater, the Great Mother, and she is also known as Cybele, the goddess of fertility and fructification. The temple of Artemis was the most important structure in Ephesus. It is reported that it took 120 years to build and was destroyed and rebuilt seven times. It was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. It had 127 columns, each of which was 60 feet in height and represented a king. The complete temple was 425 feet by 225 feet in size. Contributions and visitors to the temple carne from all of Asia Minor and beyond. A second major building in Ephesus was the amphitheater, which seated an estimated 24,000 persons on sixty-six tiers of seats. The stage area measured 115 feet by 70 feet. The population of Ephesus at the time of Paul is estimated to have been more than 200,000. Ephesus contained a large colony of Jews.3 Ephesus was of strategic importance as a commercial, political and religious center in the ancient world.4

2. EPHESIAN "DISCIPLES," CHRISTIAN BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT Paul arrived for a second time in Ephesus in ca. A.D. 54,5 having visited the churches in Galatia. Now he meets twelve "disciples" (Acts 1 9 :1 ,7 ). The term "disciples" is of consid­ erable interest, because these twelve persons had been "baptized with the baptism of John" (Acts 19:3). Luke usually uses the term "disciple" in the book of Acts as a designation for Christian believers. Inasmuch as Paul asked

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

99

whether they received the Holy Spirit when they "believed," he seems to consider them as believers. Surely they were believers with partial knowledge. These Christian brethren6 had no knowledge of the existence of the Holy Spirit (vs. 3). This became apparent through Paul's question whether or not the Holy Spirit was given "when they believed" (vs. 2).7 When these believers professed complete ¡gnorance of the work of the Holy Spirit, Paul was led to question them right away concerning the kind of baptism they received. This line of questioning is sound, because ¡n the New Testament "anyone who has not received Christian baptism does not belong to the community at all."8 They responded that they were baptized "into John's bap­ tism " (vs. 3). Paul then proceeds to explain the relationship between John's baptism and Christian baptism (vs. 4). John's baptism was anticipatory of what Christ would achieve; Christian baptism rests on what Jesús Christ has accomplished on earth in His life, death and resurrection. Thus Paul was leading these "disciples" into a full faith in Jesús Christ in whom they put their trust. As these twelve believers listened to the instruction provided by Paul, they heard and understood the Good News. The message of the gospel entered fully into their hearts. In faith they accepted the word of salvation and were baptized. On the basis of Paul's instruction, these believing brethren were willing to submit to the only appropriate and adequate baptism. It is the true baptism "in the ñame of the Lord Jesús" (vs. 5).9 "The baptism of John points toward Christ, but the baptism in the ñame of Jesús looks back to Christ's accomplished w ork."10 Following the baptism Paul laid his hands upon them and "the Holy Spirit carne on them" (vs. 6b). There seems to be a parallel between the laying-on of hands on these twelve Ephesian believers by the apostle Paul and the laying-on of hands by Peter and John on the Samaritan converts (Acts 8:17). The laying-on of hands was not only a Symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit,11 but here, as for the Samaritan believers earlier, it was a sign that they too had received the commission to evangelize the w orld.12 Just as Jerusalem was the nucleus from which the mission was to advance

100

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

(Acts 1:8; 2:1 f f .), so Gentile believers were drawn into the missionary activity at Caesarea in Judah (Acts 1:8; 10:46f.), and then it proceeded to Samaría (Acts 1:8; 8:13 ff.) wíth Samarítan Christians joíníng the task. Now Ephesus was to be "another decísive moment ¡n the missionary history"13 w ith the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon these twelve newly baptized disciples. Under the endowment of the Holy Spirit the mission of Christianity advanced as predicted by the Risen Lord along the line of Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria-beyond (Ephesus) to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8). A t various major centers (Jerusalem, Caesarea, Ephesus) the Holy Spirit was manifested in a special way. This progression in evangelizing the world demonstrates the basic continuity of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. F. F. Bruce notes incisively that Ephesus ¡s "the new center for the Gentile mission."14 There ¡s another link between the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) and the manifestation of the Holy Spirit earlier. The first time the Holy Spirit carne upon Gentile believers (other than Samaritans) was in connection w ith the work of an apostle.15 As Peter was instrumen­ tal for the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, his household and friends (Acts 10:44-46), so Paul dispenses the Holy Spirit upon the twelve Christians in Ephesus (Acts 19:1 ff.).16 This linkage of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit with the apostles is summarized as follows, "The four outpourings of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts are confirmed by the apostles: in Jerusalem by the Twelve, in Samaría by Peter and John, in Caesarea by Peter, and in Ephesus by Paul."17 It should be made clear that the Holy Spirit was ¡mparted in the Caesarea experience without the laying-on of hands. It is evident from the book of Acts that the Holy Spirit could be ¡mparted without the laying-on of hands (Acts 2:1 ff.; 9:10 ff.; 10:46ff.).18 There is no evidence that all the believers in Ephesus received the gift of the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his hands on the twelve disciples. Thus it is not a biblical teaching that the Holy Spirit can only be ¡mparted by the laying on of hands. Furthermore, the New Testament lacks

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

101

support for the contention that the reception of the Holy Spirit results ¡n speaking in tongues.19

3. SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND PROPHESYING The external sign of the reception of the Holy Spirit in Ephesus are the same as in Caesarea and Jerusaiem, Le., those who received the Holy Spirit "spoke with tongues and prophesied" (Acts 19:6).20 We must give attention first to the phrase "spoke in tongues." The same Greekverb for "spoke" is used as earlier in Acts, in connection with speaking in tongues. The imperfect form of the Greek verb laleín is used. This form indicates that Luke intended to emphasize a continuous or protracted action in the exercise of this g ift.21 The experience of speaking in tongues at Ephesus was not a one-time matter of a single event.22 Those upon whom the gift was bestowed with possessed ¡t for continuous usage. It was a permanent gift, as ¡dentical to that found to be true in Acts 2 and Acts 10. The term for "tongues" is again the plural of the customary Greek term glóssa which we have met in Mark 16:17; Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46.23 Luke, Paul's companion, reported the endowment of the gift of speaking in tongues in Ephesus w ith the ¡dentical terminology in which he reported the manifestation of tongues earlier in the Pentecostal experience of Jerusaiem and subsequently in the city of Caesarea. Undoubtedly he wanted his readers to understand that the gift to the believers in these three cities, Jerusaiem, Caesarea and Ephesus, was the same, namely, that of miraculously speak­ ing foreign languages.24 This conclusión is based on contex­ tual, historical, linguistic, and phenomenological evidence. The purpose of the gift was to make it possible to communicate the gospel message in Ephesus and in Asia Minor. As has been stated above by F. F. Bruce, the respected commentator on the book of Acts, Ephesus was now the center for the mission to Gentiles.25 The second aspect of the outward sign of receiving the Holy Spirit was the ability to "prophesy." This new aspect is

102

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

of importance for a number of reasons. Acts 19:6 ¡s the first New Testament passage which places ¡n cióse proximlty the tw o spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues and prophesying, and in connection with a church where Paul labored extensively. An ¡mmediate relationshlp to 1 Corinthian 14 ¡s apparent where Paul deais both w ith tongues and prophecy. It would, however, be erroneous to conclude that tongues and prophecy are only associated in connection with Paul, and thus separating Acts 19 and 1 Cor 14 from other New Testament passages dealing with tongues-speaking. It has been pointed out above that in Acts 10:46 the content of speaking in tongues was defined as "glorifying God." The latter is identical in meaning with the proclaiming of "the mighty works of God" in Acts 2:11. Just as Acts 10:46 is linked to the miracle of foreign languages in Acts 2, so the experience of "prophesying" (epropheteuon)26 in Acts 19:6 has its counterpart in the twofold mentioning of "prophesy" in Acts 2:1 7, 18. Having shown the connection of prophesying and proclaiming the deeds God performed in Christ in other parís of the book of Acts, it remains for us to pursue the ¡dea expressed by "prophesying." The idea might be entertained that the cióse association of speaking in tongues and prophe­ sying in Acts 19:6 should be understood in the sense that both are the same.27 This ¡dea--though it has been maintained by various people--is hardly likely. In 1 Cor 12:28-30 and 14:1-5 Paul makes a clear distinction between the two. There is no reason to suppose that the tw o gifts are actually only the same g ift.28 Luke refers to tw o gifts of the Holy Spirit, namely, speaking in tongues and prophesying. Both of these gifts appear separately in the New Testament lists of spiritual gifts. They should not be identified with each other and made into a single gift. Another hypothesis that needs to be mentioned briefly is that prophesying refers to prophetic ecstasy. There is no evidence in the New Testament that would give any reason to perceive that "prophesying" involves an ecstatic experience. Such passages as 1 Cor 12-14 and 2 Pet 1:21 reveal that Christian prophecy is non-ecstatic in nature. The speaking in tongues experience in Acts is also non-ecstatic.29

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

103

The activity of "prophesying" may be taken to mean that by means of the Holy Spirit God gave these believers in Christ the ability to have a word of revelation from the Holy Spirit that en^bled them to proclaim the Good News with power and conviction. The evidence ¡n the book of Acts is that all "Christians who were filled with the Holy Spirit witnessed intelligibly for Jesús Christ."30

4. DOES SPIRIT-BAPTISM RESULT IN GLOSSOLALIA? Having considered all passages in the book of Acts on speaking in tongues, we are now in a position to ask the question, Does the baptism of the Holy Spirit result in glossolalia? This isthe claim of many Pentecostalists, neo-Pentecostalists and charismatics today. First, we have seen that the book of Acts does not know glossolalia as ¡t is practiced today, that is, glossolalia as unintelligible speech. Secondly, the baptism in Ephesus is a baptism in the ñame of Jesús and not a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Subsequent to the baptism Paul lays his hands on the newly baptized believers who receive the Holy Spirit. The result is that they both speak in tongues and prophesy. Thus it does not seem warranted that Spirit-baptism results in glossolalia only. It should result, if it were correct, in both speaking in tongues and prophesying. Why should it result in only one of the gifts today? On the other hand, there is nothing in Acts 19 that would point to what may be called Spirit-baptism. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the token of true conversión. Baptism is by water. Thirdly, the book of Acts reports that numerous people in various settings were baptized without speaking in tongues. We think of the 3,000 at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:38-39), Paul himself in Damascus (A cts9:18), Lydia and her household (Acts 16:15), and the jailor in Philippi and his household (Acts 16:33). Finally, there were people who were filled with the Holy Spirit but they were not reported to speak in tongues--such as Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8), Stephen also before the

104

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Sanhedrin (Acts 7:55), and the apostle Paul as he confronted Elymas (Acts 13:9).

