A Third Way - Tongues Revisited

Transcription

Cover - Renton 4 26/6/00 1:44 PM Page 1
DR peter j lineham
Senior Lecturer, School of History, Philosophy and Politics,
Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
The tongues movement has puzzled many people. Is it fake, psychological, demonic,
or genuine? I do not believe the phenomenon called ‘tongues’ today is what is described
in the Bible. Neither does Renton Maclachlan who has written what I regard as an outstanding
contribution to the literature on this subject. I highly recommend this book.
”
Dr. Ronald Nash
A t h i r d way
“
”
“
This fascinating work has forced me to keep honest in my arguments. Renton’s
approach cannot be dismissed easily. Readers will find he grapples with the text seriously,
thoughtfully and thoroughly.
ton gu es re visited
T O N G U E S R E V I S I T E D takes a bold, fresh, and innovative approach to the
controversial question of ‘tongues’. His church was ripped apart over a period of years by
related matters. In all the mess, Renton set himself the task of resolving this key issue. The
inability of both the Pentecostal/charismatic and the traditional non-charismatic views to deal
comprehensively with the Biblical text, and the rampant confusion on the subject in both
camps, suggested the answer lay in a third way. His thesis is startlingly simple, persuasively
argued, and exhaustively documented. Unlike other views, it logically and consistently fits all
the Biblical material and provides straightforward solutions to difficult texts. It is a remarkable
blend of penetrating analysis, lucid writing, and practical application for all followers of Christ.
Professor of Philosophy and Theology, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando, Florida,
and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
renton maclachlan
R E N T O N M A C L A C H L A N is a self-employed builder.
He directed Scripture Union summer camps for a decade,
taught Bible classes for years, and is presently involved
in running two youth groups. He is active in publicly
promoting the Biblical worldview and challenging
secular culture. He is married to Merilyn and has three
daughters whom they have home-schooled for ten years.
ISBN 0-473-06918-0
ClearSight
9 780473 069186
Composite
www.TonguesRevisited.com
ClearSight
DR peter j lineham
”
Dr. Ronald Nash
A t h i r d way
“
”
“
renton maclachlan
ISBN 0-473-06918-0
ClearSight
9 780473 069186
Composite
ClearSight
DR peter j lineham
”
Dr. Ronald Nash
A t h i r d way
“
”
“
renton maclachlan
ISBN 0-473-06918-0
ClearSight
9 780473 069186
Composite
ClearSight
Tongues Revisited was begun in the four year run up to
a church split, at first being simply four pages on the
subject given to the church leadership. But despite being
conceived in the midst of much trauma and stress, and
the failure and foibles of many, it speaks dispassionately
and with objectivity. Part One comes nearest to being
an academic exercise. Necessary definitions are
established, the semantic fog surrounding the issue cut
through, the controversy reduced to its bare essentials,
Scripture analysed in detail, in-depth answers provided
to objections, and Acts scenarios outlined. Part Two
turns from the Biblical analysis and asks in the light of
what has been established, ‘How then should we live?’
Unafraid to look at all the options, the author then
tackles the practical outworking of the ideas presented
as they bear on relationships between Christians, both
inside and outside a particular congregation. This is
fleshed out in down-to-earth fashion in the author’s ‘16
suggestions on conduct in a theological civil war’. Very
little has been written on the question of behaviour in
the midst of significant, on-going disagreement, and the
author’s insights gleaned from his own experience,
should be a help to those caught up in controversy.
Above all he is pleading that people in conflict hit the
issues and not people, and at all times seek to act in
ways that maintain a genuinely clear conscience. But
this is not all there is. While its primary focus is the
‘tongues’ issue, the book ranges widely, covering a
large number of topics. The re-publication of Irvingite
prophet Robert Baxter’s testimony should give many
pause for thought, and the authors concise and helpful
discussion of the basic elements of the Biblical world
view in relation to dualisms the church faces, comes
from his years of public interaction with a secular
culture. And then there are the endnotes and they are
something else…
Tongues Revisited : A Third Way
© 2000 by Renton Maclachlan
Published by ClearSight
94 Mckillop St, Porirua, New Zealand
Printed in New Zealand
By: Astra Print (printing and binding) & Bayleys Uniprint (cover)
Cover Design : Wendy Cameron
Back Cover Photo : Pete Dennison
First Edition
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means – for example, electronic, photocopy, recording – without prior
permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in
printed reviews.
ISBN 0-473-06918-0
"Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL
VERSION. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible
Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers."
For ordering, reviews, related material, etc., see:
For ordering or brief communication regarding book:
[email protected]
Limit email communications to 150 words or less.
No Attached files please.
CONTENTS
__________________________
Foreword: By Dr Peter J Lineham ___________________ 11
Acknowledgements ________________________________ 13
Four Things ______________________________________ 15
Introduction _____________________________________ 17
Part One
The Thesis: That Biblical `tongues' are normal
human languages normally learnt and normally
spoken
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Identifying the Problem____________________________ 21
Illustration 1 :
Glossa - Summary of Options_________________ 34
Let's Ask the Right Questions ______________________ 35
What Does the Bible Actually Say? ________________ 43
Answering the Doubters - 21 Objections Answered__ 69
A Non-Charismatic Challenge to the Thesis
Outlined, Analysed and Answered ____________ 101
1 Corinthians 14 Applied _________________________ 123
Acts 2 and Acts 10 - Natural Language Speaking ___ 131
Why 1 Corinthians 13 is where it is________________ 157
Part Two
What of the present?
9
10
What is the ‘Current Phenomenon'? _____________ 163
Illustration 2 :
What is the Current Phenomenon? Options____ 165
Love and War - How Should Non-Charismatics
Relate to Charismatics? ______________________ 171
11
Grace in times of Conflict - Seventeen Suggestions
for Conduct in a Theological Civil War________ 179
Appendix 1 - Testimony of Mr Robert Baxter ____________ 201
Appendix 2 - Critical Dualisms that Confront the Church _ 207
Endnotes _______________________________________________ 221
Subject Index __________________________________________ 302
People Noted and Quoted _____________________________ 309
Scripture Index ________________________________________ 312
'Instruct a wise man
and he will
be wiser still;
teach a righteous man
and he will
add to his understanding.'
Proverbs 9:9
'Now the Bereans were of more noble
character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great
eagerness and examined the
Scriptures every day to see if what
Paul said was true.'
Acts 17:11
Foreword
Renton Maclachlan, the writer of this fascinating work, is a man of
real passion and great integrity. In an age when Biblical
interpretation has been captured by the academic experts, he
presents in this work a layman's interpretation. For this reason many
people may be inclined to dismiss it.
And that would not be fair. For I have long known Renton to be
someone who combines a passionate desire to spread the gospel of
Jesus Christ, with a fearlessness in his thinking. He will take on
recognised scholars, who are sometimes accorded respect because
of their educational attainments and academic positions rather than
the quality of their arguments. This is why so much Christian
scholarship today has lost its cutting edge in the secular world. It
plays around with ideas, but rarely presents bold or fresh theses.
Renton's focus is a pastoral situation in an ordinary church which is
struggling with the common problems of how to accommodate
different cultures in the one assembly. Renton has the temerity to
expect to find help in the words of Scripture. It is the attitude of a
person with a very high view of the authority and value of
Scripture. The approach inevitably has its dangers. He can be
accused of eisegesis, of reading his situation into the text, and
finding the answers that satisfy him. In an age when postmodern
scholars have insisted that every interpreter does precisely this,
Renton's approach cannot be dismissed so easily. Readers will soon
find that he grapples with the text seriously, thoughtfully and
thoroughly.
And this is sufficient reason for others to read this work carefully,
noting their questions and doubts, but pursuing the debate through
to the end. They will undoubtedly gain an enriched sense of what
the text says and does not say. Renton is obviously unsympathetic
to the charismatic movement, and revives a traditional reading of
the text that has been deeply challenged in recent decades.
11
12
Foreword
However he does so with some interesting twists, precisely because
he is always aware of the force of the charismatic reading of the
text, with its strength and weaknesses.
Renton comes from a family well respected among the Open
Brethren community of New Zealand, and has in a way revived
some of their lost emphases. He has also nurtured his skills as a
debater in various debates over the veracity of Christianity.
Tenacious in holding his ground as a person, he is a 'Mr Valiant for
the Truth' in the best tradition of Pilgrim's Progress. I continue to
ponder how to interpret 1 Corinthians 12-14. This book has forced
me to keep honest in my arguments. I commend it precisely for this
reason.
Dr Peter J Lineham
Senior Lecturer, School of History, Philosophy and Politics
Massey University, PB 102-904, North Shore, Auckland,
NEW ZEALAND
Acknowledgements
Oh no! Not another book on 'tongues'! Haven't enough been written
already?
It all depends!
Apparently those who have written on 'tongues' to date, have done
so because they believe they have something to say which will help
in clearing the air. However, if in a thousand books an issue has not
been made clear, then there's room for yet another. I have not read a
thousand books on this subject, but I have read a great many. No
doubt there are some I should have read but haven't. To be frank, I
have not come across a lot of clarity. In fact, confusion seems to
reign - even in the writings of those with whom I have some
sympathy.
If all I was going to do was retrace a well worn track, I would not
have bothered with this exercise. I would have been content with
the contributions already in print and put the many, many hours
involved into other things. But the confusion made me
discontented. The subject cried out to be revisited. As the project
developed, and people read what I had written, their response told
me I was not alone in being frustrated at the confusion and in
longing for some light.
I am satisfied that I have not followed a well worn path. The
confusion suggested the route lay somewhere else. Reading the map
as carefully as I could, I found indeed it did lead another way. This
work is the result. It may well be the one thousand and first book on
the subject but I hope and pray it does come as a refreshing breeze
to clear the fog, and that some of the solutions to 'perennial
problems' will excite you as much as they do me.
As it is, what is presented here is a unique third way, separate and
distinct from the traditional non-charismatic-miracle-language view
which has been the dominant view held throughout the last 1600
13
14
Acknowledgements
years, and the Pentecostal/charismatic view which has steam-rolled
over much of the Church in the last 100 years and has significantly
impacted all thought and debate about this matter.
I am indebted to the many people who have helped me along the
way. To the love of my life, Merilyn my wife, who went through
the time of confusion and stress with me, and who has put up with
this project as it has lurched along. To all those who read the
manuscript at various stages - some when it was very rough, your
comments were invaluable. To Steve and Di Bunston who
encouraged me to take it up again when it had lain idle for so long
and who set my sights on the far distant goal of publishing. To Dr
Keith Carey-Smith who read the manuscript twice, provided
invaluable comments and encouragement, insisted on a diagram,
and several times pressurised me to keep on going. To Craig Smith
who did a detailed critique and whose infectious enthusiasm has
always inspired me. To Leslie Lambie, a charismatic friend, who
though she would have preferred otherwise, got me going again
after another flat spot. To Murray Gow who fed me a number of
books and commentaries which helped me sharpen my arguments
and further highlighted for me the inadequacies of other viewpoints.
To Bob Zerhusen who introduced me to the diglossia concept
which provided depth I lacked, and whose thoughts on the whole
subject sharpened my own no end. To Pete and Barbie Dennison
who generously encouraged and supported me. To Craig Pippen
who did a thoughtful charismatic critique. To Bob Townsend who
encouraged, and commented exhaustively at the end – and I mean
exhaustively! To Tim Mckenzie who did the penultimate proof
read. To Wendy Cameron for her graphic expertise in producing the
cover design. To Bill, whose devotion to the Lord and commitment
to the defence of the faith over a great many years have been an
inspiration, and whose generosity enabled the bird finally to fly.
Supremely to my Lord, who dropped me into a time of stress and
controversy from which I learnt so much.
Four Things:
1.
If you are anything like me, you like reading footnotes or
endnotes. In fact, the 'saltier' the notes the more I like them. Many
books that I have enjoyed almost had a second book in the notes with sub-plots leading in all sorts of enthralling directions!
This book has notes of that nature.
Rather than just give the titles and authors of the material I refer to which would in many cases mean a long and difficult search to find
and confirm (as if anyone wanted such a task) I have included the
relevant pieces in the notes. Sometimes quotes are extensive.
Sometimes also my sub-plot comments are extensive. However, I
realise that while notes can be interesting, not all are used to them.
And sometimes, even for those who are, if they are footnotes, they
can distract from the body of the work. Also some notes are so long
there would be no space left on the page for the main text!
For this reason I have gone for endnotes. Those who simply want to
follow my argument without distraction can do so. However for
those who do want to see my sources as they go, or follow some
interesting sub-plots, they are at the back, pretty much in full. While
they connect with the text, many can be read independently of the
text without losing much, if anything. But be warned. If you only
read the text and not the endnotes, you will only have read half the
book. Virtually all my interaction with other authors is in the
endnotes, and I can assure you there is plenty of interesting material
there! Apologies to those who prefer the footnote option.
2.
From raw experience I know that questions or objections
arise in the mind as the book is read. I've lost count of how many
times I've told people they really should have read the book before
they read the book - or alternatively that they should have read it all
at once! Of course neither can be done.
15
16
Introduction
Please be patient. While it may appear that I have overlooked
something early on, I'm confident that I have covered just about
every objection that can be raised. Only I couldn't do it all at once!
Once you get to the end and have read the endnotes, I think you will
agree this is the case.
3.
There are some sections of the book which are harder to
read than others because in them I am analysing topics in some
depth. The very nature of the exercise at these points means that it
may be tough going. When you hit a section like this, don't give up.
Either persevere, or skim read till that bit is finished, then carry on.
Some readers, to satisfy themselves, will have to work the whole
thing through. I'm afraid I can't see how it can be done any other
way.
4.
This book is not an attack upon the Christian Faith. Some
on reading it may realise they have been led astray by many people
for a long time. They may feel conned, cheated or even abused. If
so, they may also feel disillusioned, not only about those who have
cheated them but also about The Faith in general. Consequently
they may be tempted to throw everything overboard. Don't! The
Lord Jesus is the Sovereign Lord of heaven and earth. He not only
speaks the truth, he is The Truth. I am convinced an untruth has
been associated with him for too long. Don't throw away The Truth
along with an untruth!
Introduction
In a very serious exchange with the Pharisees following their
charge that he was empowered by Beelzebub the prince of demons,
Jesus said:
But I tell you that men will have to give account on the
day of judgment for every careless word they have
spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and
by your words you will be condemned.
(Matt. 12:36-37)
Of course the Lord was not excluding every serious word from this
accounting. If you have to account for every careless word, how
much more the serious ones! But for this reason it is terribly
important we are careful with what we say, and in particular, what
we say to God.
Now while those who manifest the current phenomenon known as
'tongues' believe they are speaking meaningful words to God, if
they are, they don't know what they are saying to Him. It is a
universal characteristic of those who manifest this phenomenon that
they do not understand any of the sounds that come from their
mouths. To speak to God but not have any control over the content
of what is said - assuming something is said - is a perilous position
to be in. God understands every language!
Just imagine the following for a moment. Imagine that a demon,
masquerading as an angel of light, comes to you. Through your
willing submission to what you think is the Holy Spirit, this demon
takes over your mouth and speaks to God in a real language - either
human or angelic - but one you don't know. However, rather than
pouring out wonderful praise to God, as you think is happening, the
demon abuses God to his face from your mouth!
17
18
Introduction
Could you imagine a more diabolical strategy - to have people who
confess to the Lordship of Christ, abuse Him while thinking they
are praising him? Is this too far-fetched? Then think about the
following verse:
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the
serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led
astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus
other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a
different spirit from the one you received, or a
different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up
with it easily enough. (2 Cor. 11:3-4)
Through willingly opening doors to things they cannot test and
often will not even question, charismatics and charismatic
sympathisers violate a clear Biblical principle of safe living. In a
rebellious world which abounds with deception, this is simply not
good enough. Any rebellious creature with an ounce of nous would
see the enormous potential for furthering the rebellion in such a
situation.
I want to understand every word I speak because I'm going to
answer to God for every one.
Part One
The Thesis:
That
Biblical 'tongues'
are
normal human languages
normally learnt and
normally spoken
1
Identifying the Problem
T
he current Pentecostal/charismatic movement began around
1900 in California 1 but had precursors in the Irvingite
movement of the 1830's in Scotland and England,2 the
'French Prophets' between around 1688 through 1740, 3 and even as
far back as the end of the second century in the Montanists.4 5 6
Some present day analysts see three phases to date. The first wave
was the 'Pentecostal Movement' and was confined to what became
known as Pentecostal churches. The second was the 'charismatic
movement'. In this movement the Pentecostal ideas were taken up
by people in other churches who, rather than leave their home
churches and join Pentecostal churches, stayed and sought to
influence things where they were. The third wave is the 'Signs and
Wonders movement' of Peter Wagner and John Wimber 7 which
extends the charismatic movement through so-called 'power
encounters' or 'power evangelism'. 8 9 Some of those who fit in this
'third wave' have also been called 'New Charismatics'.10 Two
extensions of the third wave which have been quite influential in
some parts of the world during the 1990's have been the movement
known as the 'Toronto Blessing', and latterly the so-called
'Pensacola Revival'.
While valid distinctions can be made between these three waves,
and movements within them, the distinctions are cosmetic and not
fundamental, particularly in relation to so-called 'tongues'. 11 12 For
21
22
Part One - Tongues Revisited
the purposes I am addressing, they will be treated together and the
term 'charismatic' will be used to describe them.
The Influence of the Charismatic Movement
The influence of the charismatic movement has been considerable,
particularly in the way the work of the Holy Spirit is viewed. Its
influence has been so great that it has captured the language that is
used to describe the work of the Spirit, and in by far the majority of
situations, determines the very ground upon which discussion about
it occurs.
Once a group controls the terms and nature of a discussion or
debate about an issue,13 they in effect have won the debate, whether
they are right or wrong. They, as it were, control the high ground
and their opponents have to battle up-hill against the predisposition
of the culture to understand things the dominant way. People who
don't think clearly or deeply enough about an issue, can come to
think that the dominant way of looking at things is the only way to
look at it. It is quite difficult to put yourself into another mode of
thought, as the very basis of thought about an issue is determined
by the dominant view and the words on which it is carried. Even
those who do understand what is going on semantically may have
difficulty. It is possible that the only words available or acceptable
to use when talking about an issue are those that carry the ideas you
want to oppose. A number of examples of this control of language
may help.
Feminists and homosexuals have made a conscious endeavour to
capture certain words and have achieved their aims to a
considerable degree. Feminists have intimidated people out of using
the term 'man' in the generic sense and from using terms such as
'chairman' etc. Every time the word 'man' in the generic sense is
used, the issue comes to mind because you are aware it is not
'politically correct' to use the word. The generic use of the word
'man' is being lost to our vocabulary because of this. Feminists of
course charge that it is men who have captured the language from
the dim and distant past. Men, they say, have by their control of
language, furthered the status of men and suppressed and controlled
women. 14
Chapter 1 – Identifying the Problem
23
Homosexuals have established the terms 'sexual orientation',
'alternative lifestyle' and 'gay' etc, in the language as describing
their perversion. I have just used the term 'perversion'. The idea of
perversion however is largely unacceptable today in this context.
People on one hand have been intimidated out of using such terms
to describe homosexual behaviour, and on the other, have been
manipulated into using homosexual generated terms such as those I
have mentioned. Homosexuals aim to establish homosexual acts as
valid expressions of an 'orientation' determined by genes rather than
deviant behaviour which is chosen for whatever reason. Further
intimidation is applied by using terms such as 'homophobic' to
belittle those opposed to homosexual acts and who refuse to follow
the dictates of the language hijackers.
In many places Marxism appears externally to be dead. However
Marxism has enticed its opponents to adopt a large amount of the
Marxian analysis and so it has been built right into the new
orthodoxy. 15 This is so even in Christian circles. In liberal circles it
goes under the name of 'liberation theology' 16 and in more
evangelical circles comes up as 'God is on the side of the poor'.
Psychological concepts and terms have also captured the minds of
modern man. 17 Freud's idea of the 'unconscious' is almost
universally accepted and has been firmly established in the
language of the culture, as has the idea of 'mental health'. The idea
of an addiction being a 'disease' is everywhere and you can't miss
the term 'self-esteem' if people's problems are discussed. Even
among Christians, Biblical terms are being loaded up with
psychological meanings to the detriment of Biblical concepts.18
Some godly behaviour is now being labelled 'codependency', a
newly defined category of illness, which, if some of the pundits are
right, nearly all of us suffer from.19
This capture of the language and determination of the grounds of
debate, has happened with the debate over charismatic phenomena and in particular over what is known as 'tongues'. I do not think it is
overstating the case to say that not only those who are for it but also
those who are against it, actually think more or less 'charismatically'
about it.20 21 This means that when certain words are used, they are
understood charismatically and when the Bible is read, it is read
24
with charismatic connotations riding on those particular words.22
An effect of this is to create blinkers which stop other views even
being thought of.
Limits of the Thesis
This work is intentionally limited in scope. While it presents a third
way uniquely different to either the traditional non-charismaticmiracle-language view and the Pentecostal/charismatic view, it is
primarily written in contrast with the latter position. However I
have not attempted to address the range of 'charismatic phenomena'
such as so-called prophecy, words of knowledge, healing, etc. I
have purposely limited myself to addressing what is called
'tongues'. 23 24 I have done this because out of all the charismatic
phenomena which are claimed to be grounded in Scripture, this one
is the most likely to be confirmed or denied by it. The sheer volume
of Biblical material that contains the Greek word which has been
translated 'tongue/s', should give us a wide variety of ways of
coming at the word and therefore of arriving at a clear definition of
what the Bible is referring to. If we are going to get clear definitions
for words from a context, then obviously the larger the context, the
better our chances of achieving this are.
Controversy
It is almost a stranglehold on the obvious to say that this question of
'tongues' is controversial. To raise questions about it in many circles
is anathema.25 To do so, it seems, violates a very strong unwritten,
unspoken taboo.
One must never, it seems, question certain experiences people have
or beliefs they hold.26 Particularly is this so in relation to what is
deemed to be the Holy Spirit's work. You may be charged with
being divisive, uncharitable, harming new believers, or even with
committing the unpardonable sin - blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit. 27 This amounts to a heavy form of intimidation and is of
sufficient weight to silence most people.
Of course the charge of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a twoedged sword cutting equally both ways, so it is easily neutralised. If
I'm wrong I may be blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, but if I'm
right those who oppose me may be! With the possibility of such
25
charges being leveled at anyone who questions however, no wonder
few do. The effect of the taboo is to shield the current phenomenon
known as 'tongues' from critical analysis. I am not prepared to
accept as valid such a taboo. I find in Scripture no such thing even
vaguely suggested. To the contrary we find in 1 Thessalonians
5v21, the exhortation:
'Test everything. Hold on to the good.'
That is, we are to hold on to those things which pass the test. The
necessity of testing all things becomes clear when we understand
what we are up against. Our Lord said,
Matt. 24
4. "Watch out that no one deceives you...."
24. "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and
perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect
- if that were possible." 28
What's more, Our Lord said there are going to be those who will be
turned away from heaven's gate saying,
Matt. 7
22. ..."Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name,
and in your name drive out demons and perform many
miracles?"
They will be told by the Lord,
23. "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"
Paul said,
2 Cor. 11
3. But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the
serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led
astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
4. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other
than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different
spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel
from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily
enough...
26
13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen,
masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an
angel of light.
15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as
servants of righteousness".29
These are strong statements that should not be brushed over lightly.
They indicate the possibility of powerful and persuasive deception.
If, contrary to Scripture, we make some things immune to test, we
have given Satan the perfect avenue through which to attack us the perfect cover for him to operate behind. We could very well be
deceived and perhaps even be turned away from heaven being told
we are evildoers!
Confusion through Lack of Definition and Apparent
Failure to Read the Text
In discussion with people, I have found widespread confusion of
thought about the issue 30 and a general ignorance of the Biblical
passages that have the word 'tongues' in them. The confusion occurs
for a number of reasons and seems to afflict non-charismatics and
charismatics alike. The primary cause of the confusion is semantic
and surrounds the use of the word 'tongue/s'. The confusion results
from:
•
•
•
•
•
•
inadequate definitions of the word, 31
failure to adhere consistently to one definition, 32
failure to make necessary distinctions,33
reading our experiences into Scripture, 34
failure to read Scripture carefully,
the blinding effect of faulty presuppositions or assumptions.
I have found in discussion with charismatics that many will
acknowledge - when pushed - that the current phenomenon is not in
the Book of Acts, at least not in Acts 2. 1 Corinthians chapters 1214 are then appealed to as referring to the current phenomenon.
Thus they use the one word 'tongues' for what they acknowledge
are two different things, that which is referred to in Acts 2, and
that which is referred to in 1 Corinthians. There are a few who
endeavour to retain one phenomenon in both Acts and 1
27
Corinthians but they are rare and are contortionists! 35 The majority
however, while conceding that Acts 2 does not refer to the current
phenomenon, in effect smuggle it back in through the side door by
continuing to use the word 'tongues' - but without making the
necessary distinctions in meaning. Because the word 'tongues' is
primarily used of the current phenomenon, just by using the word in
the Acts situation, the impression is given that the current
phenomenon is what is described there - when even they concede it
is not!
Quite simply it amounts to sloppy or dishonest handling of
Scripture and a number of things result from it. First, there is
confusion both of people and of the issue. Second, the impression is
given that the current phenomenon has broad textual support and so
third, those Christians who do not read the Scriptures much, or do
not read them carefully, or do not ask the right questions of the
Scriptures, can easily think that the charismatic position on this is
rock solid when it is nothing of the sort.
A parallel situation occurs in another controversial issue, the debate
over creation and evolution. The word 'evolution' creates confusion
because it is intentionally used for two completely different things.
It is used of what is termed 'micro-evolution' which is the
observable variation in basic groups of living things, for example
the different types of dogs. It is also used of 'macro-evolution', the
idea - which has no observational support - that all life has
developed from non-living matter through increasingly complex
forms right up to man. 'Micro-evolution' is simply an expression of
the existing information system of the organism - a better word for
it is 'variation'. 'Macro-evolution' on the other hand requires the
production over time of enormous amounts of new information.
Most evolutionists say that micro-evolution produces macroevolution 36 and so quite happily use the word for both. What
happens is that 'macro-evolution' gets piggy-backed into people's
minds on the back of 'micro-evolution'.37
Necessary Distinctions
In any issue where there is an ambiguity of terms, to produce clarity
rather than confusion, we need to define our terms and make
distinctions where necessary. Logical progression of thought is
28
easily derailed unless clear distinctions are made. In regards to the
'tongues' issue, I think this requires us to drop the word 'tongues' as
this word has accumulated meanings which obscure the original
meaning. Then for the sake of analysis, I think a clear distinction
needs to be made between the current charismatic phenomenon and
what the Bible refers to. They may be the same, but they may not. If
after analysis they are found to be the same, then one term can be
used for both. Until that is established however, different terms for
each will help us avoid confusion. If after analysis they are found to
be different, then the two terms can be retained.
I suggest that the words 'language' and 'languages' be used for the
Biblical material as this is the meaning of the original word, and
some other term be used for the current charismatic phenomenon. I
use the term 'current phenomenon'. It's clumsy – I would prefer
another term - but it does indicate that something is happening, and
that it is happening today. Of course it needs a context as there are
billions of things that happen today, but given the context, it does
allow us to make the required distinctions. At this stage the
distinction I am making is between what the Bible refers to, and
phenomena that occur in charismatic circles today and are given in
those circles the name of 'tongues'. Though not wanting to add
unnecessary complexity at this stage, I have referred in what I have
just said to 'phenomena'. We may have to make allowance for there
being several different things occurring today, a possibility I will
expand on later. For the moment, the term 'current phenomenon'
covers any diversity of phenomena that may actually be occurring
in charismatic circles today but which are identified in those circles
as being one phenomenon and given one name, 'tongues'. I am not
prepared to use the term 'glossolalia' that some use,38 because its
use brings about a change in the meaning of the original Greek
word 'glossa' in much the same way that the meaning of the English
word 'tongues' has been changed.
I don't think many charismatics would object to my suggestion that
we use the word 'language' in place of 'tongues', but I am sure many
would object to the use of the term 'current phenomenon'. They
claim, after all, that they know that what occurs today is what the
Bible refers to. Also the term 'current phenomenon' appears to
separate what happens today from the Bible. This is unthinkable as
29
the only real claim the 'current phenomenon' has to validity among
charismatics is its supposed grounding in Scripture. 39 The term
'current phenomenon' could also be objected to because it is simply
a statement that something happens and implies a suspension of
judgment. Few charismatics would be prepared to be so tentative unless they themselves are beginning to question their
presuppositions.
I have presumed in this discussion about the confusion of language,
that people want to be done with confusion and instead want clarity.
However I have become convinced this is not always the case.
Some seem to actually want the state of confusion to continue. If
they are non-charismatics, this could be because they do not want to
take sides on the issue or pass judgment on the beliefs of people
they know or like or may be related to. If they are charismatics, it
may be because they don't want to submit what they believe to
close scrutiny. Such attitudes disturb me. It takes the question of
truth far too lightly. Crystal-clear teaching is exactly what is
required.
Beliefs about the Current Phenomenon
Following are some beliefs which are widely held by those who
manifest the current phenomenon, along with an important
characteristic of it:
1. Those who manifest it believe they are speaking a language.
That is, they believe the sounds coming from their mouths have
a meaning associated with them. 40
2. Universally the speakers do not understand the language they
believe they are speaking. 41 42
3. They believe the language they are speaking, is either:
•
•
•
•
A normal human language but one they don't know 43 or
An angelic language 44 or
A 'spiritual utterance'45 (whatever that is), or
A special 'prayer 46' or 'love' language. 47
The latter is claimed to either allow the speaker to pray perfect
prayers 48 (whatever they are!) or, putting it crudely, to
communicate on a special hotline to God which Satan and demons
30
can't tap in to. 49 Some say it is a weapon in the arsenal of spiritual
warfare, 50 as someone said to me, "You should see the demons run
when I pray in tongues!"
There is, as can be seen by this summary of ideas, a fairly wide
diversity of opinion among charismatics themselves as to what the
actual phenomenon is. However, whatever they think it is, most
believe they are communicating with God, and that this form of
communication is actually superior to normal speech. 51 52 The
majority today would, I suspect, adopt the 'special prayer language'
idea in some form, because it is evident, as the Irvingites came to
realise in 1832, that normal human languages are not usually being
spoken. 53 54
'Interpretation' of the Current Phenomenon
When it comes to interpretation, a similar thing applies. Although
the 'interpreter' of the current phenomenon also believes a language
is being spoken, they do not understand it nor derive any meaning
from the sounds. 55 56 The 'interpreter' does not hear words which
are then translated, as would occur if say Maori is translated into
English by a person who knows both. Rather they supposedly get a
special message from God that tells them what was said.
There have been rare occasions when people 'speaking in tongues'
have spoken normal human languages.57 Some of these instances
were reputed to have content which was acceptable.58 59 60 In others
the content was clearly not acceptable. 61 62 This sort of situation
however is very different to that normally experienced within
charismatic circles. What may be occurring on these rare occasions
will be discussed later. I am focusing primarily on the usual
experience.
It would have been better for the charismatic view if 1 Corinthians
chapters 12 and 14 had not referred to interpretation. Then it could
quite safely have been maintained that the person manifesting the
current phenomenon was speaking to God, 63 as in fact most do
maintain. However with the emphasis in 1 Corinthians being on
interpretation, this becomes difficult. If interpretation is required
then what is going on? Who is speaking to whom? Is it:
• humans speaking to God;
31
• or is it God speaking to humans;
• or is it God speaking to God through humans;
• or humans speaking to humans through God?
The interpretations I have heard have certainly not been prayer.
They are very similar to charismatic style generalized catch-all
prophecy. "Listen to me my people..." or, "God is among you of a
truth..." Clearly if the phenomenon in this case is from God, it is
God speaking to humans (so is not prayer) and not vice versa. This
being the case, a valid question to ask is how this phenomenon - as
God communicating with human beings - fits into the whole history
of God's communication with humans. I have to say, that if it is
genuine, it is a freak in the history of God's communication.
Hebrews 1 gives us a brief overview of God's communication down
through time:
1. In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the
prophets at many times and in various ways,
2. but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,
whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom
he made the universe.
In all the various ways God spoke through the prophets, he bent
over backward to communicate in intelligible, understandable
ways. This is in spite of the fact that thousands of years later, some
of what he said is not all that clear to us.
While it is not stated, it is eminently reasonable to assume that he
always communicated content in the mother tongue of the people
he was talking to. In the Garden of Eden he spoke to Adam and Eve
face to face and there is no indication it was in speech that was any
different from normal.The Lord and two angels came to Abraham
and Sarah and shared a meal with them. He had a long conversation
with Abraham in which it is recorded that Abraham asked the Lord
to spare Sodom. The angels who went to rescue Lot and family out
of Sodom conversed with Lot. At Mount Sinai God not only spoke
to Moses and gave him all the minute details of the Law, but he
spoke to all the people of Israel assembled together. In
Deuteronomy 4:10-13 we read:
32
10. Remember the day you stood before the LORD your
God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people
before me to hear my words so that they may learn to
revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach
them to their children."
11. You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain
while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black
clouds and deep darkness.
12. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You
heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was
only a voice.
13. He declared to you his covenant, the Ten
Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and
then wrote them on two stone tablets.
And so you can go on; Gideon, Manoah, Daniel and all the
prophets. Whenever God communicated with humans either
directly or through angels, we have no reason to think he spoke
anything other than the language of the human/s he spoke to.
For three final illustrations of this, the New Testament records the
same thing. Angels spoke directly to Mary and Joseph and the
shepherds at the time of Jesus' conception and birth. There is no
indication that the communication was in anything other than the
Aramaic spoken by Mary and Joseph and the shepherds. When
Jesus spoke from heaven to Paul on the road to Damascus, he spoke
in Aramaic. Paul explicitly refers to this when he was testifying
before King Agrippa in Acts 26:12-14:
12. "On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus
with the authority and commission of the chief priests.
13. About noon, O King, as I was on the road, I saw a
light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around
me and my companions.
14. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to
me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It
is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
When Jesus spoke to John and gave him the 'Revelation', there is no
indication that it was in anything other than John's own mother
tongue. The only time that God spoke in ways that could not be
33
understood - and I will deal with this later since the passage is
quoted in 1 Corinthians 14 - was when Israel was in rebellion and
God spoke to them indirectly through the language of the foreign
troops he used to destroy them. And yet even in that case, the
language used was the mother tongue of the soldiers who spoke.
In the light of this brief overview, it's clear that if the current
phenomenon is of God, then he is doing something uncharacteristic;
in fact, totally contrary to what has been his usual practice down
through history. As God is consistent in his character and is
meticulous in communicating with us, the current phenomenon
should cause us to pause long, and question hard.
Origin of Current Phenomenon:
The Options
From:
God
and
supported
by
Scripture
1
Demons
5
Humans
and
Fake
Psychological
3
4
not
supported
by
Scripture
2
96
2
Let's Ask the Right Questions
I
n seeking to clarify issues, it is imperative that the right
questions are asked. By focusing on the wrong or irrelevant
questions, confusion is maintained or deepened. So as we
approach the text of Scripture, there are a number of critical
questions we need to ask to get clarification regarding the 'tongues'
issue.
1.
"What Greek word is translated 'tongues', and what
does it mean?
The first part of that question is answered differently depending on
which English translation is used. For example, the Authorised
Version translates two Greek words as 'tongues' - 'Glossa' 64 and
'Dialektos'. 65 The New International Version on the other hand
derives 'tongues' from 'glossa', and 'dialektos' it translates three
times as 'language' and three times, when associated with the word
'Hebrew', as 'Aramaic'.
The meaning of these Greek words, as given in Young's
Concordance, are 'language' for glossa and 'dialect' for dialektos.
Glossa is also used several times of the physical organ of the
tongue in the mouth, and once of flames - 'tongues of fire'.
As far as I'm aware, there is no contention over the word-meanings
as given above. 66 However a very significant meaning problem has
arisen and it is this. The English word which was used by the
translators of the King James Version of the Bible, i.e. 'tongues', has
35
36
undergone a change in meaning in the past ninety or so years.
Before 1900 or thereabouts, it simply meant 'language', and on rare
occasions it still retains that meaning. Today it is used almost
exclusively of the charismatic phenomenon.
In practice what this means is that when the word 'tongues' is used,
the meaning which immediately springs to mind is that relating to
the charismatic phenomenon and not to 'languages' generally, i.e..
English, French, Spanish etc, which is the original meaning. This
new meaning has almost totally replaced the original meaning. This
semantic problem is very significant and is at the root of the
confusion that surrounds the issue.
While words have dictionary meanings, sometimes their use in a
particular context can refine those meanings. Therefore we could
ask:
2.
"Is there any material in the biblical text that can help
us define what is meant by the word 'tongues'?"
Using the concordance's definitions, and in light of characteristics
of the current phenomenon, we could ask:
3.
"Is there anything in the text which indicates that the
languages spoken were different from normal human
languages?"
Alternatively we could ask:
4.
"Is there anything in the text that would indicate they
were normal human languages?"
Depending on our answers to 3 and 4, we could ask:
5.
"Is there anything in the text that would indicate the
languages, if normal human ones, were normally or
supernaturally spoken, that is, learned or unlearned?"
Regarding the latter, if a language you haven't learnt comes out of
your mouth, obviously another personal being who knows the
language spoken, must either be using your mouth, or have
implanted some new information in your memory banks.
Chapter 2 – Let’s Ask the Right Questions
37
A question related to the previous one:
6.
"Is there any indication that the people speaking the
languages, knew or did not know what they were
saying?"
Clearly if the languages were normally spoken, the person would
know what they were saying. If they were supernaturally spoken,
they could be either known or unknown to the speaker as the
speaking would not depend on any ability of the speaker at all.
However it should not be automatically assumed, as many people
do today, that if a person spoke a language they had never learned,
they would not know what they were saying. That is one possibility
but it is not the only one.
Unasked Questions
It may have been noticed I have not asked the two most popular
questions non-charismatics use to try to get a handle on this. These
are:
1.
2.
"Are 'tongues' for today?"
"Have 'tongues' ceased?"
These two questions come out of a view of things which
emphasizes the idea of 'sign gifts' which were used to either:
•
•
•
•
authenticate the Gospel message or an aspect of the Gospel;
authenticate the Apostles;
usher in a new 'dispensation';
or to do all of these.
The questions focus around some verses in 1 Corinthians 13:
8. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they
will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled;
where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10. but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like
a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I
put childish ways behind me.
38
12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then
we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall
know fully, even as I am fully known.
13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But
the greatest of these is love.
As I understand it, there are two cessationist approaches - what
could be called the 'Reformed' approach, and the 'Dispensational'
approach. B B Warfield is representative of the Reformed view
which sees miracles primarily as a means of authentication. While
the Dispensational view has authentication as a part of it, it also
says that miracles occurred at the introduction of a new
dispensation, something the Reformed view rejects. The term 'signgift' has largely been associated with the Dispensational view.
In the Dispensational view, that which is 'perfect' is generally
understood to be the completed Bible. 'Tongues' are understood to
be part of the imperfection that would disappear at the arrival of the
perfect. 'Tongues' therefore would cease when the Bible was
complete. 67 Alternatively 'tongues' would cease when the purpose
for them had finished. 68 If this tack is taken, the purpose of
'tongues' is seen as being primarily a sign to unbelieving Israel of
God's impending judgment. The war between the Jews and the
Romans between AD66 and AD70 saw the destruction of
Jerusalem, the temple, and Israel as a nation. With Israel judged,
there was no longer any need of the 'sign' of coming judgment so
tongues ceased. 69 The Bible was finished around AD90-100, and
Israel ceased to exist as a nation of that time in AD70, with the last
resistance mopped up a few years later, so both of these events
roughly coincided. Some have argued that the 'perfect' is the eternal
state and that the word 'ceased' means 'end of its own accord'.
Viewed this way 'tongues' would effectively just lose power and
fizzle out. 70
As these questions have controlled much non-charismatic thinking,
the effort has been on to prove that 'tongues', whatever they are,
have ceased. To my mind this has been a fruitless task and a sidetrack which has not produced convincing arguments. A question
was asked which did not cut to the core of the issue and so ongoing
problems have resulted for non-charismatics. 71
39
I have felt some frustration when reading books or articles, or
listening to addresses, that have put this idea forward. Almost
always what is done in regards to the 'tongues' question is that very
little if any space is spent cutting through the semantic problem
involved in the use of the word 'tongues'.72 While many books state
that 'tongues' Biblically were normal human languages, they then
proceed as if they hadn't made such statements. 73 If 'tongues'
Biblically are normal human languages, then surely that is the most
devastating attack that could possibly be made against the current
phenomenon. But that question is seldom if ever pursued. Except in
several rare cases, I have not come across any effort to consistently
exegete the relevant passages of Scripture in the light of 'tongues'
being normal human languages. 74 Actually I have come across very
few efforts to exegete the passages at all!75
So rather than ask, 'Are tongues for today?', or, 'Have tongues
ceased?', we should first of all have asked, 'What are tongues?' and
pursued that question with vigour. 76 We may have found the other
questions were irrelevant, as I believe they are.
How the Greek Words are Translated in the NIV
My analysis is based largely on the New International Version of
the Bible 77 though I have some problems with it. I think the
translators of these passages have either been influenced by the
charismatic capture of language as already outlined, 78 or have
knowingly aimed the version at the potentially enormous
charismatic market. I say this because they have retained the older
English word 'tongue/s' for 'glossa', instead of using 'language', in
the following places:
1.
In Mark, on the one occasion it is used. (Mark also has two
references to the physical tongue.)
2.
In Acts, four out of four times. It is also used once of flames
and once of the physical tongue. ('Dialektos' is in Acts five times,
twice translated 'language' and three times not translated at all.)
3.
In 1 Corinthians, twenty out of twenty times. It is also used
once of the physical tongue. A word meaning 'different languages'
is used once (v21) and in this case also the 'glossa' part of the word
is translated 'tongues'.
40
In every one of the cases mentioned above, excepting the Mark
reference - that is, 24 out of 25 times - there is a marginal note
saying 'language/s'.
Now compare the way the word 'glossa' has been translated in
Mark, Acts and 1 Corinthians, with how it has been dealt with in
Revelation.
4.
In Revelation, seven out of eight times (once it is used of
the physical tongue), 'glossa' has been translated 'language/s'!
As the charismatic meaning for the word 'tongues' has almost
totally replaced the original meaning, what the use of it in the NIV
does is make it look like the charismatic phenomenon is in the
Bible just by the use of that word alone. The translators are clearly
responsible for contributing to the continuing confusion over the
matter.
(The word 'language' also appears in the NIV in 1 Corinthians
14:10. However it is not the Greek word 'glossa' but 'phone'
meaning 'sound', or 'voice' as it is translated in the Authorised
Version. The same Greek word is in verse 11 where the NIV
translates it as 'what someone is saying'.)
The Revelation Passages
The only book I have come across that refers to the Revelation
passages is The Modern Tongues Movement by Robert G.