5. CONCLUSIONS Briefly summarized, the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues in Acts 19:1-7 has the following characteristics: 1) The gift of tongues appeared in Ephesus, the most ¡mportant city of Asia, as it had appeared before in Jerusalem and Caesarea. Each city was a center of evangelism and outreach ministry. 2) The gift of tongues was an audible outward sign of the reception of the Holy Spirit. 3) The gift of tongues carne through the apostle Paul, similarly to the earlier manifestations of the Holy Spirit through Peter and John (Acts 8:14 f f 10:45f.). This links the three leaders of the early church together. 4) The gift of tongues is the miraculous gift where baptized believers speak foreign languages. 5) The spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages is not non-repeatable but permanent. 6) The gift of tongues is not given to every believer. There were other believers in Ephesus who did not have the gift of tongues. 7) The purpose of this spiritual gift was to enable the recipients to evangelize the city and its hinterland. 8) The spiritual gifts of tongues and prophecy appear together in cióse proximity, as in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14. These characteristics demónstrate the confluence of ¡deas, concepts and motifs which link into an inseparable Chain the several passages on the manifestation of the gift of tongues in the book of Acts.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

105

ENDNOTES

I.E . M. B. Green, "Ephesus,” The N e w Bible D ictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965), p .381. 2.S. H. Horn, Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible D ictionary (Washington, D.C., 1960), p. 61; M. J. Schroyer, "Aquila and Priscilla," In te rp rete r’s D ictio n a ry o f the Bible (Nashville, TN; Abingdon Press, 19 6 2), 1:176. 3.Josephus, A n tiq u itie s, xiv. 10. 12, 25. 4 .0 n Ephesus, sea F. V. Filson, "Ephesus and the NT," BA 8 (1 9 4 5 ), 73-80; M. M. Parvis, "Archeology and St. Paul's Journeys in Greek Lands. Part IV: Ephesus," BA 8 (1 9 4 5 ), 6 6 -7 3 . 5 . William M . Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Román Citizen (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965), pp. 2 6 5 f., 2 6 9 -2 8 2 , believes that Paul could have arrived in Ephesus as early as October A.D. 5 3 . The date of autumn 53 is also suggested by G. B. Caird, "Chronology of the NT," IDB, I, 60 7 . There are those who place it in the fall of A.D. 5 4 , so G. Ogg,"Chronology of the NT," The N e w Bible D ictionary, p. 228, and many others. 6 . Many commentators have pointed out that for Luke the Greek term mathetes, "disciple,” invariably signifies "Christian." Cf. J. Wellhausen, K ritische Ana/yse der A p o ste ig e sch ich te (Berlín, 1914), p. 39; A. Loisy, Les A c ta s des A p o tres (París, 19 2 0), p. 7 1 8 ; Zahn, A posteigeschichte, p. 673; Lake and Cadbury, The Beginnings o f C hristianity, 4 :237; E. Kásemann, "The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus," Essays on N e w Testam ent Themes (London, 19 6 4), p. 136; Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 353; Haenchen, A c ts , p. 5 5 3 . 7 . This phrase is a translation of the Greek aorist participle pisteusantes which, according to J. H. Moulton, A Gram m ar o f the N e w Testam ent Greek (3rd ed.; Edinburgh, 19 0 8), I, 131 n., is a "coincident aorist participle" which "is doctrinally important." Accordingly the idea is that the Holy Spirit would come upon them when they would become believers and be baptized. The relation between receiving of the Holy Spirit and believing is indicated better by ERV, RSV, NEB, NAB, NASBthan by AV: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed." Robertson, A Grammar o f the Greek N e w Testament, pp. 8 6 0 f., 1113, explains that "the tw o aorists point to one definite occasion," the aorist participle pisteusantes expressing "simultaneous action." These grammatical and syntactical observations do not support the Pentecostal interpretation of the teaching of "the second blessing." See Hoekema, W hat A b o u t Tongue-Speaking?, p. 66; M. F. Unger, N e w Testam ent Teaching on Tongues (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1972), pp. 68-7 3 . 8 . Kásemann, "The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus," p. 144. See also F. W. Norris, "Christians only, but not the only Christians (Acts 19:1-7)," Restoration Q uarterly 28 (19 8 5 -8 6): 9 7 -1 0 5 . 9 . To cali this "the only account of re-baptism that we find in the NT" (so Bruce, The Book o f A c ts , p. 3 8 6 ) seems to be claimlng too much. The baptism by John was certainly a baptism by immersion but an anticipatory baptism. The baptism by Paul was not a "re-baptlsm” of someone who had already been baptized into the ñame of Jesús previously. It was the first Christian baptism experienced by the "disciples."

106

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

Thus one cannot speak of re-baptism in an unqualified sense, because the first baptism was not identical in ¡ts natura to the baptism into Jesús. lO.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 6 8 0 . 11 .White, A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 28 3 . 12. White, Early W ritings, p. 101. 1 3 . Lampe, The Seal o f the Spirit, p. 76. 1 4 . F. F. Bruce, The Book o f A c ts (rev ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 36 5 . 1 5.When the Samaritan believers received the Holy Spirit both Peter and John were involved. The Samaritan converts, however, had a share in the Jewish faith, which was not true of the Román centurión Cornelius, who was a true Gentile although he was a "God-fearer." 1 6.Luke manifests the desire to point to parallels between the ministries of Paul and Peter. Compare for Paul Acts 13:6ff.; 14:8ff.; 16:18; 1 6:25ff.; 2 0 :9 ff„ and for Peter 8 :1 8ff.; 3:2 ff.; 5:16; 12:7ff.; 9 :3 6 ff. 17.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 6 8 1 . 18.See Bruce, The Book o f the A c ts , p. 182 n. 35, for authorities who support the view that the imposition of apostolic hands was necessary to the gift of the Holy Spirit. This view is correctly criticized by Lampe, The Seal o f the Spirit, pp. 69ff, 19.See A. A. Hoekema, H o ly S p irit Baptlsm (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 4 4 -4 5 . 2 0 .The translation of the NEB, "they spoke in tongues of ecstasy and prophesied," supplies the words "of ecstasy" which are in no known manuscript. This is puré interpretaron without any textual support. The translation known as TEV (or Good News Bible) renders this part of vs. 6 as follows: "they spoke in strange tongues and also proclaimed God's message." The word "strange" is not in any G reektext. The last phrase "and also proclaimed God's message" is a free expansión of the literal words, "and prophesied." Both NEB and TEV are examples of dynamic translations which do not seek to give a word-for-word translation, but use a thought-for-thought method that does not intend to be literal. 21 .Moule, A n Idiom-Book o f N T Greek, pp. 8f. 2 2 . The attempt to capture the linear A k tlo n s a rt of the imperfect is manifestad by the NAB and NASB with the translation: "and they began to speak in tongues." 2 3 . Here we have an ellipsis of the adjective heterais ("other”) as also in Acts 10:4b according to Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek G ram m ar o f the NT, p. 2 5 4 # 4 8 0 (3). The adjective heterais has only weak support from ancient versions both in Acts 10:46 and 19:6. See Zahn, A p o stelgeschichte, p. 361 n. 8 4 . 2 4 . This view is supported by Zahn, A p o stelgeschichte, p. 102; Davies, JTS, 3 (19 5 2 ), 2 2 8 ff.; Unger, N T Teaching on Tongues, p. 79; S. L. Johnson, "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts," Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct., 19 6 3), 3 1 1 ; and others. 2 5 . White, A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 2 8 3 , States, "They [disciples of John] were then baptizad in the ñame of Jesús, . . . they received also the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which they were enabled to speak the languages of other nations and to

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

107

prophesy. Thus they were qualified to labor as missionaries in Ephesus and its vicinity and also go forth to proolalm the gospel in Asia Minor." 26.This ¡s an ¡mperfect form of the Greek verb whioh ¡ndicates that this gift was of a continuous nature as well. 2 7 .So A. Loisy, Les A c te s des A p o tre s (París, 1920), p. 7 2 3 . 2 8 . With Wayne A. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington, DC: University of America Press, 1982), p. 174. 2 9 . Terrance Callan, "Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Román Religión and 1 Corinthians," Novum Testam entum 27 (19 8 5 ), 125-40; see also Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?” Jo u rn a l o f Theological S tu d y 17 (1966), 299-307; Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 1 7 4-76. 3 0 . Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 682.

■*í

CHAPTER Vil

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14

The New Testament passages which have held our attention previously were Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1-14; 10-11; 19:1-6. There ¡s but one other passage that has the topic of speaking ¡n tongues as a central theme. It is in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12-14. This section requires careful and meticulous study. It is also the most highly disputed as to its exact meaning. Commonly Pentecostal/charismatic Christians claim that 1 Cor 14 is the key to identifying glossolalia today. They usually suggest that what Paul describes in 1 Cor 12-14 is some form of ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind, produced by the Holy Spirit, which remained unintelligible to both speaker and listeners. This is the reason for the need of an interpreter. If there is no interpreter, it is suggested that "speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 14 may be practiced in prívate as a form of prayer which God understands. Some classical Pentecostalists suggest that the "speaking in tongues" of 1 Cor 14 is actually a rarely used human language that is spoken somewhere in the world, but a growing number of Pentecostalists and charismatics of today feel, on the basis of recent studies done by linguists and others1 in regard to modern glossolalia, that the Biblical phenomenon is best understood as an angelic language. In support of the latter view they point particularly to 1 Cor 13:1. There is a second major approach by which the Biblical data on tongues-speaking are interpreted. Interpreters of the modern liberal tradition of Progressive scholarship, that is, scholars who use the historical-critical method of interpretation, take 1 Cor 14 as New Testament evidence of unintelligible ecstatic speech, some kind of cadenee of vocalizaron, allegedly known in ancient times as glossolalia.2 This is usually done in conjunction with the usage of the socalled history-of-religions approach where comparative materials from ancient pagan religions are used as the

110

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

background for ¡nterpretating the Biblical phenomenon of tongues-speaking.3 This means that historical-critical scholars do not interpret the Bible by the Bible. They ¡nterpret Biblical events--in this case tongues-speaking--on the basis of reconstructed contexts of surrounding socio-cultural phenomena from the ancient world.4 There is a third major view held today. This view has had the support of the vast majority of ¡nterpreters of Christianity from the early Church Fathers through the Reformation, including John Calvin and other reformers, to the beginning of the twentieth century. It is still supported at present by ¡nterpreters equally as qualified as the previous group but holding to a high view of Scripture and the principie that Scripture interprets Scripture. These ¡nterpreters understand 1 Cor 12-14 with its emphasis on "speaking in tongues" as referring to the genuine spiritual gift of speaking genuine foreign languages not previously learned.5 They see in 1 Cor 14 a picture of the misuse of a genuine spiritual gift, misused for personal edification and benefit. They do not see Paul endorsing a pagan practice in the church at Corinth, but see him regulating a true spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit for the building up of the church as the body of Christ. It is suggested that in the church in Corinth, when the saints were assembled, various Christians who had received the gift of miraculously speaking foreign languages used this gift in the assembled congregation simultaneously without regard for order or for using it for its appointed purpose, that is, the benefit for proclaiming the Good News to non-believers for whom it was given in the first place. This simultaneous speaking of various languages by different Christians leaves the impression on non-believers who enter into the assembly that tongues-speakers are mad. In an attempt to correct this misuse, Paul points out that each gift is for the upbuilding of the church and not for selfish use. He thus lays down rules for order, and recommends that when there is no ¡nterpreter present who can transíate these languages for the benefit of those who do not understand them, then the tongues-speaker should be silent in church. He may wish to speak as it were to himself and to God. The divergence of major opinions among scholars and

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

111

readers of the New Testament demands that we give very careful attention to what Paul actually wrote. The fact that Paul never explained exactly what "speaking ¡n tongues" was in 1 Cor 12-14 leaves the reader of these chapters with the task of proceeding with caution and deliberation in the study of this ¡mportant passage. Sound interpretation will avoid isolating 1 Cor 14 from the previous tw o chapters in the same letter and from the "speaking in tongues" phenomenon in the remainder of the New Testament. Careful attention will also have to be given to the alleged parallels in Hellenistic pagan religions to which modern scholarship has frequently pointed and which have been widely used to interpret tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 1214.