Gromacki. However Gromacki really only notes they are there, and
without justification classifies them as different to 'the actual
phenomenon of speaking in tongues'. 79
Ronald E Baxter on page 1 of his book Charismatic Gift of
Tongues,80 quotes a classification of Graham W Scroggie as saying,
'There is no reference to tongues in the book of Revelation.'
Peter Masters and John C Whitcomb in The Charismatic
Phenomenon,81 page 87 say,
'The reality of the situation is that only three occurrences of
tongues-speaking are recorded in Acts, in chapters 2, 10-11 and
19, and apart from the instructions given in 1 Corinthians there
41
are no further mention of tongues-speaking anywhere in the
New Testament.'
John MacArthur does not refer in either The Charismatics or
Charismatic Chaos to the Revelation passages. He says on page
224 of Charismatic Chaos,
'Tongues are mentioned in three books of the Bible: Mark
(16:17); Acts (2, 10, 19); and 1 Corinthians (12-14).
He also says on page 232-233,
'Again, it is significant that tongues are mentioned only in the
earliest books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least twelve
epistles after 1 Corinthians and never mentions tongues again.
Peter never mentioned tongues; James never mentioned tongues;
John never mentioned tongues; neither did Jude…the later books
of the New Testament do not mention tongues again.'
However none of these statements are correct given 'glossa' being
the word that is used. All seven references in Revelation are so
obviously to normal human languages normally spoken, that it
seems people have overlooked that they are there, or, as Gromacki
has done, have simply classified them as different from the other
references. Why is this so? I think it is a manifestation of the
charismatic capture of the language. The Mark, Acts and Corinthian
passages have been assumed by friend and foe alike to be different
from the Revelation ones. It seems no one has challenged that
assumption. I think it needs to be challenged.
The Revelation passages are as follows:
Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to
take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were
slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language (glossa) and people and
nation.
Rev. 7:9 After this I looked and there before me was a
great multitude that no one could count, from every
nation, tribe, people and language (glossa), standing
before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were
42
wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in
their hands.
Rev. 10:11 Then I was told, "You must prophesy again
about many peoples, nations, languages (glossa) and
kings."
Rev. 11:9 For three and a half days men from every
people, tribe, language (glossa) and nation will gaze on
their bodies and refuse them burial.
Rev. 13:7 He was given power to make war against the
saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority
over every tribe, people, language (glossa) and nation.
Rev. 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and
he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on
the earth - to every nation, tribe, language (glossa) and
people.
Rev. 17:15 Then the angel said to me, "The waters you
saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes,
nations and languages (glossa).
I think there should be some consistency in the translation. As I'm
not aware of any compelling reason why the inconsistency outlined
above should be accepted, I have, in this work, used 'language/s'
for 'glossa' in every case - except where it refers to the physical
organ because that meaning is still in use. I have also used 'dialect'
for 'dialektos' so as to distinguish between the two words.
(There are 11 uses of the word 'glossa' in other New Testament
books 82 but as these all refer to the physical tongue they do not
concern us here.)
3
What Does the Bible Actually
Say?
A
s we come to look at what the Scriptures actually say, let's
summarise the comprehension exercise we have embarked
upon. If the text indicates in any way that the languages
spoken were normal human languages spoken directly to people
who knew them, or, if the speakers knew what they were saying,
then what the Scripture is talking about is definitely NOT the
current phenomenon. Of course if the current phenomenon is not
what the Bible refers to, that raises questions about the source and
nature of it. Those questions however, I'll leave till later.
And one last thing before we look at the Scripture passages. If there
is not sufficient defining material in a passage for us to be able to
know for sure what words mean, then that passage gives us no basis
for action.83 We have to be content to say we don't know what it
means and leave it at that.84
The Biblical Passages
Mark 16
15. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the
good news to all creation.
16. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but
whoever does not believe will be condemned.
43
44
17. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In
my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in
new85 languages (glossa);
18. they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when
they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they
will place their hands on sick people, and they will get
well."
There is no defining material in this text. A definition must be
brought to the passage but that definition has to be determined
elsewhere. It may be argued that the surrounding context indicates
something unusual is going on - the languages being one of a
number of things which are said to be 'signs'. The others seem to be
extraordinary so why shouldn't the language speaking be
extraordinary as well? Maybe. However the fact remains, there is
no definition, nor is any light thrown on the nature of the languages
spoken. 86
Acts 2
1. When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together
in one place.
2. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind
came from heaven and filled the whole house where they
were sitting.
3. They saw what seemed to be tongues (glossa) of fire
that separated and came to rest on each of them.
4. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began
to speak in other languages (glossa) as the Spirit enabled
them.
5. Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews
from every nation under heaven.
6. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in
bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in
his own dialect (dialektos or dialect).
7. Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men
who are speaking Galileans?
8. Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own
native dialect (dialektos or dialect)?
Chapter 3 – What Does the Bible Actually Say?
45
9. Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of
Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10. Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya
near Cyrene; visitors from Rome
11. both Jews and converts to Judaism; Cretans and
Arabs - we hear them declaring the wonders of God in
our own language (glossa) !"
12. Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another,
"What does this mean?"
13. Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They
have had too much wine."
14. Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice
and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you
who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen
carefully to what I say.
15. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only
nine in the morning!
16. No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17. "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit
on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions, your old men will dream
dreams.
18. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will
pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
19. I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on
the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20. The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to
blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of
the Lord.
21. And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will
be saved.'"
33. "Exalted to the right hand of God, he (Jesus) has
received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and
has poured out what you now see and hear."
Acts chapter 2 is of course the passage from which the name
'Pentecostal' derives so one would expect some powerful support
from it for the charismatic view of 'tongues'. The word 'pentecost' in
46
Greek is an adjective meaning 'fiftieth'. The Feast of Pentecost
occurred on the 'fiftieth' day after the Passover and the events that
are recorded in Acts 2 occurred on that day.
What do we find?
In unambiguous terms about which there can be no argument, Acts
2 indicates normal human languages were spoken. 87 People from a
number of geographical regions and people groups heard about the
wonderful works of God in their 'own dialects' (v6) - 'own native
dialect' (v8) - 'own languages' (v11). More than that, these people
understood without the need of interpreters. Who were these
people? Primarily they were Jews of 'The Diaspora' or 'The
Dispersion'. They were Jews who had been born and lived outside
of Israel but who had come to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage. There
were also proselytes - converts to Judaism who were not Jews by
birth. This was a multicultural, multi-lingual situation. (I will look
more closely later at where these Jews came from and what
languages they spoke.)
Some suggest a miracle was performed on the hearers so that they
understood even though those speaking spoke a different language
to that which the hearers heard. Even if a miracle is allowed for, it
says the disciples spoke in other languages. Nothing is said about
the Holy Spirit doing anything with hearing.
Clearly Acts 2, by identifying 'tongues' as normal human languages
spoken without interpretation to the hearers, rules the current
phenomenon right out of contention as far as this passage is
concerned. This just does not happen in 99.99% of the cases of the
current phenomenon, and most charismatics would not even claim
or pretend that it does.
However a further question remains about the nature of what
happened on that day. Were the normal human languages that were
spoken, spoken 'normally' or 'miraculously'? Very few have even
asked this question let alone addressed it. 88 The God who made
Balaam's ass to speak a human language could easily cause me to
speak languages I had not learnt. But just because he could do this
does not mean that he would. Further I'm not at all convinced that
he did do this to the disciples.
47
No specific indication is given in Acts 2 as to whether or not the
people speaking knew what they were saying, which is not really
surprising. The absence of any such indication argues that they did
know. It is generally not something worth commenting on because
it is just assumed that people understand what they say.89 One
would only expect specific comments to be made if they did not
understand because that indeed would be something to comment
about. There is no such comment. Obviously if they spoke
languages they did not understand, the speaking would have to be
miraculous. But if they did understand what they said, that would
not rule out miraculous speaking. I see no reason why, if God
caused me to speak a language I had not learnt, he should not also
enable me to understand it. In fact I would expect him to do so.
Acts 2:4 does not specifically say whether or not the foreign
languages were naturally or supernaturally spoken. What it says is:
Acts 2:4
All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to
speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
Nowhere does it say that the 'enabling of the Spirit' was the ability
to speak in languages they had not learnt, or to speak in languages
they did not understand. Both of these ideas are assumptions read
into the text. While I grant that most people, either charismatic or
non-charismatic, accept either one or both of these assumptions, 90 I
think most people today do so, because most people do so. There
are things in the passage which have been understood to point to a
miracle occurring in regards to the languages spoken, but nowhere
is this explicitly stated. Perhaps the enabling of the Spirit was
something other than what many assume.91 I will deal with that
possibility later as it is central to my understanding of Acts 2.
For now, let's not get side-tracked. One thing is absolutely certain.
The current charismatic phenomenon is NOT in Acts 2!
(Before it is suggested that I have missed or side-stepped issues
arising from the Text, attention is drawn to Chapter 7 where an
extensive Acts 2 scenario is given which I am satisfied deals with
every significant question that can be raised.)
48
Acts 10
The story of Peter and Cornelius as found in Acts 10 is rather long
so I'll just cite the last half of it for context. God had told Cornelius
to send to get Peter from Joppa. Meanwhile God gave Peter a vision
to prepare him for the messengers' arrival; a sheet-like object with
all sorts of unclean animals in it, was lowered from the sky, to show
him that what God had declared clean was not unclean. This
happened three times. Then the messengers arrived:
Acts 10
22. The men replied, "We have come from Cornelius the
centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is
respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him
to have you come to his house so that he could hear what
you have to say."
23. Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his
guests. The next day Peter started out with them, and
some of the brothers from Joppa went along.
24. The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius
was expecting them and had called together his relatives
and close friends.
25. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell
at his feet in reverence.
26. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I
am only a man myself."
27. Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large
gathering of people.
28. He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against
our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him.
But God has shown me that I should not call any man
impure or unclean.
29. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any
objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"
30. Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my
house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon.
Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me
31. and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and
remembered your gifts to the poor.
49
32. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a
guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the
sea.'
33. So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you
to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to
listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell
us."
34. Then Peter began to speak: "I now realise how true it
is that God does not show favouritism
35. but accepts men from every nation who fear him and
do what is right.
36. You know the message God sent to the people of
Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus
Christ, who is Lord of all.
37. You know what has happened throughout Judea,
beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached
38. how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy
Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good
and healing all who were under the power of the devil,
because God was with him.
39. "We are witnesses of everything he did in the country
of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging
him on a tree,
40. but God raised him from the dead on the third day
and caused him to be seen.
41. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses
whom God had already chosen - by us who ate and drank
with him after he rose from the dead.
42. He commanded us to preach to the people and to
testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of
the living and the dead.
43. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who
believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his
name."
44. While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy
Spirit came on all who heard the message.
50
45. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter
were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been
poured out even on the Gentiles.
46. For they heard them speaking in languages (glossa)
and praising God. Then Peter said,
47. "Can anyone keep these people from being baptised
with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we
have."
48. So he ordered that they be baptised in the name of
Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for
a few days.
Peter went back to Jerusalem and had to explain to some in the
church why he had visited uncircumcised people and eaten with
them. In his explanation he said in Acts 11:15,
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he
had come on us at the beginning."
This links this passage with Acts 2. Peter has to go back around
seven years to find an event that was comparable to what happened
in Cornelius's house. It appears this was a unique situation with, up
to this time, only Pentecost and the events in Samaria recorded in
Acts 8:4-25 being of the same order. Otherwise I don't think Peter
would have appealed to the events of Pentecost the way he did.
The question can be asked, "How did these Jewish believers know
that the Holy Spirit had come?" Chapter 10:46 suggests foreign
language speaking and praise to God was the evidence. Chapter
11:15 suggests that there could have been more because Peter says
"the Holy Spirit came on them as he came on us." At Pentecost,
flames of fire separated and rested on each of them, so perhaps this
happened as well - though it is not mentioned.
What must be emphasised however is that it was foreign language
speaking that occurred. First, the word used is 'glossa', which is the
normal word for language. Second, the event is linked to Acts 2
where there is no doubt that it was normal human languages that
were spoken. This rules the current phenomenon out in terms of this
passage.
51
As for Acts 2, the question to be resolved is a secondary one. Was
this normal or miraculous foreign language speaking? Also, as in
Acts 2, this was a multicultural, multi-lingual situation. I suggest
that the reason foreign languages were not referred to in the
situation at Samaria (Acts 8) was simply because no foreign
languages were spoken there. The Samaritans were speakers of
Aramaic like the Jews so it was not a multi-lingual situation.
(A scenario of what happened in Cornelius's house in terms of
normal language speaking, is given in Chapter 7. The scenario is
not essential to my argument though again it fits my thesis more
appropriately than it fits any other view.)
Acts 19
1. While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road
through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he
found some disciples
2. and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when
you believed?" They answered, "No, we have not even
heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
3. So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
"John's baptism," they replied.
4. Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of
repentance. He told the people to believe in the one
coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5. On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of
the Lord Jesus.
6. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit
came on them, and they spoke in languages (glossa) and
prophesied.
7. There were about twelve men in all.
8. Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for
three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of
God.
9. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to
believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them.
He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily
in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.
52
10. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and
Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word
of the Lord.
This is the third and last passage in Acts which has the word
'glossa' in it. The event occurred in a foreign city and though we
don't know the nationality of these disciples of John, they may have
been Jews of the Diaspora. There is no defining material in this
passage. However it is the same author - Luke - using the same
word, and has some of the same sort of ring about it that the events
in Cornelius' house have. If there is to be a definition applied to the
word, it has to be determined elsewhere and brought to the passage.
The appropriate contexts to derive such a definition from are the
other references in the rest of the Book of Acts. They require us to
understand the languages spoken as being normal human
languages. This being the case, the current phenomenon has no
support from this passage. Whether the languages were normally or
supernaturally spoken is again a secondary question.
1 Corinthians
Chapters 12 through 14 of 1 Corinthians, are without question the
key chapters for the charismatic position. Edward Irving in 1832
was forced to make a distinction between the language speaking in
Acts and that in Corinthians, because he had to acknowledge that
normal human languages were not being spoken by those in his
congregation with the imagined 'gift'. Corinthians, superficially
read, seemed different to Acts and allowed a fall-back position to
be held. The same occurs today.
Chapter 12
1. Now about spiritual gifts ('gifts', not in Greek), brothers,
I do not want you to be ignorant.
2. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or
other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.
3. Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the
Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say,
"Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
4. There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
53
5. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
6. There are different kinds of working, but the same God
works all of them in all men.
7. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given
for the common good.
8. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of
wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of
the same Spirit,
9. to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of
healing by that one Spirit,
10. to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to
another distinguishing between spirits, to another
speaking in different kinds of languages (glossa), and to
still another the interpretation of languages (glossa).
11. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and
he gives them to each one, just as he determines.
12. The body is a unit, though it is made up of many
parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one
body. So it is with Christ.
13. For we were all baptised by one Spirit into one body whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all
given the one Spirit to drink.
14. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.
15. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do
not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease
to be part of the body.
16. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I
do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason
cease to be part of the body.
17. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense
of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where
would the sense of smell be?
18. But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body,
every one of them, just as he wanted them to be.
19. If they were all one part, where would the body be?
20. As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!"
And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"
54
22. On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to
be weaker are indispensable,
23. and the parts that we think are less honourable we
treat with special honour. And the parts that are
unpresentable are treated with special modesty,
24. while our presentable parts need no special treatment.
But God has combined the members of the body and has
given greater honour to the parts that lacked it,
25. so that there should be no division in the body, but
that its parts should have equal concern for each other.
26. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one
part is honoured, every part rejoices with it.
27. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is
a part of it.
28. And in the church God has appointed first of all
apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of
miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to
help others, those with gifts of administration, and those
speaking in different kinds of languages (glossa).
29. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?
Do all work miracles?
30. Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in languages
(glossa)? Do all interpret?
31. But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will
show you the most excellent way.
There is no defining material in chapter 12. There are simply
statements that 'languages', and the interpretation of them, are
abilities God has given to different believers for the up-building of
the church.
Chapter 13
Chapter 13 speaks of human and angelic languages but that is all.
Angels, either fallen or unfallen, are personal beings and users of
language. There is nothing particularly significant about the
reference to angelic language. If you are to speak you have to use a
language, and angels speak. This statement about human and
angelic languages is the first of a series of hyperbolic statements
55
Paul uses to highlight the need of and the supremacy of love.
(Hyperbole is a figure of speech which expresses much more or
much less than the truth, for the sake of effect. Hyperbole is not a
lie, but an intentional understatement or overstatement which the
hearers or readers recognise.) The whole section reads thus:
1. If I speak in the languages (glossa) of men and of
angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or
a clanging cymbal.
2. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can
move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body
to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
The hyperbolic nature of these five examples, including the
statement about the language of angels, is easily seen if the order of
the examples is reversed:
•
•
•
•
•
'If I surrender my body to the flames...' Did he? No.
'If I give all I possess to the poor...' Did he? No.
'If I have a faith that can move mountains...' Did he? No.
'If I have a 'gift of prophecy' that enables me to 'fathom all
mysteries and all knowledge...'' Did he? No, he did not though he was a prophet. (Of course only God has 'all'
knowledge.)
'If I spoke with the 'the languages of men and of angels...''
Did he? To be consistent with his other examples we have
to say, "No, he did not" - although apparently he did speak a
variety of human languages (see ch 14:18).
But even if he had spoken in angelic languages, it wouldn't have
amounted to much. While language in itself is an amazing thing,
yet it is still only language, a vehicle for communication. There is
no spiritual superiority or benefit in one language over another even angelic language over human language. On what basis should
we think that angelic speech is 'spiritually' superior to human
speech? There is none. And angels of course include fallen or
rebellious angels, demons as they are now called! In all the records
we have of angels talking to human beings, they have talked in
human languages. Even Paul 92 and John, 93 when they had visions
56
of heaven, had no communication problems and could write down
quite adequately in their own language what they heard - though
Paul wasn't allowed to. The idea that the current phenomenon is a
heavenly or angelic language has no basis in this verse.
Languages are also mentioned in the latter half of chapter 13, but
again no defining material is there. What is being talked about in
that section in reference to languages being 'stilled' etc, will be
addressed in the 'Objection' section later in this work. However
below is this other verse which contains the word 'glossa'.
1Cor 13
will cease; where there are languages (glossa), they will be
stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
Chapter 14
Chapter 14 presents us with one entire chapter dealing with the use
and control of languages in the church. It is the key chapter in
relation to this issue. I will not be doing a verse by verse exegesis
beginning at verse 1. However by the end of my treatment of the
chapter, much of which is included in the 'Objection' section,
virtually every verse will have been dealt with in some detail.
To start with I will confine myself to three things:
•
•
•
Firstly, I will look for evidence that will tell us whether or
not the languages referred to are normal human languages.
Secondly, I will look to see if there is any indication that the
languages were normally or miraculously spoken.
Thirdly, I will look to see whether or not there is any
indication that the languages spoken were understood by the
speakers.
If the languages spoken were either:
1.
2.
3.
normal human languages, or
normally spoken, or
understood by the speaker,
57
then the current phenomenon is ruled out of contention. That will
mean it is not to be found in the Bible as there are no passages
left that are used to support it. The chapter reads as follows:
1. Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts
('gifts' not in Greek), especially the gift ('gift' not in Greek)
of prophecy.
Because the translators of the NIV have inserted the word 'gift' and
'gifts' in v1 and v12 - and they are not alone in doing so - they have
had to structure the verses around those words. If we were to just
delete the words 'gift' and 'gifts' from these verses, they no longer
make sense. The word 'spiritual' is actually 'spirituals' and can be
better translated 'spiritual things'. 94 This gives it a far more general
sense than confining 'spiritual things' to particular so-called 'gifts'. It
broadens the picture away from a narrow focus on 'gifts'.
So an alternate rendering of v1 could read:
(1. Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual
things, especially prophecy.)
2. For anyone who speaks in a language (glossa) does not
speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands
him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.
3. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their
strengthening, encouragement and comfort.
4. He who speaks in a language (glossa) edifies himself,
but he who prophesies edifies the church.
5. I would like every one of you to speak in languages
(glossa), but I would rather have you prophesy. He who
prophesies is greater than one who speaks in languages
(glossa), unless he interprets, so that the church may be
edified.
6. Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in languages
(glossa), what good will I be to you, unless I bring you
some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of
instruction?
7. Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds,
such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what
58
tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the
notes?
8. Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who
will get ready for battle?
9. So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words
with your tongue (glossa), how will anyone know what
you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
10. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages (phone,
'voice' in AV) in the world, yet none of them is without
meaning.
11. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is
saying (phone, 'voice' in AV), I am a foreigner to the
speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.
12. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual
gifts ('gifts' not in Greek), try to excel in gifts ('gifts' not in
Greek) that build up the church.
An alternate rendering of v12 follows:
(12. 'So it is with you. Since you are eager about spiritual
things, try to excel in building up the church.')
13. For this reason anyone who speaks in a language
(glossa) should pray that he may interpret what he says.
14. For if I pray in a language (glossa), my spirit prays,
but my mind is unfruitful.
15. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I
will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit,
but I will also sing with my mind.
16. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one
who finds himself among those who do not understand
say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know
what you are saying?
17. You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other
man is not edified.
18. I thank God that I speak in languages (glossa) more
than all of you.
19. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible
words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a
language (glossa).
59
20. Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil
be infants, but in your thinking be adults.
21. In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange
languages (the words 'strange languages' are a single word
in Greek - 'heteroglossos') and through the lips of
foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they
will not listen to me," says the Lord.
22. Languages (glossa), then, are a sign, not for believers
but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers,
not for unbelievers.
23. So if the whole church comes together and everyone
speaks in languages (glossa), and some who do not
understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say
that you are out of your mind?
24. But if an unbeliever or someone who does not
understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he
will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be
judged by all,
25. and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will
fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really
among you!"
26. What then shall we say, brothers? When you come
together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a
revelation, a language (glossa) or an interpretation. All of
these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
27. If anyone speaks in a language (glossa), two - or at the
most three - should speak, one at a time, and someone
must interpret.
28. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep
quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others
should weigh carefully what is said.
30. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting
down, the first speaker should stop.
31. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may
be instructed and encouraged.
32. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of
prophets.
60
33. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in
all the congregations of the saints,
34. women should remain silent in the churches. They are
not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the
Law says.
35. If they want to inquire about something, they should
ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a
woman to speak in the church.
36. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you
the only people it has reached?
37. If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted
('gifted' not in Greek), let him acknowledge that what I am
writing to you is the Lord's command.
38. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.
39. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do
not forbid speaking in languages (glossa).
40. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly
way.
Remember, we are looking for three things only at this stage. Are
there any indications in the passage that:
1.
2.
3.
the languages were normal languages?
they were spoken normally?
they were known to the speaker?
Well, what does the passage indicate? In verse 21 is a quote from
Isaiah 28:11-12. It contains an example of Hebrew parallelism, that
is, one idea being expressed in two different sets of words.
languages and through the lips of foreigners I will speak
to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,"
says the Lord.
This is the only quote from elsewhere in Scripture that is used in the
passage and it refers to normal languages, normally learnt and
normally spoken! Below is the section of Isaiah 28 which the quote
comes from:
61
Isaiah 28
7. And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer:
Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled
with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing
visions, they stumble when rendering decisions.
8. All the tables are covered with vomit and there is not a
spot without filth.
9. "Who is it he is trying to teach? To whom is he
explaining his message? To children weaned from their
milk, to those just taken from the breast?
10. For it is: Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on
rule; a little here, a little there.
11. Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12. to whom he said, "This is the resting place, let the
weary rest"; and, "This is the place of repose" - but they
would not listen.
13. So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little
here, a little there - so that they will go and fall backward,
be injured and snared and captured.
Israel was in spiritual apostasy, and foreign armies were going to
come and devastate both it and the surrounding lands. The priests
and prophets were drunk more often than not - even when seeing
visions and rendering decisions. The people were untaught and the
teachers incompetent and spiritually bankrupt. There are two ways
to go in thinking about the statement, 'Do and do, do and do, rule
on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a little there.'(v10). Perhaps it
refers to the teaching having been reduced to the equivalent of that
given to a child only just weaned. But a footnote in the NIV I think
gives a better idea. This footnote suggests that the words translated
'Do and do, do and do, rule on rule, rule on rule; a little here, a
little there.' are actually meaningless sounds - 'Sav lasav sav lasav,
kav lakav kav lakav'. If this is the case, he does not have in mind
the reduction of teaching to the level of that given to very young
children learning simple basic repetitive words, bad as that is.
Rather, he has in mind the burbling variety of meaningless sounds
62
adults often use when addressing an infant. It is after all, an
illustration of the priest ministering in a drunken stupor!!
'Very well then,' God says, 'because of this appalling state of affairs,
I will speak to you in sounds you do not understand. The voice of
foreign language speaking troops will be the voice with which I will
speak to Israel.' Foreign languages spoken by foreign troops on the
streets of Israel would be God speaking in judgment. It would be a
sign to unbelieving Israel. But even then they would not listen.
Another statement regarding the language of the foreign troops is
made in Isaiah 33:18-19:
'18. In your thoughts you will ponder the former
terror: "Where is that chief officer? Where is the one
who took the revenue? Where is the officer in charge
of the towers?"
19. You will see those arrogant people no more, those
people of an obscure speech, with their strange
incomprehensible tongue.'
Now the foreign troops Isaiah referred to, would be speaking their
mother tongue, that is, a normal human language spoken in the
usual way. If it is not normal languages normally spoken that are
being referred to in the rest of 1 Corinthians 14, then why does Paul
quote this passage? This is the only quote, which makes it
significant, and it is supposed to illuminate in some way, the subject
under discussion! If it is something totally different, as would be the
case if the current phenomenon was being referred to, then this
quote is totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion. On the
other hand, immediately following the quote, Paul says,
22. Languages then, are a sign...for unbelievers.
This refers back to the quote, identifying what is talked of inside the
quote and what is referred to outside the quote - in the rest of the
chapter - as being the same thing. Thus the existence of this quote
in the chapter, establishes the languages referred to in the chapter as
being normal human languages, normally spoken.
(What is meant by 'Languages then, are a sign...for unbelievers',
will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4.)
63
Earlier in the passage, from verses 6-11, is another indication that
what is being addressed is just a normal, multi-lingual situation.
1Cor 14
6. Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in languages
(glossa), what good will I be to you, unless I bring you
some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of
instruction? 95
7. Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds,
such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what
tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the
notes?
8. Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who
will get ready for battle?
with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are
saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
10. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages (glossa)
in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.
11. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is
saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a
foreigner to me.
12. So it is with you… (Alternate ending of v12) …since you
are eager about spiritual things, try to excel in building
up the church.'
In this section Paul has set up a contrast. He says he would be of no
use to them if he came and spoke to them in languages they did not
understand. On the other hand he would be of use to them if he
brought a revelation, some knowledge, some prophecy or
instruction. He goes on to elaborate what he means when he says he
would be of no use to them, by using illustrations of musical
instruments and the trumpet call for battle. In the same way that
people would not recognise any tune, or would not know what the
trumpet blast meant, if there was no distinction in the notes, so also
unless intelligible or known words were spoken, 96 how would
anyone know what was being said? The speaker would be merely
speaking into the air and not to the people present. Verse 9, which
says, '...how will anyone know what you are saying?'
64
presupposes a number of things. This verse says the person - 'you' is doing the 'saying', therefore the person speaking knows what they
are saying. Second, it presupposes that something is actually being
said which it is possible to know. However the point is that because
the hearer doesn't 'grasp the meaning' in what is said, it is
unintelligible to them.
This is not to question, he goes on to say, that every one of the
various languages spoken in the world have meaning. It is just that
when people don't know each others' languages, they are foreigners
to each other, and that is exactly the case in the church (v12) if you
don't understand each others' speech. 'Since you are so eager to be
spiritual, try to excel in things that build up the church.' In
other words, 'make sure you speak so others understand.'
Why does he say that those who don't understand each others'
languages are foreigners to each other? Because they are.
Difference in language is one of the defining characteristics of
foreigners. People in charismatic churches don't talk of those
manifesting the current phenomenon as foreigners. In fact, they
don't see it as having anything to do with some people being
foreigners to others. This section clearly identifies what is being
addressed in this chapter. It is the need for the different languages
that are used in church meetings to be translated so that people can
be edified. It is emphatically not about some personal prayer
language that people exercise in the private of their 'prayer closet'. It
is about the use in public meetings of the church,97 of non-shared,
normal human languages normally learnt and normally spoken, ie,
foreign languages. 98 99
Universally today, no one understands the current phenomenon neither the speakers nor the so-called interpreters. On the other
hand everybody understands their mother tongue, and whatever
other languages they have learnt. If therefore there is any indication
that the speakers knew what they were saying, it adds weight to the
position already established. Now is there any such indication?
1Cor 14
16. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one
who finds himself among those who do not understand
65
say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know
what you are saying?
17. You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other
man is not edified.
In v16 it says, 'If you are praising God...' How did the speaker
know he was praising God? Because he understood what he was
saying. A person who exhibits the current phenomenon does not
know what they are saying - if anything - so would not know if they
are praising God even if they were. They may think they are
praising God but they do not know they are. They could be
blaspheming God to his face for all they know!
Verse 17. 'You may be giving thanks well enough ...' The same
applies as for v16. How does he know he is giving thanks? Because
he understands what he is saying. Why is the other man not edified?
Because he doesn't understand. Why can't one who finds himself
among those who do not understand (v16) say 'amen' to his
thanksgiving? Because they do not understand what is being said
and so cannot add their endorsement to it. Unstated but implicit in
v16 is the idea that there are those who do understand and so can
say 'amen'. There is obviously both a group who do understand as
well as a group that does not. If there are those who do understand,
that clearly shows we are dealing with normal languages and not
the current phenomenon. No one understands the current
phenomenon.
Verse 17 finishes '...but the other man is not edified.' This phrase
is synonymous with the one in the sentence before - 'he does not
know what you are saying'. Therefore it is clear that edification
and understanding are linked together. 100 To be edified you need to
know what is being said - you need to understand, and this is
precisely what verses 2-5 are saying:
1Cor 14
2. For anyone who speaks in a language does not speak to
men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he
utters mysteries with his spirit.
3. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their
66
4. He who speaks in a language edifies himself, but he who
prophesies edifies the church.
5. I would like every one of you to speak in languages, 101
but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies
is greater than one who speaks in languages, unless he
interprets, so that the church may be edified. 102
In these verses, rather than a prayer (vv.16-17) being spoken in a
language that may or may not have been understood by various
groups, here the contrast is made between a person speaking some
edifying message in a foreign language on the one hand, to one
speaking a similar message in the major language of the church on
the other. The latter is called prophecy. That the two are equivalent
is shown by the fact that once the message in another language is
translated, it moves onto the same level as prophecy in terms of the
edification it brings to the church: 'He who prophesies is greater
than one who speaks in languages, unless he interprets, so that
the church may be edified.'
This actually sums up Paul's purpose in writing this chapter. It was
to address the question of edification of the church in relation to the
multi-lingual situation it faced and specifically regarding the failure
to interpret the various foreign languages that were used in its
meetings. The chapter is actually less about languages, than about
the need for them to be interpreted so that edification can occur.103
The whole chapter is aimed at this, and here in verses 2-5, the
opening shots in Paul's argument are made.
In v3, prophecy is defined104 as someone speaking for the
'strengthening, encouragement and comfort' of the church. This is
synonymous with the term 'edifies the church' in the next verse. In
contrast to prophecy, the message spoken in another language is
said to edify the speaker, and because 'edify' is equated with
'strengthening, encouraging and comforting', it means that the
speaker is doing these things to himself.
•
•
Why is the church 'edified' through prophecy? Because its
members understand what is said.
Why is the hearer of a prayer in another language in v17 not
edified? Because he doesn't understand what is said.
•
•
67
Why is the church edified when a message in another
language is interpreted? Because its members now
understand what is said.
Why is the person who speaks the other language edified?
Because they understand what they are saying! This follows
directly from the way the term 'edify' is consistently used
elsewhere in the chapter.
It also clearly shows that the current phenomenon is not being
referred to, as nobody exhibiting it knows what they are saying.
To summarise, the following points have been established
independently of each other.
1. The languages referred to are normal human languages.
2. The languages were normally spoken.
3. The speakers understood what they were saying.
As a result of these three fundamental points being established, the
entire chapter now needs to be understood in the light of them. To
extend understanding, you move from the known to the unknown.
These three things are known.
4
Answering the Doubters
I
am satisfied the points outlined thus far refute the idea that the
current phenomenon is referred to in the Bible. However, I
know from experience that when these things are put to people,
their heads are often filled with 'but but but...', and they rush to
shore up their viewpoint in spite of the weight of the arguments
given. In this chapter I will deal with all of the 'buts' that I have
come across. First of all I will deal with those that arise in relation
to 1 Corinthians 14 so that my discussion of that passage is kept
together, and then I will look at all the others.
Objections Arising from 1 Corinthians 14
being Understood as Addressing the Use
of Foreign Languages in the Corinthian Church
Objection 1
B
UT.......verse 2 says 'the one who speaks in a
language doesn't speak to men but to God.
Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries
69
70
with his spirit.' There! It says no one understands
him! That undercuts your claim that there were some
who did understand!
Well actually it doesn't. At the worst it introduces a contradiction
into the passage but I don't think it does that. The contradiction
would be that here it says no one understands, yet in v16, v23 and
v24 at least, it indicates there are those who do understand. Now
there are actually two other statements which describe what the
speaker is doing but most people have missed them.
saying? You will just be speaking into the air.
So, in v2 it says he speaks to God and not to men, in v9, that he
speaks into the air, and in v28, that he speaks to himself and to God
- if no one can interpret for him.
Because of the arguments given already that there is a group which
does understand, v2 needs to be taken as a generalised or relative
statement, not an absolute statement. An absolute statement would
mean, 'no one without exception understands him', whereas a
relative one would mean, 'no one, except a few, understand him'.105
We use relative all-inclusive statements all the time because we
know our hearers know we do not mean them in an absolute sense.
Such a usage still means the statements are true, only they are
colloquial and not scientifically precise. At our church when one of
my Cambodian brothers speaks in Khmer, it is right to say that no
one understands him, even though I know there are one or two
other Khmer speakers present. It is usually just too cumbersome to
add all the possible qualifications to the statements we make.
If this verse did not have a context, that is, if it was torn out of the
chapter and made to stand alone - which is how it is usually treated
- then it could appear initially to support the current phenomenon.
However, it has a context and that context rules it out from being
understood in an absolute sense.
Chapter 4 – Answering the Doubters
71
Objection 2
B
UT........it says, 'he utters mysteries'. There you
are, mysteries are things that are not known. This
proves he doesn't know what he is saying.
Well, it does say he utters mysteries, but does that mean he doesn't
understand what he is saying? No, as I will show. The word
'mystery' means - 'what is known only to the initiated' (Young's
Concordance). 106 107 Some associate the word with the content it is
linked with in Romans, Ephesians and Colossians, 108 and others
with the mystery religions that abounded in the 1st century. 109
I think there is a more straightforward and simple meaning to it
here. The context of the chapter deals with language speaking.
Speakers of a language are 'initiates' in that language. Those who do
not speak that language are not initiates. When those who know the
language speak it, they are doing something 'known only to the
initiated'. It must also be emphasised that 'mystery' refers to
something that is known - if only to the initiates - not to something
that is unknown to everybody, which is the way charismatics
normally understand it.
Mare 110 makes the comment, 'there is no mention here that the
speaker understood the tongues.' But this should not surprise us
because when people are talking, they always understand what they
say. That they understand is just ordinarily assumed and so it never
enters anyone's head as needing to be established or even
commented about.
Objection 3 a&b
There are two objections that need to be addressed together because
of the way they relate to the argument that Paul is developing in the
chapter:
72
B
UT........Paul says his mind is unfruitful (v14).
There, that says he doesn't understand what he's
saying after all - doesn't it?
and...
B
UT.......why does Paul talk about people 'speaking
mysteries in their spirit 111 (v2) and praising God
with their spirit (v16) and talk of himself praying and
singing in his spirit? Doesn't that indicate something
unusual is going on?
Superficially it may appear so but the answer is 'No' in both cases,
as I will establish. The way Paul is using this term 'spirit' is not
defined by the word itself so it must be defined on the basis of the
context within which it is found. The term 'spirit' is being used to
denote one side of a contrast that Paul is addressing all through the
chapter. The contrast generally is between speech that is understood
by the hearers and therefore edifies them, as opposed to that which
is not understood by the hearers and so does not edify them. 112 The
term used to denote the other side of the contrast is 'my mind'.
In v14 Paul equates 'my spirit prays' with 'my mind is unfruitful'.
The terms are effectively addressing the same thing. In v15 he says
that to have his 'mind unfruitful' is unacceptable and then addresses
what he prefers. He wants to pray or sing 'with his spirit' as well as
'with his mind'. The context requires that praying or singing 'with
his mind' is understood to mean praying or singing 'with his mind
bearing fruit or being fruitful'. He omits words such as those I've
added because the idea has already been defined negatively in v14.
In v16 Paul speaks of someone praising God 'with their spirit' and
indicates that when they do this, some people do not understand and
so cannot say 'Amen' to their comments. The text clearly says some
hearers do not know what the speaker is saying. Praying or singing
'with their spirit' therefore means praying or singing that at least
some others do not understand. Since it is a contrast that Paul is
addressing, and since speaking, praying, singing 'with his spirit'
refers to speaking that some people don't understand, to do these
73
things 'with his mind bearing fruit' must refer to speaking others do
understand.
Now what is the fruit that a person's mind bears? The answer is
'understanding'. I don't think anybody would disagree with this. The
next question however is the important one. Where does a person's
mind bear fruit or produce understanding? The charismatic
response is, 'In the person's own mind.' However this answer is
clearly wrong. The text identifies the fruit of a person's mind as
being the understanding that occurs in the mind of others, not their
own! 113 This is an extremely important point as virtually the whole
charismatic view of 'tongues' finally swings on the word 'unfruitful'
referring to the speaker's own mind. To nail it down really securely,
I'll run through it several more ways. Firstly, by analysing the
verses that follow v14, and then by looking at those before it.
In the verses 13 through 17, there are numerous synonymous terms
or ideas used. The initial statement of these ideas is in v13:
v13.
For this reason anyone who speaks in a language
should pray that he may interpret what he says.
Verse 14 then explains v13 in different words assuming there is no
interpretation:
v14.
For if I pray in a language, my spirit prays, but
my mind is unfruitful.
In v14, 'my mind is unfruitful' parallels the idea in v13 regarding
interpretation. Verse 15 then assumes interpretation does occur:
v15.
So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but
I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit,
but I will also sing with my mind.
In v15 the phrases 'pray with my mind' and 'sing with my mind'114
relate to the idea of interpretation in v13.
Verse 16 is parallel to v14:
v16.
If you are praising God with your spirit, how can
one who finds himself among those who do not
understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he
does not know what you are saying?
74
In v16 the term 'praising God with your spirit' assumes a situation
where no interpretation occurs, leaving the other person without
understanding.
Verse 17 then parallels v16 and relates all these ideas to the
edification of others.
v17.
You may be giving thanks well enough, but the
other man is not edified.
Clearly then the terms 'my mind is unfruitful' and its unstated
opposite, 'my mind bears fruit', refer to the languages spoken either
being understood by others (through interpretation), or not being
understood. The interpretation is for the other person, not the
speaker. The context is all about getting edification, that is, the
production of fruit (understanding) in others, through the languages
spoken being interpreted for them. Therefore, 'my mind is
unfruitful', does not refer to the speaker not understanding, but
rather to the hearers not understanding.115 So to clarify the contrast
Paul is making between 'spirit' and 'mind': one half of the contrast,
the 'mind' side, refers to both the speaker and the hearers
understanding the language that was spoken. The other half, the
'spirit' side, refers to the speaker understanding but the hearers not
understanding.
Now let's look at the verses before v14. Verse 13 sets the scene for
vv.14-19. In fact v14 starts with 'For...' pointing back to what has
gone before. Verse 14 is an explanation of v13. Verse 13 also starts
with 'For this reason...' pointing back even further for a reason. For
what reason? Answer: that they should seek to edify the church
(v12).
Verse 12 is in turn the conclusion from the six-verse discussion
about there being all sorts of languages in the world, not one of
them without meaning. In that discussion it is argued that if you
don't understand another person's language, nor they yours, then
you are foreigners to each other. Why? Because you don't
understand each other. As a consequence, edification cannot occur.
Because this is so and you are keen to be 'spiritual', make sure you
speak so the church is edified. Therefore (v13), when you pray in a
language, pray that you may be able to interpret - not for your own
75
benefit but for the benefit of the congregation. 'For (v14), if I pray
in a language, my spirit prays - that is, 'I pray' - but my mind is
unfruitful - that is, 'the church is not being edified by my prayer.'
'So (v15), what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit and I will
pray with my mind.' In other words, not only will I pray and be
edified through my own prayer - which I understand but others
don't - I will also pray so that fruit is produced in the congregation
to their edification. The same goes for singing. In yet other words,
either I will interpret or I will ask someone else to interpret, so that
edification can occur.
To say it again, the place where understanding - fruit-bearing - fails
to occur, is not the person's own mind but the mind of people in the
congregation who need to be edified.116 They cannot be edified if
they do not understand the language spoken. This thought is then
extended and clarified in v16 and v17 where a person who doesn't
understand the praise being given to God can't say 'Amen' to your
thanksgiving. He doesn't know what you are saying. You're giving
thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
Paul then goes on to indicate how strongly he feels about this and
the uselessness of foreign languages spoken without interpretation
to people who don't know them. 117 He says he knows more
languages than any of them, but in the church - that is, a church as a
particular multi-lingual community - he would rather speak five
words that were understood by the hearers, than ten thousand in a
language they did not understand.
The meaning of the term 'my spirit' can be illuminated by a
somewhat similar term used earlier in the letter. Paul says,
1 Cor. 2
11. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man
except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no
one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
Thought and spirit here are related. The term 'spirit' is relating to the
inner person. 118 119 There is an analogy being established. Just as no
one else knows us like we know ourselves, so only God knows
himself fully. The charismatic says, however (on the basis of their
76
misunderstanding of chapter 14), that our 'spirit' can function
independently of our thoughts - as though our spirit is somehow a
separate person inside our being which is independent of our
'thinking' person. The apostle Paul does not fragment our being in
this way. The term 'spirit' here simply refers to the intangible 'me':
the inner 'me' that can only be known by others through revelation,
that is, through 'me' 'revealing' myself to others, usually by means
of verbal communication. 120 'My spirit prays' simply means 'I
pray', which in the particular context of chapter 14 happens to be
prayer in a language others don't understand.
Objection 4
B
UT.......why does it say the person should pray
that he may be able to interpret (v13)? Surely if
he knows what he is saying, there would be no need
for him to pray for the ability to interpret. Wouldn't
he just interpret?
It is one thing to speak another language but another thing to
interpret it. A person who is bilingual may not know their second
language very well. Therefore to be able to select the right words
when translating - if they know them - may be a difficult task.
A few years ago, a talk of mine was translated into Khmer for a
Cambodian Bible study group. My Cambodian friend who
translated, had been at that time, eleven years in an Englishspeaking culture and was reasonably fluent in English. The people
he was translating for were very limited in English. First I went
through my talk and simplified the English. Then I deleted all
colloquialisms because in colloquialisms, the meaning of the words
used does not necessarily convey the meaning intended. Then my
friend spent two weeks translating the talk so he could make the
translation as accurate as possible. On a number of occasions he
phoned me to clarify the sense so he could get it right. Finally he
read his translation to the group. It was a salutary lesson in what is
involved in translation as opposed to simply speaking another
77
language. It also made me appreciate the amazing ability of
interpreters who carry out simultaneous translation at multi-lingual
situations such as the United Nations, or in the courts in New
Zealand, when necessary. The ability to translate or interpret is
certainly a gift multi-lingual churches need.
Given then the difficulties faced in translation/interpretation, it is
not at all unreasonable for a person in a multi-lingual church
situation to ask the Lord for help so that the rest of the church can
be edified through their participation. It should also be pointed out
that the interpretation is not confined to the one speaking as referred
to in v13 and in v5. Verse 28 indicates others also can interpret.
There are several important points regarding interpretation that arise
from the chapter. In vv. 27-28 it says:
27. If anyone speaks in a language, two - or at the most
three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must
interpret.
Whether or not an interpreter is present, is known before the event.
This corresponds precisely with my argument. 121 The person who
was going to speak would know if there was anyone present who
knew both his language and the dominant language of the church
sufficiently well to translate for him. In situations today with the
current phenomenon, it is not known till after the event whether or
not an interpreter is present.
Further, I presume most people would agree that God knows what
he is doing. Assuming the current phenomenon is what is referred
to in 1 Corinthians 14, and God's intention is to edify the church as is emphasized constantly throughout the chapter - why does he
activate someone to exercise the phenomenon but not in all cases
provide an interpreter? In fact why does he give a 'message' in a
language not known to anyone in the church at all? If edification is
what he intends, (and emphatically it is as this chapter makes plain),
why put hurdles like this in the way of it?
Another question can be raised here as well. Let's allow for a
moment that the current phenomenon is from God. The following
78
then is what occurs: God gives someone a message in a language
they don't understand. He then gives the same message to another
person in understandable thought form (totally independently of the
sounds the speaker made). This message in thought form the second
person speaks to the church in their own language - that is, the
dominant language of the church. Because the 'interpreter' does not
understand the sounds that the first person made and does not
derive the meaning of what they say from those sounds, no
interpretation actually occurs. The word 'interpreter' is thus a
misnomer. 122 Further, there is also no way of checking anything
that has occurred. Nobody understands the 'tongue speaker' so
nobody knows whether there is any meaning to the sounds or not.
Thus there can be no check as to whether or not the message the
'interpreter' has given has any connection to the sounds the speaker
made. There is simply no objective test possible. Never mind, we
are told, "Have faith! To not believe is a sign of immaturity!"
We could go right outside the situation and check the content of
what is said in the known language against Scripture. That however
is very different from applying a check to the speech/interpretation
event that supposedly has occurred. The check is needed, simply to
see if what is claimed to have occurred has occurred, but no check
is available.123
Objection 5
B
UT.......it says languages are a 'spiritual gift'. How
can normal languages normally spoken be a
'spiritual gift'?
Languages are not said to be a gift in Acts nor in Revelation nor in
1 Corinthians 14. But they are one of a number of things so named
in 1 Corinthians 12. It should be noted that the only place the actual
term 'spiritual gift' is used in the Greek (pneumatikos charisma) in
the whole of the New Testament, according to my concordance 124,
is in Romans 1:11. It is somewhat surprising, given the scarcity of
the term in Scripture, that it is used so liberally by both charismatics
79
and non-charismatics. After Paul has used it in Romans 1:11, he
immediately goes on to define what he means:
11. I long to see you so that I may impart to you some
spiritual gift to make you strong
12. that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by
each other's faith.
There is not much there to support some extraordinary meaning for
the term. In most English translations the term is used in 1
Corinthians 12:1 and 14:1. However the word 'gifts' or 'charisma' is
not in the original in those verses, as I have already mentioned.
In 1 Corinthians 12:7 it says,
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given
for the common good.
The abilities of being able to speak in various languages, or to
interpret various languages, are said to be two of the manifestations
of the Spirit. Just as the word 'tongues' has connotations riding on it
today which rigidly channel people's thinking, so does the term
'spiritual gift/s'. Today this term is locked into meaning something
like the following: some abilities, different from what are termed
natural abilities or talents, which God gives us when we are
converted. We didn't have them until we were saved and then God
gave them to us.
This view is held by charismatics and non-charismatics alike.125 All
charismatics would see them as obviously supernatural in their
manifestation. 126 For example the Christian Radio Station in NZ,
Radio Rhema, has had adverts for seminars etc that have statements
in them like, 'Would you like to be able to minister in the gifts of
the Spirit' or alternatively '...move in the gifts of the Spirit'.
Everything else that is said indicates that it is expected supernatural
manifestations of God's power will occur at these meetings. Noncharismatics of the 'sign gift' type would also see them as obvious
supernatural manifestations, though they would say they were
limited to the first century AD.
Why must an ability the Lord graciously gives us - which he
intends to be used for the edification of the body of Christ - be
80
extraordinary, miraculous, other-worldly, or even be required to be
called 'supernatural'? 127 Why should not people who are
linguistically skilled, either in speaking other languages or in their
interpretation, be understood to be endowed in this way by the
Spirit of God so that a multi-lingual church such as that at Corinth,
can be built up or edified? A multi-lingual church desperately needs
such people, as you will be aware if you have ever been a member
of one.
Listed among God's gracious gifts to the church in 1 Corinthians 12
vv. 28-30 are teachers, those who help others, and those skilled in
administration. In Romans 12 we have gifts of serving,
encouraging, contributing to the needs of others, leadership and
mercy. None of these appear to be in any way 'supernatural' in the
sense of having been received in some climactic 'dump', or
generated by some source which is obviously separate from the
person themselves. It seems that many people have the idea that
God's gifts are always and inevitably extraordinary - or
'supernatural' - but a casual look at these lists indicates this idea has
no justification. 128 Healing could very well come into the ordinary
category. In a day without medical services as we know them,
individuals who had abilities in medicine as it then was - such as
Luke - would have been a great help to everyone.
Nor need wisdom, knowledge and faith be understood in any
special way. The only one that does emphatically speak of the
extraordinary is the gifting of miraculous powers. The 'revelation'
referred to in chapter 14 may also be extraordinary but it may not.
Prophecy doesn't require being extraordinary if we take chapter
14:3 as Paul's definition of it - or at least his description of its
outworking:
3. But everyone who prophecies speaks to men for their
Given the ordinary nature of most of these gracious gifts from God,
why should not an ability in various languages, or the ability to
translate them into others, be the bent of some who the Lord gifts to
the church to ease the problem of communication? The gifts after
all were given for the common good, not for some individualistic
buzz or trip.
81
An interesting parallel in this regard is found in the Old Testament.
Exodus 31 vv. 1-11 speaks of God having filled Bezalel with his
Spirit, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts.
Oholiab was appointed to help him but nothing is said in these
verses about him being filled with the Spirit or skill, although the
other helpers are said to have received their skill from the Lord
(31:6).
1. Then the LORD said to Moses,
2. "See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur,
of the tribe of Judah,
3. and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill,
ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts 4. to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and
bronze,
5. to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in
all kinds of craftsmanship.
6. Moreover, I have appointed Oholiab son of Ahisamach,
of the tribe of Dan, to help him. Also I have given skill to
all the craftsmen to make everything I have commanded
you: (Then are listed the things they were to make.)
Moses adds in Exodus 35 vv. 34-35, after repeating what God had
said to him:
34. And he has given both him and Oholiab son of
Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, the ability to teach others.
35. He has filled them with skill to do all kinds of work as
craftsmen, designers, embroiderers in blue, purple and
scarlet yarn and fine linen, and weavers - all of them
master craftsmen and designers.
Chapter 36:2 says that Moses summoned Bezalel and Oholiab and
every skilled person to whom the Lord had given ability 'and who
was willing to come and do the work'. There were others the Lord
had given ability to as well but who were not willing to come.
Now here are people who are said to be filled with the Spirit and
given skill by God. Are we to imagine that these men had never
served an apprenticeship or similar, or had never touched an
embroidery needle or a metal moulding tool up to this point? Was
82
the skill and ability in design and 'knowledge of all kinds of crafts'
that Bezalel had, given to him in a 'supernatural dump' at say age 40
or whatever age he was? I don't think that this is the case at all.
Bezalel and all his helpers, had come, through careful training and
lots of experience and hard work, to be exceptionally skilful
craftsmen before God had revealed anything about a Tabernacle.
Their skill was from the Lord and was now to be used to build
things directly related to the corporate worship of the One who had
given them the skill. If this was the case for the important task of
building the tabernacle, why should it be any different for the
building of the Church?
The Church needs those who can administer. Why can't God utilise
those people he has already gifted in this area? He has already
given them a certain type of personality and the ability to think and
order things. Some he has gifted with abilities in language from
their childhood. Surely God knows the need multi-lingual churches
have of people with linguistic skills. It is one thing to be able to
read another language, it is another thing to be able to speak it. It is
one thing to be able to speak another language and yet another to be
able to translate it. A multi-lingual church desperately needs those
skilled in the different languages of the church and those skilled in
translating them.
These abilities are gifts from God as are all abilities in all people.
No one has anything except that which they have received as a
gracious gift from God. How much more wonderful though if these
God-given gifts are used as he intended to His own glory rather
than to the glory of man or some idol or demon! A more down-toearth approach, and certainly one that has far less chance of
traumatising people, is to see these 'gifts' and abilities as those
which God has built us with. He intends these to be used for His
glory among His people and for the extension of His kingdom. 129
One argument that some non-charismatics use is the idea that the
'gift of languages' and the 'gift of interpretation' are the least of the
'gifts' and therefore they are unimportant and should not be pursued.
Numerous charismatics have shown quite rightly the inadequacy of
this idea. If a 'gift' is from God it is important. Even if it is the least
important, if it is valid, it is valid and that is that! Also, the fact that
83
it is mentioned last is irrelevant to its status. As many have pointed
out, in chapter 13:13 love is mentioned last, yet it is the greatest.
The place an item appears in a list may or may not indicate its
importance. Paul certainly has a ranking of things in mind in 1
Corinthians 12:31 but what sort of ranking is it? Any ranking
depends on the intention of the author. 130
I think Paul mentions languages last for at least two reasons. An
ability in language is a functional ability. Having this ability does
not mean that you personally have any great content to transmit
through the languages you know. What Paul values highest is the
transmission of content, and that is why he emphasizes prophecy.
The prophet has an understanding of Scripture and the insight to be
able to apply it appropriately to the church's situation. While skill in
languages is a very useful and beneficial skill to have in a multilingual situation, it is clearly inferior to the insight of the prophet
and this is why Paul views it as a lesser ability. Of course some
spiritual insight is required by interpreters in a church because the
concepts and insights that are being translated need to be
understood to be accurately conveyed.
A second reason for Paul putting languages and interpretation last
on the list is that he is moving into a discussion about the need for
interpretation of foreign languages in the church. The best way to
get to this discussion is to begin from the last items on the list.
Objection 6
B
UT....... verse 22 says that languages are a 'sign'.
Surely normal languages normally spoken aren't
a sign of anything! Doesn't this obviously point to a
supernatural occurrence?
Not so. Normal languages normally spoken are explicitly what is
being referred to as the sign. Verse 22 is commenting on the
languages referred to in the quote (v21) which emphatically are
normal languages normally spoken!
84
Objection 7
B
ut.........what does he mean when in v22 he talks of
'languages being a sign', and being a sign 'not to
believers but to unbelievers'? And why does what he
says in v22 seem to be reversed in vv. 23-25? It doesn't
seem to make sense. 131
Verse 22 follows the quote from Isaiah. The relevant section reads:
languages (heteroglossos = other languages) and through
the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even
then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.
22. Languages, then, are a sign, not for believers but for
unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for
unbelievers.
23. So if the whole church comes together and everyone
speaks in languages, and some who do not understand or
some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are
out of your mind?
24. But if an unbeliever or someone who does not
understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he
will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be
judged by all,
25. and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will
fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really
among you!"
We need to keep two things in mind when we read this verse.
Firstly, when Paul says 'Languages, then, are a sign...', he means
'uninterpreted languages are a sign'. This is clear from the quote.
The languages of the quote were uninterpreted and were the
paradigm of what constituted the sign. Secondly, prophecy includes
interpreted languages (see v5b). The question then is, in what sense
were uninterpreted languages a sign?
85
In the Isaiah situation, it is clear they were a sign of judgment on
unbelieving Israel. But why does Paul bring that idea in here? One
answer is the 'sign gift' idea. Basically this theory says that there
were some 'sign gifts' which were temporary gifts given for either
the transition period as the early church came out of Judaism; until
the Scriptures were completed; or for a specific purpose which only
applied in the first century. Miraculous foreign language speaking
was supposedly one of these 'sign gifts' and had the purpose of
indicating that judgment was coming on Israel. When Israel was
destroyed, this miraculous ability to speak foreign languages was
withdrawn as there was no longer any need for it.
This idea of 'foreign languages as a sign of judgment on first
century Israel' comes from Isaiah through these two verses. It is
then applied by those who hold this view, to Acts 2, 10, 19, and 1
Corinthians 12-14, regardless of how well the idea fits the particular
passage. Out of these passages, the only one that could conceivably
fit is Acts 2 because at least there the languages were spoken in the
hearing of those who were eventually to be judged. 132 However
Peter, in his Acts 2 speech, did not refer to the foreign language
speaking as a sign of judgment. There was no sign value to Israel in
the foreign languages spoken by Cornelius and his friends and
family (Acts 10), nor in those spoken by John's disciples (Acts 19),
nor in those spoken by the people in the church at Corinth, half way
across the Mediterranean. To build the edifice of this theory on
such a small foundation is, I think, rather a shaky thing to do. 133
What then was Paul tapping into if not this dubious idea of 'sign
gifts', because he was certainly tapping into something? I suggest
Paul is pushing past the clearly stated contrast of maturity and
immaturity of v20, and his earlier references in the letter to
immaturity (childishness in 3 vv.1-2, and the transition from
childhood to maturity in 13:11), to a more veiled contrast between
true spirituality and perversity (the perversity represented by Israel
as mentioned in v21), and finally to a contrast between sanity and
madness in vv. 23-25. He was suggesting that the Corinthian
church was not only infantile in its conduct, but bordering on the
perverse and the insane as well.
86
The apparent contradiction in these verses is resolved if we
understand that Paul is actually talking of two types of unbelievers
and two different situations; the 'unbelievers' of v22 being different
to the 'unbelievers' of vv. 23-25. The 'unbelievers' referred to in the
quote in v21 were what I would call - for want of a better term 'perverse believers' or perhaps 'nominal believers'. That is, they
were members of the chosen nation and some of them were even
members of the priesthood or numbered among the prophets, yet
they were not actually true believers. In v22 Paul is thinking of the
situation referred to in the Isaiah quote and is effectively charging
the Corinthian believers with being 'perverse believers' (actually
unbelievers), similar to the people of Israel mentioned in the quote.
If they had been exhibiting the marks of authentic belief, they
would have been concerned to see prophecy come to the church.
They would have ensured that any word of encouragement or
comfort given in a foreign language was interpreted so all could be
edified.
In vv. 23-25 Paul shifts his thinking to the situation where some of
the unconverted of Corinth came into one of the meetings of the
church. Perhaps they were inquiring after the Lord. If this was the
case, they were not 'perverse believers' but 'inquiring unbelievers'.
If such a person came into a place where a number of languages
were being spoken without interpretation, and they knew that the
majority didn't understand the languages spoken, it would have
been very reasonable for them to say that what was occurring was
absurd. It is simply nonsense for people to speak to others in a
language the others don't understand. No spiritual insight is needed
to know this. The most rabid pagan should know it! This initially
interested person sees and hears this occurring and says, "This is
not for me! These people are nuts!"
But if such an 'inquiring unbeliever' came in and heard some
prophecy, that is, some encouragement, comfort or challenge - in
the language he knew - then on the basis of the word of God heard
and understood, he could have been convicted of sin and so come to
acknowledge that God was with them. He could have been
convicted by the content that he understood rather than repelled by
the nonsense of the other situation. Paul is saying to the Corinthian
87
church that they bear the hallmarks of the childish, the perverse and
the insane. 'Stop thinking like children and grow up' (v20) is very
appropriate.
Objection 8
B
UT.......Paul says he speaks in languages more
than all of them (v18).
Given that the whole chapter is dealing with foreign languages and
their interpretation in the church, as I have established, Paul is
simply stating the fact that he knew more languages than all of
them. He was a skilled linguist.
Objection 9
B
UT.........Paul says not to forbid speaking in
languages (v39).
Again, given the context is dealing with foreign languages, this
means that in a multi-lingual situation, one language group must not
exclude others. If foreign language speaking was totally excluded
from their meetings, even though interpretation was possible, then
the insight and encouragement of foreign language speaking
believers would be lost to the church. This was a loss Paul did not
want to occur.
Actually, under some situations Paul does forbid the speaking in a
foreign language. 134 He says that if there is no interpreter present,
which implies the person speaking either doesn't know the other
language, or if they do, can't translate it, then they are not to speak
in public (v28). They are to stay silent in the church and only speak
to themselves and to God. He not only forbad foreign language
speaking in some circumstances, he also placed some severe
limitations on it as well. Verse 27 says only 'two - or at the most
88
three - should speak, one at a time, and someone must
interpret.'
The process of interpreting foreign languages, takes up a lot of
time. I have spoken only once with an interpreter and had to shorten
my content to around one third of my normal amount. I'm sure it is
this time constraint that Paul has in mind with this directive. 135 Of
course, this verse is used by charismatics to say that Paul was in
favour of the current phenomenon and practiced it himself. They
read their own experience back into the text and then say that what
Paul was against was not 'tongues' but 'the abuse of tongues'.136
Objection 10
B
UT.......why does it say 'languages shall cease' in 1
Corinthians 13v8? When will they cease?
The verse referred to occurs at the beginning of a section which has
caused considerable difficulty for commentators. The section reads
as follows:
1Cor 13
will cease; where there are languages, they will be stilled;
where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10. but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like
a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I
put childish ways behind me.
12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then
we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall
know fully, even as I am fully known.
13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But
the greatest of these is love.
There are a number of problems to solve here. The first thing to do
is determine what Paul is referring to when he talks of 'perfection'.
89
Then you have to establish what specifically he is referring to when
he uses the words 'prophecies', 'languages' and 'knowledge'. When
these two issues have been resolved, then the issue of what he
meant by them 'ceasing' can be addressed.
Does 'perfection' refer to the 'ethically perfect situation' that the
Lord will usher in when he returns? Charismatics generally prefer
this view as it appears to provide some justification for their claim
that the phenomena they manifest are valid Biblical expressions
which continue today. Does it refer to this 'ethically perfect state'
and yet have nothing to do with charismatic claims? 137 Does it refer
to the completed Bible? This is the favoured position of many noncharismatics, particularly those of the dispensational 'sign-gift' idea.
They hold this view primarily because they want to confine what
they understand to be miraculous 'sign-gifts' to the first century, and
so undercut charismatic claims for present day expressions of them.
Does it refer to maturity in love? Though I have seen this idea
mentioned in various books, I haven't seen it argued and have no
idea what it means.
As with other parts of these chapters, I think there is a
commonplace, down-to-earth understanding of these verses that has
been missed by virtually everyone because of prior notions about
'spiritual gifts', 'miraculous manifestations' and grand eschatological
schemes. Because of these prior ideas, most people struggle with
these chapters. Those who are honest acknowledge the struggle at
critical points. I want to propose a solution that I have never seen
put before but which is so simple that it almost stunned me when I
thought of it. I need however to establish some initial points to set
us in the right direction.
First. I take 'perfection' to refer to maturity and not to an ethically
sinless state. The word used is 'teleios' which means 'ended;
complete; perfect', thus the sense of maturity - of something
complete – rather than something being partial or limited or
incomplete. 'Maturity' does not imply sinlessness, whereas
'perfection' does. The two other uses of the word in 1 Corinthians
clearly have this meaning and are translated this way in the NIV:
90
1 Cor. 2
6. We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the
mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of
this age, who are coming to nothing.
1 Cor. 14
A number of other times the word is used it has this sense also. For
example:
Col. 1
28. We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone
with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect
in Christ.
Phil. 3
15. All of us who are mature should take such a view of
things. And if on some point you think differently, that
too God will make clear to you.
Paul is making a play on words in 1 Corinthians 13. He uses three
words which mean 'things will end' (ekpipto, katargeo & pauomai)
which he links to a word meaning 'incomplete' ('in part" = meros =
division, part.). He then contrasts these words with a word that
means 'ended', which has the sense of 'completed'.
The immediate context supports the idea that 'perfection' is
synonymous with 'maturity'. 1 Corinthians 13:11 is an illustration of
a movement from immaturity (a child) to maturity (a man). The two
illustrations in v12 are similarly of movement from a low level of
perception to a higher level of perception (the first from a low
quality reflection in a mirror [not today's mirrors!] to the meeting of
people face to face, and the second, partial knowledge as opposed
to full knowledge of a person). This comparison of immaturity with
maturity is one that Paul makes numerous times in the letter in
different ways, some explicit and others implicit.138 Two explicit
references similar to the ones in chapter 13 are found in ch 3 vv. 1-2
and ch 14:20:
91
1 Cor. 3
1. Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as
worldly - mere infants in Christ.
2. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet
ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.
1 Cor. 14
The issue of maturity is one which Paul is aiming directly at the
Corinthian believers and while discussion of the far distant future is
certainly not irrelevant to Christian motivation, I think we should
seek a solution in the immediate Corinthian context before looking
elsewhere. 139 So 'perfection', I suggest, means 'maturity'.
Second. When Paul talks of 'prophecies', 'languages' and
'knowledge', he is referring to different sorts of messages that are
given to the church. He is referring to 'prophetic messages', the
equivalent sort of message in a foreign language, and a message
containing particular knowledge about something. Many have
noted that 'knowledge' cannot refer to knowledge generally because
no matter what view you adopt, people still 'know' things after
whatever it is that is 'perfect' comes.140 Most confine it to a gift of
supernaturally imparted knowledge of God or his ways. Such
'knowledge' is understood to be superseded either by the completed
Bible, or by the direct experience we will have of the Lord in the
eternal state. The surrounding context, however, has to do with the
edification of the church through messages given to it. These are
either in the language of the church (prophecies), or in a foreign
language which is then interpreted. Chapter 12:8 specifically refers
to a 'message of knowledge'. So these three words, I suggest, refer
to three types of messages given to the church.
Third. I take the terms, 'fails', 'cease', 'be stilled' and 'pass away', to
be effectively synonymous, the variation being only for stylistic
reasons. Some make a big thing of the differences but I think this is
misguided. The various words used are:
92
•'fails'
= ekpipto = to fall off or away.
•'cease' & 'pass away' = katargeo = to make useless, idle or inactive.
•'be stilled'
= pauomai = to pause or cease.
So I suggest, these words are just different ways of saying
something will 'end', 'finish', or 'stop'.
Fourth. 'In part', being a contrast with maturity, has to do with
immaturity - that which is not complete - that which is limited. I
would take the limitations as being limitations in the different types
of messages given, both in terms of content and significance. The
'prophecy' and 'knowledge' - that is the 'prophetic messages' and
'messages of knowledge', 141 are explicitly said to be 'in part' - that
is, incomplete and limited. These are hardly terms one could use of
direct and certain inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Why are they
limited and incomplete, or in other words, expressions of
immaturity? Perhaps because of the relative immaturity of those
bringing the messages, with the resulting relative immaturity of the
content of the messages.
I have been familiar for many years with the various options given
as solutions to the problem posed by this passage. Not being
satisfied with any of them, I leaned towards the idea about a
reversal of Babel I have mentioned in endnote 137. I never really
committed myself to it though, and only held it as a possible
solution to the problem posed by the passage.
However, when I began to really look closely at the passage again, I
asked myself, "What other options are there regarding when these
things would cease?" No matter how hair-brained they may be,
sometimes we need to ask ourselves other questions to break out of
the constricting modes of thought we can so easily be trapped in.
Because of the strength of the general position I had already
established, and because the position did not in any way depend on
this passage, I did not feel beholden to any particular view of it.
As I was thinking in terms of the Corinthian context, the maturity
issue, and the various messages that were brought to the church to
edify it, it dawned on me that if a particular prophetic message was
given to the church, it would end. The person giving it would
93
actually finish speaking. A message of 'knowledge' would in a
similar way finish, as would a message given in a foreign language.
Regarding the latter, Lenski says, 'the Greek verb pictures a speaker
who pauses and speaks no more'. 142 Compared to love, messages of
whatever sort, or however transmitted, are transient and passing in
nature. They are of a totally different order of things. Even more is
this so when the content of the particular message is an expression
of immaturity.
I think back to occasions when I was younger, when I spoke
publicly in church meetings (prophecy or a message of
knowledge?). Due to my naiveté, on occasions I didn't really know
what I was talking about. Recollections of the times I spoke on a
prophetic part of Revelation (with some certainty), make me
shudder!! The people who heard me on such occasions no doubt
extended great grace and tolerance towards me. Not only did these
talks cease (thankfully, in retrospect!), but they were of very limited
significance both in terms of content and value over time. As I have
matured, my talks still end, but I hope the content these days does
not express such inexperience. To the contrary, I hope they express
matters of greater significance and are of more lasting value.
When I was immature, I knew smaller parts of the total picture and
spoke out of ignorance. As maturity comes, the expressions of
immaturity should reduce. I was like my daughters, who when
younger, would sometimes pontificate with great certainty about
matters of immense complexity. We had to suggest they didn't talk
that way because they did not understand what they were saying.
They were speaking with a certainty that arose out of their
immaturity and ignorance. They thought and spoke as children
(v11). It's like the difference between looking at something
reflected in a shop window, and looking at the thing itself directly
(v12a). Or the childish knowing of a person compared with the
mature knowing of life-long friends (v12b).
As opposed to messages which cease and immature expressions
which have little lasting significance, love never ceases. Love,
along with some other things - faith and hope being mentioned here
- endures. Those who are mature know this - but the Corinthian
believers, because of their immaturity, needed to be told it.
94
Other Objections Raised
Objection 11
B
UT.......doesn't the fact that godly people who
exhibit the fruits of the Spirit, manifest the
current phenomenon, show that it must be right?
No, it doesn't. Does the fact that godly people who exhibit the fruits
of the Spirit, oppose it, mean they must be right? No, it doesn't.
People who are godly in many respects can nevertheless also be
mistaken about many things. Such a question is like a two-edged
sword. It cuts both ways. This argument has an implied premise in
it. Formally stated as a syllogism, the argument goes like this:
Premise 1.
Godly people believe only what is right. (Implied)
Premise 2.
Godly people believe in the current phenomenon.
Conclusion. Therefore the current phenomenon is right.
The form of the argument is valid but the content of premise 1 is
not. The conclusion may be right or wrong but the argument doesn't
prove it either way. Godly people do not only believe what is right though it would be preferable if they did. But I think there is
something else in the question as well. If this is so wrong, shouldn't
there be some evident evil resulting from it in the lives of people
who practice it? This argument can be reduced to a syllogism as
well. Once again there is an implied premise:
Premise 1.
Premise 2.
Evil is always evidently evil. (Implied)
There is nothing evidently evil in the lives of the
people who practice the current phenomenon.
Conclusion. Therefore the current phenomenon is not evil.
Again the form of the argument is valid but premise 1 is not. The
argument does not prove the conclusion. Evil is not always
evidently evil. 2 Corinthians 11 indicates that evil may at times
appear to be good and righteous:
95
13. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen,
masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an
angel of light.
15. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as
servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their
actions deserve.
Paul says that Satan, and the servants of Satan, can appear as true
blue servants of God.143 The rest of Scripture confirms this high
order of deception. To assume that evil is always evidently evil is
naive in the extreme. There are always bad results from believing
something that is not true, even if the results are not immediately or
easily seen, are not of great significance, or even if apparent good
flows from the false belief. 144 One adverse result in regards to the
current phenomenon would be the sheer waste of time involved in
the practice. One speaker I heard said that he 'prayed in tongues' for
around two hours every day! 145 That is 14 hours a week, 728 hours
or one full month of 24 hour days per year! Just think of the
enormous amount of potentially productive time that is simply
thrown to the wind. Clearly some would say it is the most
productive thing they can do. However, if I'm right, they are wrong.
There are also other effects which I believe are evil. I address these
in the next chapter.
Objection 12
B
UT.......praying in 'tongues' goes beyond what we
can express in our normal human language.146 It
takes off when we are lost for words.147
This idea is totally unsupported by the Biblical text. Even so,
human languages are quite capable of carrying every expression we
need to make. The Scriptures are an example of the immense range
of expression available to us. If we are lost for words, so be it; God
knows the attitude of our heart. This also applies if we are not all
that articulate. Authentic devotion expressed through stumbling
speech and limited vocabulary is infinitely preferable to great
96
fluency without genuine love for God. That is not to denigrate
fluency, but when we express our devotion to God, fluency or lack
of it is irrelevant. What is paramount is the attitude of the heart. But
there is an inconsistency in this objection. On the one hand it is
claimed 'tongues' go beyond normal speech,148 and yet on the other
hand, they are meant to be translated into normal speech. You can't
have it both ways!
Objection 13
B
UT.......what about Romans 8:26-27 where it says
that the Spirit prays for us in words we can't
understand?
Well it doesn't actually say that. It says:
Rom. 8
26. In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness.
We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit
himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot
express.
27. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of
the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in
accordance with God's will.
This passage has nothing to do with what is being addressed in 1
Corinthians 14. The text states that the Spirit intercedes with groans
that words cannot express. It talks of 'groans', not words of a
language. The text explicitly says 'words cannot express'. Obviously
then it is not a language made up of words that is being referred to.
Everything Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 14 is being
expressed in words which he insists must be translated for those
who do not understand.
Objection 14
B
UT........it is a special prayer language God gives
us - that Satan can't crack. It's my own special
97
hotline to God.
In 1 Corinthians 14:14 Paul talks about 'praying' in a 'language', but
this is simply a specific example he is giving as opposed to the
generalised statement he has just made in v13 - 'For this reason
anyone who speaks in a language...'. 149 In v5, once the language is
translated it moves onto the same level as prophecy, indicating that
it was some message of encouragement rather than a prayer that is
being referred to. So firstly, there is no indication the speech was
limited to prayer, 150 and secondly, the concept of a special,
personal, individualised 'prayer' or 'love' language is just not in the
text anywhere. It is snatched out of thin air.
As for the uncrackable hotline idea, well the speakers can't crack it
either! This whole idea is a fantasy and utterly without foundation.
Satan is not referred to in any of the passages - nor does the text say
anything about a hotline or anything that is vaguely related to one.
Objection 15
B
UT.......speaking in tongues is evidence of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit. 151
This is really an objection from those of Pentecostal as opposed to
charismatic persuasion. In theory at least, charismatics allow for
only some to speak in 'tongues', whereas Pentecostals insist all
should. Even if the Pentecostal/charismatic view of 'tongues' is
conceded, there is simply no way 'tongues' can be an evidence of
baptism in the Holy Spirit. At the end of 1 Corinthians 12, in verses
29 and 30, Paul asks some rhetorical questions. The unstated
answer to each of these questions is "No."
The last two of these questions are: 'Do all speak in languages?
Do all interpret?' As the expected answer is "No", and in the light
of his argument regarding the body that commences at v12, Paul is
saying very clearly that God has not gifted all believers with
languages. If the Pentecostal view is correct - which is that 'tongues'
are an evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit - then chapter 12
indicates that it is God's intention to keep baptism in the Spirit from
some believers. Paul says in v13,
98
'For by (or 'in') one Spirit we were all baptised into one
body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free,
and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.'
It is obvious that 'tongues' cannot be an evidence of baptism in the
Holy Spirit, if all believers are baptised in the Holy Spirit but not all
speak in 'tongues'! 152
Objection 16
B
UT........speaking in tongues is evidence of
spirituality.
In some charismatic circles it may be, but Biblically, true
spirituality is synonymous with, and is characterised by, obedience
to God.
Objection 17
B
UT........if there is a counterfeit, there must be a
real thing to counterfeit.
The 'real thing', as I've argued, is normal human language. The
counterfeit is a phenomenon which has been hoisted onto certain
Biblical words. The only similarity between the two is that they
both consist of sounds that come out of a human mouth.
Objection 18
B
UT........why does Paul say to pray in the Spirit on
all occasions (Ephesians 6:18), 153 and Jude say to
pray in the Holy Spirit (Jude v20)?
There is no reference to 'languages' in either of these verses. If the
current phenomenon is found here, it is because it has been read
into it rather than read out of it. 'Pray in the Spirit' has come to
mean in common charismatic parlance, 'Pray in tongues'.
99
Objection 19
B
UT.......I've had an experience and you can't take
that away from me. I know it is from God
because I feel it inside me.
The problem with such a statement is that experiences are not selfvalidating. I could make passionate 'love' with my wife, then make
passionate 'love' with my neighbour's wife. Both experiences would
be basically the same - but one is not valid. How would I know
this? Not by the experience telling me anything, but through there
being an objective standard external to the experience, against
which the experiences are evaluated.
The same goes for the current phenomenon. I do not doubt there is
an experience - and by all reports it is sometimes a powerful
experience. But New-Agers and occultists have powerful
experiences which they claim validate their beliefs. What is needed
is not to let the feelings generated by the experience validate the
experience. Debbie Boone fell into this trap when she sang as the
punch line in one of her pop songs: 'How can it be wrong if it feels
so right!'154 What we need is an objective, external standard against
which to measure our experiences. The automatic response of
Christians to the situations of passionate 'love making' mentioned
before should be to go immediately to the Bible and show that
adultery is wrong.
The current phenomenon must be evaluated by the same biblical
standard, and as I have shown, when it is put against this standard it
does not measure up. Neither should it be forgotten that virtually
every cult was begun by people who had powerful experiences
which they mistakenly took to be self-authenticating experiences
from God.
Objection 20
B
UT........look, it says in Ephesians 5:18, 'Do not get
drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
Instead, be filled with the Spirit. ' and in Acts 2:13,
100
'Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They
have had too much wine." Someone under the control
of the Holy Spirit obviously may act in a way that
could bear some similarity to drunkenness. Because
the Holy Spirit is controlling your tongue,155 it doesn't
matter if you don't know what you are saying and
appear at times as though you are drunk.
This suggestion is not correct. While some people under the
influence of the current phenomenon may act like they are drunk,
this cannot have been the case in Acts 2, nor could Paul have made
such a suggestion in Ephesians 5. One of the fruits of the Spirit is
'self-control' (Gal. 5:23). The more a person is controlled by the
Spirit the more self-controlled they become. There is no similarity
between being controlled by the Spirit and drunkenness. Rather, the
exact opposite is the case. Self-control is increased. Scripture
records that numerous people fell on their faces before the Lord out
of sheer acknowledgment of who God is. However, this is no
support for the suggestion that those controlled by the Holy Spirit
may be mistaken sometimes for drunks. Frankly I think the idea is
diabolic in nature!
(Chapter 7 contains an explanation for why the believers on the
Day of Pentecost were charged with being drunk.)
Objection 21
B
UT.........I've had an experience…
and I know!
Is there any answer to such a statement? Well yes, there are some
answers. 'How do you know?' or, 'How am I supposed to know you
know?' or, 'I know on the basis of the Bible that you're mistaken, so
which of our 'knowings' is right?'
5
A Non-Charismatic Challenge
to the Thesis Outlined,
Analysed and Answered
A
significant challenge to my thesis as it applies to 1
Corinthians 12-14, does not come from charismatics, but
from those who see the Corinthian problem as involving
elements of Greek mystery religions coming into the church.
Specifically, in terms of these chapters, it has what I will term
'ecstatic vocalisation' being exercised in meetings of the church.
'Ecstatic vocalisation' was common to the various Greek mystery
religions. It is claimed Paul was addressing this problem, and to a
lesser extent, a non-shared language problem. Some would say
that he was addressing exclusively the intrusion of mystery
religions into the church, but that view comes unglued on the
repeated calls Paul makes for interpretation of the languages
spoken. As the ecstatic vocalisation of the mystery religions was
not interpretable, and as Paul makes comments which to all
intents and purposes endorse the languages spoken, this view
cannot hold - that is, unless we see Paul as approving of Greek
mystery religions, or being misinformed about the nature of the
ecstatic vocalisation practised in them! For those who do not
think Paul was so accommodating to paganism, nor so
misinformed, there is a need, it is claimed, for there to be two
problems as it were superimposed. Otherwise they say it is not
possible to adequately make sense of everything in the text. I
101
102
want to outline this 'two-problem' view as clearly and fairly as I
can, and then evaluate it in terms of the text. The ideas I am
putting are not necessarily ones I accept even though at times it
may sound like I do.
I am greatly indebted to personal correspondence from Bob
Zerhusen 156 for the articulation of this view. The reader should be
aware that in putting the case for this view I have made a detailed
summary of his material, in quite a few places virtually using his
exact words so as to accurately present the case. The case cannot
adequately be put briefly. Because it involves coming to grips
with the text, it almost requires a verse by verse analysis. While
the view needs non-shared languages to account for parts of the
text, they really play a very minor role because by far the
majority of the text is made to apply to ecstatic vocalisation. I
should also add that Zerhusen no longer holds this 'two-problem'
view, but essentially the one I am promoting. His expression of it
can be seen in his article published in the Biblical Theology
Bulletin, 'The Problem Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14: A
Reexamination', (vol. 27, Winter 1997, No. 4), pp.139-152.
The View Outlined
Important to the 'two-problem' view is an understanding of the
Greek culture of Corinth of that time. Corinth was a seaport city,
an ethnic melting-pot, and a multiplicity of languages was normal
for the place. Thus it is highly probable that the church faced a
non-shared language problem due to ethnic diversity in the
congregation.
Corinth was also known for its numerous temples which served
as a focus for the various Greek mystery religions. Cultic sexual
immorality was an integral part of worship within these religions,
but more importantly for our present considerations, so were
various states of ecstatic devotion.
It was the aim of the devotees of these mystery religions to be
indwelt by the spirit of the idol being worshipped. The highest
state of inspiration occurred when the person's mind was
displaced to allow a 'spirit' or 'god' to speak through them. The
ecstatic vocalisation that occurred under these circumstances was
Chapter 5 – A Non-Charismatic Challenge
103
not used to edify a group but was an intensely personal
experience. The experience of inspiration was all important.
Because this was deemed to be so significant, the devotees were
very fervent in the pursuit of the experience, which for them was
the pinnacle of spirituality. This was an aspect of the cultural air
the Corinthians breathed. Spirituality was understood in these
terms.
So here is the church at Corinth experiencing two separate
problems but both associated with sounds coming from mouths.
One is the problem of non-shared languages. The other is the
intrusion into the church of Greek concepts of ecstatic inspiration
manifest as ecstatic vocalisation, and perhaps prophecy.
According to the proponents of the 'two-problem' view, it seems
that the same word/s (glossa[singular] and glossai[plural]) were
used for both of these things, much as today 'tongues' is used for
both. Thus when Paul comes to address these problems, the
common terms allow him the possibility of addressing both of
them more or less at the same time. The particular constructions
and contexts of paragraphs will indicate which of the two he has
in mind at any particular place in the text. It is claimed that Paul
and the Corinthians knew exactly what was occurring, something
which is no doubt true, and that is why Paul nowhere provides
any definitions.
That Paul is addressing a non-shared language problem is
indicated by the two points already mentioned which brought
down the exclusive ecstatic vocalisation view. Paul repeatedly
calls for interpretation, clearly presupposing that at least some of
what is being uttered is meaningful language and therefore can be
interpreted. Also, he says that he speaks in languages more than
all of them - even saying he wished they all did, and lays down
rules for the use of languages in the church. These positive
expressions are incompatible with ecstatic vocalisation so
therefore must refer to non-shared languages.
Now of course the thesis I am advancing is that what is being
referred to is exclusively a non-shared language situation, and
problems that arose because of the ethnicity which non-shared
languages represent. Therefore I am in complete agreement with
104
the points used above to argue for the existence of a non-shared
language problem. What is contentious for me is the claim that
also being addressed in the same passage is an ecstatic
vocalisation problem; that in fact, the two problems are dealt with
in sentences which sit alongside each other, and that there is a
switching back and forth between the two problems.
The specific argument begins in ch 12:1 with a point that is not
contested. The word 'gift' is not in the verse, so it should read,
'Now concerning spirituals (or perhaps 'the spirituals')'. As I've
said elsewhere, the sense is really, 'spiritual things'.
• 12:2 refers to the Corinthian believers' pagan past when they
were involved in the worship of 'mute idols'.
• 12:3 then refers to the fact that no one inspired by the Holy
Spirit will curse Jesus, nor will a person not inspired by the
Holy Spirit say, "Jesus is Lord". The important point here, it
is claimed, is that Paul is referring to experiences of
inspiration.
• Paul goes on in the following verses to say how
manifestations of the Holy Spirit were for the common good.
This, it is claimed, is in contrast to the individualistic
experiences and orientation of their former pagan worship.
• In 12:10 Paul refers to 'discernment of spirits'. The question is
asked: 'Why would you need this gift unless both the Holy
Spirit and demonic spirits were active in the church?'
• After these points have been made, a pattern is said to have
developed with constant references to spirits and inspiration.
• Another bombshell is said to occur in 12:31 and concerns the
Greek verb 'zeloo'/eagerly desire. In its Greek form in the
Greek text it can be rendered either as an imperative (a
command by Paul for the Corinthians: “But eagerly desire the
greater gifts”), or as an indicative (a statement describing
what the Corinthians were actually doing: “But you are
eagerly desiring the greater gifts”). If this verb is rendered an
indicative, then we have a statement of what the Corinthians
were doing wrong, that is, they were not content with the
God-given gifts outlined in 12 vv. 8-10 and vv. 28-30, but
were actively seeking after 'greater gifts'. What were the
'greater gifts' in pagan religious settings, it is asked? To be
105
inspired with your 'nous'/mind displaced and a god/spirit
speaking through you. After Paul thus identifies the
Corinthians' problem, he then proceeds to provide a
correction for it - “And now I will show you the most
excellent way...love”.
It is claimed that this same pattern recurs again in 14:12. Paul, it
is said, literally says, 'So also with you, since you are zealots of
spirits [the Greek for 'spirits' is 'pneumaton' and is the same as in
'discernment of spirits'], instead seek the edification of the church
that you may abound'. (English translations render zelotai/zealots
as a verb, when it is properly a noun.) Paul labels the Corinthians
'zealots of spirits'. Why? The answer given is that some people at
Corinth have brought the pagan view of inspiration into the
church. These are the same people who were 'eagerly desiring the
greater gifts'. Why do they seek spirits? So they can experience
inspiration. As it is stated, this has nothing to do with a nonshared language problem. The problem is far worse - pagan
religious thought and practice being brought into the church!