1. HISTORICAL SETTING In order to reach a measure of clarity in this extensive discussion of 1 Cor 12-14, ¡t is necessary first of all to attempt to orient oneself to the general historical situation prevailing in Corinth and its Christian community. It is particularly striking that "speaking in tongues" is once more manifested in another major metropolitan city of New Testament times. Corinth is located in Europe. It is one of the famous ancient Greek cities. Corinth was the capital of the Román province of Achaia. Thus Corinth is joined to Ephesus, Caesarea and Jerusalem as the fourth metropolitan city in which "speaking in tongues" was manifested in the New Testament record. Corinth commanded the trade route between Northern Greece and the Peloponnesus, and through the harbors of Lechaeum on the west and Cenchreae on the east it became an emporium of Mediterranean trade. Its maritime commerce brought great prosperity and luxury. Corinth became proverbial for sexual license. Sevearl centuries before Paul's time the temple of Aphrodite had been staffed with 1,000 female slaves dedicated to licentious worship.6 In 46 B.C. Julius Caesar founded Corinth anew as a Román colony. As such its

112

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

citizens were Romans, probably freedmeri from Italy, but the population was augmented by Greeks and Levantines, ¡ncluding Jews. The diversity of population ¡s reflected in its religious lite. Corinth contained many sanctuaries of foreign deities, such as Isis and Serapis.7 Of special fame also was the temple of Apollo. I vislted Corinth on several occasions and saw these temple ruins. An impressive sight indeed. Paul carne to Corinth on his Second Missionary Journey. He spent eighteen months in the city (ca. A.D. 51-52) during which time he founded a church (Acts 18:1-18). Later Apollos worked in Corinth with considerable success (Acts 18:24, 27f.; 19:1; 1 Cor 3:4). After Paul's departure from Corinth a number of doctrinal and ethical problems aróse. During Paul's ministry at Ephesus (ca. A.D. 54-57) he received Communications from "Chloe's people" (1 Cor 1:11) which indicated the growth of a partyspirit in the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church also turned to Paul with certain questions which he received from them in a written communication (1 Cor 7:1). Paul answered these questions successively with the ¡ntroductory formula "now concerning,"8 which appears in 1 Cor 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, and 16:12. The matters discussed in these sections deal with marriage and divorce (7:1-40), food offered to idols (8:1-13), spiritual gifts (1 2:114:40), collection for Jerusalem (16:1-4), and Apollos (16:12). This letter of Paul to the Corinthians was probably written in the spring of A.D. 57.9 Paul probably also answers other questions in 1 Cor 7-16, although their treatment is not introduced w ith the same ¡ntroductory formula.10

2. SURVEY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14 For a proper understanding of the subject of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians ¡t is wise to keep in mind that a problem had arisen in the church at Corinth concerning the spiritual gifts in general (1 Cor 12-14). Paul responds to this issue. It is within the answer to this general problem that Paul

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

113

then evaluates the various gifts of the Holy Spirit (12:31). Although we do not know the exact content of the question which carne to Paul, ¡t may have dealt w ith the question of the rank of the spiritual gifts (12:28), especially the relationship between prophecy and speaking in tongues (14:140). a. 1 Corinthians 12. The opening section of 1 Cor 12-14 introduces the subject of "spiritual gifts" (12:1)11 and climaxes in explaining what a person "speaking by the Spirit of God" is able to say (12:3). Paul immediately comes to speak about the source and content of "speaking." It has its origin in the Holy Spirit. Although "speaking in tongues" is not directly mentioned with the typical terminology, there can be little doubt that this is what he had in mind. When Paul speaks about the pagan religious background of the Corinthian believers, namely the ¡dolatry of pagan cults, he uses the words "however you were led" (vs. 2, NASB) or "led astray" (NRSV). There is no unanimity of opinión on what this expression means. It has been suggested that the leading by idols refers to a rulership of the idols over the Corinthian believers in their previous pagan life. They were enslaved to the idols.12 Some interpreters wish to see here a reference to ecstasy or enthusiasm, an ecstatic enthusiasm usually assigned to various pagan cults.13 It is now known that "speaking in tongues" or glossolalia was not manifested in ancient cults as we have already seen14 and as will be discussed in further detail below. Thus it is unlikely that Paul referred to something of this sort. It is important to note that there is no evidence for any pagan ecstatic manifestation equal to modern glossolalia in non-Christian (and Christian) religions. Paul distinguishes carefully between a genuine gift bestowed by the Holy Spirit and phenomena in pagan religions. In 1 Cor 1 2:4-7 Paul moves on to speak of the triune source of all spiritual gifts: Spirit-Lord-God. This is Paul's first statement of a general principie. All spiritual gifts must derive from this triune source or there is no room for them in the Corinthian community of faith. The purpose of the spiritual gifts in the church is "for the