In 14:36-38, Paul is said to become highly confrontational
towards people who think they alone are the originators of
revelation and have exclusive claims to it. How could they have
such perverted views of revelation? Easily! If you think you are
inspired by a god, then no greater capacity for revelation is
possible because the god is speaking directly through you! In
14:32, Paul says a true prophet is in control of himself. Why say
this? Because those who sought 'greater gifts' were out of control
when they prophesied (another common feature of pagan
religious practice).
It is claimed that a clear pattern should be seen by these
references. Paul, it is said, is talking to a group that is
experiencing a variety of spiritual manifestations, but not all of
them were from the Holy Spirit.
So that sets the scene. The case now needs to be established by
exegesis of the text of chapter 14. If two distinct language forms
were being practiced, that is normal human (though non-shared)
languages, and ecstatic vocalisation, then it is claimed evidence
of both should be found in the text.
106
It is argued that:
•
14:2 perfectly describes ecstatic vocalisation, Paul even
throwing in the word 'mysteries', the term used by people in
the mystery religions to identify their secret knowledge. The
person vocalising is speaking to no one else. The sounds are
completely unintelligible both to the speaker and to all others,
even though the person is supposedly speaking to God about
secrets known only to the speaker and to God.
• In 14:4 Paul says that this speech only edifies the speaker. But
according to 12:7 a God-given ability in languages was for
the edification of others. Thus 14:4 cannot refer to such a
God-given ability.
• In 14:5 Paul is positive and refers to an ability which is useful
to others and which can be interpreted. He is therefore
referring to a God-given ability in languages at this point.
• To summarise this section, Paul, it is claimed, argues that
ecstatic vocalisation is inferior to prophecy.
In vv. 6-13 it is argued that Paul then gives a series of analogies
or comparisons and applications which attack ecstatic
vocalisation:
• v6 a profitable visit / an unprofitable one,
• v7, well-played instruments which make music / badly-played
ones which only make noise,
• v8, a clear trumpet blast people can respond to / an unclear
trumpet blast people can't respond to,
• v9, intelligible speech / unintelligible speech,
• v10, meaningful language / meaningless sounds,
• v11, those of the same language / foreigners,
• v12, zealots for edification / zealots for spirits,
• v13, speech in ordinary, interpretable language / ecstatic
vocalisation which by-passes interpreters and requires God to
interpret.
It is claimed the comparisons in these verses are all negative,
focusing not on language but ecstatic vocalisation. All languages
involve using the tongue to produce intelligent speech, yet Paul
says in v9 that the tongue can also be used improperly to produce
speech that no one understands. No language, it is argued,
107
involves an improper use of the tongue, so no language resembles
badly played instruments etc., where sounds are not ordered
correctly. As a consequence this must be referring to ecstatic
vocalisation. We may not know a language, but the language is
nevertheless distinct, orderly, and clear.
In the next section - vv14-19 - it is claimed that Paul's focus is
also on ecstatic vocalisation. He says in v14 that suppose he
engages in one of these mindless 'tongues', what happens? His
spirit is involved, but his mind is unfruitful (the Greek word for
'unfruitful' is 'akarpos'. This word is either passive - 'my mind
receives no benefit' - or active - 'my mind produces no benefit in
others'). In ecstatic vocalisation, the mind is not involved in the
production of speech and so the utterance is random,
meaningless, completely unintelligible, uninterpretable, and
consequently produces no benefit in others. The Greeks thought
such utterances were inspired by the gods and so were desirable,
the whole idea being to get the mind out of the way so a spirit
could speak through you.
Thus it is alleged that Paul is saying in v14, “[For] if I pray in a[n
inspired] language, my spirit prays [is involved], but my mind
[not being involved] produces no fruit [in others].” For Paul this
is a very bad thing and so he asks in v15. “What shall be done
then?” Paul answers that whether he sings or prays (things which
represent worship related activities), both his spirit and his mind
will be actively involved. Thus he eliminates ecstatic vocalisation
from the range of what is allowed.
Essential to understanding this section from this viewpoint, is that
'spirit' and 'mind' are understood as being two separate human
faculties, something which is clinched, it is claimed, by Paul
saying it is 'my spirit' and 'my mind'. (I have to say I do not like to
see humans fragmented in this way. Rather, I view the mind as an
integral aspect of our spiritual/immaterial nature.)
It is alleged that this is one point where the 'non-shared language'
view breaks down. To say as I do, that the contrast between
'mind' and 'spirit' refers to a contrast between 'uninterpreted
languages' and 'interpreted languages', is said to be eisegesis
(reading into the text) rather that exegesis (reading out of the
108
text). The problem with this charge is that everyone of every view
has to add words in at some point to explain what Paul means.
Even those who promote this view and who make the charge, add
words! What makes one view more credible than another, is that
the words added to clarify meaning, fit better with everything else
Paul says. Unfortunately it seems the focus is not on the actual
text of this section, but only on the words 'spirit' and 'mind'.
Consequently, the context within which these words occur does
not seem to have much influence on how they are understood.
The view goes on to v18, where Paul thanks God for the gift of
languages he possesses. Here he is talking of actual human
languages because he is positive about it. However after this
comment he reverts back to addressing ecstatic vocalisation.
The section vv20-25, has been very problematical for most
commentators, it is said, because of the apparent contradictions
contained within it. Also, because they only have one option as
to what it refers to, a 'gift of tongues' (however they define that).
Within the 'two-problem' view another option is available,
ecstatic vocalisation. (My view does not involve a 'gift' of
'tongues' in the usual way that idea is understood so offers a third
way.)
To begin with, Paul in his trained Rabbinical style, uses Scripture
against ecstatic vocalisation. He in effect says, “What does
Scripture say about unintelligible languages? It says in Isaiah 28
that they were a bad thing, and that when they occurred the
people did not become more obedient or spiritual. If it was a bad
thing, and did not lead to greater obedience, then the Old
Testament precedent is against unintelligible languages.”
Who are they for then? To address this question Paul makes four
assertions in v22:
1. 'Tongues' are not viewed as a sign of God's presence by
believers.
2. It is unbelievers who view 'tongues' as a sign of 'the presence
of God' (words added in!). It was the unbelieving pagans of
Corinth and those in the church who had been influenced by
109
pagan ideas, who saw ecstatic vocalisation as evidence of
inspiration. 157
3. Prophecy was not for unbelievers. They were more interested
in unintelligible utterances than proclamation of the Word of
God.
4. Prophecy was for believers. Prophecy is always intended
primarily for God's people.
Interpreters stumble on v22 because they assume that a 'gift of
tongues' is being discussed, thus they have to explain how a 'gift
of tongues' can be intended for unbelievers. Paul, it is claimed, is
not addressing this at all but rather how believers and unbelievers
view ecstatic vocalisation.
Next Paul gives two hypothetical examples which further show
the inferiority of ecstatic vocalisation compared with prophecy.
Suppose all engage in ecstatic vocalisation (v23) and some local
pagan/unbeliever walks in. What do they conclude? They
conclude that all in the congregation are mainesthe/mad. This
Greek word is used by both Governor Festus and Paul in Acts
26:25 when Paul appeared before Festus, King Agrippa and his
wife Bernice. In this instance the NIV translates it 'insane'. It is
claimed it also meant in the first century, 'to be possessed' or 'to
rave', as when people were inspired in the mystery religions. In
other words, it could also refer to ritual possession as practised in
pagan religions. So the unbeliever walks in and thinks they are all
possessed - a good thing they think - and concludes that
Christianity is just another mystery religion where God is not
distinctively present.
However if the unbeliever walks in while they are all
prophesying, he may get converted, concluding 'that God is really
among you' (in other words, is distinctively present with them). It
is claimed that there are no contradictions here and that Paul's
attack on ecstatic vocalisation is devastating.
Because of the positive way Paul refers to 'languages' in the rest
of the chapter, I take it the 'two-problem' view thinks that he
reverts to addressing the non-shared language problem in what
further references he makes to them.
110
So that is the case. Now for an analysis and rebuttal.
The View Analysed and Answered
The position I hold is that what is being addressed is exclusively
a non-shared language problem. Therefore I accept all parts of the
'two-problem' thesis which identify normal human languages in
the text. However, I do not understand these as relating to some
'gift of languages' that needs to be controlled. I also accept the
analysis made of Corinthian culture of that time, with the diverse
ethnic make-up of its population, its various mystery religions,
and its views about spirituality - including ecstatic vocalisation.
I think the aspects of charismatic beliefs which have to do with
the current phenomenon, and the views of spirituality which
derive from it, are remarkably similar to the Greek views, perhaps
in many cases the same: the depreciation of the mind; the
exaltation of ecstatic vocalisation (while being in submission to
the spirit (Spirit?)) which is claimed to be communication with
God; the very personal nature and orientation of this experience.
All these, I suggest, are precisely the same as practised by the
Greeks.
However, if the 'two-problem' view is correct, what Paul faces is:
•
one relatively minor functional or structural issue - that of
the use of non-shared languages in the church, and how
that relates to the edification of the church, and to ethnic
relational problems.
•
what is acknowledged as a much more serious issue of the
introduction into the church of pagan religious thought
and practice.
I have great difficulty accepting that Paul would merge these two
problems and deal with them the way the 'two-problem' view
claims he does, simply on the basis that one word - 'glossa' - was
used for both.
The latter point - that one word was used for non-shared
languages and ecstatic vocalisation - has not been established and
the claim that we do the same today is simply not correct. The
word 'tongues' today is used almost exclusively of the charismatic
111
phenomenon as a result of the language hi-jack of the last 90 or
so years. The term 'tongues' is only very rarely used of normal
languages. It is precisely the confusion of terms resulting from a
new meaning being hoisted on to an old word, that has dropped
us into the semantic fog we are in today over this issue! Paul was
an astute thinker and I am sure that he would have foreseen the
confusion that could arise through one word being used to
identify two utterly different and unrelated issues.
It is claimed that Paul, as a concerned first century pastor,
tactfully and rationally deals with both problems at once.
However, that is not the impression I get of Paul at all. In
situations as gross as pagan religion coming into the church, Paul
is not renowned for being tactful! In fact even this view suggests
he becomes highly confrontational at several points in chapter 14.
If Paul really was addressing elements of paganism coming into
the church, then I would expect much more confrontation from
him. I would also expect an explicit treatment of the issue, rather
than him hitting two issues together, one a very serious error, and
the other not a matter of error at all, just a matter of insensitivity
in personal relationships.
Some are of the view that all through the letter Paul is shooting
off two barrels at once in a subtle, wise (to show them he can beat
them at their own game) sort of way. My response is that earlier
in the letter he is simply up front and unambiguous in addressing
the various things he does. Division, sexual immorality, lawsuits,
food sacrificed to idols, marriage; in none of these is he subtle but
instead, forthright. What dominates chapters 12 through 14 are
not alien philosophies spelt out and refuted in unambiguous
terms, but Paul's attack on the lack of mutual concern for each
other as that is exhibited in their meetings.
I'm quite prepared to allow allusions through word usage to other
issues – this is a common everyday practice. And while I agree
that there is a background of Greek thinking to the letter, I am not
convinced that pagan philosophy as philosophy, is the overriding
question being answered, nor the integration point which ties
together all the various problems addressed in the letter. Many of
the problems are everyday problems and result from plain
112
selfishness, insensitivity, corruption and arrogance. These are not
necessarily the result of the people in the church having
consciously adopted 'proto-gnostic' thinking, although they may
result from the prevailing ungodliness inherent in the surrounding
idolatrous culture.
Chapters 12-14 are part of a bigger section that begins in 11:17:
In the following directives I have no praise for you, for
your meetings do more harm than good!
These directives have to do with their meetings. The first of these
instructions addresses the meals they had together as a church and
the place the Lord's supper had in them (vv20-22). He then gives
teaching about the Lord's supper and finishes this first directive
with his summary comments at the end of ch 11, in vv33-34.
His next directive begins in 12:1 and finishes at the end of
chapter 14. It deals with spirituality as expressed in their
meetings. In chapters 12 and 13, Paul discusses in a general way
some aspects of true versus false spirituality, and background
relational issues, before spelling out some specific directions in
chapter 14.
In chapter 12 Paul discusses spirituality, i.e. 'spiritual things', in
terms of:
•
•
•
•
expressions - to curse Christ or to call him Lord,
the diversity of gifting for the common good,
the diversity of gifting in terms of relationships,
the acceptance of each other and the differing roles each has.
Clearly this general discussion addresses more than just conduct
at meetings because in v28 he mentions abilities of
administration, the helping of others, and abilities in healing.
None of these abilities are particularly meeting related.
He begins with a brief look back to where they had come from.
The reason he does this is because of the distorted views
regarding spirituality they were likely to have. Somehow or other
in the past, they had been influenced by dumb idols. To point out
very clearly one indication of whether or not the true and living
God was present in one's life, he gives two opposing statements,
113
statements that indicate states of heart. Anyone who said, 'Jesus
be cursed', by definition ruled themselves out as having the life of
God. Such a statement was fundamentally incompatible with the
Spirit of God who indwells all authentic believers.
On the other hand, the statement, 'Jesus is Lord', can only be said
by one born again of the Spirit of God. He is not talking about
mere parroting of words, or such phrases being used in the
process of argumentation. He is referring to them being spoken in
all seriousness and expressing the belief of the person uttering
them.
I'm not satisfied Paul is referring to experiences of inspiration
here at all. Rather, I believe that he is using a clear cut illustration
to indicate one aspect of true, and one aspect of false spirituality.
It appears their abilities to discern were dull and they did not
automatically identify someone cursing Jesus as expressing false
spirituality as they should have!
Paul does not say that a person saying 'Jesus be cursed', is being
inspired by a demon, because you don't have to be so inspired to
say such things. He says a person either is or is not speaking
influenced by the Holy Spirit. I don't think this needs to be taken
in an inspirational sense where the Spirit either does or does not
have direct control of a person and therefore is or is not speaking
directly and personally through that person. It is quite sufficient
for Paul to be describing either a believer or an unbeliever
expressing things native to their character. The true believer
cannot curse Jesus, nor can a genuine acknowledgment of the
Lordship of Jesus be made unless you are a true believer - that is,
one indwelt by and under the generalised control of the Holy
Spirit.
Now we may say that such a level of dullness in discernment is
almost inconceivable. However I think just such dullness in
discernment has occurred in recent years in regards to the socalled 'Toronto Blessing' which took a lot of the New Zealand
charismatic world by storm. A raft of things were accepted as
from God because people misunderstand what constitutes true
spirituality.
114
People:
•
laughed uproariously for great lengths of time - even through
sermons - so-called 'holy-laughter',
• barked like dogs,
• roared like lions,
• rotated their hands and shook their heads side to side for
considerable periods of time and at high speed while
delivering so-called prophecies,
• sat on chairs like monkeys,
• bounced up and down,
• ran on the spot with arms flaying,
• Pastors trying to give testimonies of God's supposed work in
them were struck dumb on stage to the applause of those
present.
Many other such things are recorded.
Some of these things I suggest were through direct demonic
involvement, but most I view as due to hypnotism or suggestion
of some sort. Does not the acceptance of such things indicate a
dullness of discernment?
The same generalised sense applies to Paul's comments about 'the
common good'. God's giftings are not of an individual mystical
experiential nature, but are cognitive, communicable,
understandable, practical, and orientated to the benefit/edification
of the community of believers.
It is asked, 'Why would you need the gift of discerning spirits
unless not every spirit that was active was the Holy Spirit?' I
think it is reasonable to think that when Paul refers to
'distinguishing between spirits', he is not just thinking of demons
but 'spirits' in a more generalised sense as well - 'spirits' in the
sense of 'the spirit of the age', or in the sense of the philosophy or
motivation that rules in a particular situation.
True spirituality has to do with obedience to God's clearly
revealed commands. In his first letter, the Apostle John,
specifically spoke against forerunners of the gnostics who merged
Greek spirituality with Christianity. He continually defined love which Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13 is the highest expression of
115
spirituality - in terms of the law of God. The gnostic tendency,
which is very widespread today, was to define love and
spirituality in ethereal, non-specific terms. Paul, like John, brings
it right down to earth. Spirituality in meetings is not expressed in
highly personal, mystical flights of fancy, but by love and
consideration shown to each other. This includes ensuring others
are edified through the practical consideration of whether or not
the majority understand the language you speak.
Discernment of spirits is needed because false spirituality is
contrary to God and needs to be discerned. All sorts of voices are
calling us all the time from all sorts of places and seeking to
convince us they are right. Even if it did come to the discernment
of particular demonic spirits who were influencing people in
various ways, such discernment does not apply only within a
particular congregation. I spoke out about the Toronto Blessing
because I discerned what was occurring was not from God. I
discerned alien spirits in both a generalised and particular sense.
It may have been hypnotism or direct demonic activity, but
whatever the case, I'm satisfied 'the spirit of it' was not from God.
My 'discernment' however was not appreciated by all!
It is claimed that a pattern can be seen developing through
chapter 12 with constant references to spirits and inspiration. To
be frank, I do not see any such pattern. There are not constant
references to spirits at all - nor to inspiration. There are some
references but they don't overpower me by their number.
Then there is the 'bombshell' which is said to occur in 12:31. If it
is an imperative - a command from Paul to the Corinthians, 'But
eagerly desire the greater gifts', then it is not a 'bombshell' at all.
The NIV has the indicative rendering in the margin, i.e. a
statement of what they were doing: 'But you are eagerly desiring
the greater gifts', but the imperative in the text. Now I wouldn't
make too much of that given some criticisms I make of the NIV
text, but in this case I think they are right. It is the final statement
in a long section referring to the various abilities God has given
to the church. Given that it is an imperative, and taking note of
the immediate context, the Corinthians clearly were not being
concerned about the 'greater gifts' Paul had spoken of. The
116
'greater gifts' were teaching and prophecy, and were 'greater'
because they brought about the edification of the church.
The context is very ordinary. It is not about inspiration, nor
dealing with spirits. It is simply that they were not getting on with
each other, nor allowing place or space for each other. The
context, which is mostly Paul's illustration of the body, is
summed up in 12:24b-25:
But God has combined the members of the body and
has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so
that there should be no division in the body, but that
its parts should have equal concern for each other.
This context argues for v31 being an imperative. The context
further on is also consistent with this. Both chapters 13 and 14 are
an extension of the call for people to be considerate of each other
in the meetings of the church.
A friend who is familiar with Greek, and who holds a variation of
the 'two-problem' view, said that while there is ambiguity in
12:31, he considers it favours the imperative reading. He agrees
the word 'gifts' is not in 12:1, and that what we are dealing with is
spirituality as a general category. This friend says the same
applies in 12:10 where he thinks that 'distinguishing between
spirits' is an allusion to 12:1. He is not inclined to think Paul
would talk of proto-gnostic inspiration etc., as 'greater gifts', and
neither do I. However my primary reason for accepting the
imperative reading is because the term concludes a paragraph
where Paul lists in order of importance, a number of
'gifts/abilities' with which God has endowed his people. The first
abilities or roles mentioned in this list are those which produce
the most edification in the church and thus are the most to be
desired for promoting the spiritual health of the church. Paul then
calls for them to pursue the greater of these abilities.
In short, chapter 12 is not dealing with pagan religious thought
and practice coming into the church. Rather it is about
consideration for each other in general (v25), as an introduction
to consideration for each other in the particular situation of
church meetings. The body image has this consideration in mind,
117
as does Paul's desire that the Corinthians accept each others'
abilities. Chapter 13 extends this idea even further.
This brings us to 14:12. 'Zealotai' is a noun, but apparently it is
an unusual construction in the Greek. Because of this, translating
it as a verb, that is 'you are zealous', does justice to the sense.
Once again the term 'spiritual gifts' (no word 'gifts') is spirituality
in general - as a category.
Now the further one goes through chapters 12 through 14 without
finding the claimed pattern, the harder it is to maintain the twoproblem thesis. If is not established by the beginning of chapter
14 then I think it is all but dead. That I think is the case. Nor to I
think chapter 14 supports it either, making the whole idea
untenable.
The view suggests that because Paul is addressing a non-shared
language problem and an ecstatic vocalisation problem in the
same passage, we should be able to detect characteristics of both
in the text. I say it is only a non-shared language problem that is
in view, and therefore everything in the passage should be
consistent with this.
The antecedents of 'languages' in chapter 14, are the references to
'languages' in chapters 13 and 12. The immediate antecedent is in
13:8, which, as I have argued elsewhere, refers to a 'message in a
language' - that is, a message to the church in a foreign language.
It is one of three types of messages given to the church which
Paul contrasts with love in terms of lasting value and overriding
importance.
The next antecedent is in 13:1. I don't think pagan practices are
being alluded to in this reference to angelic language, because it
is 'language' he refers to, and he makes no negative comment
about it. It could be inferred that 'the banging gongs and clanging
cymbals' are reference to pagan processions or temple worship,
which may be so. Nevertheless they are actual languages Paul
refers to, not just presumed languages.
Earlier antecedents are found in ch 12vv. 30, 28 and 10. Every
one of these references to languages clearly does not refer to
ecstatic vocalisation because they are described as God-given
118
abilities. There is not the slightest suggestion of pagan influence
relating to the languages mentioned in chapter 12.
Thus not one of the antecedents of 'languages' in chapter 14 refers
to ecstatic vocalisation. To abruptly change to an entirely new
meaning of the word without warning is, to say the least, a rather
peculiar way to do things, and I think uncharacteristic of Paul.
Further, having just done a comparison between love and three
types of messages in the church, he moves down a notch in the
importance stakes and does another comparison. This time it's the
relative values of prophecy and languages within church
meetings. As both of these are mentioned together in chapter 13,
and further back in chapter 12, I see no reason why he should not
be referring to precisely the same things in chapter 14.
Let's look briefly at the various things in chapter 14 claimed
earlier for the 'two-problem' view, but do so now from my
position:
•
•
•
•
14:2 describes 'perfectly' someone speaking in a language
which others do not understand.
The term 'mystery' I do not think is a reference to 'mystery
religions'. Given the context, 'mystery', meaning, 'known only
to the initiated', fits foreign language speaking perfectly.
Verse 4. A foreign language edifies the speaker. Just because
12:7 says, 'the manifestation of the Spirit is for the common
good', this does not mean a person speaking their mother
tongue does not edify themselves when doing so. Moreover,
an ability in speaking various languages - and interpreting
them, may be of great benefit to a multi-lingual church.
It is said that Paul argues that ecstatic vocalisation is inferior
to prophecy. If ecstatic vocalisation is what the view claims it
is - the highest manifestation of Greek mystery religions - he
would not argue that. He would argue it is wrong, not inferior.
However, if he is alluding to foreign languages, he could say,
given that the context is the edification of the church, that the
ability to speak foreign languages is inferior to
communicating Biblical content to the church.
•
•
119
14:5. I see no indication that Paul turns at this point to speak
about linguistic abilities, because the context indicates that
this has been his topic all the time. Paul has been comparing
languages with prophecy in vv2, 3 and 4, and here he does so
again in v5. The comparisons are the same sort of
comparisons and they all flow together very nicely. I'm saying
he endorses language speaking at the start of v5 so as to
indicate he is not rejecting foreign language speaking in some
parochial way, or in principle, by what he had just said.
Rather he is only rejecting some particular situations of
foreign language speaking.
Paul says the languages can be interpreted, indicating they are
normal languages he is referring to. Of course the twoproblem view says the same thing, having made the switch.
Verse 5 absolutely requires normal language. So if you start
off the chapter with ecstatic vocalisation, you must make the
switch somewhere to end with normal languages. If like me,
you say normal languages are in view all the way through,
there is no need for a switch! The switch idea is forced and
butchers a straightforward interconnected paragraph.
Moving from the first section to the second (vv6-12), Paul now
introduces a series of comparisons, each of which applies to
foreign languages, just as well as, or better than, ecstatic
vocalisation.
•
•
•
•
v6: Applies equally.
v9: Applies better. Verse 9 says:
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words
saying?
The latter part of this verse indicates that something really is
being said, but that it is the hearers who find it unintelligible.
This is to be expected where people speak a language others
do not understand. It is not that the words are unintelligible
because they have no meaning (in that case they would not be
120
words at all), rather that the hearers don't understand the
meaning. Therefore v9 is not referring to 'an improper use of
the tongue' as suggested.
• Verse 10: Applies better. Paul is alluding to speech that is
already occurring. The languages being spoken are some of
those he refers to as, 'all sorts of languages in the world', each
one of which he says has meaning.
• Verse 11: Applies better. By using the term 'foreigners', Paul
clearly indicates he is not referring to anything like ecstatic
vocalisation.
• Verse 12: While it is not part of the comparison, it applies
better because Paul does not condemn the Corinthians, only
suggests they could do better at the task of edifying the
church.
In summary, I am not convinced by the claim that the illustrations
describe ecstatic vocalisation, rather than normal language.
Given that I don't think the case for the 'two-problem' view has
been made by chapter 14:12, its understanding of the next section
(vv13-19) loses weight. Further, v14 is connected to v13 by 'for',
thus showing v14 to be an elaboration of v13. Verse 15 begins
'So...' or 'therefore', beginning Paul's solution to the problem he
has outlined in vv13-14. Verses 16 and 17 are further elaboration
of this idea. Thus all of the verses from 13 through to 17 are tied
together and have interpretation involved because interpretation
is mentioned in v13. As soon as you have interpretation you have
normal languages! With interpretation connected to those verses,
the two-problem view dies.
Of course, in v17 Paul says, 'you may be giving thanks well
enough', indicating he has no inherent objection to what they are
doing. The problem he has is that others don't understand and
thus aren't edified. If he was referring to ecstatic vocalisation he
would not endorse it, either like this, or by his own practice
which he refers to in vv18-19.
Verse 20 is significant because Paul encourages the Corinthian
believers to stop thinking like children and to grow up. If he was
referring to ecstatic vocalisation he would not say that. If that was
what they were involved with he would not describe it as
121
childishness but heresy. It would not just be a case of becoming
mature, but of getting very serious errors out of their heads and
out of the church!
The position's understanding of vv21-25 follows suit. If the 'twoproblem' view is not established by v21, then it isn't established at
all. In isolation, its treatment of these verses - at least from v22 seems like it could fit and resolve the apparent contradictions
they contain. However it breaks down through not having any
persuasive links to the earlier part of the chapter. The quote from
Isaiah 28:11-12, which begins the section, emphatically refers to
normal human languages normally spoken and therefore has no
connection whatsoever to ecstatic vocalisation. To claim that Paul
uses this Isaiah quote to say that 'unintelligible languages' are 'a
bad thing' which do not lead people to greater obedience, and that
therefore 'Old Testament precedent is against unintelligible
languages', is an irresponsible distortion of the text.
For a start, the quote is not talking about 'unintelligible
languages', meaning non-language or meaningless sounds. The
speech of the Assyrian troops was quite intelligible even if not to
the Israelites. Rather, the quote is referring to uninterpreted
languages, something very different to meaningless sounds. Nor
does the quote suggest the languages referred to were 'a bad
thing'. Nor were they intended to increase obedience. It was the
people who heard but did not understand who were bad, and it
was because of this badness or lack of obedience on their part that
God's patience ran out and he brought this foreign languagespeaking army down upon them. Therefore this quote does not in
any way create an Old Testament precedent against 'unintelligible
languages'. The sentence immediately after the quote ties the
languages outside the quote to those inside the quote, thus
identifying the languages in vv22-25 as being normal human
languages.
Further, the text does not say that the sign is 'a sign of the
presence of God'. In fact it doesn't say what the sign is a sign of at
all. However its meaning does seem to be determined to some
degree by the content of the quote, that is judgment on unbelief,
even if it is not exactly the same. This being so, it is unjustified to
122
give it an explicitly pagan meaning which it would have if the
'two-problem' view is correct.
The remaining references in the chapter - vv26, 27, 28, 39 - are
all accepting of languages and therefore cannot be referring to
ecstatic vocalisation. In fact the ordinariness of what is being
addressed comes out in this last section. It is Paul's summary of
his discussion. He pulls the threads together and there is not the
slightest implication of ecstatic vocalisation. It is simply that each
one comes to the meeting with their contribution, and if that
contribution is a message or a prayer in a foreign language, then
it needs to be interpreted so the church can be edified. Edification
is the overriding theme, not suppression of pagan thought and
practice. His very last comment (v40) highlights again the
ordinary nature of what he has been addressing.
Everything should be done in a fitting and orderly
way.
It is order and the appropriateness of how things are done in the
church, which are the focus of his comments, not pagan heresy.
To be frank, if someone teaching in a church today mixed
together two things in the manner that the 'two-problem' view
claims Paul does in chapter 14, then I would call them utterly
irresponsible. Nothing but confusion could result. As I do not
accept that Paul was irresponsible, I cannot envisage him doing
this most unhelpful thing.
The case I do not think is made, thus I reject it.
6
1 Corinthians 14 Applied
G
iven that the Gospel is for all humanity, and given that
humanity is now divided up into thousands of language
groups, it is inevitable that many local churches will be
made up of people having different languages. The question I
would pose is, "Has God given us any instruction on how to deal
with the problem of multiple languages being used in the meetings
of a local congregation?" Huge numbers of Christians would say
"No, he has not." This is hardly surprising. They have accepted the
charismatic position regarding 'tongues' and therefore as far as they
are concerned, 1 Corinthians 14 has nothing to do with the use of
multiple or foreign languages in a church. What is surprising is that
many non-charismatics would also say "No". Most of them assume
that 1 Corinthians 14 deals with the control of a supernaturallygiven 'gift of human languages' and therefore is not relevant to
normal multi-lingual situations.
No commentator that I have read applies this chapter to the
common situation of multi-lingual churches. Now it may be
thought the method of dealing with multi-lingual situations is selfevident. What needs to happen, as Paul says over and over, is for
translation of the various languages to occur so that people at the
meetings of the church can understand what is said and so be
edified. It sounds so simple and straightforward, and in some cases
it may be. But in others it may not be. In my experience there are
some minefields around which threaten to blow away any simple
123
124
solution to the situation. But if there is one chapter in the Bible
dealing with this issue, 1 Corinthians 14 is it. There is simply no
other place where instruction of this type is given. And given the
thesis I have developed, I would say emphatically that this is what
this chapter is all about. It is God's own instruction for addressing
what can potentially be a very sensitive and divisive issue.
First of all I'll spell out the attitudes Paul had to various languages,
and the instructions he gave about their use in church meetings.
Then I'll look at one significant minefield I have come across.
1.
Paul accepts all languages as languages. As he says, '...there
are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without
meaning'(v10). He also thanks God that he knows more languages
than any of the Corinthians (v18), though he would like them to all
have a similar ability (v5). In v17, while the focus is not on the
language but on the prayer, nevertheless he says the person praying
in a foreign language is 'giving thanks well enough', indicating there
is nothing intrinsically wrong with such a prayer. In his conclusion
Paul makes a definite place for contributions in a foreign language,
again indicating his acceptance of language as language.
This is a very elementary Biblical idea and derives from the concept
of humans being made in the image of God. Part of that image is
our ability to communicate in language. God is a user of language.
He has even built it into his physical creation, putting language
right at the centre of biological life. Living things are in one sense
defined by the concepts written on the genetic language system
within them. Language is essential to biological life. It is also
essential to what it means to be human.
At the beginning, humanity only had one language. Multiple
languages were introduced later at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11)
with the intention of limiting the potential of fallen humanity for
evil, as well as providing an instrument for dispersing our ancestors
across the earth. Babel is often thought of as a judgment, and it was.
But it was also a blessing. Anything that limits evil is a blessing.
However, what is important for us here is that Babel didn't change
the essential nature of human language as an aspect of the image of
God. It simply diversified the expression of the image.
Chapter 6 – 1 Corinthians 14 Applied
125
There is no record of what the pre-Babel language was, or if that
language continued into the post-Babel situation. However, if the
original language did continue - and if it was known which
language it was - it would be tempting for speakers of that language
to see themselves and their language as superior to others. After all,
imagine possessing and speaking the language which originated in
the perfection of Eden - as opposed to all those other languages
which originated much later in response to evil! 158 Biblically, all
languages need to be affirmed as valid, and Paul does this.
2.
In regard to church meetings, Paul is evidently working
from the following principle: Get as many people as possible to
understand as much as possible. Paul spells this out by his
insistence that languages be interpreted for those who do not
understand them.
3.
This aforementioned principle provides some constraints.
Paul says that the foreign language contributions should be limited
to '...two - or at the most three...' (v27). Otherwise the principle
would be violated - the majority of the congregation would be
sitting through extensive periods during which they would not
understand a thing. 1 Corinthians 14 is clearly speaking to a
situation where there was a dominant language group, and 'foreign
language' speakers - that is, foreign to the dominant language group
- made up only a relatively small part of the congregation. I think
this would be the normal multi-lingual situation. Paul limits foreign
language participation, but certainly allows them to participate, if
what is spoken is interpreted. He explicitly states '...do not forbid
speaking in languages' (v39). However he doesn't say anything
about the dominant language being translated for the benefit of the
foreign language speakers. His approach would not exclude this
happening to one side of the meeting, but he doesn't seem to
consider that general translation of everything spoken in the
dominant language is required.
4.
Paul does not limit the type of participation allowed by the
speakers of foreign languages. The chapter refers to speaking in a
foreign language (vv2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 19, 23, 27, 28, 39). Obviously,
'speak' is a generic term which can include all forms of spoken
expression, but sometimes in the chapter it refers to prophecy,
126
particularly in v5. This involves speaking which is directed to the
church. Praying - speaking to God - is also mentioned (vv4, 15, 16,
17) as is singing (v15). Paul's general insistence on interpretation
covers all of these. It is easier to imagine translation of speaking
and praying than it is for singing. Perhaps foreign language
speakers would sing one of their songs and then give a spoken
translation. We are given no idea what conventions they used in
respect of singing.
5.
If there is no one present capable of interpreting a particular
language, then participation in that language was forbidden. Paul
refers to either the person who is speaking doing the interpretation
(v14) or someone else doing it (v27). Either way, if the person
himself can't interpret, or there is no interpreter, then he '...should
keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God' (v28).
6.
Paul's comments about preferring to speak five words that
were understood rather than ten thousand that were not, indicates
that if he knew the dominant language, he would use it. He is very
clearly not thinking of himself or his own needs, whatever they may
have been, but the edification of others. In fact Paul nowhere speaks
in the language of 'needs'. He explicitly states, 'So what shall I do?
I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.'
As I have already established, he means by this that not only will he
pray so that he understands, but so that others will understand also.
It is the edification of others that primarily concerns him.
Paul was not shy about describing something as ridiculous if it was,
and he says several times in this chapter that some things occurring
were ridiculous. It is ridiculous to speak to people in a language
they cannot understand. If you do, you will just be speaking into
thin air (v9). If you are leading others in corporate prayer, then it is
ridiculous if the hearers can't understand what is said. They can't
say 'Amen' - a word signifying agreement - because they don't
know what is being said.
In this regard I have been in numerous meetings where a person of
a minority ethnic group has prayed in a language I know other
people do not understand. Yet those other people have said 'Amen!',
which is ridiculous. Actually, although the word 'amen' has been
used, its meaning has been changed. It is not now signifying
127
agreement, which is what the word means, but rather support of the
person praying. What is really being said is, 'We accept you,' 'We
affirm you', 'You're doing all right,' - or some similar sentiment. It
no longer has anything to do with endorsing the prayer - which can't
be done because those saying 'amen' don't understand it. It is all
about acceptance, one could suggest paternalistic acceptance, of the
speaker.
Another way of saying that what someone is doing is ridiculous is
to say it is childish and the person needs to grow up. Paul takes this
approach towards the Corinthian believers in v20. And then rather
than say it himself, he puts into the mouth of the inquiring
Corinthians (v23), that speaking without interpretation is not just
ridiculous but madness. As I said in chapter 4, Paul says they were
childish, perverse and mad. Why? Because they were allowing
foreign languages to be spoken in the church without interpretation.
Paul couldn't have said it much stronger. There is simply no point
talking if people do not understand what you say! It is elementary straightforward one would think, but for some people it is not!
Minefields are dangerous places. A careless step can trigger all
sorts of mayhem. I recognise I am not only pointing out a minefield
in what I'm going to say but also entering it. Because of this I want
to emphasise before I start, that with Paul and the rest of Scripture, I
accept all languages as languages, and I do not view any language
as superior to any other. If I trigger any mines, it is certainly not my
intention.
The primary minefield I have come across (and I speak here of the
New Zealand situation in the decades of the 1980's-90's), involves a
move from understanding languages as means of communication,
to seeing them as crucial elements of either personal or group
identity or worth. By 'identity' I am not referring simply to the
identification of an ethnic group by their language. I am referring to
'identity' in the sense of being the beliefs we have about ourselves
in our essential being and of our place in the scheme of things,
which allow us to view ourselves as having significance, value,
worth and meaning.
When language is viewed in this way as being an essential element
of who I am, or of what my ethnic group is, then anything I
128
perceive as putting my language into a secondary place in
comparison with another one, will be offensive. My justified
response will be, "To not use my language equals failure to accept
me or my ethnic group as equals. It is gross cultural insensitivity
and I will tell you so. I insist on using my language whether you are
familiar with it or not." In a climate where these sentiments prevail,
Paul and his comments in 1 Corinthians 14 are about as far from
being politically correct as you can get!
I will give an illustration. It is close to home for me but I imagine a
similar thing may be faced in other countries. I hope I will not be
misunderstood. New Zealand had been peopled by numerous Maori
tribes for around 800 years by the time Europeans began arriving in
the early 1800's. Strong tribes dominated weaker ones, with
cannibalism being widespread. Among the earliest Europeans were
missionaries who carried out very effective work. A truly
indigenous expression of the faith developed with huge numbers of
Maori people becoming Christians. The warfare that had been
endemic began to reduce as a result of the influence of the Gospel.
The evangelical missionaries who were establishing the indigenous
churches could see that the Maori people were seriously threatened
by the increase in numbers of settlers from Great Britain arriving
wanting to acquire land. Land was held by the tribes as a whole and
not by individuals. For land to be sold, the tribe had to authorise the
sale.
In the early years of European settlement, land sales didn't seem to
pose a problem because Maori outnumbered the Europeans.
However as more and more settlers arrived wanting land, it became
a very real problem. Many tribes did not want to sell land, yet there
was an insatiable demand for it from the European settlers. The
missionaries considered a Treaty with the British Crown as a means
of protecting the Maoris from unscrupulous Europeans, and so were
instrumental in persuading many Maori Chiefs, in 1840, to sign the
'The Treaty of Waitangi', which is often referred to as New
Zealand's founding document. The Treaty was translated into Maori
by one of the leading evangelical missionaries, Henry Williams,
and it was signed by many (about 500), but not all Maori chiefs,
and by Governor William Hobson, representing the British Crown.
129
The Treaty was viewed by Maori as a religious covenant. One
young chief said to the British, 'If your thoughts are towards Christ
as ours are, we shall be one.'159 There were two versions of the
Treaty; an English and a Maori one. They differed at a crucial
point. The English version had Maori cede Sovereignty to the
British Queen and thus made New Zealand a British colony. The
Maori version had Sovereignty retained by the Chiefs.
As the result of the sale of some land in the Taranaki region by a
Maori who did not have tribal authority to sell land, and because of
the insistence by the Government that the sale was valid (it has
since been acknowledged as invalid), war broke out in 1860
between the Maori and the British. In 1863, at the instigation of the
British, war broke out over the fertile and developed Maori region
of Waikato, south of Auckland. The British, on winning this war,
confiscated large areas of Maori land and thus set the stage for
profound, long-running, and in many cases, quite justifiable
grievances on the part of Maori people. Another unfortunate result
of these land wars was the undermining effect they had on the
excellent mission work undertaken up until the 1840's. Many Maori
became disenchanted with Christianity, and turned away to the
syncretistic religion of Pai Mariri, led by the Maori visionary Te
Ua.
Maori had been beaten in the wars, much of their most productive
land had been confiscated, they had been decimated by the
introduction of various diseases unknown to them prior to the
arrival of the Europeans, they were being diluted ethnically as a
people through intermarriage, and the European population began
to outstrip Maori in numbers. They thus became a minority people.
The Treaty of Waitangi was also increasingly ignored. Maori
children at school were at times forbidden to speak the Maori
language. Education of the young was in English, the Maori
language was discouraged, so all Maori became fluent in English.
Thus, English is today in effect the mother tongue of almost all
Maori.
As has been happening with indigenous cultures world-wide, there
has been a resurgence of Maori culture over the last 10 to 15 years.
This has included a renewed emphasis on the Maori language. The
130
use of the Maori language has become a sensitive issue because
Maori identity is understood to be linked to it. Any unwillingness to
use the Maori language in some situations would be seen by Maori
activists as further oppression like that of the past.
I have been in church meetings where Maori was spoken to people
who did not know Maori. I have been in a gathering where a person
who did not know Maori, delivered a speech of welcome they had
learnt by rote. I attended a hui (a Maori term for a meeting or
conference) on a 'Christian' marae (a 'marae' is a Maori tribal centre
incorporating a 'meeting house' etc) at which the majority of those
present were non-Maori speaking people, yet upward of ninety
percent of the public speaking was done in Maori, with virtually no
attempts at translation. I am convinced situations such as those I
have mentioned should be subject to the guidance Paul gives in 1
Corinthians 14. However, because today such situations have
become politically charged, with the language being used to make
political points regardless of understanding or edification, to
suggest this opens you up to the charge of being culturally
insensitive!
Such issues make it very difficult to implement Paul's injunctions
about the use of non-shared languages in a church, simply because
to attempt such a task would immediately label one politically
incorrect.
7
Acts 2 and Acts 10 Natural Language Speaking
I
n scientific matters, anyone can advance a theory to explain
certain phenomena. With equal right, anyone can critique the
theories that others put up. What is often misunderstood is that a
person who challenges a theory does not need to have a theory of
their own to replace the one they are criticizing. They may see fatal
flaws in another's theory and yet be unable to totally explain things
themselves. In such instances, the theory with the fatal flaws should
be rejected even though no hypothesis exists to replace it.160
As I have indicated, I am convinced that there are fatal flaws in the
Pentecostal/charismatic view of 'tongues'. If I am correct, the
current phenomenon known as 'tongues' should be rejected even if
the reader is not satisfied with the following alternative scenarios
which I propose. A fatally flawed theory should not stand simply by
default.
My treatment of Acts chapters 2 and 10 thus far, has not addressed
all of the questions these chapters present. My intention at the
outset was to deal with the crucial issue of the nature of the
languages mentioned in them. To leave it at that however would be
totally inadequate. Just as many 'buts' rise in objectors' minds in
regards to my treatment of 1 Corinthians 14, they also arise in
relation to my comments about the Acts passages. In this chapter I
131
132
address many of these questions and give a 'natural languagespeaking' scenario for the Pentecost and Cornelius' house situations.
The key objections focus on three verses, the first and most
significant being Acts 2:4:
speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.
The other two verses are Acts 2:7 and 8:
Utterly amazed, they asked, "Are not all these men who
are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us
hears them in his own native language?"
Most people today, charismatic and non-charismatic alike, have
been so profoundly influenced by the idea that some sort of
language miracle occurred in the Acts 2 situation that they are blind
to any other possibilities. As a result it is almost universally
accepted that the 'other languages' were unlearned and unknown to
the speakers. However, even a superficial reading of the passage
shows this is not stated in the text nor demanded by it.
To be sure, the idea that the disciples spoke languages they had
never learnt is one possibility, but it is not the only one. Yet this
idea has been so dominant in recent years as to almost completely
exclude all other possibilities. In short, the 'enabling' of 'the Spirit'
could well have been something other than the ability to speak a
language which they had not learnt.
There are numerous questions that need to be addressed in
understanding the background to Act 2. For example:
1. When the passage refers to 'other languages', which languages
are being referred to?
2. To clarify this further, which languages did the 'God-fearing
Jews from every nation under heaven' (2:5) speak? Do the
geographical regions and people-groups mentioned (vv. 9-11)
help us to answer this?
3. In this regard, which language were the 'other languages' being
compared with?
Chapter 7 – Acts 2 and 10 - Natural Language Speaking
133
4. Was there anything significant about the language with which
the 'other languages' were being compared? If so, what was
significant and why?
5. Where precisely did the events of Acts 2 occur? Was this
location relevant to the various languages spoken?
6. When Acts 2:4 states that the Holy Spirit 'enabled' the disciples
to speak in 'other languages', what was the nature of this
enablement?
7. Were the disciples all Galileans as some people thought?
8. What was it that 'amazed and perplexed' some of the people?
Was it simply that they heard people they thought were
Galileans, speak in their own dialects, or were there also other
factors?
9. Why was it that some people, on hearing the languages spoken,
accused the speakers of being drunk?
10. Why, in regard to this charge of drunkenness, did Peter refer to
nine in the morning' (the third hour)?
Perhaps these questions have occurred to you, perhaps not. I hope
you find the answers I provide stimulating and compelling.
What were the 'other languages' which the disciples spoke? Is there
any way of knowing? Yes, there is, and the passage provides this
information. Verse 5 states that staying in Jerusalem were 'Godfearing Jews from every nation under heaven'. In vv8-11 these
people are recorded as saying:
8. “...How is it that each of us hears them [the disciples]
in his own native dialect? Parthians, Medes and
Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and
Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia,
Egypt and parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from
Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans
and Arabs - we hear them declaring the wonders of God
in our own languages!”
These Jews were members of 'the Diaspora' or 'the Dispersion'.
After the siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzer in about 587 BC,
134
most of the Jews who survived the conquest were taken from their
land and relocated in provinces of Babylon; i.e. modern-day Iraq.
Some of the exiles returned with Nehemiah and re-established their
national identity. Their descendants were those who were in Israel
at the time of Christ. The dominant theological views of these latter
people were those held by the Pharisees and the Sadducees to
which the New Testament refers. The Pharisees were orthodox in
belief (Acts 23:8), legalistic in practice (Matthew 23), and
convinced of the spiritual superiority of the Jews (Romans 2:1720). The Sadducees were the liberals who rejected the authority of
the Scripture (Acts 22:8). They were the humanists and pragmatists
of the day. A limited number of the population were true to the
Lord but apparently they were not great in number nor had much
influence. However we do know that two of them, Nicodemus, and
Joseph of Arimathea, were members of the ruling Jewish Council,
the Sanhedrin.
Many Jews did not return from 'the exile' but went further afield
and eventually established Jewish colonies in all corners of what
eventually became the Greek and later the Roman Empire. They
became known as 'the Diaspora' - those who had been widely
dispersed or scattered from the motherland of Israel. They
established synagogues as centres for their religious life, and
although they retained their religious identity, they adapted to local
cultures. Because of the importance of Jerusalem, the temple, and
the regular feasts, Jews from many parts travelled to Jerusalem for
the celebrations. The majority came from throughout Israel and
countries nearby as would be expected, but many of the Jews of the
Diaspora also came. The biggest celebration was Passover during
which the population of Jerusalem increased to about two million.
The next most significant was the Feast of Pentecost which
occurred six weeks after Passover.
The Diaspora was divided into two halves, the eastern and western
halves, and it was also divided along language lines. The eastern
Diaspora spoke Aramaic or dialects of Aramaic, and the western
Diaspora, Greek. The western Jews were also called Hellenistic161
Jews.
135
By the first century, the Hebrew language was largely a dead
language, confined to liturgical use and religious debates, that is, to
the 'cultic' aspects of life, even in the land of Israel itself. Aramaic
had become the language of Israel, and was the everyday language
of Jesus and the Apostles. Greek was largely the language of trade,
commerce and administration.162
The geographical regions and people-groups mentioned in Acts 2
basically conform to both the eastern and western Diaspora. Jews
who were residents of Mesopotamia did not speak 'Mesopotamian',
visitors from Rome did not speak 'Roman', and those from Judea
did not speak 'Judean'. Rather, Parthian and Median Jews, and Jews
from Elam, Mesopotamia and Judea, spoke Aramaic, while those
from Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya
and Crete, spoke Greek. Jews from Arabia most likely also spoke
Greek, and while visitors from Rome would have spoken Latin, and
most likely Greek.
I consider it significant that John 19:19-20 states:
Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It
read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE
JEWS. Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place
where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign
was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
John 19:20 indicates that many of the Jews could read the notice
because it was written in these three languages, and significantly,
that is was not written in Hebrew. 163
Greek, Aramaic and Latin - or dialects thereof - were the common
languages of most of the people present on the Day of Pentecost.
Consequently, the number of 'other languages' spoken need only
have been two or three, or dialects of them.164
The next question to be addressed is: what language were Aramaic
and Greek and Latin, being compared with? The only real candidate
for this is Hebrew, which, although largely a dead language as far
as everyday use went, was the language of the religious life of the
Jews.
136
Before we proceed further, there is one particularly relevant point
that must be established. Where did the events described in Acts 2
occur? If they occurred in the temple, as I believe they did, then a
significant though little noted socio-linguistic factor could very well
account for some of the events that are reported as having occurred.
So where did the events described in Acts 2 occur? Acts 2:2 states:
Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind
came from heaven and filled the whole house where they
were sitting.
What was 'the...house' referred to here? I'm of the view that 'the
house' was in fact the temple, for the following reasons.
1. The temple was known as 'the house of the Lord'. There are
innumerable such references in the Old Testament, although
admittedly less in the New. Some examples from the New
Testament are Luke 19:46, John 2:16-17 and Acts 7:47-49.
2. Acts 2:2 describes the disciples as being seated. Verse 14 says
that Peter stood up and addressed the assembled crowd. It does
not say that he rushed out into the streets. In other words, Peter
had not moved from where he was seated as described in v2. A
private dwelling is obviously not being referred to. The crowd
was not in a private dwelling, the crowd was in the temple, at
9am, the time of prayer.
3. Verse 46 says, "Every day they continued to meet in the temple
courts", i.e. they had been meeting in the temple courts, and they
continued to do so.
4. Luke 24:53 says that after the Lord went back to heaven the
disciples '...stayed continually at the temple, praising God.'
Pentecost occurred a week after the ascension and they had been
told, '...stay in the city until you have been clothed with power
from on high', because '…in a few days you will be baptized
with the Holy Spirit' (Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:5). They did stay in
Jerusalem, and it seems like the temple was where they waited,
at least some of the time. (In Acts 1:13, the eleven, and possibly
a few others, are said to have been 'staying' – referring to their
housing arrangements – in an upstairs room.)
137
5. There were approximately 120 disciples so if they were in
someone's house, it would have had to have been a large one.
The courts of the temple however posed no space constraints on
120 people.
On the basis that the temple, the religious/cultic centre of the Jewish
nation, was the place where the events described in Acts 2 occurred,
and since the native languages of most Jews present at the temple
on the day of Pentecost were either Aramaic or Greek, then the
little-known socio-linguistic factor I mentioned earlier can explain
much of what is described. This socio-linguistic factor is defined in
a paper by Bob Zerhusen published in the Biblical Theology
Bulletin (vol. 25, Fall 1995, No. 3), pp. 118-130. I will quote
several sections at length and comment on them. 165 I had arrived at
essentially the same position outlined by Zerhusen before having
seen his paper prior to it being published. However, until that time I
had not known that the factor I had recognised had been given a
formal identification. Zerhusen's paper has been by far the most
helpful I have seen in regards to the Acts 2 situation. The notes in
the quotes are Zerhusen's.
The Diglossia Concept.
Chaim Rabin observes that in multi-lingual environments
one or more linguistic patterns are common:
The first is common bilingualism (or multilingualism) caused by the personal circumstances of
the individual: a man may pick up the language of
his neighbours, a merchant that of his suppliers or
customers, in a mixed marriage both parents and
children may correctly use both languages, etc. The
second pattern is that of the lingua franca, people
with different home languages living within a
certain area use for intercommunication one and the
same language, which may be one of the homelanguages of their area or a language from
outside.166
138
Although most scholars are aware of these two linguistic
patterns, the third, described as follows by Rabin, is not as
well known:
The third pattern has in recent times come to be
called diglossia; in it the same community uses two
different languages in its innercommunity activities,
their use being regulated by social conventions. In
most cases, one language is spoken in ordinary
everyday life by everybody, and the other is
employed in formal speech, on formal occasions, in
writing, in religious activities, and the like. We refer
to the more formal language as the upper language
of the diglossia, to the less formal one as the lower.
Diglossia situations are extremely common. They
exist in many European countries as between local
dialect and standard educated language. In a
diglossia, too, not everyone is able to handle the
upper language. In most cases, it is imparted by
some process of formal occasions. 167
The term diglossia was first used in English by Charles
Ferguson: “In its original use, the term applied to cases
where both the upper and the lower language belong to the
same historical language, e.g., literary and colloquial
Arabic.” 168 The concept has since been extended by other
linguists to situations where two different languages make
up the diglossia. 169
Where a diglossia exists, different languages are used for
very different purposes in the community. The upper (or H)
language is reserved for special formal occasions. The
lower (or L) language is used in everyday life.
Ferguson used nine categories to describe diglossia
situations. 170 First, as to the function of the language in the
community: “One of the most important features of a
diglossia is the specialisation of function for H and L. In
one set of situations only H is appropriate and in another
only L.” 171 Since both languages have very specific
functions: “The importance of using the right variety in the
139
right situation can hardly be overestimated. An outsider
who learns to speak fluent, accurate L and then uses it in a
formal speech is an object of ridicule.”172
Second, there is a distinction in prestige between the
“higher” and “lower” languages:
In all defining languages the speakers regard H as
superior to L in a number of respects….Even where
the feeling of reality and superiority of H is not so
strong, there is usually a belief that H is somehow
more beautiful, more logical, better able to express
important thoughts and the like. And this belief is
held also by speakers whose command of H is quite
limited. To those Americans who would like to
evaluate speech in terms of effectiveness of
communication it comes as a shock to discover that
many speakers of a language involved in diglossia
characteristically prefer to hear a political speech or
an expository lecture or a recitation of poetry in H
even though it may be less intelligible to them than
it would be in L. In some cases the superiority of H
is connected to religion. 173
Ferguson noted that diglossias usually involved strong
loyalty to the H language. Proponents of the superiority of
the H language use the following kinds of arguments:
H must be adopted because it connects the
community with its glorious past or with the world
community and because it is a unifying factor as
opposed to the divisive nature of the L dialects. In
addition to these two fundamentally sound
arguments there are usually pleas based on the
beliefs of the community in the superiority of H that
it is more beautiful, more expressive, more logical,
that it has divine sanction, or whatever their specific
beliefs may be. 174
140
First-century Judeans, who believed that Hebrew was the
"Holy Tongue," would have used these kinds of argument
in support of Hebrew as the “Holy Tongue.”
Third, there is a literary heritage connected to the H
language: “In every one of the defining languages there is a
sizable body of written literature in H which is held in high
esteem by the speech community, and contemporary literary
production in H by members of the community is felt to be
a part of this otherwise existing literature.” 175 The Torah
written in Hebrew has always been highly revered by the
Judeans and their Jewish successors.
Fourth, there is the method of acquisition of particular
languages:
L is invariably learned by children in what may be
regarded as the "normal" way of learning one's
mother tongue. H may be heard by children from
time to time, but the actual learning of H is chiefly
accomplished by means of formal education,
whether this be traditional Qur'anic schools, modern
government schools, or private tutors. This method
in acquisition is very important. The speaker is at
home in L to a degree he almost never achieves in
H. 176
This is precisely where the Diaspora Judean found himself
in regards to his familiarity with Hebrew. He was quite at
home with his mother tongue, Aramaic or Greek, and
Hebrew was reserved primarily for the more educated.
A number of diglossia will be familiar with most readers, as for
example, that associated with Roman Catholicism. Roman
Catholics for centuries have used Latin as the formal or 'high'
language of the church, the language of the Mass and of the scholar.
The local language in any country has been the 'low' language for
Roman Catholics. The fifteenth century reformer William Tyndale
was murdered for violating the ecclesiastical diglossia of his time
through translating the Bible into English. The controversy that
surrounded Galileo Galilei was in part because he violated this
141
same diglossia, only in his case the low language was Italian.
Martin Luther encountered resistance when he wrote theological
works in German. 177 Since Vatican II, the strength of the diglossia
has reduced significantly with the Mass now being said in the 'low'
language. 'Traditionalist' Roman Catholics have dissented from the
general move to liturgy in the vernacular, but they are held in
official disfavour.
Diglossia occurs in the Muslim world with Quaranic Arabic being
the 'high' language and the vernacular of a country being the 'low'
language. This is also the case with Hinduism, Sanskrit being the
'high' language. Some elements of a diglossia even occur within
conservative English speaking Christianity. I have frequently heard
defenders of the King James version of the Bible say it contains a
superior, higher, and more sublime English than more recent
translations, even though some of it sounds highly convoluted to
modern ears and is emphatically not more understandable.178 I have
also heard archaic forms of speech used in addressing God; i.e.
thees and thous, 179 defended in similar ways.
The issue is whether or not there was a Jewish diglossia operating
in the first century AD which provided the background to the Acts
2 events. I will quote Zerhusen again regarding this:
...Charles W. Carter, though he does not make explicit use
of the diglossia concept, nevertheless, in describing the
Judean crowd of Acts 2, describes both the Jewish and
Muslim diglossias:
The objection that the “multitudes” of the dispersion
would not have come to the Feast of Pentecost had
they not known they would get much from a onelanguage observance can hardly be sustained. First,
it was expected, if not actually legally required, of
every Israelite to attend these feasts at Jerusalem
and thus appear before the Lord, if such was within
his ability. Second, religious worship is a greater
influence on men than religious language, important
as is the latter. Third, in like manner every faithful
Moslem is required once in his lifetime, if at all
possible, to make the Pilgrimage to Mecca (the Haj),
142
and longs to do so.…Certainly, a vast percentage do
not understand intelligibly the Arabic language,
even though they may have memorised sections of
the Koran. And even a greater number have no
knowledge of the Arabic language used in the
religious services at Mecca. 180
Besides maintaining that the Feast of Pentecost involved “a
one-language observance” (the liturgy in Hebrew). Carter
thus also refutes, the argument that the Diaspora Judeans who for the most part did not know Hebrew - would not
“get much from a one-language observance.” He does so (1)
by pointing out that Judeans were required to attend the
feasts, (2) by claiming that the validity of religious worship
experiences does not necessarily depend on the
intelligibility of the language used, and (3) by paralleling
the Jewish pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the Muslim
pilgrimage to Mecca.
Without using the term, Carter is clearly referring to one
diglossia situation and is using another diglossia to answer
an objection. Hebrew as the “Holy Tongue”, the religious
language, was the language that the Diaspora Judeans didn't
understand. Using the right language (i.e., the “Holy
Tongue”, Hebrew) for the liturgy at the feast was more
important than intelligibility…
…Other scholars besides Carter, while not using the term
diglossia, nevertheless, have concluded that a Judean
diglossia existed in the first century. Gustaf Dalman,
discussing the persistence of Hebrew among the Judeans,
stated:
Sure as it is that Aramaic was the common language
of the Jews in the time of our Lord, it is also a fact
that Hebrew did not entirely drop out of the life of
the Jewish people. As the "holy tongue" (leshon hakodesh), "God's language" since the creation of the
world, the language of Adam, of Abraham, of
Joseph, and of the Law, Hebrew was still held to be
the real language of Israel. 181
143
Dalman thus recognised that although Aramaic had
superseded Hebrew as the common (L) language of the
Judeans, the people continued to believe that Hebrew was
the H language (“the real language of Israel”).
Martin Hengel recognised that Hebrew was the H language,
with Aramaic and Greek as the L languages: “While
Aramaic was the vernacular of ordinary people, and
Hebrew the sacred language of religious worship and of
scribal discussion, Greek had largely become established as
the linguistic medium for trade, commerce, and
administration.” 182
Henri Daniel-Rops saw a parallel between the use of
Hebrew in Judean culture and the use of Latin in Roman
Catholicism:
But after the return from Babylon the old national
language fell slowly into disuse, being ousted for
everyday use [L language function] by another
dialect [Aramaic]. And since at the same time this
was just the time at which the groups of learned men
of Ezra's day was setting down the Scriptures in
writing, Hebrew becomes “the language of
holiness”, leshon ha-kodesh, or leshon shakamin,
“the language of the learned,” exactly like Latin of
our time. The Law was read in Hebrew in the
synagogues; prayers were said in Hebrew, both
privately and in the Temple. The doctors of the Law
taught in Hebrew. 183
If a diglossia existed among first-century Judeans, we may
have a major clue about the interpretation of the phrase
other tongue in Acts 2:4. Among first-century Judeans the
religious language, leshon ha-kodesh, Hebrew, was the
language which both Palestinian and Diaspora Judeans
expected to hear in the temple liturgy, during the feast of
Pentecost…
…Instead of leshon ha-kodesh, the disciples of Jesus,
inspired by the Holy Spirit, began speaking in “other
144
tongues” (i.e., languages other than Hebrew). The speakers
spoke Aramaic and Greek, languages they knew, languages
which were simultaneously the native languages of the
crowd assembled in Acts 2.
As this material indicates, it appears that a Jewish diglossia existed
in the time of the Lord, with Hebrew as the 'holy language' and
Aramaic and Greek dialects being the normal languages of the
majority of Jews. If this was the case and is the background to the
events described in Acts 2, how does this relate to the 'enablement'
of the Spirit (v4), and what are we to make of the bewilderment,
amazement, and the statements of the Diaspora Jews (vv. 7-8) - and
the charge of drunkenness (v13) made by some?
I maintain that the Holy Spirit enabled the disciples to overcome
severe cultural restraints imposed by the prevailing diglossia. 184
Being at the temple, the very centre of the religion of Judaism, the
conventions governing the use of the diglossia languages would be
very strong and thus there would be powerful cultural restraints
preventing the violations of these conventions. Quite simply, it is
not the done thing to flout social conventions. To violate these ones
would be reprehensible and outrageous and could provide the
reason some mocked and said the disciples were drunk. Only
inebriated people would be so insensitive to the established rules of
behaviour. If Jewish cultural restraints were going to occur
anywhere it would have been in Jerusalem and especially in the
temple precincts.
But how does this address the responses to what happened? Doesn't
what the Diaspora Jews said indicate they heard more than just
languages they shared with the disciples? After all, they seemed to
think Galileans should not have known the languages spoken.
Admittedly, there is some weight in this argument, but I don't think
it necessitates a multiplicity of distinctly different languages, only
an array of Greek and Aramaic dialects which would have been
comprehensible by all Greek or Aramaic speakers.
This however does not fully remove the objection because what
amazed the people was hearing their own dialects being spoken that was how they defined it in verses 6 and 8. Perhaps they could
understand any Aramaic or Greek speaker but it was their own
145
dialect they had heard spoken. But how could this be - if they were
correct in thinking the disciples were all Galileans?
But were they correct in thinking that the disciples were all
Galileans? I don't think so. In this section of the text, the disciples
are identified in two ways; the first, that they were Galileans, and
the second, that they were drunk. The second malicious
identification was not correct and there is no need for the first to be
either, even though the speakers in this case sincerely thought they
were.
Two questions need to be answered. Who spoke the 'other
languages', and if they were not from Galilee, then where did they
come from?
There were one hundred and twenty disciples gathered together. Of
these, who was it that spoke in the 'other languages'? Some have
argued that it was only the twelve apostles. The basis for this idea is
said to be that the antecedent of the term they in Acts 2 vv1-4, is the
twelve apostles as referred to in chapter 1, particularly in the last
statement of chapter 1. The transition from chapter 1 to chapter 2
reads as follows.
1:26. Then they drew lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so
he was added to the eleven apostles.
2:1. When the day of Pentecost came, they were all
together in one place.
Plainly, in chapter 1 from v1 through v14, the term they refers to
the eleven. However at v15 a change occurs in the narrative and
Peter addresses '...the believers (a group numbering about a
hundred and twenty)...' The word they then is used of this group.
Verse 23 begins, 'So they [the 120] proposed two men;...'
Thereafter, in v24 and v26, it refers to the whole group. The
reference to the eleven apostles in v26 is just a statement about
what the hundred and twenty had decided. The antecedent of the
term they in the first four verses of Chapter 2 therefore is not the
eleven apostles but the hundred and twenty disciples.
It is highly unlikely that the hundred and twenty were all from
Galilee. Why then did these visitors to Jerusalem think that the
146
disciples were Galileans? We must consider how much they would
have known about Jesus. They had not come to Jerusalem to follow
Jesus. They had come on a pilgrimage to the geographical centre of
their faith and their minds would have been filled with the
excitement of that. There were no instant news services updating
every event deemed to be important worldwide or even town-wide.
There were no newspapers which people could read to check on
past events, so it is unlikely they would have known much about
Jesus. An insight may be gained by comparing this situation with a
similar one which also involved misunderstanding, that mentioned
in Acts 21:27 through 22:31. In Acts 21 Paul was accused of
teaching against the Jews, the law, and the temple, and to have
defiled the temple by bringing Greeks into it. Actually he had done
none of these things yet he was beaten up by a crowd similar in
composition to that which would have witnessed the Acts 2 events,
and which would have been prone to making the same sort of
assumptions the Acts 2 crowd made.
Why were the disciples all assumed to be Galileans? The idea could
have come from the following factors:
•
The Lord was referred to as 'Jesus, the prophet from
Nazareth in Galilee' by the crowds in Matt. 21:11, and as
'Jesus of Galilee' by the servant girl who talked to Peter at
the Lord's trial in Matt. 26:69.
•
Peter at the trial was identified as one of the Lord's
followers because it was clear he came from Galilee - his
accent gave him away (Matt. 26:73 and Mark 14:70). Both
the Lord and his apostles were identified with Galilee.
•
For those in Judea, the centre of civil government, religion
and learning, Galilee was of little importance. The amount
of feeling that was under the surface is seen in the
interchange involving Nicodemus found in John 7:45-52.
45. Finally the temple guards went back to the chief
priests and Pharisees, who asked them, "Why didn't you
bring him in?"
46. "No one ever spoke the way this man does," the
guards declared.
147
47. "You mean he has deceived you also?" the Pharisees
retorted.
48. "Has any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in
him?
49. No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law - there
is a curse on them."
50. Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who
was one of their own number, asked,
51. "Does our law condemn anyone without first hearing
him to find out what he is doing?"
52. They replied, "Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it,
and you will find that a prophet does not come out of
Galilee."
Most of the Pharisees and Sadducees were hostile to the Lord and
an obvious way to put him down would be to associate him with the
back country area he came from. This would effectively isolate him
from the Judean/Jerusalem establishment, and could easily have
been both a major means of identifying as well as discrediting him.
Consequently, his followers would be associated with Galilee
whether or not they came from there. It is reasonable to assume that
Jews of the Diaspora who were visiting Jerusalem would pick up
this means of identification and make the statement they did, even
though not all the Lord's followers came from Galilee. Such people
would have been amazed to hear those they thought were Galileans,
speaking in their own dialects.
While most Galileans would have been multi-lingual, the text
indicates it is improbable that native born Galileans would have
known the dialects of Aramaic and Greek of the Diaspora. However
it is not necessary to accept that the hundred and twenty were all
Galileans and so it is conceivable that speakers of the various
dialects were included among them.
The Lord Jesus, as the master missionary-strategist, obviously had
in mind the plan which he eventually gave to his disciples just
before he returned to heaven: '...you will be my witnesses in
Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth.' It seems
reasonable to assume that prior to saying this to his disciples, he
was already working towards that end.
148
The Lord could have chosen anyone to fulfill this task regardless of
any training or apparent cultural suitability. But he who endows
every person with their talents or abilities and who works all things
out according to his will, cannot only choose his people, but can
'engineer' if you like, their lives prior to conversion so that on
conversion they can fulfil those tasks he has for them. For example,
think of Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:15) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
If this is so (and it is!), it is most likely that the Lord had the
evangelisation of the world in mind when he chose his initial group
of one hundred and twenty mentioned in Acts 1:15. Perhaps some,
or even many of them, were Jews of the Diaspora.
Such Jews were ideally adapted culturally for spreading the gospel.
They may have known local languages in addition to the Aramaic
or Greek dialects which were their mother tongues. They would
already have been relatively flexible culturally in contrast to the
indigenous Jew. The Pharisees, who believed the 'right' things, were
culturally rigid, and though Peter was not a Pharisee, he is an
example of this cultural rigidity which evidently afflicted much of
the nation (Acts 10 and Galatians 2). The church at Jerusalem is
another example (Acts 11). Of course our cultural background does
not necessarily cast us in cultural concrete as Paul shows us. He
was a Pharisee of the Pharisees and yet under the ministration of
Christ became one of the most culturally flexible of all people.
However, although Paul was trained in Jerusalem and became a
Pharisee of the Pharisees, he was born a Diaspora Jew (Acts 22:23), something which no doubt contributed towards his later cultural
flexibility.
The Jews of the Diaspora then provided ideal people with which to
evangelize the world, and I think it highly reasonable that the Lord
called some of them to fulfill his purposes. Therefore I suggest that
the hundred and twenty disciples at that day of Pentecost consisted
not just of Aramaic speaking indigenous Jews but also a large
number of people who were already fluent in the various dialects of
the Diaspora.
How could the Lord have reached such people? To answer this we
should think about the nature of the times as they were then. The
pace of life was much slower. There were no cars or planes. If they
149
travelled, they would do so by ship (see accounts of Paul's travels in
the latter part of Acts), by horse, horse and cart (see Acts 8 and the
narrative of Phillip and the Ethiopian), or by foot. Therefore, if one
was to travel to Israel, for example, from North Africa, or from
what is now Turkey, or Rome, it would be a major expedition. They
would not just go for a weekend! Rather people would stay a
considerable time when they reached their destination. Travel plans
were also often determined by seasons and prevailing weather.
Paul's sea voyage to Rome was significantly influenced by seasonal
weather (see Acts 27:9-12 & 28:11).
If some of these Diaspora Jews came to Israel on a pilgrimage six
months before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, and were
converted, it seems highly likely they would extend their stay so
that they could be taught by the Lord and learn more of the faith.
(On conversion, Paul went into Arabia for three years to think it all
through.)
I suggest that similar circumstances precipitated the situations we
are told of in Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-5:11, 6:1-7, where thousands of
believers (Acts 2:41, 4:4, 6:22) needed to be housed and fed for
apparently a considerable time - perhaps until the stoning of
Stephen (Acts 7:59-8:3). Many of these were Jews of the Diaspora.
Acts 6:1-6 says that the choosing of the first deacons was triggered
by conflict between local-born Jews and Hellenised or Greek
speaking Jews of the western Diaspora. The latter had come for the
Festivals but had stayed beyond the customary time so as to learn
more of the Lord and share in the fellowship of the believers.
Unlike today when timetables for transport are scheduled down to
the minute, in those days it was of little account whether one went
today, tomorrow or next week or month, provided one could be
housed or fed and had the money to secure these services.
In the light of all these factors I think it is reasonable to suggest that
a large number of the hundred and twenty disciples gathered in
Jerusalem prior to the day of Pentecost, were Jews of the Diaspora.
Consequently, they would have had mother tongues in common
with those of the visitors to the temple that day.
Therefore, I propose the Pentecost situation was as follows:
Jerusalem was full of pilgrims, both Jews and proselytes (non-Jews
150
converted to Judaism) from Israel and from other countries.
Because of cultural influences, they perceived themselves as
spiritually superior to non-Jews. The high language of the Jews,
Hebrew, was perceived as being superior to all other languages, and
because of the prevailing conventions controlling the Jewish
diglossia, the only fitting language suitable for use in the cultic and
liturgical aspects of their religion. The disciples were also immersed
in this cultural perspective. It was the cultural air they breathed. As
we have already noted, Peter was still affected by it for many years.
(See page 154 for an Acts 10 scenario, and also Galations 2:6-21.)
The day of Pentecost arrived and the disciples were gathered
together in the temple courts. They were waiting for the coming of
the Holy Spirit, as the Lord had commanded. There was the sound
(sound only) of an extremely powerful wind, and as it were, flames
"...separated (presumably from some central source) and came to
rest on each of them". The promised Holy Spirit had come in
fulfillment of the Lord's word.
The disciples were astounded! They realized that the Lord they
followed was not confined to the nation of Israel nor was worship
of him confined by the high language of Israel. He was Lord of all
the earth! This Gospel was for all the world! The cultural
constraints controlling expressions of their faith should not
constrain them - there was no 'sacred' language! All languages and
dialects could and should be used to carry this marvellous message
to the very heart of those who spoke them! 185 The disciples' cultural
inhibitions were demolished! The Holy Spirit freed them of these
shackles and they began to do what the Lord had told them - to be
witnesses to Christ and the Gospel.
So immediately, even though in the temple, they disregarded the
cultural constraints and spoke of the marvellous works of God in
the low languages they knew, to those that surrounded them who
understood them. This was amazing and shocking - simply unheard
of! The Diaspora Jews were astonished at the disregard shown to
the rules of conduct, but were inquisitive because they heard their
own dialects being spoken. "What did it all mean?", they asked.
Thinking that followers of 'the Galilean' were all Galilean, they
were taken completely by surprise at the diversity of his followers.
151
Some of those present however, also shocked at the flagrant abuse
of the social and religious conventions, ridiculed them as drunks.
Why else would anyone behave in such an appalling way?
Peter in his speech - apparently a general address to the whole
crowd - answers this malicious charge by simply saying that it was
only nine o'clock in the morning; too early for some people to have
become inebriated enough for this to be a violation of conventions
resulting from drunkenness. Later on in the day perhaps but not this
early. Furthermore, it was the hour of prayer and people who have
come to pray were unlikely to have been drunk.
Peter: a Man Culturally Constrained
There are two other issues I'll consider in conclusion. The first of
these illustrates the cultural restraints impacting on first century
Jews. Peter, caught up in the events described in Acts 2, has no
problem participating in the initial breaking of these shackles. But
over the next few years he regresses to the point that the Lord had
to give him a vision to teach him a lesson about it all over again. In
Cornelius's house he outlines the view that he had held until only
two days before.
Acts 10
27. Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large
gathering of people.
28. He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against
our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him.
But God has shown me that I should not call any man
impure or unclean.
29. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any
objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"
Later on he regressed again, requiring Paul to forcefully rebuke him
publicly for his inconsistent behaviour.
Gal. 2
11. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his
face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat
with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to
152
draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles
because he was afraid of those who belonged to the
circumcision group.
13. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by
their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the
truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all,
"You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a
Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow
Jewish customs?..." [and so on through to v21.]
Now if some may object that I'm making too much of this idea of
cultural restraint, then these two situations need to be carefully
considered. If it be charismatics who object, they need to think of
the powerful 'cultural' restraints that inhibit people from expressing
doubts and misgivings about prophecies or 'tongues' within their
own church.
Who Spoke the 'Other Languages'?
The second issue expands slightly the question of who spoke the
'other languages' at Pentecost. Some would limit it wrongly to the
eleven apostles as I've already discussed. But understood a
Pentecostal way, the claim is made that all spoke, indicating it is
normative for all believers today. From the perspective of my thesis
the question is immaterial. Every person at the temple that day and
every day, spoke as their mother tongue, a language that was an
'other language', one different to Hebrew. I have no need to specify
the number who spoke as either the eleven, or the whole group.
Acts 2:4 states:
speak in other languages...
The question is, does the all in this verse mean 'all without
exception'? I suggest it could be both 'yes' and 'no'. However if it is
being used in two ways at the same time, then the all is being used
in both an absolute or universal sense, and also a relative sense. The
difference between an absolute and a relative statement is this. An
absolute all means every last one - no exceptions. A relative all
means 'most'. If 'every last one of them' were filled with the Spirit
153
but only 'most of them' were involved in the speaking, then we have
an absolute and a relative sense combined. It is not unusual for such
a combination to occur. 'We all went down to the beach and made
sand castles' is still true even if we all went to the beach, but at the
beach some stood around and only talked. Endless qualification or
precision in language can be cumbersome. Furthermore, those who
insist on such precision in normal speech are most frustrating.
Eventually you may simply not want to talk to them! Of course I'm
not advocating lack of precision, but simply a recognition of the
normal conventions of language.
Let's look at two instances in Matthew where all is definitely used
in a relative sense. Matthew 27:1 reads thus:
1. Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders
of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death.
We know here it is a relative all because in Luke 23:50-51 we read:
50. Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the
Council [Mark 15:43 says 'a prominent member of the
Council'], a good and upright man,
51. who had not consented to their decision and action...
Further, John 19:39 tells us that Nicodemus helped Joseph bury
Jesus, and he is described in John 3:1 as also being a member of the
Jewish ruling council. So here are two known exceptions to the allinclusive statement in Matthew 27:1. The second example in
Matthew is in the record of the Lord's arrest. The second half of
26:56 says:
Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.
Yet Mark in 14:54, and Luke in 22:54 tell us that Peter followed
Jesus. Further John 18:15-16 says the following:
15. Simon Peter and another disciple were following
Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest,
he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard,
16. but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other
disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back,
spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.
154
So we have all the disciples deserting Jesus - but two of the eleven
did not!
One further illustration may interest also. The great gospel verse
about human sinfulness, Romans 3:23, 'For all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God', is not even 100% universal! Jesus
is the exception. 186
A footnote in William Whiston's translation of Flavius Josephus'
'Wars of the Jews', is interesting in regard to a non-absolute all. It is
a comment on Chapter XIX where Whiston says,
Here we have an eminent example of that Jewish language,
which Dr Wall truly observes, we several times find used in
the sacred writings; I mean where the words 'all', or 'whole
multitude', &c. are used for the much the greatest part only;
but not so as to include every person without exception; for
when Josephus had said, that 'the whole multitude' [all the
males] of Lydda were gone up to the feast of tabernacles, he
immediately adds, that, however, no fewer than fifty of them
appeared, and were slain by the Romans.
Acts 10:
What Happened at Cornelius's House?
Would foreign language speaking that was just ordinary everyday
speech, be sufficient to account for what is described in Acts 10?
Surely the passage requires the language speaking to be something
discernibly different? To answer these questions, it is necessary to
to remember that this situation was multi-lingual as was that
described in Acts 2. Cornelius was apparently of Italian origin, at
least the unit he commanded was known as the 'Italian Regiment'
which would lead one to surmise he was from Italy. The group he
had called together were 'his relatives and close friends.' Thus it
seems clear that here were a group of Romans - speakers of Latin
and presumably also Greek. (Because of the nature of their military
posting perhaps they had also acquired a working knowledge of
Aramaic.) In other words they were multi-lingual. They were at
least bi-lingual because they conversed with Peter without
difficulty. We aren't told anywhere what languages Peter knew but
155
his mother tongue would have been Aramaic, and he may also have
known some Greek in view of its widespread use. We are not told
what language Peter and Cornelius conversed in.
So we find a group of Romans meeting a group of Christian Jews.
The incident is described from the perspective of Peter and his
friends. 'They heard them speaking in languages and praising
God.' There are two sorts of speech referred to here:
•
speech that Peter and his group understood
•
speech they did not understand.
They must have understood some of what was said because they
identified it as praise of God. Therefore this must have been in a
language known to them. But some of it they did not understand
because it was foreign to them. Thus they could not identify it in
terms of its content.
Is praise of God, that is, saying in some way how marvellous God
is, evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit? If backed up by a
true understanding of and commitment to God and his work, then I
would say it is indeed an indication of the residence in that person
of the Holy Spirit. It is to be expected that a new believer will praise
the Lord in some way, and these people had just minutes previously
become believers in Christ! Cornelius and his family were devout
and God-fearing (Acts 10:2, 22). They had accepted the revelation
of God that they knew of up to that point, but they were not saved
(Acts 11:14). They had become Jewish proselytes, Gentiles who
had adopted the faith of the Jews. This was in spite of the disdain in
which they were held by ethnic Jews (Acts 10:28) even while they
were respected by them (Acts 10:22).
A likely scenario for what occurred is this: Peter and friends entered
the house of Cornelius and Peter addressed the gathered group,
telling them about the Lord, his life, death and resurrection etc.
Cornelius and friends responded to what they heard, accepting it as
an extension and fulfillment of the revelation which they already
believed. They were converted, thus they were 'indwelt
by'/'baptised in' the Holy Spirit at that moment. Overjoyed with
what they had just heard, understood and accepted with enthusiasm,
some of them addressed the Lord directly in their mother-tongue, or
156
turned to their friends and discussed these tremendous things with
them. Some of them, perhaps for the benefit of Peter and his
friends, addressed the Lord, or talked among themselves in their
shared language, Aramaic or Greek. They were filled with the
wonder and joy of having received 'life through repentance' (Acts
11:18). It was very evident to Peter and the others that here were
truly converted people. It is so reminiscent of Acts 2; the multilingual situation and the praise of the wonders of God, though in
this case it was from newly converted people. Another difference
also was that here there were no cultural 'high language/low
language' conventions to break. These people were simply thrilled
that they were saved, and told the Lord so. This is quite sufficient to
have prompted Peter's comment, "The Holy Spirit came on them
as he came on us at the beginning."
8
Why 1 Corinthians 13 is where
it is
N
umerous problems present themselves to a multi-lingual
church; problems that derive directly from the variety of
languages spoken by its members.
1.
The first problem of course is the inability to understand
what others are saying.
2.
Language is one of the major distinguishing features of an
ethnic group. Languages are therefore associated with groups of
people of differing ethnic characteristics. Some ethnic groups for
example may in general be more cognitive than others and some
may be more emotionally expressive. Some groups have a higher
degree of drive, motivation, assertiveness and enterprise, while
others are more laid back and easy going. These characteristics
result from both the personality inheritance of the group, 187 and the
cultural/environmental inheritance, the latter including the spiritual
and intellectual inheritance that has been passed down from
ancestors.
In a community composed of different ethnic groups, it is very easy
for rivalry and suspicion to be generated through a failure to
understand what other groups are saying, and the failure to
understand the different approaches to life. Such a lack of
understanding, aggravated by sin, can produce feelings of
superiority and favouritism regarding one's own culture 188 and
157
158
irritation through to hatred towards those of different cultures. The
contemporary term for such attitudes is 'racism'. 189 Virtually every
period of history has its examples of ethnic conflict, with 'ethnic
cleansing' and the destruction of communities occurring frequently.
Our own time is no exception. 190
3.
A lack of tolerance towards minority language groups can
very easily develop within a church, given the amount of time in
any meeting that can be taken up by interpretation. Time spent not
comprehending may be viewed as a waste of time by those who do
not understand. This 'wasted time' can produce resentment and
intolerance towards any group which causes it.
It is because of such threats to congregational harmony, that Paul
uses the 'unity of the body' image in chapter 12 to show that each
person is important and all are needed. 191 It is also one reason why
he begins his discussion of the use of multiple languages in the
Corinthian church with his famous statement on love.
1 Corinthians 13 is usually wrenched out of context and made to
stand alone. Clearly some aspects of the chapter are generalised
statements about love - nearly always read at weddings - but we
miss what Paul is driving at if we uplift and isolate it from, or
misunderstand, the surrounding chapters. This is not just a nice little
homily on love. The context actually has nothing to do with
marriage. It is all about people within a church community
accepting each other; accepting the differing roles and abilities each
one has, allowing space for the use of different languages in the
church, and providing a basis, I suggest, for dealing with underlying
ethnic/cultural differences.192
Paul knew the enormous potential for misunderstanding - and other
intolerable attitudes - that a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic church faces.
The less Christ-like the people are who make up the church, the
more likely it is that this potential will be realised. The church at
Corinth was not known for its obedience to Christ at the time Paul
wrote, as can be seen from the issues he covered in his letter.
•
•
•
Factionalism (1:10-3:23)
Adoption of non-Christian philosophy (3:18-21)
Disrespect for the apostle (4:18-21 and ch 9)
Chapter 8 – Why 1 Corinthians 13 is where it is
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
159
Incest (5:1-13) and possible general immoral behaviour
(6:12-20)
Lawsuits against each other (6:1-8)
Inappropriate behaviour between husbands and wives and
wrong attitudes to marriage (ch 7)
Unacceptable behaviour relative to the surrounding idolatry,
and insensitivity to other believers in this matter (ch 8)
Inappropriate and insensitive behaviour at the Lord's Supper
(11:2-34)
Competitive self-assertion in respect of the various abilities
of those in the congregation (12 :21)
Insensitivity in the use of the various languages in the
church, indicating possible ill-feeling between the different
ethnic groups in the church (ch 14)
Denial of the fact of the resurrection (ch 15)
Lack of attention to those they were associating with
(15:33).
Would we even classify them as a genuine believing church? While
Paul is reasonably gracious most of the time, it is clear from much
of what he wrote that things were very bad indeed. In a church
characterised by all of these things, there would have been very few
constraints on inter-ethnic rivalries. Therefore before his specific
and practical discussion of how to deal with the language aspect of
such strife, he calls them to think about the priority over all else, of
love.
1 Cor. 13
4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not
boast, it is not proud.
5. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily
angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always
perseveres.
We could apply each of these things to the language problem faced
by the Corinthian church.
160
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Love is patient - when others speak in a language you don't
understand.
Love is kind - is tolerant and considerate of others'
circumstances.
Love does not envy - nor assume other groups are being
treated better than your own.
Love does not boast - nor view your own language and
culture as superior.
Love is not rude - nor lets ethnic grievances be known in
insensitive ways.
Love is not self-seeking - nor do those who love look only
to further their own group's status to the disadvantage or
exclusion of another.
Love is not easily angered - when others don't share your
high opinion of your own culture.
Love keeps no record of wrongs - nor tallies up a list of
ethnic grievances to avenge.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth Ethnic strife with its intolerance, misrepresentations,
innuendoes and denigration, is evil. However the
recognition that all are made in the image of God and equal
before God - and in the church, redeemed by Christ - are
truths to rejoice in.
Love always protects - against misrepresentation and
unjust treatment.
Love always trusts - that people are not speaking behind
your back about you in another language; is not suspicious
of, nor conspiracy-minded in regard to, fellow believers.