114

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

common good" (12:7). No gift is for prívate use; all gífts are ¡ntended for the "common good" of the body of believers (cf. 1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Paul comes back to this emphasís15 ¡n 1 Cor 14 where he stresses repeatedly that all spirítual gífts must serve for "upbuíldíng” and not for self-edífícation. In 1 Cor 12:8-11 Paul provides a líst of níne forms of manifestations of the Holy Spírit. The theme ¡s many gífts (charismata) of one Holy Spírit. The last tw o spirítual gífts are "varíous kínds of tongues" and "interpretatíon of tongues". Díd Paul mentíon them last because "tongues" was the gift most híghly regarded by the Corínthíans? Díd he mentíon "tongues" last because it ¡sthe least sígníficant spirítual gift? After Paul dwells upon the subject of the uníty of the body of Chríst, despíte the diversity of offices and Services of the members of the church body (1 Cor 12:12-31), he focuses upon eight types of members, each of whom is endowed wíth a particular spirítual gift. It is stríking that "kínd of tongues" (vs. 28) and "interpretatíon" (vs. 30)16 agaín come at the end. Paul concludes thís unít wíth the exhortaron that the believers should strive for the "greatest gífts" (1 2:31). These are the ones toward the top of the líst and are especíally emphasízed by the numbers "first. . . , second. . . , third” (12:28). The emphasís is clear. Paul attempts to show the Corínthíans believers that what they consíder to be the most important gift, namely, speakíng in tongues, is really not at the top of the líst. Paul uses the seven questíons (vss. 29, 30) to incúlcate the principie of the diversity of spirítual gifts among various members while stressing the unity of their source. He also refutes any tendency toward claiming that all Spirit-filled persons must manifest speaking in tongues. It is noteworthy that among the four New Testament lists of spirítual gifts the gift of tongues is listed in only tw o (1 Cor 12:10; 12:28, 30) and always last. On the contrary, the only spirítual gift which appears in all four lists is "prophecy" (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 1 2:28f.; Eph 4:11). In one list prophecy has first place (Rom 12:6), in tw o it has second place (1 Cor 12:28f.; Eph 4:11), and in one list it appears in the middle of the list (1 Cor 12:10). The early place of prophecy and the

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

115

last place for tongues and their interpretaron can hardly be coincidental; it is undoubtedly Paul's delibérate plan, in order to regúlate the gift of tongues and to assign it its proper place in the order of spiritual gifts for the upbuilding of the church. b. 1 Corinthlans 13. In 1 Cor 13 Paul shows a more excellent way. It consists of the way of "love". It is agapelove. It is the highest kind of love, the love that was demonstrated by the Father when He gave his only begotten Son (John 3:16). The first part of 1 Corinthian 13 stresses the superiority of love (vss. 1-3), the middle part the necessity of love (vss. 4-7), and the last the eternal duration of love (vss. 8-13). In the context of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are variously apportioned, Paul points out that the grace of love is "the fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23). It cannot be compensated for by the most lavish exercise of any spiritual gift. The fruit of love is given by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It is even greater than "prophecy" and "tongues" (1 Cor 13:1). Both will disappear, but love will never end (vs. 8). c. 1 Corinthians 14. Paul sums up the exhortation to love in 1 Cor 14:1 with the words, "Make love your aim." The remainder of 1 Cor 14 speaks about the spiritual gifts of prophecy and tongues, expressing the hope that the believers "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts" (14:1). It is Paul's purpose to place prophecy above tongues. 1 Cor 14 can be divided into tw o major parts. The first section treats the subject of prophecy and speaking in tongues (vss. 1-25). The second section (vss. 26-40) addresses the subject of proper order in Christian worship. This chapter contains Paul's most profound teaching of speaking in tongues. Our attention will now be given to a study of this subject in 1 Cor 14. On the basis of the contextual setting of Paul’s instruction, we are now in a position to discuss what Paul says with regard to speaking in tongues in this disputed chapter. There is no indication in 1 Cor 12-14 that the phenomenon of speaking in tongues at Corinth is a Satanic

116

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

counterfeit. Paul Usted "tongues" among the spiritual gifts which have their source in the Spirit of God. Note that throughout the discussion Paul refers 23 times to speaking ¡n "a tongue" or "tongues."17

3. TONGUES-SPEAKING LANGUAGE IN MODERN TRANSLATIONS English translations as well as those of other modern languages reveal the complexity of the matter of "speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 14. We find time and again that translators insert words into the translation that are not present in the original text, or that they use different words for the same Greek word in the original text. There are also other variations. They deserve our attention now. The adjective "unknown" which the King James Versión (KJV) supplies in 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 14, 19, 27 has no support in the original Greek text. It is supplied by the translators. The New King James Versión (NKJV) is correct in omitting this adjective as is the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the Revised Standard Versión (RSV) and the New Revised Standard Versión (NRSV). The New English Bible (NEB) renders the Greek term "tongue(s)" w ith "ecstatic utterance/speech/language"18 or "speech/language of ecstasy."19 There is likewise no textual support for the words "ecstatic" or "ecstasy."20 These terms are problematical interpretations of the word "tongue(s)." The Jerusalem Bible (JB) has another variation. In every ¡nstance when the Greek original uses the term "tongue(s)" the Jerusalem Bible uses "the gift of tongues." Thus the words "the gift of" are supplied and the distinction between the singular usage of the term "tongue" and its plural usage "tongues" is obliterated in this translation. The Good News Bible, also called Today's English Versión (TEV), w ith counterparts in many other modern languages, also inserís a word which does not appear in the Greek text. The adjective "strange" is inserted every time before the word "tongue(s)" in 1 Cor 14. This word puts the subject of