Love always hopes - that your fellow believer will be
edified, respected and treated well.
Love always perseveres - even when you don't understand
what others are saying and frustration occurs.
Having established loving consideration as the remedy for intercultural tension, Paul then calls the Corinthian believers to consider
the issue of uninterpreted languages.
Part Two
What
of the
present?
161
162
9
What is the 'Current
Phenomenon'?
H
aving shown that the current charismatic phenomenon
known as 'tongues' has no basis in Scripture, the nettle
needs to be grasped and the question asked, "What then is
this phenomenon and what is its source?" There are, it seems to me,
a total of five options.
1.
It is from God and is supported by Scripture.
2.
It has no Biblical basis, nevertheless it is from God. The
more Biblically-based charismatics would not accept
this as they want their experience grounded in Scripture.
Its apparent grounding in Scripture is the only thing that
makes it appear legitimate. I fail to understand how
anyone who takes the Bible seriously could accept this
as a valid option. 193 194
3.
It is a fake. Pushed to an extreme this would deny the
reality of the phenomenon having its origin anywhere
but in the conscious will of the individual who is out to
deceive. In a milder form it may acknowledge that there
is a real phenomenon that originates outside a person's
conscious will, but also that there are those, who
perhaps through peer pressure or similar, play a copy cat
game and so fake behaviour acceptable to the group.
Within a charismatic group it is very unlikely for
163
Part Two - Tongues Revisited
164
anyone to acknowledge they are faking as it may start a
landslide of confession and threaten everything. Such an
admission would only occur where a person was
confident their confession would not result in censure or
expulsion.
4.
It is a real phenomenon though of a purely human
origin. This would mean it is a psychological
phenomenon of some sort. 195 Charismatics would not
accept this as they attribute the phenomenon to the
direct work of God, not simply to our God-given
psychological nature.
5.
It is a real phenomenon but of demonic origin,196
although such a suggestion is offensive to those holding
charismatic views. Actually I have found it is hardly any
more acceptable to many who would call themselves
non-charismatic. I assume this to be so because such
people are reluctant to admit that their charismatic
friends or relations are associating with demonic
influences.
Regarding these five options, option one I have ruled out on the
basis that I have shown it is not in Scripture, and thus not supported
by it. Option two I reject also but have not dealt with because it is
held seriously by virtually no one. If it is just some God-given
psychological phenomenon, why is it that no one who practises it
thinks that is what it is? Is something genuinely from God going to
be so universally misunderstood by its practitioners? Regarding
option 3, I presuppose that there is a real phenomenon, and though
some instances are fake, most are not.
I have no option but to say it originates in man (Option 4) or in
demons (Option 5), or a combination of these. If some is from a
human psychological source and some from a demonic source, we
are obviously dealing with two different phenomena. If this is so,
then for it to be a purely psychological phenomenon is less serious
than for it to be demonic, though in both cases the speaker is
mistaken about what is occurring. It would not be too strong to say
they are deceived about it, and being deceived is serious at any
time. In the case of it originating in man, God is misrepresented
Summary of Options
GLOSSA = Tongue = Language
Normal human language (English, Samoan, etc.)
‘Heavenly’ –
‘angelic’
language
‘Prayer’
‘love’
language
Unlearned
Unlearned
Unknown to
speaker
Supernaturally
spoken
Supernaturally
spoken
for
for
for
for
‘Sign’ to Israel
– missionary
purposes?
Other?????
‘Sign’ to Israel
– missionary
purposes?
Other?????
‘Spiritual warfare’
– miraculous sign’
Edification of
speaker
Other?????
Direct, exclusive
‘spiritual’
communication
with God
Edification of
speaker
Learned
Unlearned
Naturally
spoken
Supernaturally
spoken
Known to the
speaker
Known to
speaker
for
Normal
human
communication
Non human language
166
because something of a human origin is claimed to come directly
from God. If it is from demons, then something of a demonic origin
is attributed to God. If an actual language is spoken, then obviously
the source of the phenomenon is from outside the person who is the
vehicle. 197 Nobody can spontaneously generate a language which
they have not learnt. The source therefore must be another personal
being who knows the language spoken. If, as I've argued, this is not
God, nor of God through unfallen angels, 198 it must be from a
demonic source. 199 There are no other sources available.
In the face of this type of argument, a defensive tactic may be used.
People may be pointed to who apparently are shining examples of
godliness yet who exhibit this phenomenon. Surely godly people
cannot be vehicles through whom demons work, can they? Or
perhaps situations will be appealed to where someone understood
the language spoken and were converted as a result. Surely Satan
doesn't want people converted, does he? Claimed instances of the
latter type are extremely rare and - to betray some cynicism normally occur on the other side of the world.200 What I would like
to know in these cases is the 'content' of the 'gospel' that was
spoken. To what was the person converted? But even if the content
was the true gospel or something related to it, that does not prove
that the message was from God. The girl in Acts 16:16-21 spoke
the truth about Paul, Luke and the others, yet she was demonpossessed! 'These men are servants of the Most High God, who are
telling you the way to be saved.' This true statement did not prove
she was of God. Paul later cast the demon out of her.
Why would Satan use a strategy in which a demon presents the
Gospel of Christ (his enemy) - or something related to it - in a
language unknown to the speaker? Charismatics speak much about
spiritual warfare but don't always seem to indicate great insight in
regards to possible demonic espionage. As I understand it, if you
are playing chess and can sacrifice a pawn to get a queen, it's not a
bad deal. I have absolutely no doubt that Satan is prepared to risk an
individual or two - or a thousand or two - being truly saved or fired
up for God, so long as he can get the opportunity of so corrupting
the Faith that eventually it can be destroyed. An incident
periodically here or there around the world of an apparently true
Chapter 9 – What is the 'Current Phenomenon?'
167
message being given by this means, may affirm believers in the
current phenomenon, that their experience is from God - even
though it bears no relation to what is recorded in Scripture.
And I repeat, I would like to know;
•
the content transmitted in these reported cases to see
whether the true gospel was being spoken or not,
•
the quality of transmission of the story.
Because a story goes through the grapevine that this or that has
occurred does not mean it has. Witness the stories regarding
hitchhiking angels that did the rounds in New Zealand several years
ago and which have apparently been circulating world-wide for the
past thirty or so years. 201
But not only are 'believers' encouraged in their belief by these rare
occurrences, the charismatic movement is apparently validated.202
And what is this movement as a whole doing? Many would argue
that it has been like a breath of fresh air to a dead, formalistic
church; that it has brought a spontaneity and depth to worship, a
degree of lay participation that was not there before, and an
openness to the Spirit and His work that has been lacking since the
early church.
I am as against a church being dead and formalistic as anyone and
know many other non-charismatics that are equally so. While there
may be some aspects of the life of some charismatic churches that
are informal, others are far too formal for my liking, particularly the
very strong, almost authoritarian leadership and the heavily directed
worship. Some removal of formalism may very well be simply a
sociological phenomenon - the church following the surrounding
culture in its removal of formalism during the 1960's and 70's. I was
a leader of the charge in my own church of that time, against what I
considered to be unnecessary formality and rigidity in ways of
relating and dressing.
Spontaneity and depth of worship? Perhaps in some aspects, but in
others there has been a very definite narrowing down of worship.
Worship now is associated with certain songs being sung certain
ways and types of prayer prayed in a certain, very intense, way. If
168
this hasn't been done or a certain atmosphere has not been
generated, then the assumption is that there has been no worship. 203
Some would suggest that rather than a depth of worship, there is
actually a shallowness of worship in the charismatic scene. One
charismatic couple said as much when they spoke at my church.
Afterwards I asked them whether they could have said in their own
church the sort of things they had just said in mine. They said no!
Increased lay participation? No doubt this has occurred to some
degree in churches that have a strong clergy/laity division and thus
it seems like it is something new. However there are churches
around that have never had clergy and so have always emphasised
the participation of their members.
Openness to the Spirit? Same as above. There are churches around
which have always emphasised an openness to the Spirit's leading.
What is being referred to here however is an openness to the
charismatic view of 'spiritual gifts', which I have argued here, is
wrong at least in regards to so-called 'tongues'. None of these
things, apart from the last one with a charismatic meaning to the
term, are unique to the charismatic movement or defining
characteristics of it.
What concerns me most, is that the charismatic movement has
introduced into the evangelical community huge amounts of
subjectivism 204 and mysticism205 which are totally foreign to
Biblical Christianity. I suggest that this mysticism is the defining
characteristic of the movement and is expressed through the
movement's view of 'spiritual gifts'. 206 The current phenomenon is a
major element in this mysticism. Moreover, this mysticism now
defines spirituality for large sections of the Christian community. It
has in effect become a super-spirituality that condemns everything
but itself to an inferior state.
This is not to deny a subjective element to the faith. Of course there
is such an element. I do, after all, have feelings about God and his
grace and goodness to me, and about the creation he has made.
Many times I have cried as I have reflected on the sheer wonder of
the Lord's love and grace for me, or when I have heard testimonies
of God's goodness to others. Many times I have pondered in
speechless and awe-filled wonder, the magnificence of the things
Chapter 9 – What is the 'Current Phenomenon?'
169
my Lord has made. Human beings have a subjective side to their
being which God has made and which is ignored or suppressed to
our detriment.
But subjectivism in the driving seat is another name for mysticism
and mysticism has no place in Biblical Christianity. It is a major
threat to the faith because it opens people to the authority of the
subjective and the occult, and militates against the careful and
painstaking task of correctly understanding Scripture. I think this is
one reason why there is not a lot of Biblical exegesis in charismatic
churches. Signs and wonders and sensationalism increasingly
become the guiding lights, aggravated by the super-spirituality and
inflated egos that are encouraged. These lead to a high drop-out rate
and much disillusionment. Many charismatic churches have a large
but largely unacknowledged back door.
What is Mysticism?
Mysticism has to do with the spiritually allegorical or symbolic;
with the esoteric and occultic; with hidden, mysterious meanings207
and obscure doctrines; with experiences purporting to have direct
'spiritual' significance; with the acquisition of esoteric knowledge of
divine things which is unattainable by the rational faculty. It is
accompanied many times by initiation through some experience, or
by formal rites, into the state of having 'higher' special knowledge
(gnosis). 208
A 'mystic' is a person who seeks by contemplation and meditation,
to attain to a state of spiritual ecstasy, self-surrender, or selfannihilation, in order to obtain direct communion209 or union with,
or absorption into, 'the deity' (however that is conceived). The
'mystic' seeks, through the mediums of prayer and meditation, to
experience a direct intuitive connection with 'the divine', 210 and
aspires to the immediate apprehension of knowledge beyond the
processes of rational understanding. 211
Now while few charismatics may be seeking union with, or
absorption into deity, 212 they certainly are seeking via 'the current
phenomenon', a means of communication with deity which is
paranormal 213 and independent of rational processes of discernment
and objective evaluation. 214 This is assumed to come through the
170
surrender of the rational faculties. As a contributor to a debate in the
Challenge Weekly (31/10/91) said,
'The common thread to tongues usage is that the mind of the
believer has relinquished control to the Holy Spirit. The
tongue is like a rudder, yielding it is an act of surrender to the
control of the Holy Spirit.'
I have on a number of occasions heard charismatics exulting in the
by-passing of the mind 215 216 or condemning the mind or the
intellect as an obstacle in the way of communication with God.217
Mind and spirit, head and heart, faith and reason, seem to be
constantly put in opposition to each other. (See Appendix 2 for an
extended analysis of various divisions that result from this form of
dualistic non-Christian thought.) Nevertheless, I recognize not all
charismatics would affirm these divisions and some would
condemn them as strongly as I do.
In regards to 'the current phenomenon', charismatics are sure that
they are dealing with truths that are beyond human thought, words
and understanding. They clearly insist on the need for initiation to a
higher plane of spirituality,218 believing that this is acquired through
the so-called 'baptism of the Holy Spirit', which is authenticated by
manifestation of the 'current phenomenon'.
This blending of mysticism with Biblical Faith in a syncretistic mix
is, I'm sure, one of Satan's chief aims. The mysticism inherent in the
charismatic movement, in particular in relation to the current
phenomenon, is waiting to sprout at any time. The only restraints on
its overt expression are the strongly anti-mystical elements in the
Biblical Faith. The more Biblically grounded the charismatic is, the
less mystical they will be. Conversely, the less Biblical they are,
and the more emphasis they lay on the current phenomenon and
experience etc, the more mystical they will be. 219 The problem is,
that no matter how Biblically grounded the charismatic may be,
they cannot root out this latent or expressed mysticism because it is
an integral part of the charismatic position. To expunge it they
would have to reject their charismatic beliefs. They are torn two
ways. They are committed on one hand to fundamentally mystical
things, and on the other, their orthodox Biblical faith.
10
Love and War How Should Non-Charismatics
Relate to Charismatics?
T
he charismatic mentality has affected the thinking of
Christians everywhere. If we are involved in interdenominational activities in any way, we will inevitably rub
shoulders with people of charismatic persuasion. What attitude
should those of us who are not charismatic have to these people
with whom we have such a significant disagreement and yet with
whom we may be involved in inter-denominational groups?
Some organisations recognise the differences and say that while
charismatics can be involved with the organisation, they should
keep their unique charismatic beliefs to themselves and their own
churches. Although some charismatics will agree to do this, it is
likely that they will think such a prohibition is really an obstruction
to the work of God and will feel frustrated by it. Other groups may
exclude any who manifest the current phenomenon from positions
of leadership, but not from participation. Still others may ignore all
differences, preferring a policy of inclusivism which allows them to
accept everyone who professes to be a believer.
My experience of the latter type of group is that, for example, in
times of corporate prayer, the charismatics will usually dominate it
by their very vocal ways in such times. Having people saying
repeatedly, 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus....' (or any other such term or
171
172
phrase) while waiting for the next person to pray, does not exactly
help to set non-charismatics at ease! If some people manifest the
'current phenomenon' - even during the prayers of others - it
amounts to a charismatic hijack of such a time. On one occasion of
corporate prayer in my own home, I very nearly walked out because
this very thing happened. Some charismatics clearly view
themselves as the real specialists in prayer, and given half a chance
they will demonstrate their abilities to others. Too bad if any
'unspiritual', 'unliberated', 'staid traditionalists', or others of such ilk,
are also present. "We are not going to change our spiritually
enlightened ways for anyone!" I consider such behaviour to be
gross insensitivity and indicative of deep pride. It is the very
antithesis of true spirituality.
Because charismatics also tend to consider themselves specialists in
'worship', they will often dominate any inter-denominational times
of 'worship'. In New Zealand, and I believe in other countries as
well, charismatics have captured the music of many congregations
through those churches adopting song collections such as Dave and
Dale Garrett's 'Scripture in Song', and 'Songs of the Kingdom', or
the music of Hillsong. This comment is not intended as a wholesale
rejection of such music but is just an observation that charismaticstyle songs are now in very widespread use. An effect of this
'capture of music' was highlighted for me when I attended a
meeting conducted by associates of the late John Wimber. A
number of my acquaintances thought highly of Wimber, so I went
to check him out. I went strictly as an observer. The meeting began
with an extended period of corporate singing with many of the
songs being those in vogue at the time in my home church.
However I did not feel like singing them at this meeting. Why not?
I sang them elsewhere; why then didn't I want to sing them here? It
dawned on me that by singing them in this context I became an
assenting participant in the event and was no longer simply an
observer. By singing I would be drawn into the 'spirit' of the
meeting and would in a sense endorse what went on through my
participation in it. I therefore resolved to not sing but just observe.
Many people in charismatic churches (as in other churches) have
either been 'born and raised' in such churches, or have been
Chapter 10 – Love and War
173
converted by their outreach. It is easy to be parochial about our own
home church or denomination and often there can be an
unquestioning acceptance of the beliefs for which it stands. This
affects us all. A person may hold a wrong belief about something,
i.e., the 'current phenomenon', simply because such a belief is
propagated by the particular church sub-culture in which they were
nutured. They may acquire some of their identity by holding these
beliefs and express them with varying degrees of tenacity, even
belligerence. If instead of having been nutured in sub-culture 'A',
they had been nutured in sub-culture 'B', it is very likely that they
would have held other beliefs in similar ways. I am not implying
that there is no such thing as truth, but only relative cultural ideas.
I'm simply saying that culture can, and often does, play a significant
role in determining what we believe, and the way we read the Bible.
All this should be kept in mind as we relate to those with whom we
disagree. If we express our disagreement with them, it should be
done with gentleness and respect for them as people, and a degree
of tolerance. We may disagree with them strongly on certain points
but that does not mean that we call their ideas on these matters into
question at every opportunity, or that we ridicule them. We may
think something they believe is ridiculous but we do not necessarily
have to say as much.
I have found little difficulty relating to people with charismatic
views on a personal or family basis. In fact on a number of issues, I
have felt a greater kinship with some charismatics than with those
whom I could be expected to consider my allies. We have homeschooled our children and have related very well with numerous
home-schooling families who were also members of charismatic
churches. We were all aware we had some theological differences
but these were seldom broached. Instead, we just enjoyed the
fellowship, friendship, and mutual support we extended to each
other. Some day, we may discuss our differences. My contacts with
charismatic people have extended to wider educational issues and I
have come to greatly respect some of their achievements.
I have organised speaking tours for overseas speakers visiting New
Zealand and on numerous occasions I have arranged for them to
speak to charismatic churches. I recognise a kinship on certain
174
issues and readily make such arrangements. I am also willing to
accept speaking invitations from charismatic churches, something I
have done on a number of occasions.
However, I experience difficulties in relating at an organisational or
an inter-denominational level. There are repeated calls for unity
between churches to be illustrated to the watching world.220 But the
problem is; on what basis is this unity to be established? There may
be common beliefs held about a number of things but it is the
differences that make the difference, not the similarities.
I have participated in several single issue organisations with people
coming from across a very wide theological spectrum. Because
these organisations have a narrow focus; e.g, the defence of unborn
children, I have experienced no difficulties and can be involved
with any who share my concerns. 221 However, as soon as we have
corporate prayer, we are making statements about God, the
relationship of God to Man, and Man to God. The assumption often
appears to be that irrespective of what we believe, we all come to
the same God on the same basis with equal likelihood of our
prayers being heard and answered. Our praying together is an
indication of our acceptance of this assumption; in fact it implies
that any differences we have are irrelevant. The question could then
be raised, as it is in fact raised by many people, if we can forget our
differences when we pray together (one of the most 'spiritual' of
Christian activities), then why not forget them altogether?!
I do not accept this assumption. The Bible nowhere promotes a
promiscuous, indiscriminate unity that is independent of Biblical
Doctrine. Current trends however, seem to favour uniting around
the barest minimum of doctrine - even just a statement like 'we love
Jesus' - but without any accompanying evaluation as to what is
meant by that. Jesus said, 'If you love me, keep my
commandments.' Doctrine is important and I am not prepared to
sweep my Biblically grounded beliefs under the carpet for the sake
of a 'pretend' unity which is advantageous only to the promiscuous.
Scripture nowhere calls me to pursue unity at the expense of truth.
I accept that many people who differ from me on the issue of the
current phenomenon, are nevertheless believers - although I
consider they are misguided or deceived at this point. I will
175
associate with people of different beliefs but I will not fool myself
or others that we are are in wholehearted agreement. On occasion, I
may need to strongly oppose those I have associated with. The
outcome of such a disagreement, or the intensity of it, will
determine the extent of association that is able to be maintained
after such a situation. When charismatic doctrines are raised or
promoted in inter-denominational activities I am involved with, I
will object.222 If my concerns are ignored or not adequately
addressed over a period of time, I will withdraw. Let us not deceive
ourselves. Wholehearted and deep fellowship can only occur
between those who have a significant measure of agreement
concerning issues they consider to be important.223
I have addressed the question of how I relate to those outside my
own church with whom I disagree on these issues. But what if some
in my own church community take these ideas on board? How
should I relate to them? The question comes down to: Can a group
of people holding charismatic beliefs, peacefully co-exist in the
same congregation with those holding non-charismatic beliefs?224
Some think that the two groups must be able to peacefully co-exist,
and if they cannot, it is evidence of spiritual failure. I consider such
an approach fails to face reality. If the conflicting views do coexist,
it will only be because one side is either:
•
•
•
not convinced about their position and so defers to the
other;
or, has been intimidated into subjection and silence;
or, voluntarily suppresses their beliefs and practices for the
benefits they gain from the church.
An illustration of such suppression occurred at one non-charismatic
church I visited. A significant number of people had left a
charismatic church to become members of this non-charismatic
congregation. The two reasons given for changing churches were:
failed expectations; and a lack of solid Biblical teaching.
The two positions are in fact mutually exclusive. One side says the
various charismatic phenomena are from God and are evidence of
his favour and blessing. Therefore we must pursue them with all
our might. 225 The other side says that the phenomena are at least
176
self-delusion or deception and at the most demonic activity and
heresy. Therefore we must fight them with all our might. Numerous
people have tried to find a middle road between the two positions
but such a quest is futile and naive. There is no middle road and the
sooner this is generally acknowledged the better it will be for
everyone. In my experience, the fence-sitters are usually noncharismatics. They don't want to miss out on what appears to them
to be life and vibrancy and certainty in Christian things, and
perhaps a bit of 'mysticism' - but they are not prepared to commit
themselves wholeheartedly to the charismatic view.
Such people are like the double-minded man James talks about,
who is unstable in his ways. They doubt, and vacillate, unable to
find a place to rest. The thing such people most detest, is for those
from either side to start calling for commitment to one view or the
other. A fence-top is a vulnerable spot, particularly in a war. Such a
lack of commitment and indecisiveness, if held by leaders, robs
their church of the ability to be united in doctrine and thus in this
important area of belief, leaves the flock to wander around without
a shepherd, in confusion and disarray.
Those who dream of the non-existent middle road will view any
call to clarify the issue as divisive and therefore objectionable. In
fact division looms large in such people's minds, larger even than
truth. Division is not such a problem to those who are already
committed one way or the other. They will tend to see division as
an unfortunate but inevitable result of holding ideas which are
incompatible with those held by others. Fence-sitters tend to
overlook statements such as those made by Jesus in Luke 12:51-53:
51. Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell
you, but division.
52. From now on there will be five in one family divided
against each other, three against two and two against
three.
53. They will be divided, father against son and son
against father, mother against daughter and daughter
against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
- or those made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19:
177
18. In the first place, I hear that when you come together
as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some
extent I believe it.
19. No doubt there have to be differences among you to
show which of you have God's approval.
These passages clearly indicate that division per se is not
necessarily wrong. Therefore to see 'divisiveness', or 'potential
divisiveness' as primary in determining how we respond to a
particular issue misses the mark. Truth is primary, not whether
something will or will not divide people. After the truth of any
particular issue has been determined, then the question of whether
division and separation are necessary can be addressed.
Any group of people of whatever persuasion who are committed
and united about something, can make an impact on the
surrounding community. A divided church, however, will mark
time, tear itself apart, or divert attention from the problem area so
that an appearance of unity can be maintained. But an appearance
of unity is just that, an appearance, so this latter tactic only delays
the evil day when the real underlying lack of unity can no longer be
concealed.
To those of us who say there is no middle ground on this issue of
the current phenomenon, it may be suggested that those we oppose
are believers who will be with us in heaven. If we are going to live
with them for ever, we may as well get used to it now. I'm sure that
many have been intimidated by this suggestion, but is it valid?
Charismatics and non-charismatics cannot both be right at the same
time on this issue. We may all be wrong, or some who are basically
right may have got to be more or less right by the wrong route.
However the two basic positions cannot both be correct. When
believers get to heaven, any wrong ideas they held while on earth
will be corrected. Our fellowship there will be based on truth. I
imagine that when we get to heaven, those who were wrong will
apologise to those who were right, and those who were right will
graciously accept the apology. Then we will all get on to live for the
Lord on the basis of the now-confirmed truth.
178
Our present situation however is an altogether different matter.
There is such a thing as wrong doctrine which Scripture speaks
against with much force, and there is a fundamental difference
between the two views which is irreconcilable. Further, I am
convinced that the truth about the issue is knowable now. We do
not have to wait until we get to heaven to find out who is right and
who is wrong. 226 If that was not the case we could wash our hands
of the debate. We could simply say it will all pan out in the end so
let's forget about arguing and just believe what we want to believe.
Some of those who at present hold error may very well be in
heaven with me, but that does not mean I should forget about error,
or stop fighting to keep it out of my church. To do so is to capitulate
to evil. 227
But if you are going to fight, how should you do so?
11
Grace in times of Conflict Seventeen Suggestions for
Conduct in a Theological Civil
War
U
nfortunately, the history of church splits caused by the
charismatic movement presents a rather dismal story.228
The church of which I am a member experienced such a
split some years ago. It was not pleasant! To have a 'Geneva
Convention' that could guide us in the conduct of a theological civil
war would be nice, but as there is none, I would like to offer a few
'suggestions'. These suggestions do not only apply to conflict over
charismatic or other theological issues. In fact I suspect that most
conflicts in churches are not over theological issues at all but result
from simple lack of wisdom. Decisions affecting the church may be
made in the wrong way, made incompetently, or with little or no
consideration of those who will be affected by them. Other conflicts
may stem from personality clashes or misunderstanding. Although
these suggestions focus on conduct in times of conflict and
controversy, they can equally apply to everyday relationships with
other people. In addition, they are easier suggested than applied!
• Suggestion 1: Address the issue or issues
Be particularly careful to avoid bringing unrelated questions or side
issues into the argument. Establish precisely what the problems are
179
180
and deal specifically with them. I guess we have all felt, at some
time, the frustration of being accused of something, and then having
that accusation snowball into a whole range of accusations
unrelated to the first one. To steadfastly refuse to address anything
other than the issue at hand is an excellent way to stop or slow the
escalation of a war.
• Suggestion 2: Hit the issues rather than people
In the tensions that develop as the two sides entrench, personal
animosity can very easily develop. People, rather than issues, can
be targeted and ad hominem attacks can become the order of the
day. Of course when you address issues you address people. Error
does not enter a church by wafting through the windows. It comes
through the door in people's heads - people we may be related to,
may like, or respect. Much as we may prefer to avoid personal
confrontation over issues, when error emerges, it is avoidable only
at the cost of truth. It is nevertheless possible to put the issues
outside of oneself, so that when an issue is addressed and attacked, I
personally am not.
Obviously, it may be difficult not to feel personally offended when
someone attacks an idea which we hold dear. But if the idea is
wrong, and shown clearly to be wrong, we must humble ourselves
and acknowledge our error. If the idea we hold is right, we must act
in such a way so that those who have attacked it, encounter no
obstacles in us that get in the way of their adoption of it. Humility is
required by us on both counts.
If you don't have good arguments for your position, emotional
attack can quickly become a substitute for the inadequate argument.
People can easily feel threatened both culturally and theologically
and feelings of threat are fertile ground from which an emotional
response or a personal attack can grow. I am grateful that in the
situation that developed in my church, personal attack and ad
hominem arguments played very little part as far as I am aware.
• Suggestion 3: Avoid name calling
One thing that can quickly aggravate a situation is name-calling.
Names can effectively lock people into boxes. Presumably those
who call others names would like to move those they oppose away
Chapter 11 – Seventeen Suggestions
181
from the position the name signifies. However, name-calling is
more likely to entrench a person in the view named than move them
from it. Name-calling does not do justice to the diversity of people
there are, nor to the varying degrees of conviction with which views
are held.
Of course names are important and it is not a sin to correctly label
something. There is such a thing as heresy and people who hold
heresies are heretics. But that does not mean such terms should be
used with wild abandon in the way name-callers often use them.
Some people may be just toying with heresy, not yet sure whether it
is true or false. Such people may be corrected quite easily, while
others may be hardened in error to the point of obstinacy.229 To
label the latter people as heretics may be quite justified. However to
label the former people in this way is hardly fair and may entrench
them in the heresy.
We should not forget that Scripture uses strong names for people
and describes some behaviour in very graphic terms. 230 Jesus
himself, was brutally explicit at times, as can be seen in Matthew
23: '...hypocrites...', '...blind guides...', '...whitewashed tombs...',
'You snakes, you brood of vipers!...' Such names however, he
reserved for those who were perverse and he used them in the
utmost seriousness. Notable godly men in history were also people
of colourful speech. The great Reformer, Martin Luther, apparently
did not hesitate to use strong language and imaginative names to
describe some of his opponents.
However it is easy to see yourself as the only one that is lily-white
and all others as deserving of any name you can dream up. If you
can add two, three, or four names together, all the better - and it
shows also that you are quite smart! Frankly I am not prepared to
fight alongside people who do this because I think they are more of
a liability to the cause of Christ than an asset.
What if others name-call you? Ask the Lord to help you be gracious
enough to simply let it pass. The name-calling may disappoint you.
It may hurt you and slander you. But ask the Lord to help you to
have no internal response - to let it flow off you like water off a
duck's back. Rather than feel angry or feel the need to swiftly
justify or defend yourself, perhaps you could feel pity for the one
182
who calls the names. Commit your defence to Christ. He can
vindicate you in His own time.231
• Suggestion 4: Defend others who are unjustly
treated
I have suggested that we should not swiftly rise in self-defence
when we are name-called or slandered but should ask the Lord to
defend us. However when others are slandered it is a different
matter. We should be the first to rise in their defense. What can
happen in a war is that everyone keeps their heads down so as to
preserve their own skin. Those who put their heads up get targeted,
and yet others, who may in fact be sympathisers, let them take the
flak alone. While I do not think we should defend ourselves except
in exceptional circumstances, others who are slandered or unjustly
treated should be defended with all our might. We should not do
this because of some advantage we consider it could bring us, or
because of the self-preserving attitude, 'If he or she goes, I'm next in
line'. We should do it because it is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately it is possible - even for Christians - to act politically.
They do this to position themselves well by allowing others to be
the 'fall guys' in a war, so that when it is over they can come out
with a clean hide. If we will not defend our brothers and sisters who
are treated unjustly in the church, will we ever stand for what is
right anywhere? A sailor's skill is not tested in calm weather but in
the storm. The quality of a soldier is not exposed in the mess, but
where the bullets fly. The test of character is how it responds in the
tough times, not how it acts in the sweet.
Several years ago a cruise liner sank off the coast of South Africa.
The crew were the first to leave the ship, with the Captain leaving
on the first helicopter that arrived. The total rescue effort was left to
the passengers and one or two men who were dropped in to help. 232
It is possible that in a theological war the rescue effort will be
mounted by only a few (not necessarily recognised leaders),
because others prefer to keep their own skin intact.
In the example of the cruise liner that sank, the passengers who
organised the rescue were viewed as heroes after the event by the
other passengers. In the story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes', when
183
the little boy guilelessly pointed out that the King had no clothes
on, everyone agreed and acknowledged how gutless they had been.
However, if you are involved in the rescue of a church, don't expect
to be viewed necessarily as a hero when the battle is over. The story
of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' is not strictly true to life because in
real life the boy would very likely have had a hand slapped over his
mouth and been told to be silent. Because most people, including
Christians, want personal peace, those who put truth before
personal peace are often viewed as trouble-makers. What can
happen is illustrated by the following parable.
The ship was sailing through calm waters and everyone on
board was happy. The Captain and Officers were in control and
were entertaining hosts to the passengers. But behold a storm
appeared and started to batter the ship. The waves grew higher
and higher and the ship was tossed with great violence. The
passengers had early on retired below decks but as the storm
increased in ferocity, the Captain and Officers also went below,
leaving the ship without anyone at the helm. Some common
seamen from among the crew understood the danger, and in
turns, took the wheel and fought the storm and successfully
brought the ship through to safety. When calm waters were
again reached, the passengers reappeared, accused the seamen
of being responsible for the storm and called for the Captain and
Officers to begin the entertainment again.
• Suggestion 5: Do not think the world depends on
you
The Lord may graciously use you at times to halt the encroachment
of error. However, while at times you may be strong, at other times
you may be weak. The Lord can orchestrate things so that when one
person is 'down', another is 'up', and through this He can teach us it
is His work and not ours. At one particularly stressful time for me
when my church was disintegrating, I could see no solution to the
situation which I faced. I had been issued an ultimatum and was at
an impasse with no way out. The deadline was approaching so I
mentioned the difficulty I faced to a friend. The Lord allowed that
friend to supply the total answer to my predicament. I was as weak
as I had ever been, but the Lord provided for me by supplying
184
someone else with the strength and the appropriate insight at the
precise time it was needed. The church is God's church, not ours. It
rests on His shoulders not mine. I may have a part to play in
building it, in strengthening it and defending it, but that is all. I have
only a part to play.
• Suggestion 6: Do your homework
I am sure that many people have reacted to the charismatic
movement for inadequate reasons. Likewise, I am sure that
charismatics have been argued against with totally inadequate
arguments. In this work I have critiqued some of the arguments that
I consider inadequate. Inadequate arguments miss the point,
obscure the issues and create tension. They are in fact irrelevant to
an issue. Those against which they are used gain only a hollow
victory by their demolition and those who hold them gain nothing
but a worthless psychological prop.
When I was a teenager, a Bible teacher who I respected greatly told
me that the best way to understand and refute an error was to
correctly understand the passages used in support of the error. The
tendency is to think that those who build erroneous doctrines on
certain verses somehow own those verses. We can be tempted to
bypass these verses in the fear that they may actually turn out to
support those whom we oppose.
When we are faced with what we consider to be an urgent situation,
we may jump at the first apparent solution that comes our way. We
should not pragmatically think that anything is better to fight with
than nothing. We must take time to think and to reflect and to ask
the Lord for help in understanding the issues before us. In other
words, we need to do our homework, and that takes time. We need
to wield the truth, not some half-baked theory that we've grabbed in
the urgency of the moment. There is always time to do your
homework. This book is in effect the result of me doing my
homework. It has taken around fourteen years!
• Suggestion 7: Seek at all times to have a clear
conscience before God and man
Paul said in his defence to Felix the Governor:
185
Acts 24
16. So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before
God and man.
In all of our dealings with people we should follow Paul's example.
Through being devoted to the Lord and having a passion to obey
him, we should develop a sensitive conscience and avoid at all cost
the searing of our conscience through rationalising or tolerating
ungodly behaviour. If our conscience is not clear, then we should at
the earliest possible moment confess whatever is wrong to God and
to any people concerned, and so clear it.
As the temperature was rising in my own church, I wrote some
things out of frustration. The content was valid but the way I said it
was not. I put barbs in which were designed to hurt. After giving
this statement to the people concerned, I began to regret the barbs I
had included. Eventually I apologised for them and asked the
people I had intended to hurt to forgive me. I did not apologise for
everything I had written; I made it very clear I was not backing
away from the principles I had expressed, but I was asking
forgiveness for the barbs. By doing this I cleared my conscience. I
was no longer plagued by regrets nor needed any longer to feel any
guilt for the barbs. Nobody can ever bring those things up against
me again; they have gone for good.
There is nothing that the enemies of God hate more than a person
with a clear conscience. One of the most powerful forms of
manipulation is manipulation through guilt. By playing on what you
should have done but haven't, or what you have done but shouldn't
have, a person can manipulate you in all sorts of ways. I came to
understand this years ago and decided then that manipulation had
no part in a Christian's life, neither in the manipulation of others nor
in being manipulated by others. The person who has a clear
conscience does not feel guilty and therefore cannot be manipulated
on the basis of a presumed guilt. (Actually it is possible that marked
differences can be maintained without guilt ever being an issue.)
Yet there are Christians who seem to be convinced that it is
impossible for a believer to have a clear conscience, particularly
during a church civil war, or after a church split. They seem
186
inflicted by the 'we are all guilty' syndrome. No doubt you have
come across this in the media; e.g. after some particularly
horrendous crime, the analysts and psychologists get to work and
come up with the profound insight that it is not really the criminal's
fault at all - they are not really responsible – rather, it is the
community that is to blame. "This criminal was a 'loner'. We should
have befriended him - we should have done this that or the next
thing. We are all to blame". But this is fallacious. The Bible teaches
us that people are held accountable for their actions. We are not all
to blame at all.233
In any controversy, for example, in a fight, a marriage breakup, or a
church split, blame is not necessarily shared evenly by all. To
assume that it is, may be to evaluate the particular situation in a
most unjust way. If one party is innocent but all parties are deemed
guilty, the innocent party is violated. To people who assume that in
church controversies everyone involved is guilty, a person who
claims to have a clear conscience is to them doubly perverse. They
are not only guilty but they claim to be innocent! The question then
is, "Is it possible to have a clear conscience?" On the basis of Paul's
comment to Felix I say, "Yes!"
But someone may say, "Doesn't a clear conscience presuppose
perfection of life?" The answer is, "No, it does not." I am
committed to the doctrine of the total depravity of Man. This
doctrine says that when Adam and Eve rebelled, their total being
was affected by their rebellion. Every aspect of their being was
corrupted and everything they or their descendants touched from
then on carried the marks of this corruption. 'Total depravity' does
not mean we are as bad practically as we can be, because obviously
we could all do worse things than we have done.
There are two aspects to this. There is the aspect that I am a sinner
by nature regardless of the number or extent of sinful acts I have
committed. That is why all Christians should acknowledge they are
sinners, desperately in need of God's grace. But there is also the
practical outward expression of this depravity in sinful acts. The
extent of this practical expression may vary enormously. The
reason God gave us Biblical law was to limit this outward
187
expression of sin. It was not given to remove our basic depraved
nature, something the law cannot do, nor was ever designed to do.
In contrast to 'depravity' is 'righteousness'. What our Lord did when
he died on the cross was to make it possible for us to be forgiven
for our rebellion and for us to be placed by God into a position
where we are imputed with Christ's righteousness. This means that
at present we are seen by the Father as no longer depraved but
righteous by merit of the righteousness of Christ, and this even
though we still sin. In the future we will be actually righteous in
nature because of the removal by God of our actual sinful nature.
There is however a second aspect to righteousness as there is to
depravity. The Lord requires us to live out a practical righteousness,
not to merit salvation, but as an expression of our worship of him.
Scripture speaks from beginning to end of this practical, achievable
righteousness of life (See Gen. 6:9, 'Noah was a righteous man,
blameless among the people of his time…' and Job 1:1, '…Job. This
man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned
evil…'). But Scripture not only speaks of it, it expects it of those
who profess to be the people of God. If it is possible to practically
live in this righteous way, then it must also be possible to have a
clear conscience in this same practical sort of way. And that is what
Paul speaks of. He not only speaks emphatically of the sinfulness of
all people, and calls himself 'the chief of sinners', he says to Felix
that he, Paul, strives to have a clear conscience at all times.
Therefore, in the midst of the conflict in a church over doctrinal
matters, or in the devastation that may follow a split, it is genuinely
possible to have and to maintain a clear conscience. While there can
be enormous tensions and great volatility, it is possible, and I
maintain is absolutely necessary if we are to be true to Christ, to so
conduct ourselves in such situations that we do not sin against God
or against our brothers and sisters with whom we disagree. This is
even though sometimes hard things may have to be said and
theological lines drawn and defended. But let us be diligent to see
we 'speak the truth in love.'
Even if we end up not talking to others, which can in fact occur, this
must not be because of hatred or ill feeling. If it does happen, then
only let it do so because we have lost common ground and have
188
nothing of much substance to talk of. It's a big world and there is
space in it for all of us. We don't have to live in each other's pockets
- we can live and let live. Such a relationship may not be ideal but
neither is it necessarily directly sinful.
In this matter of having a clear conscience, the putting right of
wrongs is essential. If you become aware that you have wronged
someone, confess it and get it put right as quickly as possible. If
you become aware that someone has something against you, go to
them as soon as you are able and clarify what the problem is - if
there really is a problem - and resolve it. Christ had two very
specific things to say about these types of situations. The first is in
Matthew 5:23-24. He said:
23. "...if you are offering your gift at the altar and there
remember that your brother has something against you,
24. leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and
be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your
gift.
This is the situation where you have wronged someone else and it
comes to your mind. The Lord sets up this drama of you
remembering this wrong, right at the point of you offering your gift
at the altar. He says that the putting right of a wrong is a precondition of worship. In effect Jesus teaches that we cannot be right
with God without being right with our fellow man. John reiterates
this idea in 1 John 4:20:
20. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he
is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom
he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
Putting right a wrong is so important that even the most sacred
activities should be delayed until it is done. A modern counterpart
to Jesus' illustration today would be setting things right before
taking 'communion'. While the Lord's Supper is not primarily about
human relationships either inside or outside the church, there
nevertheless is a connection. If a wrong has been done against a
fellow-believer, it is hypocritical to participate in an act signifying
communion with the Lord when there is a breach in the communion
between his people.
189
The second thing the Lord said was in Matthew 18:15-17:
15. "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his
fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you
have won your brother over.
16. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along,
so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony
of two or three witnesses.'
17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and
if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you
would a pagan or a tax collector.
Here you are the one who has been wronged. The Lord says that
even if you are in the right, the putting right of wrongs is so
important that you yourself should take the initiative in doing this.
It is so important in fact, that you must persist even when the wrong
is not acknowledged by the one who did it. Take others with you as
witnesses to your efforts to set things right and so the other person's
stubbornness can be seen. If this process fails, then the church
should be advised, and if the person's stubbornness persists, then
the person should be excommunicated. Obviously in dealing with
people outside the church, only the first two stages of this threestage process applies. The third stage in that case may be court
action depending on the seriousness of the wrong done.
Irrespective of whether we may have wronged others or have
ourselves been wronged by others, putting a wrong right entails
three steps:
1. Confession and repentance.
2. Forgiveness.
3. Restitution or restoration.
If you have wronged another person and you become aware of the
wrong you have done, your responsibility is to repent of the wrong
and to confess it to the person you have wronged. Their
responsibility then is to forgive you, on your repentance and
confession. If you confess but they do not forgive, you are in the
clear but they have now committed a wrong. It is tragic, but people
who were wronged and were innocent, can become guilty through
190
being unwilling to forgive the one who wronged them, on their
repentance and confession.
Once forgiveness has been extended, the one forgiven should do all
in their power to make restitution for the consequences of their
wrong. If, for example, as a consequence of a wrong you have
committed, a person has been maligned in the sight of others, then
you should seek to correct any misunderstanding others may have.
Unfortunately, it is frequently impossible to correct everything.
David was forgiven by the Lord for the murder of Uriah, and for his
adultery with Bathsheba, but his wrong-doing produced devastating
effects for many years for his family and the nation of Israel.
However, the fact that not everything can be put right should not be
used as an excuse to avoid making every effort to put as much right
as possible. One of the reasons for putting things right as quickly as
possible is that the longer a wrong is allowed to fester, the more
damaging the consequences that can result and the more difficult
restoration will be. Central to Biblical law is the concept of
restitution whether to man or to God. This requirement must be
taken very seriously when putting wrongs right.
An additional facet of forgiveness is that forgiveness can only be
granted to someone who has repented. The paradigm case in
Scripture is that of God's forgiveness of human beings. Forgiveness
is offered, but only received by, those who repent. 234 However,
while forgiveness can only be extended on repentance and
confession, our attitude must be that we are ever willing to forgive
the person who wronged us as soon as they repent.