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

117

tongues in a light that Paul may or may not have ¡ntended, depending on the interpretador! given by modern scholars. It ¡s not supported in the original Greek text and must be seen as an interpretaron by the translators. The New International Versión (NIV) uses the term "tongue(s)" consistently in 1 Cor 14, but provides the marginal reading of "another language" for vss. 2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 26, and 27 and "other languages" for vss. 5, 6, 18, 22, 23 and 39. These altérnate readings of "language(s)" are "underscoring itsunderstanding of tongue-speaking asspeech in predictable human languages rather than as non-sense ecstatic speech."21 The New Revised Standard Versión (NRSV) uses the noun "language(s)" in every instance in Acts 2 where the original text employs the word glóssa, "tongue(s)." In 1 Cor 14, however, the NRSV employs the word "tongue(s)" in every instance where the same Greek term appears. To the unwary reader it gives the impression that there may be tw o different words used in the original text in the tw o passages of Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14. This versión leaves the impression that in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14 there are tw o different gifts, unrelated to each other. It may be of ¡nterest that the revised Germán Bible known as the Elberfelder Bibel (produced in 1986), which has the reputation of being the most literal translation available in the Germán language and known to be the most faithful to the original text, employs in every instance in 1 Cor 12-14 the word "language(s)" (Germán "SprachefnJ") where the Greek uses the term glóssa. In other words, this translation seesthe gift of tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 to consist of real languages. These examples of variations in modern translations with the insertion of terms which are not in the original language and the substitution of the term "tongue(s)" w ith other words provide ampie evidence that 1 Cor 14 is a problem passage. Therefore, it is not sound from a methodological perspective to interpret the entire phenomenon of tongues-speaking in the New Testament from the admittedly difficult passage in 1 Cor 12-14, or 1 Cor 14 alone, simply because this is the longest passage on the subject. This part of Scripture alone hardly lends itself to be considered as the single key to

118

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

understanding the New Testament subject on speaking ¡n tongues. This survey on translation differences also ¡nforms the reader on the distinction between a "formal translation" approach, which rendersthe original text in a "word-for-word" correspondence, and the "dynamic translation" approach, which employs a thought-for-thought correspondence and provides much freedom to the transistor.22 In the latter case translation becomes a more extensive interpretaron or even a mini-commentary. We may do well to look at the language of 1 Cor 12-14 in the original text.

4. TONGUES-SPEAKING TERMINOLOGY Does the language that is employed by Paul in describing the phenomenon of tongues-speaking differ from that of other New Testament descriptions of "speaking in tongues"? Is the language that Paul employs for tongues-speaking ¡dentical with religious ecstatic speech in surrounding Hellenistic pagan religions? Does Paul describe a phenomenon in 1 Cor 12-14 that has been adopted by the Christians in Corinth from their pagan surroundings? These are the kinds of questions and issues that are in the mind of the discerning reader of these chapters in 1 Corinthians. It is necessary, therefore, that we give heed to the language that Paul uses when he refers to tongues-speaking. It needs to be compared to the language in the remainder of the New Testament and in the culture surrounding the Corinthian church. The word "tongue(s)" is used four times in 1 Cor 12,23 tw o times in 1 Cor 13,24 and seventeen times in 1 Cor 14 ,25 making a total of twenty-three times. Significantly, in each case without any exception, the word for "tongue" is the Greek word glóssa, the very word which is used in Mark for Jesús' prediction of "new tongues," and in Acts by Luke when he describes the Pentecostal experience and the manifestations of this gift of tongues at Caesarea and Ephesus. Another observation is in order. Every time the phrase "to speak in tongues" appears (12 times)26 the verb "to

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

119

speak" ¡s a form of the same Greek term lalefn, the very verb which is used by Luke ¡n Acts for "to speak" ¡n tongues and by Mark ¡n Mark 16:17. This means that there is full and complete identity of language in every New Testament passage that treats the subject of "speaking ¡n tongues." Some scholars interpret the Greek term glóssa, "tongues," in terms of antiquated, strange, or mysterious utterances of an ecstatic nature.27 In the Greek language the term glóssa can refer to an "obsolete or foreign w ord."28 This, however, is still different from what is meant by the supporters of this hypothesis. As a matter of fact, the use of the term glóssa as a designaron for understandable, intelligible language far exceeds its use in non-biblical Greek for strange and obsolete speech.29 What is the evidence of the Greek Bible (Septuagint and New Testament) in support of the hypothesis of glossolalia as a form of speech that is unintelligible? As was demonstrated in Chapter II above, an investigaron of the usage of the term glóssa throughout the New Testament, shows that it is only used for the "tongue" as an organ of speech30 and for intelligible human language.31 This is true also for the usage of this term in the Septuagint. Even in Isa 29:24 and 32:4, where the term glóssa seems to refer to stammering, there is no indication of ecstasy or the like.32 Even in these tw o cases "it refers to language."33 Thus there is little doubt that the Biblical use of the noun glóssa does not support the idea of ecstatic utterance. It has been noticed that the Greek adjective heteros, "other" (Acts 2:4), is lacking in 1 Cor 12-14. Some scholars have, therefore, argued that the language of Paul differs from Acts. Is this lack of the adjective "other" so decisive that the tw o phenomena of speaking in tongues have to be separated? We have to keep in mind that heteros, "other," is not found in 1 and 2 Thess, Titus, in John (except in 19:37), Mark (except 16:12), 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John. It is not necessary that it be used again after Acts 2:4 in the expression "speaking in tongues" because in this text it ¡dentifies the tongues-speaking as something that is "other" in the sense that those who had received the gift at Pentecost were "speaking in various languages which were different