We live in a day profoundly influenced by 'psychology'. No mainstream psychological view acknowledges the reality of real right
and wrong. Therefore, for psychology, real injustices and real
wrongs do not exist. Injustices and wrongs are redefined in terms of
'hurts' done or received. The church has unfortunately been
significantly influenced by such ideas and thus wrongs are often
considered not only to be objective moral violations of a person in
some way, but also as hurts inflicted on them. The more a person's
thinking is influenced by these psychological views, the more the
emphasis will be laid on 'hurts'.
191
Now causing a hurt may need to be confessed and repented of. But
such a response can sometimes be totally inappropriate. If I become
angry and punch someone on the nose, or if I call them names or
slander their character, thus causing them physical or emotional
hurt, that necessitates confession and repentance because it is a
wrong I have committed. But if I am a dentist drilling decay out of
a tooth, or if I correct someone by 'speaking the truth in love' to
them, the hurt that I may cause in either case does not require
repentance. Hurt has been caused but no wrong has been done and
thus repentance is unnecessary. As a dentist I may express regret
for the pain caused; as a Christian I may express sorrow for my
justified correction of another in love. But regret or sorrow in either
case does not equate to repentance. It is an acknowledgment of pain
that is unfortunately necessary if a problem is to be fixed.
To clarify this more fully, consider three Biblical examples:
1.
Joseph, sold by his brothers into Egypt, is promoted to
second place in the kingdom. His brothers come to him to buy food
for them and their families. He tests them in a way which subjects
them to much anguish over an extended period. Yet nowhere in the
record is there any suggestion that Joseph committed wrong by
putting his brothers through this suffering.
2.
Mary is pregnant and Joseph finds out. He is deeply
disturbed, assumes his fiancée had been unfaithful, and so he
decides to divorce her. Arriving at that decision must have been
heart-rending for him. After he had so decided, an angel appears to
him and tells him that Mary is pregnant with a child conceived
through God's direct action. God caused Joseph considerable hurt,
but did God need to repent of this? No.
3.
Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit who would convict
the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. The conviction of sin
frequently causes a person much torment. Does the Holy Spirit
commit a 'wrong' because He causes 'hurt?' Of course not.
A wrong is a particular moral violation of a person that must be set
right. Let us right as many of the wrongs we have committed as
possible, as well as causing as little hurt as possible - but also let's
never be seduced by psychological views that exclude real ethics.
192
• Suggestion 8. Be patient
Just as we must seek at all times to have a clear conscience, we
need to also learn to be patient. We don't know all that the Lord is
doing or why he allows events to occur the way they do. He may
allow error to intrude into a church as a means of testing it and
honing the individuals within it. Paul wrote:
1 Cor. 11
19. No doubt there have to be differences among you to
show which of you have God's approval.
This runs directly counter to the promiscuous, undiscriminating
unity that is often promoted in charismatic circles235 and which
ignores the very real differences that exist. But the fact that God's
approval will become evident, suggests that we sometimes may
have to patiently wait for his approval to be seen.
In his dealings with human beings, God is not usually in a hurry. He
waited roughly four thousand years after the Fall before he acted to
establish the actual ground on which salvation is based. 236 His
purposes have run two thousand years since Christ's death and
resurrection and who knows how much longer they may run.237
There are a number of times recorded in Scripture when God
refrained from acting because it was not the right time, and
alternatively, acted when the time was right. The people of Israel
went into Egypt for four hundred years because it was not the right
time for the Canaanite nations to be judged. The Lord's incarnation
was said to be 'when the time had fully come'. (Gal 4:4)
There is a time to act and a time to wait. If God took so long to do
what he has done, then why should things we are involved with
require to be done in haste? Frequently, by acting in haste, we
aggravate situations, causing rancour and sin. Yes, we may be
frustrated. Yes, we may be stressed. Yes, others may be getting
their own way. Yes, they may be spreading confusion. Yes, they
may even be subverting truth and corrupting the church. God
knows these things far more clearly than we do. But let us be
circumspect, prudent and cautious, rather than rash, insensitive and
hasty. Time can also be like a rope with which people hang
193
themselves. We may not have to force an issue at all. The steady
passage of time can make situations clear and can more effectively
turn the screws down on people who are wrong that anything we
could do. I am not suggesting that we be negligent, slack or
indecisive. I'm saying that there is a time to act and there is also a
time to wait or proceed with caution. We should always seek to
speak or act at the 'right' time, which may not be now. On the other
hand it may be!
• Suggestion 9: Do not be an anarchist
Error may occur within the congregation in general or within the
church leadership in particular. The manner in which we respond to
these two sources of error will obviously differ and our methods
may vary according to whether we are in leadership positions or
not. My experience has been responding as a member of a
congregation to what I consider to be error on the part of leadership.
For a person in this situation, I say, "Do not be an anarchist."
Respect the authority structures in your church. You may not
respect an office bearer but you must show them respect because of
the office they hold. 238 239 This may be very difficult.
When you have concerns, make them known to those in authority.
If however, they are the ones whose errors you are concerned about,
they can ensure that your concerns are effectively suppressed, or
censored out of any teaching of the church, news bulletins,
newsletters etc. By their suppression of justified concerns, such
people can also cause misrepresentations of people to accumulate.
Being misrepresented is something that can be deeply hurtful, yet
one may have to learn to bear it. If you bear misrepresentation
graciously and in a Christ-like manner, instead of fighting to defend
yourself, the Lord will notice even though nobody else may, and he
will reward you in due time.
Sometimes statements may need to be made to the church
independently of the authority structures. If so, when and how they
are done should be considered very carefully. I suggest they be
done only when all other practicable channels have been exhausted.
At one point I had intended to give some written comments to
various people in the church and mentioned my plans to a friend on
194
the day I was going to distribute it. She told her husband who
contacted me and strongly suggested that I would be making a
mistake. He was correct and I am grateful that my mistake was
pointed out to me in time. A church however, is not, and should not
be, a dictatorship with thought-police. Therefore it is quite valid for
individuals to speak their mind, even though it may be contrary to
the prevailing ethos.
If disagreement is long-standing and with leadership, a number of
things can occur. Disillusionment and cynicism can become deeply
entrenched, particularly if the leaders marginalise those with whom
they disagree; lack awareness of how their decisions or actions may
affect others; or are insensitive to the feelings of those in the
congregation. Prolonged disillusionment and cynicism can produce
a profound numbness in individuals, and the longer such a situation,
and the cause of it, prevails, the less likely it is to be satisfactorily
resolved. Church leaders must be very careful that they never allow
such deeply entrenched disillusionment to develop in members of
the congregation. Such numbness in an individual will very likely
result in gradual withdrawal from the life and activities of the
church, and may even manifest itself visibly in where the person
sits in church meetings - most likely, further and further from where
the action is, and closer and closer to the door. Eventually the
individual may simply move through the door, never to return.
• Suggestion 10: Be faithful to God by being faithful
to his church
The Church is Christ's Church. Don't give up on it in a hurry. He
has lessons for you to learn and characteristics he intends to build
within you. When the tensions increase, it is easy to want 'out'. At
some point this may be the appropriate course of action. However, I
think it is possible to leave a church too quickly. Of course it
depends on the particular circumstances. If a church has been
established on the basis of certain doctrines, then I suggest that
those who maintain those doctrines have prior right to the church
and its capital resources, instead of those who are seeking to
establish alternative and conflicting doctrines.
195
The usual situation that occurs in respect of the charismatic issue is
that within a church already established with a non-charismatic
doctrinal stance, a coup or takeover bid is staged. Some group in
the church attempts to change the church into a charismatic church.
(I have heard of only one charismatic church becoming noncharismatic and that was on the other side of the world somewhere.
Perhaps the story was apocryphal). I think the proper and honest
course of action is for those who have subscribed to the new
doctrinal position, to leave and join a church that already holds to
similar doctrines. If they want a building in which to propagate their
ideas, they should spend their own money to acquire it, rather than
stealing a building established by others.
The leaders of my church endeavoured to change it into a
charismatic church. Our meetings at times were unbearable. Sunday
after Sunday I came home with a headache - which I later learned
was the result of stress. One Sunday I could take no more, so
instead of attending the service, I took my youngest daughter for a
walk over the hills by the sea. I have never felt so much like a
refugee in all my life. I walked and walked and considered my
options. My church was my spiritual home. Although it was being
torn apart; although it was filled with tension and confusion,
nevertheless it was my only home. If I left, I had nowhere to go,
nowhere! Of course, other churches existed, but they were not my
home. Was I prepared to be homeless? Was I prepared to be
homeless? As I walked and carried my little girl on my back, I
slowly came to the conclusion that I was not cut out to voluntarily
be a refugee. If I was forced to be one, so be it, but I would not
choose to be one. My church was my home, my only home, and I
would stick with it until God resolved things. Numerous times after
that I simply prayed, "Lord, please, please help us. I have no idea
how you can sort this mess out but you do - so please do". 240 I
know that every situation is different and I would not be rigid on
this. Nevertheless I still say, "Be faithful to God's church."
• Suggestion 11: Don't promote yourself
The night before the Lord was crucified, he washed his disciples'
feet. The power and authority which he exhibited came from the
nature and quality of his life and was of a totally different order
196
from the usual human understanding of power and authority. Jesus
served. He did not pursue power and authority. He did not
manipulate others or ride over them so that he would get control.
He did not seek to position himself so that when the chips fell he
would be strategically placed for personal gain. He did not exploit
people to suit himself, and discard them when he had no further use
for them. He did not operate from a hidden, self-centred, agenda.
Paul said that Jesus did not regard equality with his Father a thing
to be held onto. We also should refrain from political aspirations
and the manipulation of events for our own advantage or benefit.
Suggestion 12: Be very cautious about ultimatums
An ultimatum can force your own hand more than that of those
whom you intend to force. In my own particular church situation,
two ultimatums were made, each effectively being, "Do this or
leave!" In both cases those who issued the ultimatums left the
church, in one case, within one week of issuing their ultimatum, in
the other, within two months. An ultimatum is an attempt to force
people to conform to what the person issuing it wants. In some
instances it could be merely a display of petulance with a grand exit
staged for dramatic effect, but nothing whatsoever gained. In
others, an ultimatum could be an attempt to resolve the situation by
side-stepping debate and forcing things to a head. In yet other cases
it may be hoped that a resolution can be achieved by a display of
raw fire-power or an authoritarian command. In all of these
situations, once the ultimatum is given, if the terms are not met, the
person issuing the ultimatum is left with no alternative but to do
what they said they were going to do - or to back down. Neither
option may be helpful to anyone.
• Suggestion 13. Do not use a shotgun
The Deputy stepped from dusty Main Street onto the porch of the
Hungry Horse Hotel. He hated this sort of thing. Every time he
wondered if these would be his last moments. Would he see his
new bride again? He crossed the two steps to the bat-wing doors
that opened into the bar, thankful he had his sawn-off shotgun in
his hands. At least it gave him a better than even chance. In the
confusion of a bar-room brawl, you had to be sure you got your
197
man. Too bad others got taken out as well but small cost for
staying alive.
Checking the cartridges one more time, he pushed through the
doors and moved two steps to the right to avoid leaving his back
exposed as a target to the street. The brawling lulled and
stopped as Bart's presence was felt in the smoke-filled room. No
one dared to mess with this man. Just to be near a target would
mean you'd go down in a hail of lead from the shotgun he held.
Why a shotgun? Because you don't have to be dead accurate with
your aim. Sure, you may hit others as well, but just by pointing in
the general direction you get your man. In church conflicts justified
accusations may have to be brought against particular people.
Perhaps injustices have been committed and those who committed
them need to be called to account. Perhaps an individual has
committed an injustice - or perhaps a group has done so. Perhaps
one particular individual did the deed but others played a lesser
role. Whatever the situation, to shoot off a general catch-all blast what I call the 'shotgun approach' - which accuses not only the
guilty but also the innocent, only serves to increase the number of
injustices. It is never the Lord's way to answer an injustice with an
injustice. We need to be scrupulous about this point.
In the lead up to the split in my congregation, a number of
'prophecies' were given to the church. They were of this 'shotgun'
type. Here is an example:
A picture came to me when praying with others. I "saw" an
empty cross and the Lord standing some distance from it. I was
standing with a small group of people a few metres in front of
Him (I could not identify the others) and as I looked I saw He
had a crown of thorns on His head which was roughly pulled
down over His eyes. It seemed to me the thorns symbolised the
pain and suffering we are causing in our fellowship through our
tensions, bickering, criticism, and lack of love one to another.
The crown pulled down over one eye and nose spoke of
disgrace. Some of our behaviour is a disgrace to the very name
of Christ. There arose in me a deep desire to lift that crown from
off His head, and the others who were with me came and helped
also, but there was a cost in doing that because the thorns
198
pricked and pained our hands. It seemed that if any of us are
prepared to make an effort to remove the pain and disgrace we
are causing Christ we will have to be prepared for some pain and
cost to ourselves. As He looked at us with a sad pitiful look He
asked simply, "Are you going to crucify Me again?"
It was clear to me then, and is clear to me now, that a number of
things were wrong with this so-called prophecy'. Consequently, I
decided to critique it the following Sunday, along with three other
'prophecies' it was bracketed with. Public criticism of so-called
'prophecies' is not customary behaviour for me, in fact I had never
done this before and have not since. One of my concerns with this
'prophecy' was with the general nature of the accusations, for
example; 'Some of our behaviour is a disgrace to the very name of
Christ'. What specific behaviour was being referred to? Who
precisely was committing this disgraceful behaviour? If this
behaviour really was disgraceful, then we needed to know both
what it was and who was doing it so it could be corrected. I asked
rhetorically whether it was being committed by a number of people;
mentioning the names of several godly older women in the church.
To charge such people with disgraceful behaviour was preposterous
- but these women got hit by the 'hail of lead'! Why hit them?
Worse still, the 'prophecy' was saying that it was Jesus who was
holding the shotgun and shooting into his church, knocking over the
innocent with the guilty. It was after all claimed to be a vision from
the Lord and given to the church as such, therefore it was the Lord
blasting away! (By the way, it was not the resurrected glorified
Lord of the Church, but instead a woebegone one who had
somehow gotten off the cross and who was wandering forlornly
around with his crown of thorns still on!)
This shotgun approach can of course just as easily be used without
invoking the authority of God behind the charges to give yourself
clout. Such tactics unnecessarily inflame situations by imputing
fault in places where no fault may exist. This should not be done. It
is unjust. If faults or sins must be referred to, have the courage to
name both the offender and the specific offence, and if necessary,
specifically exclude those you are not aiming at.
199
• Suggestion 14: Consult with others
In serious matters where accusations or charges are being made, I
prefer to write a letter. This way I can reflect on what I want to say
and take my time, rather than verbally 'shoot from the hip' - as the
saying goes. I have found it helpful to let some trusted friends see
my letters and comment on them. On such occasions, I ask them to
consider whether I have written anything which is abrasive,
inflammatory, untrue, unfair, or unnecessary. Of course the letter is
my letter, but the reaction of others helps me view it through
different eyes. This process could help me to moderate my tone or
any statements I may have allowed due to frustration. I confess that
I have not always followed my own advice – to my hurt!
The people you get to comment on such letters should preferably
not be 'in the thick of it with you', because it may become just two
or more 'firebrands' inciting each other. My intention in such
consultation is to reduce inflammatory remarks, to moderate tone
and to ensure things are done in a just way. If you decide to consult,
this presupposes that you really do desire to act justly, and avoid as
much as possible, stoking any fire there may be. Obviously, by
consulting, you slow the process down. Normally a day or two
would pass which allows for sober reflection. An alternative to
consulting with others is to "Sleep on it". Haste often spoils things including letters written in times of church conflict.
• Suggestion 15: Avoid imputing false motives
Be very careful about claiming to know the inner motivations of
others. We cannot see inside each other's heads! Some
psychological views understand all words as being masks for
distinctly different meanings. As much as possible I take words
spoken 'at their face value' and my policy is to speak that way also speaking the truth honestly and without guile or ulterior motives.
Unless I am aware from consistent and prolonged observation that a
person is operating out of some hidden agenda, I am very reluctant
to relate to them on the assumption they have one.
In this regard, I have observed that when our thoughts are occupied
with a controversy, it is possible for us to escalate the conflict in our
mind. Before we know where we are, we have turned those we are
200
in conflict with into ogres with thoroughly evil intentions - almost
the devil incarnate. Things must be kept in proportion. We must
retain a firm grip on reality.
• Suggestion 16: Avoid simply reacting
When charges are made against us, we should not simply react
against them and the person bringing them. Listen to the charges.
Are they correct? Do they have a measure of truth about them? If
they are not correct, explain why. If they are correct, acknowledge
this. While maintaining 'face' is crucial in some cultures, even to the
point of lying - this is not part of Biblical Christianity. Humility is
a major Christian virtue and it is the very opposite of 'saving face'.
• Suggestion 17: Be careful with e-mails
E-mail is remarkable. Quick, easy, global communication. But I
have encountered several pitfalls with it. E-mail lends itself to
'rebound' responses. Such responses are often made on the spur of
the moment to the detriment of both spelling and grammar, with
words even being omitted altogether. Further, it is easy to say
things by e-mail that might not necessarily be said to a person's
face. Body language is absent and so are other constraining factors
which come with a person's presence.
The speed of exchange via e-mail makes this a poor medium
through which to conduct conflict. I argue that it is slowness, not
speed, reflection and not reaction, which are needed in times of
controversy and strife, but e-mail is not conducive to these
objectives. Inflammatory and intemperate comments are more
prone to be made when communication is fast. Another danger may
apply in some cases. The 'Reply' and 'Reply All' buttons in mailer
software are often next to each other. A message you intend to send
to only one person, can accidentally end up being 'spread to the
world' because you hit the wrong button by mistake.
One good thing e-mail allows is for comments to be widely and
easily disseminated. This may help to keep some people honest
because their comments can so easily be put into a public forum.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Testimony of Robert Baxter, Chief Prophet of the
Irvingites.
The following is from a book called Spirit Manifestations and the
Gift of Tongues by Sir Robert Anderson, undated and I presume out
of print, pp4-9. It comprises a series of quotes from another book
called Narrative of Facts, by Robert Baxter, Jas, Nisbet & Co,
1833, and at the time of the writing of Anderson's book was long
out of print.
Baxter was a leading prophet in the Irvingite Movement. He
questioned and then rejected the experiences he and others had
while prophesying because things did not happen in the way
predicted. 241 Baxter's record is quoted by Anderson.
'"At this period I was, by professional arrangements, called
up to London, and had a strong desire to attend the prayer
meetings which were then privately held by those who spoke
in the power, and those who sought the gifts. Having obtained
an introduction, I attended; my mind fully convinced that the
power was of God, and prepared to listen to the utterances.
After one or two brethren had read and prayed, Mr T- was
made to speak two or three words very distinctly, and with an
energy and depth of tone which seemed to me extraordinary,
and it fell upon me as a supernatural utterance, which I
ascribed to the power of God; the words were in a tongue I
did not understand. In a few minutes Miss E. C - broke out in
an utterance in English, which, as to matter and manner, and
the influence it had on me, I at once bowed to as the utterance
of the Spirit of God. Those who have heard the powerful and
commanding utterance need no description; but they who
have not may conceive what an unnatural and unaccustomed
tone of voice, an intense and riveting power of expression with the declaration of a cutting rebuke to all who were
201
202
Appendices - Tongues Revisited
present, and applicable to my own state of mind in particular would effect upon me, and upon others who were come
together, expecting to hear the voice of the Spirit of God. In
the midst of the feelings of awe and reverence which was
produced, I was myself seized upon by the power; and in
much struggling against it was made to cry out, and myself to
give forth a confession of my own sin in the matter, for which
we were rebuked; and afterwards to utter a prophecy that the
messengers of the Lord should go forth, publishing to the
ends of the earth, in the mighty power of God, the testimony
of the near coming of the Lord Jesus.
"From this period, for the space of five months, I had no
utterances in public; though when engaged alone in private
prayer, the power would come upon me and cause me to pray
with strong crying and tears for the state of the Church. On
one occasion, about a month after I received the power,
whilst in my study endeavouring to lift up my soul to God in
prayer, my mind was so filled with worldly concerns that my
thoughts were wandering to them continually. Again and
again I began to pray, and before a minute had passed I found
my thoughts had wandered from my prayer back to the world.
I was much distressed at this temptation and sat down, lifted
up a short ejaculation to God for deliverance, when suddenly
the power came down upon me, and I found myself lifted up
in soul to God, my wandering thought at once riveted, and
calmness of mind given me. By a constraint I cannot describe
I was made to speak, at the same time shrinking from
utterance, and yet rejoicing in it. The utterance was a prayer
that the Lord would have mercy upon me and deliver me
from fleshly weakness, and would graciously bestow upon
me the gifts of His Spirit, 'the gift of wisdom, the gift of
knowledge, the gift of faith, the working of miracles, the gift
of healing, the gift of prophecy, the gift of tongues, and the
interpretation of tongues and that he would open my mouth
and give me strength to declare His glory.' This prayer, short
almost as I have now penned it, was forced from me by the
constraint of the power which acted upon me, and the
utterance was so loud that I put my handkerchief to my
Appendix 1 – Testimony of Robert Baxter
203
mouth to stop the sound, that I might not alarm the house.
When I reached the last word I have written, the power died
off me, and I was left just as before, save in amazement at
what had passed, and filled with thankfulness to God for His
great love so manifested to me. With the power there came
upon me a strong conviction - 'This is the Spirit of God; what
you are now praying is of the Spirit of God, and must,
therefore, be the mind of God, and what you are asking will
surely be given you'"
These events occurred in 1831. In the following January he
again visited the Metropolis. Could a dozen Christians of any
class be induced today to attend a prayer meeting at 6-30 o'clock
on a winter morning? But scores of city merchants and
professional men were then meeting daily at that hour to plead
for Pentecostal blessings. At one of these meetings, the morning
after his arrival in London, Mr Irving called on him to read and
pray. And he tells that, while he was reading Malachi 4,
"The power came upon me, and I was made to read in the
power. My voice raised far beyond its natural pitch, with
constrained repetitions of parts, and with the same inward
uplifting which at the presence of the power I had always
before experienced. When I knelt down to pray I was carried
out to pray in the power for the presence and blessing of God
in the midst of the Church; in all this I had great joy and
peace, without any of the strugglings which had attended my
former utterances in power."
He next describes an evening spent at a friend's house with Mr
Irving and others of the coterie. He says:
"After prayer Mrs J.C - was made to testify that now was the
time of the great struggle and power of Satan in the midst of
us; that now we must take to ourselves the whole armour of
God and stand up against him, for he was coming in like a
flood upon the Church, and fearful was his power. The pastor
observed that this utterance taught us our duty, as standing in
the Church to wrestle against the enemy, and whilst he was
going on to ask some question the power fell on me and I was
made to speak and for two hours or upwards, with very little
203
204
interval, the power continued upon me, and I gave forth what
we all regarded as prophecies concerning the Church and the
nation...These prophecies were mingled with others most
glorious and gracious, as they appeared to us, declaring the
Spirit should be abundantly poured forth, and a faithful and
mighty people should be gathered in this land.
"The power which then rested on me was far more mighty
than before, laying down my mind and body in perfect
obedience, and carrying me on without confusion or
excitement. Excitement there might appear to a bystander, but
to myself it was calmness and peace. Every former visitation
of the power had been very brief but now it continued, and
seemed to rest upon me all evening. The things I was made to
utter flashed in upon my mind without forethought, without
expectation, and without any plan or arrangement; all was the
work of the moment, and I was as the passive instrument of
the power which used me."
After narrating A Number of Similar Experiences, he remarks:
"To those who have been used to watch over the workings of
their own minds, and who have never been visited with the
power beyond the mere vagaries of excitement, it may seem
inexplicable how persons can be brought to surrender their
own judgment and act upon an impulse, or under a power
working in them, without daring to question that power. The
process is, however, very simple, and the reasons supporting
it are very plausible and - the premises admitted - perfectly
logical. My own case may be an example; accustomed to try
the powers and weaknesses of my own mind in public and in
private, in reasoning and in exposition, I found, on a sudden,
in the midst of my accustomed course, a power coming on
me which was altogether new - an unnatural, and in many
cases a most appalling utterance given to us - matters uttered
by me in this power of which I had never thought, and many
of which I did not understand until long after they were
uttered - an enlarged comprehension and clearness of view
given to me on points which were really the truth of God
(though mingled with many things which I have since seen
205
not to be truth, but which then had the form of truth) - great
setting forth of Christ, great joy and freedom in prayer, and
seemingly great nearness of communion with God, in the
midst of the workings of the power; the course of the power
quite contrary to the course of excitement. It was manifest to
me that the power was supernatural; it was therefore a spirit.
It seemed to me to bear witness to Christ, and to work the
fruits of the Spirit of God. The conclusion was inevitable, that
it was the Spirit of God, and if so the deduction was
immediate that it ought in all things to be obeyed. If I
understood not the words I was made to utter, it was
consistent with the idea of the utterances of the Spirit, that
deep and mysterious things should be spoken. If I were
commanded to do a thing of which I saw not the use, was I to
dare to pause upon God's command? If indeed, the things
were clearly contrary to God's truth, it would have been clear
God had not spoken it; but if it was a thing indifferent, surely
(I reasoned) God is to be obeyed. If any one is once
persuaded that the Spirit of God speaks in him by any
particular mode of communication, it will thenceforth be his
study only to discern that he does not mistake his own
feelings or impulses for that communication, for when the
communication is decided to be from God, faithfulness to
God steps in, and all the faith and love and simple reliance on
God, which the Christian through faith possesses, will be
enlisted to perform the command. Awful, therefore, is the
mistake if a seducing spirit is entertained as the Holy Spirit of
Jehovah. The more devoted the Christian seduced, the more
implicit the obedience to the seducing spirit."
Statements of this kind are discounted by any one who is
inclined to scepticism, especially if he knows much of human
nature, and I must add, of religious revivals. But the significance
of these statements will be appreciated by all who were
acquainted with their author, the late Mr Robert Baxter.
Ecclesiastically he was not Scotch, but Anglican, and at this time
he was a "High Churchman." He had been in the habit of
teaching the poor in the parish where he lived. But, he tells us,
he habitually refrained from praying at such meetings,
205
206
"conceiving that the privilege of leading in public prayer
belonged alone to the ordained minister." I enjoyed his
acquaintance for many years, and often met him in Christian
work. I had heard of his connection with Irvingism, but his
"Narration of Facts" never came into my hands till a few weeks
ago. The man, as I knew him, was a typical English
Parliamentary lawyer, reserved, slow of speech, and noted for
soundness of judgment. And as I here read of his pouring out a
torrent of unpremeditated words, sometimes for two hours at a
stretch, and of his cramming a handkerchief into his mouth at
private prayer, lest his "inspired" bellowings should disturb the
household, my distress and amazement are unbounded that
anyone could suppose that the spirit which energised him was
divine.
I must here add yet one more extract from his book Descriptive
of his Sunday Services during this period:
"The power came upon me in exhortation to the people to lay
aside their books and bow themselves before the Lord; to
worship him in spirit and in truth; that the Lord was at hand;
and as a witness to his people God was now sending forth a
ministry, not ministering in the flesh, but in the Spirit, who
should teach and minister in the utterance of the Spirit, and in
due time be endowed with all the mighty power of the Spirit.
After some further opening the people were called to pray
and, kneeling down, the power of utterance continued with
me for about an hour in prayer and intercession for the
Church and nation, king, ministers, and people for the
outpouring of the Spirit, the change of heart and life, and the
exaltation of God in the earth. As the power ceased I stayed,
and while they sang I went into the vestry to fetch a Bible.
Here I was wholly impotent, and appeared to myself as
though I had no strength to exhort the people. My sister,
under the nervous excitement of anxiety, was seized with an
hysterical fit. All my confidence in God seemed for a
moment to desert me, and I felt as though my mouth was shut
for ever. It was, however, but a moment the power came
down again on me, and I read in great power the 61st chapter
207
of Isaiah, and preached in the power for upwards of an hour,
after which I dismissed the people with the customary
benediction.
"In the afternoon service I took the same course, and the
power was with me in prayer and preaching as in the
morning...I have been much confounded by the fact occurring
in this instance, as also in most others of the public
testimonies on preaching, that Christ was preached in such
power and with such clearness, and the exhortations to
repentance so energetic and arousing that it is hard to believe
the person delivering it could be under the delusion of Satan.
Yet so it was, and the fact stands before us as a proof that the
most fearful errors may be propounded under the guise of
greater light and zeal for God's truth. 'As an angel of light' is
an array of truth, as well as holiness and love, which
nevertheless Satan is permitted to put on to accomplish and
sustain his delusions. It is yet more mysterious, and yet not
less true, that the truth so spoken was carried to the hearts of
several who, on this day, heard it, and these services were
made the means of awakening them, so far as the change of
conduct and earnest longing after Christ from that day
forward can be an evidence of it."
Appendix 2
Critical Dualisms that Confront the Church
The many radical divisions that are made to tear at the heart of
human existence are a characteristic of all anti-God thinking. Today
we sometimes say these divisions are expressions or legacies of
Greek thought, which the New Testament church imbibed in the
early years of its existence. But Greek thought is simply one
prominent example of the fundamental tensions that arise when
humans live in rebellion against God.
The Biblical View of Reality
God is Ultimate Reality, behind which there is no other reality. He
is that from which everything derives. He is also the Ultimate
207
208
Authority, that authority behind which there is no other authority.
He, in his own person, is 'The Standard' behind which there is no
other standard. There is no standard at the back of God by which he
is judged. If there was, that standard would be God. God is what he
is, or as he himself says, I AM WHO I AM.
It is this self-existing God who created the creation out of nothing,
building it in such a way that it is an expression of his own
character. He is separate and distinct from his creation, the eternal,
uncreated Creator, yet he holds the creation together moment by
moment. The existence of every part of the creation is dependent on
his sustaining action.
He has built into the creation the moral attributes that he himself
possesses such that when we say God is good or right or just - or
unjust, as some who hate him say - we are actually, in a sort of
feed-back way, measuring God against himself. More precisely we
are measuring God against the expression of himself that he has
built into the creation. God cannot be measured in any other way.
It is this God that Man is in rebellion against - the God who Man
depends on absolutely for his existence - the God who is the only
source of real meaning and purpose and values for Man's existence.
Is it any wonder that when Man denies his Maker he ends up with
tensions everywhere in his thinking - inconsistencies that undercut
everything he finds himself to be and everything he does?
God made a diverse creation which at root consists of two basic
created modes, the 'material' and the 'spirit' modes of existence.
Both of these modes are derived reality (that is, derived from the
Creator) and both were pronounced 'very good' at the end of
Creation Week. Neither mode is more basic than the other. They
are equally basic. There is no tension between them.
Non-Biblical Views of Reality :
Dualisms
Matter / Spirit
When we rebel against an authority, we do so on the basis of an
authority which we consider to be higher than the one rebelled
Appendix 2 – Critical Dualisms that Confront the Church
209
against. God is the highest authority. When Adam and Eve rebelled
against him, the authority they used to justify their rebellion was
their own. In terms of authority then, they made themselves the
Ultimate Authority. They made themselves God.
Something that occurred at the same time, but which is not so
evident, is that they also, as far as they were concerned, dethroned
God as Ultimate Reality. With the true Ultimate Reality removed,
the hunt then was on for a substitute. As the only reality that was
left after God was removed was the creation, the replacement
substitute 'Ultimate Reality' had to be found within it. As it was
'Ultimate' reality that was being looked for, the search had to focus
back on the basic structures of the creation. It was here that the
wisdom of God put rebellious man in a head lock from which he
has never escaped and from which there is no escape.
God has built a two-mode creation and so if rebels want to find
Ultimate Reality in the basic structures of the creation, they have to
make a choice. Is Ultimate Reality material or spiritual? For rebels,
the two modes of creation stand in tension to each other. Eventually
one will be chosen to the exclusion of the other - the tension
between them is too great for them both to be held, let alone held as
equal. The choice that is made determines the basis of a person's
world view, and it will be monistic, that is, ultimate reality is
reduced to one substance with ultimate distinctions denied.
Those who choose 'material' become materialists who deny the
realm of the spirit. 'There is no such thing as mind', says materialist
Dr Stephen J Gould, 'there is only brain'.
Those who choose spirit become mystics. They deny the physical
realm - it is an illusion or 'maya'. New Age thinking is 'spirit' based.
Greek thinking was the same and so is Hinduism. Often times there
is not total denial of the material realm, but in such cases, spirit is
seen to be superior to, or purer and more real than, material.
This dichotomy fragments man in his very basic nature because
humans are both material and spiritual. Except for the time between
our death and our resurrection, we will always be this composite of
the two modes of the created order. Apparently we are the only
creatures that are made of the two basic materials.
209
210
Biblical Christianity does not suffer from this rebellion-produced
tension between the two created modes, as the Creator alone is
acknowledged as Ultimate Reality and the created modes of
existence are his 'very good' creation. There is no tension at all
between the material and the spiritual when they are Biblically
understood. Any problems or tensions - or perceived problems and
tensions - in the creation, do not derive from its essential created
nature or being, but from ethical rebellion of the creature against the
Creator and the consequent effect of that rebellion on how reality is
understood.
Israel was constantly being enticed to move away from Biblical
thinking and the early church was not exempt. Greek thinking came
into the church and subverted Christianity almost from the
beginning. In the early years, this subverted faith was known as
'gnosticism'. It saw the spiritual realm as pure and the material
realm as corrupt or evil, not only an illusion. Matter itself was evil.
A number of New Testament books were written to combat the
precursors of this idea, for example John's Gospel and John's letters,
and the letter to the Colossians.
Interestingly the denial of the material realm is expressed in two
ways that appear to be totally opposed to each other. It can express
itself in a simple denial of the material world. You simply forget it
as much as you can. Your body is viewed as a hindrance getting in
the way of your spiritual pilgrimage. Therefore you may flay it in
various ways. You may deprive yourself of food. You may not
wash. You may not dress decently. You may lie on beds of nails or
submit yourself to punishing routines. You may also withdraw from
interaction with other people and their corrupting influence. Some
withdrew to live in seclusion. Some even went to the extent of
living on a platform on top of a pole. They thought this to be the
best way to isolate themselves from the evil of the physical world.
Who cleaned up the mess at the bottom of the pole? Who provided
them with food and water?
Sexuality is denied. I heard a couple interviewed on the radio who
were promoting 'celibate marriage'. They had been part of the
promiscuous set but claimed to have removed forever the
expression of their sexuality. "The fires of the volcano have been
211
removed," they said. To prove that this sort of thing has happened, a
man, such as Mahatma Gandhi, may surround himself with naked
woman to show that he has no sexual response. Gandhi was reputed
to have had a period of serious despondency because he had an
erection!
Such a view obviously has serious effects on marriage and the place
of children. For men who were into this, women became associated
with evil because they were an enticement to indulge in physical
things. The sexual attraction between men and women was
something that was evil. In various forms this has affected the
church to the present day. The way that sex has been seen as
something dirty by many Christians is an expression of it.
If the material realm is denied, there is no point in developing it.
Consequently science could never develop in a culture where this
view of things was dominant. Of course you do have to eat, but the
growing of food can be left up to the less spiritual. The gurus, or
those who are really spiritual, don't need to grow their own food.
They can sponge off everybody else and give their time completely
to spiritual pursuits!
But there is a second expression which almost seems like a denial
of the first as it appears so opposite to it. If the material realm is an
illusion, then nothing that you do with your body or the material
realm matters. Therefore you can do anything you like with them.
For example any sexual activity can be indulged in because
sexuality is an illusion and is not constrained by those things that
are really important, that is the spiritual. I'm sure this is one reason
why this view was attractive to so many western young people in
the 'counter culture' of the 1960's. It gave justification to a 'no holds
barred' promiscuity. So you have either asceticism or you have
license. Either everything is restrained or everything goes. All this
confusion derives from seeking Ultimacy within the creation.
Of course the monists who deny spirit also radically deny real
ethics. If material is all there is, then what is is right. Actually it is
even worse than that. Material is amoral and therefore all ethical
statements are actually meaningless. If material is all there is, then
there are no real ethics, full stop.
211
212
A Faulty Feminist Critique
Some feminists have seen the gnostic influence in the history of the
church and have mistaken it as being the true expression of Biblical
Christianity. Mary A. Kassian's book The Feminist Gospel: The
Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church, 242 pp54-55, has a
section dealing with the thought of Rosemary Radford Ruether as
expressed in Ruether's book Liberation Theology: Human Hope
Confronts Christian History and American Power. 243 Kassian's
analysis shows that Ruether makes this mistake.
'Dualisms as Models of Oppression
Rosemary Radford Ruether proposed that Christianity had
inherited a system of dualisms that had distorted its
"epistemological, moral, and ontological perceptions." Ruether
explained that a dualistic philosophy maintained that all
phenomena in the universe could be explained in terms of two
fundamental and exclusive principles of good or bad, right or
wrong. She cited the Gnostics, for example, as possessing an
anti-material subject-object dualism that regarded the nonmaterial universe as good, and the physical, material universe as
bad. The Gnostics, therefore, experienced salvation through
repressing their sensual appetites and carnal feelings, and
focusing instead on their inward, transcendent, spiritual selves.
According to Ruether, Christians adopted this Gnostic view, and
Christian reality was thus split into a "non-material thinking
substance" and a "non-thinking extension" or "matter". She
argued that Western Judeo-Christian culture operated out of a
psychology that extended that same dualism of body and soul,
subject and object into sociological alienation and oppression.
Ruether cited the male-female dualism as the primary social
extension of subject-object dualism. Spirit, mind, soul, and man
were linked with the "good" end of the polarity, while body,
emotion, physical matter (earth) and women were located on the
debased, fallen end.
Classical Christianity attributed all the intellectual virtues to the
male. Women was thereby modeled after the rejected part of the
213
psyche. She is shallow, fickle-minded, irrational, carnal-minded,
lacking all the true properties of knowing and willing and doing.
Ruether argued that men used sexual dualism to justify the
oppression of women by men. Furthermore, she argued that
sexual dualism provided the basic model for class and racial
oppression as well as earth exploitation. According to Ruether,
aberrant dualistic spirituality was responsible for "selfalienation, world-alienation, and various kinds of social
alienations in sexism, anti-Semitism, racism, alienation between
classes, and colonialist imperialism." Moreover, Ruether
maintained that Christianity, "as the bearer of this culture of
aberrant spirituality and its prime mover around the world,
carried a particularly deep burden of guilt."
Ruether believed that women and other oppressed groups would
only be freed through the disintegration of dualistic polarities.
"A perspective on liberation must emerge from a much more
deeply integral vision which finds a new unity of opposites
through transformation of values." She, along with other
feminist theologians, sought to create a new theology based on
the "messianic gospel of liberation," which - like Latin American
liberation theologians - they viewed as the crux of the Bible's
message. In contrast to Gutierrez's theology, however, feminists
saw the male-female relationship to be the primary dualism
whose harmonization would end all others. In the feminist
theologian's paradigm, the liberation of all peoples would only
be achieved in and through the liberation of women.'
Secular / Spiritual
There are other divisions also imposed onto the created order. One
that affects a huge number of Christians today is the division
between what is called the 'spiritual' and the 'secular', or the 'secular'
and the 'sacred'. Church, prayer, reading your Bible, and belief in
God, are said to be 'spiritual'. Education, work, entertainment,
politics, sport etc, are said to be 'secular'. 'Secular' means 'not
related to any supernatural realm'.
So there is a division between what you do on Sunday and what
you do on Monday through Saturday. What you do and learn at
213
214
church has little or no application, to anything but your personal
morality. This division is particularly stark with regard to
education. God has no place in secular schools. No subject is taught
in the light of the fact that God is the Maker of everything that
makes that subject possible. If you take History in a secular school,
you do not learn that God is the Lord of history who raises up
powers and puts down powers and brings judgment on nations
because of their rejection of him. If you learn Geography or
Anthropology, you don't learn, as Paul says to the Greeks in Athens,
Acts 17
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they
should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the
times set for them and the exact places where they should
live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps
reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from
each one of us.
If you take Biology, you do not study things in a way that points out
to you the brilliance of the Maker of living things. Nor do you learn
that the Maker made each basic type of organism to reproduce after
its 'kind'. Biology understood this way means that rather than there
being one evolutionary family tree that has all life forms that have
ever existed being related to every other life form that has ever
existed, there is actually a forest of family trees with only the
members of each created kind sharing a common family tree. If you
take Maths, nowhere do you hear that we live in a mathematical
world because the World's Maker is the Master mathematician.244
If you take Art, you are not taught to wonder at the brilliance of the
person who thought of all the colours and combined them the way
they are in things - or of the one who built the physical structure of
things so that they reflected to us only that part of the visible light
spectrum that would give us only the colours they do. Nor in this
regard are you taught to consider the Maker of the eye which allows
you to see the colours. This system is designed for light rays to
enter the eye, for them to activate electric currents which send
messages to the brain, which decodes the messages and converts
215
them into a technicolour moving picture in your head in such a way
that it appears to you that you are looking out through your eyes.
Secular schools teach so that pupils come to understand all the
things without reference to the God who made those things.
Children who come from Christian homes and who go to such
schools, are taught implicitly to make a division between what they
learn at church and what they learn at school.
In church they are taught that God is of Ultimate worth and
therefore is to be acknowledged in all their life. Jesus is to be Lord
of everything. However at school God is not even mentioned so
how can he be of Ultimate worth? If he really is of Ultimate worth,
then everything at school should be done acknowledging that
worth! But those who run the secular schools do not think that God
is of Ultimate worth at all. In fact they don't think he is worth
anything at all and that is why he is not mentioned. They think
other things are of Ultimate worth and so everything is done in the
light of those things. Human beings are normally thought of as
being of Ultimate worth and so humans, their activity and well
being, are the focus of study.
This has serious ramifications for Christians. I went through the
secular system in New Zealand and was trained to have this radical
division in my life. This happened to me because the Christians of
my parents' and grandparents' generations, either bought the lie that
education is neutral as regards 'religion', or that the education being
offered in the State system was more or less 'Christian'.
Education of course is not neutral, nor are secular values that look
like Christian values, Christian. Essential to 'Christian' values is the
foundation on which those values sit, that is God - the Creator,
Redeemer and Judge. Take the foundation away and you may have
a value that looks identical on the surface to a Christian value,
however it is not a Christian value because it does not have the
foundation. That value is a relativistic, humanistic value. Because
some humanistic values looked the same as Christian ones in the
past, many Christians were conned. Of course many Christians are
conned today by the precisely the same thing.
215
216
When I got into my mid twenties and wanted to acknowledge
Christ as Lord of all, I began to find I had a problem. I didn't know
what it meant to have Christ as Lord of all - and neither did too
many others. They all had this radical division built into their lives
as well. The division was so well built into me, that though I
recognised I had a problem that had something to do with the
Lordship of Christ, I didn't actually know what it was! For me at
least, it was the writings of Dr Francis Schaeffer that identified the
problem for me and put me back together again - aided shortly
thereafter by the discovery of the modern Creation Movement
though the visit in 1973 of Dr Henry Morris to New Zealand. 245
A very significant aspect of this secular / spiritual division is the socalled 'separation of Church and State'.