120

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

from the mother tongue of the speakers and which were previously unknown to them ."34 It needs to be stressed that the Greek expression g/óssa laleín, literally "to speak ¡n tongues," also appears in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 without the adjective. This may indícate that after the Pentecostal experience "speaking in tongues" became a technical designation35 w ith a fixed meaning where the adjective "other" is understood without having to be repeated. It is very likely that the short form "speaking in tongues" without an article in Greek and without an adjective ("new" or "other") is an abbreviated expression of the longer phrase "speaking in new/other tongues" used only in Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4.36 Henee the usage in Acts 10 and 19 and in 1 Cor 1214 may be an ellipsis, that is, a shorter form of the originally longer phrase. Engelsen suggests that the original term lies in the unrecoverable past,37 but it may rather be that it rests in Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4 where in both cases an adjective is present. It seems unavoidable to conclude that Christian tongues-speaking--and there is no other such phenomenon known in the ancient world--"apparently had its beginning in the Pentecost."38 The gift experience of Pentecostal tongues-speaking is a "new creation"39 of the Holy Spirit. We do not need to rehearse what has been stated in Chapter II above regarding the unique usage of the language for "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament. The Greek expression is totally lacking outside the New Testament. For this reason several hypotheses have been created which suggest that the tongues-speaking phenomenon in 1 Corinthians is glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible and inarticulate speech of nonsense syllables. Among the major hypotheses is one which interprets the New Testament phenomenon by means of religio-historical parallels. We will turn to this once again later, but we have already touched on this in Chapter II above. Another hypothesis suggests that the supposed glossolalic experience in Corinth can be explained terminologically from the Greek term laléo. The ancient Church father Origen already speculated about a kind of "lalling." In recent times it has been suggested again that laléo points to some kind of "lalling" or the like that is inherent

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

121

in this term.40 While this hypothesis inherently seeks to explain tongues-speaking as glossolalia in the sense of ¡narticulate, unintelligible speech, it admits that glossolalia cannot be derived from the term "tongue" (Greek glóssa). However, ¡t overlooks some important facts about the usage of laléo in 1 Cor 14. In 1 Cor 14:9 Paul uses laléo when speaking about that which is to be "known" in the sense of the activity of the mind. In 1 Cor 14:29 the ¡nstruction is given for tw o or three "prophets" to "speak" (laléo) and they speak ordinary languages. In 1 Cor 14:34, 35 women are not permitted to "speak" (laléo). This is once more ordinary speech in normal human language. Thus the verb laléo is employed by Paul in 1 Cor 14 in the context of tonguesspeaking (vs. 9), speaking by prophets (vs. 29), and women speaking in church (vs. 34, 35). These contexts demand that laléo refers to ordinary human language. We may agree with the conclusión of J. M. Ford that "Paul's use of laletn [the infinite of laléo] does not militate against the argument that tongues are a human language."41 This conclusión is confirmed by the quotation of Isa 28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 where the lips of strangers, that is, the Assyrians, will "speak" (laléo) to the people of Israel in "other tongues," which are languages42 that are not understood by those who speak only Hebrew. We may suggest on the basis of the foregoing considerations that there is no compelling terminological reason leading to the conclusión that the terminology of "speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 1 2-14 is in any sense different from the remainder of the New Testament. There is likewise no compelling reason for tongues-speaking in Corinth to refer to glossolalia in the sense of "the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy"43 or the like. We will remain with the definition of the locus c/asslcus on tongues-speaking, namely the Acts 2 passage which relates the events of the Day of Pentecost. It is the only New Testament passage which contains a definition of tonguesspeaking. It is our suggestion (1) that there is but one gift of tongues provided by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, (2) that tongues-speaking is the same in the entire New Testament, which is supported by the same terminology, the

122

SPEAKING IN TONGUES

context of the Holy Spirit's work, and the uniqueness of early Christian tongues-speaking, and (3) that it ¡s non-ecstatic in nature.44 The following parts of our investigaron of tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 12-14 will reveal whether this suggestion, based on linguistic and terminological fields of study, is sound.

5. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND THE LANGUAGE OF ANGELS One hypothesis for interpreting Pauline "speaking in tongues" employs 1 Cor 13:1 as a key. It claims that speaking in tongues is "the speech of angels in which the secrets of the heavenly world are revealed."45 Is Paul really attempting to equate speaking in tongues with tongues of angels? His words read, "If I speak in tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1). What is known about the language of angels? A few passages in Jewish literature speak of the speech of angels. This language is said to be an "angelic dialect" (Greek aggelike dialekto)46 found in the apocryphal Testament of Job, dated to either the first century B.C. or the first century A.D.47 In this document there is a reference to three daughters, one of whom makes an "utterance in the speech [Greek dia/ektos] of angels" (48:3).48 Further reference is made to "the dialect of archons" (49:2), the "dialect of the cherubim" (50:2) and the "distinctive dialect" (57:2) in which each daughter speaks.49 It is to be noted that in every instance in this Jewish document the designation for "speech/dialect" is the Greek word dia/ektos. Paul, on the other hand, does not use this term in 1 Cor 13:1 in his reference to the tongues of angels. Paul employs the term g/óssa, "tongue," instead of dia/ektos, "dialect." Thus, in this single document from the ancient world which refers to the language of angels, there is no genuine parallel on terminological grounds, to say nothing of ideological grounds. Stuart Currie's study of angelic language reveáis that there is no evidence for the use of angelic language by

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14

123

humans and there ¡s no guidance as to how it might be recognized.50 F. F. Bruce suggested that one need not infer that the power to speak with angels' tongues was actually claimed by Paul or the Corinthian church.51 We must recognize that Paul spoke hypothetically52 ¡n 1 Cor 13:1, as the Greek conditional clause ¡ndicates. Paul uses the conditional partióle ean,53 "if," followed by the subjunctive /a/