The State is claimed by the secularists to be non-religious and
therefore it is to be free from any interference by those with
'religious' ideas. A classic illustration of this mentality occurred in
New Zealand in the middle of 1993. A male child-care worker was
charged with various indecencies, found guilty and sent to prison. A
leading policeman involved in the case was a Christian and on the
completion of the trial made some very strong comments to the
media about the liberal values that were influencing the country for
the worse. He was immediately jumped on as being unsuitable to
hold the position he did because of his 'religious bias' which made
him less than objective. Were those who opposed this policeman's
comments religiously unbiased? Of course not!
Conveying the idea that only those who believe in God are
'religious' has been a major propaganda coup for the secularists.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Religion can be defined as
'a belief system, which provides answers to ultimate questions and
by which life is directed'. Some of these ultimate questions - which
are religious questions - are as follows:
•
•
•
•
"Where do I come from?"
"How did I get here?"
"Do I have any purpose?"
"Are there any rules around here. If there are, what are they
and who makes them?"
217
On this basis then, all people are 'religious'. Atheists have a belief
system about the past which gives them a way of understanding and
interpreting and giving meaning to the present. The difference
between a 'theistic belief system' and an 'atheistic belief system' is
not that one is religious and the other is not. It's that one has a
Creator as its starting point, and the other doesn't. They are both
belief systems and therefore are equally religious. It is not a matter
therefore of one side 'believing', having 'faith', being emotionally
involved and by definition not being rational or objective about
things; and the other side being 'non-religious', coolly objective and
unemotional interpreters of facts. Everyone of us has a belief
system and we interpret the things around about us on the basis of
that belief system - whether we are aware we have it or not. And
everyone of us is, to varying degrees, emotionally and rationally
connected to our belief system. Our belief system colours the way
we look at everything.
When we understand this and then look at the 'Church / State' or
'religion / State' division, we can see it for what it is, a self-serving
ploy of humanists to retain control of the wheels of power
unhindered by people who oppose their basic philosophy. It is not a
question of whether or not religion and the State will be separated
or merged. It is rather a matter of which religious viewpoint the
State will express. The exercise of authority is a fundamentally
religious activity. Exactly the same applies to education which was
mentioned before. Education is a fundamentally religious activity.
It is impossible to have non-religious education. Again it is not a
matter of whether religion will be in the schools or not. It is a matter
of which religion will be in the schools. Many Christians have
bought the secularists' lie and so have put themselves on the back
foot when dealing with humanists in politics and education.
The secular / spiritual division is radically anti-Christian.
Head / Heart
There is a division made between the 'head' and the 'heart'; or
between our 'mind' and our 'feelings or emotions'; or between the
'mind' and the 'spirit'. In all these divisions, one side of the divide is
good and the other side is bad. In this division, the head or mind
217
218
side is bad, and the heart/feelings/emotional/spirit side, is good. If a
person thinks a lot about the Lord and studies the Bible and
understands it clearly through their study, they may be said to be 'all
head'.
In 2 Corinthians there is a verse which says,
2 Cor. 3
6. He has made us competent as ministers of a new
covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter
kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The way this verse is often used in this division is that the 'letter' is
the Bible which is seen to be 'bad', well no, not quite bad, but not
fantastically good either, certainly constraining, while the Spirit,
that is, God speaking inside our heads directly, is seen to be
fantastically good and liberating. In some Christian circles today, if
you insist on hearing what the Bible says and insist that it is the
Ultimate Authority for us today because it is the Word of God, you
may very well be accused of being 'all head', of being a cerebral
Christian and of being a 'Bibliolater'. You may be accused of
rejecting the superior way of knowing God through having him
speak inside your head. Certainly you will be accused of being
unspiritual.
Those promoting this division tend not to value the mind or intellect
very highly. There are huge numbers of people who claim to be
Christians who think (sic) this way. There is an inconsistency here.
The mind is not valued, but you have to use the mind to arrive at
the idea that the mind is of no value! Some people take this view
(that the mind is bad, that it gets in the way and stops us from being
uninhibited in our worship of God) because they believe it to some
degree. Others I'm sure do it because they are lazy thinkers and get
scared of people who can out-think them. One way to get the better
of people who can out-think you is to say that thinking doesn't
matter; that you have a better way of knowing. And it can be made
to sound so 'spiritual'! The Bible does not make this division
between head-knowing and heart-knowing. I'll give just two
indications of this. Compare the two ways Jeremiah 31:33 is quoted
in Hebrews:
219
Heb. 8
10. This is the covenant I will make with the house of
Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws
in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their
God, and they will be my people.
and,
Heb. 10
16. This is the covenant I will make with them after that
time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I
will write them on their minds.
These verses are significant because the writer felt quite free to use
the words 'mind' and 'heart' interchangeably. In his mind they were
synonyms. It is an instance of Hebrew parallelism, where the same
thought is expressed twice but in different words. There no division
between the two at all.
Ecclesiastes 2
15. Then I thought in my heart...
Thought here is attributed to the heart. 246
This division is emphasised by some of those who say that man has
three parts to his nature - body, soul and spirit - as opposed to two
parts - body and spirit. Man is both tangible and intangible. He is
both material and spirit in a unified composition of the two. If we
say man has three parts, normally the body is seen as the tangible
part, and the soul and spirit are two separate parts of the intangible.
In this analysis, the spirit is that part of us that relates to God and is
like a second person in our being, at least that is the way radical
Pentecostals talk. The soul includes the mind and intellect which in
effect war against the spirit. This view seems to consider the spirit
as unfallen, still pure and open to God, and the mind and the
intellect, fallen and depraved and opposed to God.247 Sounds Greek
to me! Clearly this view lends itself to a radical anti-intellectualism
as the flipside of a radical mysticism.
219
220
Natural / Supernatural
There is another division that is very hard to escape today. The
terminology of it is everywhere in Christian circles. It is the
division between the 'natural' and the 'supernatural'. Biblically the
primary division is between the uncreated and the created. God
only is uncreated. Everything else, including angels and the created
spirit realm is a creature. If the natural / supernatural division
terminology is to be used it should refer to God only as being
supernatural, and all creatures as natural. However the way the
terminology is normally used, 'supernatural' includes some
creatures as well as God, namely angels and demons. This excludes
human beings, they are seen as simply 'natural' along with the
physical world. This understanding puts the division in the wrong
place and creates a significant problem.
The Consequences of Dualisms
What all of these divisions do is fragment our being and our lives.
They split us up in some way and put us under tension. They make
one part of our being war against another part of our being so that
we can never see life as a complete and consistent unit. We can
never see life in a harmonious, whole way. Because of these
tensions we can never be content, and find it very difficult, if not
impossible, to have a clear conscience.
For example, imagine you believed that thinking about God was
good and thinking about physical pleasures was bad. You're OK
when you think about God - you're doing good stuff if you do that.
But what happens when you really enjoy some food - a physical
pleasure - a bad thing? As soon as you realise that you have enjoyed
it, you will feel guilty. Life will be a constant battle not to enjoy
anything material or any sensation that is pleasurable. It could drive
you to make sure that no food you prepare either looks good or
tastes good.
To say it again, the true Biblical division is an ethical division. It
is between obeying God and disobeying God. The division is not
in the way God has made the world. It is in the way some of his
creatures ethically respond to him.
Endnotes
1
p21. See Charismatic Chaos by John MacArthur Jr., Zondervan, 1992,
page 32-35, and The New Charismatics, by Michael G. Moriarty,
Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, pp20-86.
2
p21. For a helpful historical sketch see Forerunner of the Charismatic
Movement: The Life of Edward Irving, by Arnold Dallimore, Moody Bible
Institute, 1983. Also Counterfeit Miracles, by B. B. Warfield, Banner of
Truth Trust, reprinted 1986, pp125-153.
3
Victor Budgen, The Charismatics and the Word of God, Evangelical
Press, 1986, pp147-178.
p21.
4
p21. Victor Budgen, ibid, p113-120. Also Charismatic Chaos by John
MacArthur Jr., Zondervan, 1992, pp73-75.
5
p21. Morton Kelsey in Tongue Speaking: The History and Meaning of
Charismatic Experience, Crossroad, 1981, has some historical matters of
interest. However it seems he is rather desperate to find evidence from the
past to support his view. As a result he puts forward some rather
inconclusive material. Inconclusive evidence added to inconclusive
evidence is still inconclusive. His collection of 'evidence' also shows how
uncritical Kelsey is. It includes references to clearly heretical groups as
valid evidence that 'tongue speaking' has continued down through the
centuries. He is a liberal, and heavily into Jungian psychology, so perhaps
he is not as concerned about truth as he is about self-authenticating spiritual
experiences.
6
Claims to miracles are not at all unique to Pentecostal/charismatic
groups. The Roman Catholic church has always accepted the 'miraculous'
and still does. Its history is full of the most amazing claims of miracles. In
fact it bases its claim to be the authentic church of God, on miracles being
manifest through it. See Counterfeit Miracles, by B. B. Warfield, Banner of
Truth Trust, reprinted 1986, particularly pp73-124.
p21.
221
222
Tongues Revisited
7
p21. Riding the Third Wave, compiled and edited by Kevin Springer,
Marshall Pickering, 1987, pp27-32. From the 'Introduction' by John
Wimber.
8
p21. Ibid. These are just new names for the sort of things Pentecostals have
believed all along.
9
p21. For an excellent analysis/critique of John Wimber and 'the Vineyard'
see Power Religion: The Selling out of the Evangelical Church?, editor
Michael Scott Horton, ANZEA, 1992, Part 2, pp61-136. The three essays
in this section were written by John H. Armstrong, D. A. Carson, and
James M. Boice.
10
See The New Charismatics, by Michael G. Moriarty, Zondervan
Publishing House, 1992. The 'new Charismatics' include people such as Dr
Bill Hamon, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and Earl Paulk.
p21.
11
The major difference between Pentecostals and charismatics is that
Pentecostals would say that so-called 'tongues' are the universal evidence of
baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereas charismatics allow for God to distribute
his 'gifts' as he will. In theory charismatics do not see everyone as having to
speak in so-called 'tongues'. While this may be a difference which leads to a
slight difference in outlook, in terms of the basic phenomenon, I can
discern no difference and thus treat them for convenience under one
heading. Dennis J. Bennett in Nine O'clock in the Morning, Kingsway
Publications, 1979, p245, lumps them both together. He says 'From the
very beginning, one of the great marks of the "charismatic renewal," or
Pentecostal revival, in the historic churches, has been that...'
p21.
12
Michael G. Moriarty in The New Charismatics, Zondervan
Publishing House, 1992, clearly shows how the various distinctive
Pentecostal movements that have developed over the past 90 years, have by
and large adopted the doctrines of their predecessors, while adding their
own particular twists to them. So while many of these movements have
died, their doctrines carry on under a new name.
p21.
13
p22. See article by Paul Bartz in Bible-Science News, Vol 30:7, 1992,
(Published by Bible-Science Association, Inc, PO Box 32457, Minneapolis,
MN 55432, USA) pp1-2, on 'Political Correctness as a Tool Against
Christians'.
Endnotes
223
14
p22. For an excellent analysis of feminist history, claims and agenda, see,
The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism With the Church,
by Mary A. Kassian, Crossway Books, 1992. Regarding the generic use of
the word 'man', particularly within Christian circles, see p138:
'Russell...argued that the use of male language, namely, use of the generic
man and male pronouns to refer to God, excluded women from full
participation in the Christian experience, thereby reinforcing male
supremacy and relegating the female to the position of "other." According
to Russell, everyone was included by these words, "…but only in the sense
that man is the norm for human and woman is simply a less-than-human
appendage to man."
Russell, and other feminist theologians, agreed that using the generic "man"
to refer to men and women, assigned to women an inferior status.
Moreover, they contended that the use of masculine pronouns for God
contributed to the "fundamental namelessness" of women.'
Kassian, in this chapter (Chapter 12, pp135-147, 'The Feminization of
God'), deals extensively with the 'Christian' feminist endeavour to remove
masculine language from the Bible, church prayer books and liturgy, and
replace it with inclusive language. She documents the feminist awareness
of the idea that language determines the way people think.
15
p23. In Social Justice and the Christian Church, by Ronald H. Nash,
Mott Media, 1983, pp81-82, Nash says, 'The first obstacle that any
attempt to provide a fair discussion of capitalism must overcome is the
problem of terminology. For one thing, the very name most often given
to the free market system (“capitalism”) was actually coined by Marx
as a term of reproach.
“As coined and circulated by Marxism, the term has retained up to
the present so much of its hate-filled significance and class
struggle overtones that its usefulness for the purposes of scientific
discussion has become extremely questionable. In addition, it
provides us with only a very vague notion of the real essence of
our economic system. Instead of promoting understanding, it
merely arouses the emotions and obscures the truth. (Wilhelm
Ropke, Economics of the Free Society [Chicago: Henry Regnery
Co., 1960] p259.)”
Though use of some other term or phrase, free of the negative emotive
connotations of “capitalism,” might well contribute to a more
enlightened discussion of the issues, no better term seems available.
Apparently the most anyone can do is purify its usage.'
223
224
Tongues Revisited
16
p23. See Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and its Confrontation
with American Society, by Herbert Schlossberg, Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1983, pp245-250.
17
p23. See No God But God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age, edited by
Os Guinness and John Seel, Moody Press, 1992, p117. Guinness says,
'Psychology has not only become an important new discipline, it has put its
stamp on other disciplines and fields including law, politics, literature,
religion, and advertising. Advertising, for example, is virtually psychology
in reverse. At the same time, psychology has woven itself into the warp and
woof of everyday life and speech. From such early terms as "unconscious"
to such recent ones as "codependency," the jargon of psychology has
become the coin of everyday life. And its themes and insights are now
fundamental to such arenas as marriage, sex and child-rearing…The
triumph of the therapeutic has finally transformed psychology from a mere
discipline to a worldview and a way of life.'
18
See, PsychoHeresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity;
Prophets of PsychoHeresy 1; Prophets of PsychoHeresy 2; 12 Steps to
Destruction: Codependency/Recovery Heresies, all by Martin and Deidre
Bobgan, EastGate Publishers, 4137 Primavera Rd, Santa Barbara, CA
93110, USA. Also Christian Psychology's War on the Word of God: The
Victimization of the Believer, by Jim Owen, EastGate, 1993.
p23.
19
p23. For an evaluation of how psychology has entered and become
epidemic in evangelical circles, see three excellent essays written by David
Powlison, Edward Welch and Don Matzat in, Power Religion: The Selling
out of the Evangelical Church?, editor Michael Scott Horton, ANZEA,
1992, Part 4, pp188-261. Regarding 'codependency', Welch says p222, 'Out
of this A.A. tradition came the original definition of codependency.
Codependency referred to the complex web of relationships that exist
around substance-abusers. The field of meaning for the term had to expand,
however, in order for it to have the grass roots impact it currently enjoys.
By the late 1970s the concept of addictions was expanding to include
activities such as gambling, sex, and eating. During the 1980s it expanded
even further, until the literature now assures us that we all have an
addiction.' Powlison writes in general regarding the influence of
psychology on evangelicals, pp198-199, 'The breakout has occurred. The
psychological river has been slowly rising up the levee since the mid 1950s.
It went to flood stage in the late 1980s. Psychology entered evangelical
religion in almost every setting. The authoritative, compelling, and
Endnotes
225
interesting ideas are derived from psychology. The best-selling self-help
books in Christian bookstores are psychologically flavored (e.g., David
Seamands, Larry Crabb, Minirth and Meier, et al.). A colleague recently
told me of his conversation with the manager of a large Christian
bookstore. When asked, "What's hot these days?" the man replied,
"Anything with 'pain' in the title. I can't keep the shelves stocked because
they sell so fast." Almost every major evangelical book publisher has
recently featured titles dealing with recovery, dysfunctional families, adult
children, and the healing of psychological pain...Psychologists, not pastors
or theologians, maintain cultural authority in the evangelical church with
respect to people and their problems. They are the experts, with authority to
define what is right and wrong, true and false, good and bad, constructive
and destructive...numerous evangelical practices have also been
transformed into the psychological mode. The theology and exegesis
proclaimed from many pulpits unfolds psychological themes: self-esteem,
the meeting of psychological "needs", the gospel as unconditional and
undemanding love, healing as the mode of understanding personal
transformation, and the like. Discipleship, prayer, or Bible study groups
have frequently evolved into support groups or 12-step groups.'
20
An example of a non-charismatic thinking charismatically is the
book Charismatic Challenge: Four Key Questions, by John Napier, Lancer
Books - ANZEA Publishers, 1992. Napier, while writing against the
charismatic movement, concedes ground through not making clear
distinctions between what charismatics practice and what is recorded in
Scripture. This even occurs in the framing of several of his four 'key
questions'. Question 2 reads, 'Why would God allow dedicated Christians
to experience the sign and revelatory gifts if they are not from him?' Hold
on! If they '...are not from him', then they are not the sign and revelatory
gifts as Napier conceives of them! Question 3 reads, 'If the sign and
revelatory gifts are not for today, and are not from God, why do these
experiences produce positive effects in believers' lives?' Are the sign and
revelatory gifts from God or not? They can't be both. John MacArthur
makes a similar mistake as I show in later footnotes.
p23.
21
D.A.Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p134, tells the
following story which illustrates the charismatic capture of the issue.
Carson is not telling the story to illustrate this however. 'Some time ago, a
pastor in England discussed some of these matters with a well-known
charismatic clergyman. The charismatic, doubtless thinking of Paul's
words, "Do not forbid to speak in tongues," asked my friend what he would
do if someone began to speak in tongues at one of the meetings of the
p23.
225
226
Tongues Revisited
church he served. The pastor replied, "I'd allow the tongues-speaker to
finish, and if there were an interpretation immediately forthcoming, and no
proselytizing in the ensuing weeks, I'd have no objection."
Then he paused, and asked in return, "But what would you do if there were
no public tongues-speaking in your church for six months or so?"
"Ah," replied the charismatic, "I'd be devastated."
"There is the difference between us," the pastor replied; "for you think
tongues-speaking is indispensable. I see it as dispensable, but not
forbidden."'
The difference between these two is cosmetic. They both agree on the basic
phenomenon and differ only on whether it is essential or not. Carson aligns
himself with his pastor friend by noting, following the telling of the story,
'And that, surely, is Paul's distinction.'
22
p24. Francis Schaeffer in The God Who is There, Hodder and Stoughton,
1968, pp56-59, has some comments on the power of connotations riding on
words as opposed to what we could call the 'traditional' meaning of the
words - though he is talking about a different use of language than I am
here. He is addressing the neo-orthodox stratagem of evacuating meaning
from Biblical words while retaining connotations that ride on them for the
'appearance of meanings' sake and for manipulative purposes.
23
An overall treatment of these other things can be found in John
MacArthur's book Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan, 1992. However I do not
think he deals with 'tongues' very well.
p24.
24
It should be realised that the current phenomenon known as 'tongues'
is not limited to charismatics. Mormons have practised it (see Forerunner
of the Charismatic Movement by Arnold Dallimore, Moody Press, 1983,
pp133 & 175, and also Tongue Speaking: The History and Meaning of
Charismatic Experience, by Morton Kelsey, Crossroad, 1981, pp57-59).
Kelsey says, 'During the early period of the [Mormon - RM] church
tongue-speech was generally understood among them as a completely
unknown language requiring interpretation, and at the dedication of the
Temple in Salt Lake City hundreds of elders spoke in tongues. Such
practice was soon discouraged by the leaders, however, "because it has
brought ridicule and disrespect from the ungodly."'
p24.
Some in the New Age movement practice it. For example Dave Hunt
writes the following in his book America: The Sorcerer's New Apprentice The rise of New Age Sharmanism, Harvest House, 1988, p262: 'Best-selling
author Gerald Jampolsky has become famous for his use of A Course In
Endnotes
227
Miracles in his psychiatric practice and in his books and lectures around the
world. He tells how he was prepared for the message of the Course through
his own initiation when guru Muktananda administered the shaktipat: ...it
seemed as though I had stepped out of my body and was looking down
upon it. I saw colors whose depth and brilliance were beyond anything I
had ever imagined. I began to talk in tongues. A beautiful beam of light
came into the room and I decided at that moment to stop evaluating what
was happening and simply be one with the experience, to join it
completely...I was filled with an awareness of love unlike anything I had
known before. And when I started reading the Course, I heard a voice
within say, "Physician, heal thyself; this is your way home," and there was
a complete feeling of oneness with God and the Universe.'
Between 1845 and 1872 in New Zealand, a number of wars occurred
between some Maori (the indigenous peoples of New Zealand) and,
initially the British, and later the New Zealand Colonial Forces. Between
around 1860 and 1872, some of these Maori were inspired by a mystical
religion that began as the result of a revelation to a 'prophet' named Te Ua.
The religion was called Pai-Mariri or Hauhauism. It was syncretistic,
combining a variety of superstitions with elements of Christianity, the latter
having been widely adopted by the Maoris from the 1830's on (see
Christianity and the New Zealanders by William Williams, Banner of
Truth, 1989.) The Angel Gabriel was the one who was claimed to have
given the revelations. In Hauhauism: An Episode in the Maori Wars 1863-1866,. by S. Barton Babbage, A H & A W Reed, 1937, p 33, we read:
'These chants were intoned while the naked throng of men, and women and
children would touch with the hand the head of a white man set upon a
post. These "preserved Pakehas' heads" were apparently made to utter
words of prophetic import: invariably to the effect that the Pakeha [those of
European descent - RM] would eventually be overcome. Mr White says:
"The sign of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon any of them is a cold
shivering at the time they are performing the circle marching around the nui
[a tall pole very similar to the mast of a sailing ship - RM]. After the cold
shivering they are inspired with the gift of languages, some of which I have
heard. A perfectly unintelligible jargon both to themselves and to others."
The worshippers worked themselves into a state bordering on frenzy during
the procedure of the ritual, until catalepsy frequently prostrated them.'
It may be of interest to compare the above with the following which is a
transcript of part of Today with Derek Prince broadcast on Radio Rhema,
26 February, 1993, '...Seven. Yield your members. The unruly member
which you can't tame is what? - the tongue. Paul says in Romans 6, 'Yield
yourselves to God as those that are alive from the dead and your members
227
228
Tongues Revisited
as instruments of righteousness to God'. The particular member that God
wants to take and make an instrument of righteousness is your tongue. I
have discovered with Pentecostal people when you pray for them for the
Baptism, they start to shake all over - like a jelly - that's not all of them but
many - that's a Pentecostal tradition. If I minister to them, I say "Listen, just
quiet down for a moment - cos the Holy Spirit isn't after your feet or your
hands. He's after your tongue - OK? just be a little more quiet. Don't let all
that power go out and waste it. Let it be channelled into your tongue.' And
if you can just stop them and get them to be quiet, it'll come immediately.
Remember, what is he after? - the tongue.'
25
Michael G. Moriarty, in his book the New Charismatics, makes
some detailed and telling analysis of various charismatic doctrines which
disturb him. However, when it comes to the 'tongues' issue, he effectively
skirts it completely. For example p144: 'Speaking in tongues is simply a
"sign gift" given to certain believers for God's glory (14:22). Space forbids
me to elaborate on whether this gift is for today or for devotional purposes.'
On p152: 'The division between charismatics and non-charismatics has
always been primarily over the tongues issue - non-charismatics are often
looked upon as second-class Christians because they do not speak in
tongues', and yet he doesn't address this 'primary' issue! Similarly, p293:
'My purpose here is not to try to determine whether speaking in tongues is
supernatural, natural, artificially stimulated, or demonic. My aim is to
examine the Scriptures to see if there is any evidence that speaking in
tongues is a weapon given for spiritual warfare to confuse Satan and send
him running.' Again this is an evasion of the issue.
p24.
26
p24. Something I find particularly intriguing in this regard is that I am not
aware of any of the popular apologists or cult analysts tackling this
question. For example Dave Hunt, in a number of his books, is very
forthright regarding the New Age movement, positive mental attitude,
visualisation, neo-shamanism, psychology etc, and he is willing to name
people. However I have not come across him dealing anywhere with the
'tongues' issue.
Another effect seems to be that some people end up speaking out of both
sides of their mouth. For example Michael G. Moriarty in The New
Charismatics says on p206: 'This is not to say that Wimber's Vineyard
movement or any charismatic ministry is heretical or satanic in origin...'
and yet, after discussing magic and condemning it as a dangerous form of
idolatry, he says on p207: 'The signs-and-wonders emphasis is generating
Endnotes
229
an army of Christian Magicians attempting to create the power of God to
provide a "witness" in the world today.'
27
p24. See Charismatic Chaos, by John MacArthur, pp97-99 for a
discussion of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
28
p25. It appears to me that this warning about false prophets performing
great signs and miracles etc, was primarily addressed to the Apostles and
concerned the time between the giving of the warning, and the destruction
of Jerusalem in AD70 to which the passage refers (I am not convinced that
Matthew 24 refers to 'end times'). However I see no reason why we today
should not be subjected to the same order of deception.
29
See Appendix 1 for the testimony of Mr Robert Baxter. Baxter was
for several years in the early 1830's, the leading prophet in Edward Irving's
Church in London.
p26.
30
An illustration of this confusion would be Prof. Anthony Hoekema's
book, What About Tongue-Speaking? An Enquiry from Scripture and
Experience, Paternoster, 1966. He says on p83: 'I believe, therefore, that
there were important differences between the glossolalia reported in Acts
and that reported in 1 Corinthians. Whether these differences concerned
only purpose and operation, but not the nature of the glossolalia itself, as
Brumback contends, is hard to say. Commentators are sharply divided on
the question; though most of them agree that the tongues on the Day of
Pentecost were foreign languages, some hold that the tongues at Corinth
were also foreign languages, while others insist that the tongues at Corinth
were ecstatic utterances different from ordinary human languages. It seems
difficult, if not impossible, to make a final judgment on this matter. We do
know that glossolalia was a spiritual gift bestowed on a number of the
members of the Corinthian Church.' It seems incredible to me that
Hoekema would bother to continue with his book after writing a paragraph
like that! How can confusion be cut away if the level of confusion betrayed
by this paragraph is not dealt with?
p26.
31
Mostly this consists of importing elements of a definition into the
text, i.e., insisting dogmatically that the languages spoken on Pentecost
were unlearned when the text doesn't actually say this, or misreading the
text and so arriving at a wrong definition, i.e., reading 'unfruitful' from 1
Cor. 14:14 as referring to the speaker's mind when it clearly refers to the
hearer's mind. (See Chapter 4 for a full treatment of this question.)
p26.
229
230
Tongues Revisited
Misreading these two passages then leads to saying that not only were the
languages unlearnt, but also that the speaker did not understand them.
32
p26. On the charismatic side this leads to reading back into Acts 2 the
heavenly/prayer/love-language idea (though it is excluded absolutely from
that passage) which they have got through misreading 1 Corinthians. On
the non-charismatic side, Robert Gromacki in The Modern Tongues
Movement, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972, defines 'tongues' as 'normal
human languages' towards the start of the book, but doesn't carry on his
argument as though that was the case.
33
A classic case of the failure to make necessary distinctions is found
in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary - 1 Corinthians, by John
MacArthur, Moody, 1984. MacArthur consistently uses the word 'tongues'
of what he considers to be a true 'gift' and also of what he considers to be a
counterfeit. An amazing example of this is found on p361: 'Finally, the gift
of tongues has evidently ceased because, since the apostolic age, it has
reappeared only spasmodically and questionably throughout nineteen
centuries of church history.' This statement suffers not only from failure to
make necessary distinctions, it suffers from logical inconsistency. If it has
appeared even 'spasmodically' throughout history, that is evidence that it
did not cease with the apostolic age. If it appeared 'questionably', that
means it was true yet false - 'it' referring to what MacArthur considers to be
the true New Testament gift of 'tongues', which was false or 'questionable'
when it reappeared later on! Something is wrong here! The failure to make
this crucial distinction between what he considers to be the true and the
false, is also characteristic of parts of his two books which deal with
charismatics, i.e. The Charismatics and Charismatic Chaos. MacArthur has
failed to cut the semantic tangle and as a result has not cleared the
confusion.
p26.
See also What about Tongue-Speaking? An Enquiry from Scripture and
Experience, by Prof Anthony A. Hoekema, Paternoster Press, 1966.
Hoekema's book would be one of the most confusing I have seen on this
topic because of his failure to make distinctions. He uses the terms 'tonguespeaker' and 'glossolalia' from the very first page, indicating he hasn't even
seen the semantic problem. No wonder he confuses.
34
Technically, doing this is called 'eisegesis', the reading of
preconceived ideas into the Biblical text. 'Exegesis' is seeking to understand
what the text itself says on its own terms. Virtually all charismatic authors
that I have read, eisegete to a great degree. Representative of them would
p26.
Endnotes
231
be J. Rodman Williams in Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit,
and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990. Williams, in chapter 9, headed 'The
Phenomenon of Tongues', constantly interprets the text of Scripture by
events occurring within the present day Pentecostal/charismatic Renewal
Movement. He makes numerous outrageous statements throughout the
chapter, a few of which I have noted in this work.
35
J. Rodman Williams, in Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy
Spirit, and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, argues against fellow
charismatics who propose two phenomena. He goes for one - 'spiritual
utterance' - in every case. Williams is a contortionist par excellence.
p27.
36
p27. See Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, Adler &
Adler, 1986, pp86-88. Also The Origin of Species Revisited: The Theories
of Evolution and of Abrupt Appearance, Volume 1, by W. R. Bird, Thomas
Nelson (originally published by Philosophical Library, New York), 1991,
p139, and What is Creation Science? by Gary Parker and Henry Morris,
Master Books, pp108-111.
37
Evolutionists have a veritable hoard of ambiguous terms. For a
discussion of some of the main ones see The Biotic Message: Evolution
versus Message Theory, by Walter James ReMine, St Paul Science (P O
Box 19600, St Paul, Minnesota 55119), 1993, pp291-300.
p27.
38
C. S. Butler in Test the Spirits, Evangelical Press, 1985, p149,
footnote 14 in 'Notes' on chapter 11 says: 'Glossolalia, derived from the
Greek words 'glossa' (the tongue) and lalien' (to talk), literally, 'to speak
with tongues'. In the New Testament it denotes a language spoken by
someone with no previous knowledge of that language. Here, of course, it
refers to the modern phenomenon.' This one footnote is unfortunately
representative of the confusion of thought in Butler's book. Butler's
information is just not correct in this footnote. As will be seen later in this
work, 'glossa' does not primarily mean 'the tongue' but has a variety of
meanings. In the New Testament the primary meaning would be 'language'.
The word 'glossolalia' does not appear in the New Testament and thus the
combination of words applied to the New Testament usage is no where
defined in the New Testament as 'a language spoken by someone with no
previous knowledge of that language'. Like others, Butler is prepared to use
one word to mean two radically different things.
p28.
231
232
Tongues Revisited
39
p29. It is unthinkable for charismatics not to ground 'tongues' in Scripture
but not apparently for some fence sitting non-charismatics. I find it simply
incredible that a person of the calibre of J. I. Packer would actually say that
the current phenomenon is not in the Bible, and yet is a valid gift from God
for some people, but he does. In Keep In Step With The Spirit, IVP, 1985,
he shows clearly that the current phenomenon is not what the Bible is
talking about. I don't differ from him on this and find many of his points
helpful to my own position. This part of his thesis is grounded firmly in
Scripture. He then goes on to say nevertheless '...that for some people, at
any rate, glossolalia is a good gift of God, just as for all of us power to
express thought in a language is a good gift of God.' This part of his thesis
is simply snatched out of thin air. D. A. Carson, in Showing the Spirit,
Lancer Books, 1988, p84, says of Packer's view, 'I cannot think of a better
way of displeasing both sides of the current debate.' I agree completely. Of
course this is not Packer's intention. He is hoping to bring the two sides of
the debate together by his proposal, not have them both snapping at him!
There must be some powerful sociological factors working on him for him
to come up with so naive an idea.
40
See D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, pp84-86,
for the contortions one charismatic sympathiser goes through to suggest
how meaning may be associated with the sounds without them being
normal human languages:
'Suppose the message is:
"Praise the Lord, for his mercy endures forever."
Remove the vowels to achieve:
PRS TH LRD FR HS MRC NDRS FRVR
This may seem a bit strange; but when we remember that modern Hebrew
is written without vowels, we can imagine that with practice this could be
read quite smoothly. Now remove the spaces and, beginning with the first
letter, rewrite the sequence using every third letter, repeatedly going
through the sequence until all the letters are used up. The result is:
PTRRMNSVRHDHRDFRSLFSCRR.
Now add an a sound after each consonant, and break up the unit into
arbitrary bits:
PATARA RAMA NA SAVARAHA DAHARA DAFARASALA FASA
CARARA.
I think that is indistinguishable from transcriptions of certain modern
tongues. Certainly it is very similar to some I have heard. But the important
point is that it conveys information provided you know the code. Anyone
who knows the steps I have taken could reverse them in order to retrieve
p29.
Endnotes
233
the original message. As Poythress remarks, "thus it is always possible for
the charismatic person to claim that T-speech [tongues] is coded language,
and that only the interpreter of tongues is given the supernatural 'key' for
deciphering it. It is impossible not only in practice, but even in theory, for a
linguist to devise a means of testing this claim."'
41
See The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, by Rene Pache, Moody
Press, 1979. 'b. The gift of talking with God in a form of trance, in a
language that is incomprehensible to others and even our own intelligence,
giving to the listener the impression of inarticulate sounds (1 Cor. 14:2,14).'
John Calvin in Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Corinthians, Saint Andrews Press, 1960, p291, indicates he
would find such an idea preposterous. He says: 'For it is incredible (at least
we do not read of any instance) that there were any people who spoke by
the influence of the Spirit, in a language they did not know themselves. For
the gift of tongues was not bestowed merely for the purpose of making a
noise, but rather for the purpose of communication, of course. For how
laughable it would have been had the tongue of a Roman been directed by
the Spirit of God to utter Greek words, when he himself had no knowledge
of Greek whatever. He would have been like the parrots, magpies and
crows which men train to make human sounds!'
p29.
42
See The Beauty of Spiritual Language, Jack Hayford, Word,
1992, p100, Hayford says: '…Even Pentecostals referred to their
speaking with tongues as being 'unknown tongues'. This 'unknown', of
course, has always [emphasis Hayford] been true to the understanding
of the speaker, but not necessarily true of the language being spoken.'
p29.
43
In the early stages of the Irvingite movement (1830-31), the view
was widespread that tongues was an unlearned ability to speak foreign
languages for the purpose of evangelism. The same view was held by the
Mormons in America who experienced similar things during the same
period. During 1832 however the Irvingites began to question this idea
because there was no evidence that foreign languages were ever, or had
ever, been spoken. To replace it, the idea was developed that there were
two kinds of 'tongues', those as described in Acts which were real human
languages, and those talked of in 1 Corinthians which were something else.
That which was occurring in Irving's church, was, from 1832 on, said to be
tongues of the Corinthian sort. The Acts sort had not yet been restored! See
Forerunner of the Charismatic Movement, by Arnold Dallimore, pp133
and 175.
p29.
233
234
Tongues Revisited
Also see The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit, by Rene Pache, Moody
Press, 1979, p191: '1. There are two kinds of this gift of tongues. a. The
ability to speak in one or more foreign languages without having learned
them. The sole example we have of this was at Pentecost when the hundred
and twenty received the gift of expressing themselves in fifteen different
languages and dialects, until then unknown to them (Acts 2:4, 8-11).'
J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit, and
Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, has an extended footnote (28) on page
215-216, which deals with the 'foreign language vs spiritual utterance'
debate. He says in part: 'In the beginning of the twentieth-century
Pentecostal movement there was a strong conviction that tongues were
"missionary tongues" - i.e. languages given for the preaching of the gospel
in the native tongues of people everywhere...It was not long, however,
before the missionary use of tongues was seriously questioned and the need
for language study began to be stressed. This is good because there is no
suggestion in Acts 2 that the tongues spoken were "missionary tongues."...I
might add that when tongues are understood in their basic content...the idea
of tongues as human languages becomes wholly irrelevant.' Now I'm not
sure what he means by the 'basic content' of 'tongues', as no one has any
objective knowledge of any content in what goes on today. How any
content, granted there was some, makes 'the idea of tongues as human
languages...wholly irrelevant', is beyond me.
44
p29.
Based on 1 Cor. 13:1, an idea I deal with in detail in Chapter 4.
45
p29. J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit,
and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, pp213-220.
46
The idea of a 'prayer language' comes from a failure to read 1 Cor.
14 carefully. Yes, verse 14 refers to prayer in a language, but elsewhere
Paul talks about 'speaking' (vv2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 28, 39) rather than
prayer which is a specific type of speaking.
p29.
47
p29. For example see Speak in Tongues....Five Reasons, by Charles
Widdowson, Eroa Publications, undated, p4: 'Before we move further into
this subject, just a word about the difference between the heavenly
language we receive at the time we are baptised in the Holy Spirit...which
is our own, personal love-language to be used at all times, but especially in
our own, private devotions...and the tongues which is one of the nine
charismatic gifts mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12.8-11...'. This quote
is interesting because Widdowson is in effect saying his 'heavenly-
Endnotes
235
language' or 'love-language' has no basis in Scripture. He would not invoke
Acts to justify it because that is clearly not the same stuff, thus he is left
with Corinthians to appeal to. But then he says it is different to what Paul
talks about in Corinthians - at least 1 Corinthians 12, which he must realise
is of a piece with chapters 13 and 14! He has no other places to find it in
Scripture so therefore has conceded it has no Biblical justification.
48
This phrase was used a number of times in a tape by a charismatic
that I listened to several years ago. I do not have a record of who the
speaker was. See also Speak in Tongues....Five Reasons, by Charles
Widdowson, Eroa publications, undated, p13, (capitals his): 'REASON
FOUR: 'OTHER TONGUES' ARE FOR PRAYER IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE WILL OF GOD ONE HUNDRED PERCENT'. Page 14:
'...and, as we receive this fullness (with the love-language that accompanies
it) and pray in that language SO we pray 100% in accordance with God's
will, and so enable the fullness of his will AND HIS WILL ALONE to be
done.'
p29.
49
Ibid., p11: 'REASON THREE: 'OTHER TONGUES' ARE FOR
UNDECODABLE PRAYER. Praying in 'other tongues' not only means
that we can pray constantly, it also has the distinct advantage that the
prayers we pray to Father God cannot be intercepted and therefore, cannot
be obstructed simply because they CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD.' Pages
12-13: 'Because God alone, can understand the tongues, it means that not
only are men ignorant of the subject of the prayer BUT SO ARE THE
HORDES OF SATAN. And if they don't know what the prayer is, they
cannot hold up the answer for three seconds, let alone three weeks.' My
goodness!!
p30.
50
p30. Michael G. Moriarty in The New Charismatics, pp292-294, says that
the 'new Charismatics' see 'speaking in tongues' as the 'main offensive
weapon in the spiritual battle.'
In Speaking in Tongues, by John Edwards, 'Sovereign Word International
Booklet - Explaining Series', Sovereign Word, p29, Edwards makes
comments on 'Spiritual Warfare And The Gift Of Tongues' which are
totally without basis in Scripture. The only Biblical justification linking
'spiritual warfare' to 'tongues' that he gives is the one term, 'pray in the
Spirit', from Ephesians 6:18. Edwards also says p29-30: 'Psalm 149, verse
6…As we sing and shout out our praises, we are wielding that sword. By
our praise, the kings are bound with fetters and nobles with shackles of
iron. These are not human kings and potentates, but satanic princes that rule
the heavens.' On p30: 'In recent years, the mountain of the Russian
235
236
Tongues Revisited
communist power has been cast down. This has happened because men and
women have prayed in faith binding the strong man, and have often prayed
in tongues, thus releasing the angels of God to fight. Not knowing the
identity of the opponent or the exact nature of his attack, the believer can
look to the help of the Holy Spirit, and in other tongues speak out and bind
the power of the enemy. Knowing you have this authority, you can speak
out in faith.'
51
p30. David Pytches in Come Holy Spirit; Learning to Minister in Power Chapter 7, under the heading 'The purpose of tongues in general', says:
"6.
'Tongues' are used for praise - a love language when one is 'lost in
wonder, love and praise' and human words are inadequate or exhausted:
'We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!' (Acts
2:11); 'For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God' (Acts
10:46)." Pytches clearly has not thought this through very well because in
the Acts 2:11 quote, it explicitly says that the wonders of God were heard
in their own languages! That being the case, then human words are not
'inadequate or exhausted' because they are being used!
J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit, and
Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, says on p222, 'Indeed, to speak "as the
Spirit gives utterance" is the ultimate in intelligible expression.' Pardon?
Williams of course is taking the Biblical statement and saying that what it
describes is the current phenomenon. But intelligibility has to do with what
is understood. No human being understands the current phenomenon so
how can it even be called an 'intelligible expression', let alone the 'ultimate'
such expression?
52
p30. Non-charismatic J. I. Packer says in Keep In Step With The Spirit,
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1984, p210 that, '...many if, not most,
glossolalics are persons...who have found that glossolalia is for them a
kind of exalted fun before the Lord.' This is taken from a point he is
making about the psychological state of 'tongues' speakers - that contrary
to 'earlier investigators, who saw it as a neurotic, psychotic, hysterical or
hypnotic symptom, psychopathological or compensatory, a product of
emotional starvation, repression or frustration' most are in fact of 'at least
average psychological health.' Frankly I do not think most charismatics
would describe what they experience as 'exalted fun before the Lord'.
Followers of 'Toronto' or 'Pensacola' may be getting towards that, but
such would constitute a shift away from the various ideas I have listed.
53
J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit,
and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, on pp213-214, argues that 'tongues'
p30.
Endnotes
237
are 'spiritual utterances' in all cases. He argues against the following ideas:
that there were different phenomena in Acts 2 and the later occurrences;
that they were emotional utterances; that 'tongues' were foreign languages.
In footnote 28, p216, he says, '(Incidentally, in regard to documentation,
tongues spoken have on occasion been recorded and later checked for
language content. Evidence that they are a particular human language is
totally lacking. This does not deny the miraculous character of tongues;
indeed, quite the opposite, for by such documentation of questionable
earthly content the way is left open that tongues may be a spiritual
utterance!)'
See also another part of Williams' footnote 28 mentioned above where he
rejects the 'missionary use of tongues'. Charismatic missionaries today have
to learn the language of the people groups they go to, just like every noncharismatic missionary does.
54
p30. David Pytches in Come Holy Spirit: Learning to Minister in Power,
Chapter 7, allows for all three ideas. For a bit of comic relief, you may be
interested to know that Pytches, under the heading 'Receiving the gift',
makes the following statement:
"3.
Having asked, it is important to be free from as much tension as
possible as this can be inhibiting. A hot bath is an ideal place. We can
praise God aloud in any way we like in the privacy of the bathroom and in
a relaxed way just let the new language come." Can you imagine Paul
telling the Corinthian believers to go down the road to the local bathhouse,
take a private room, jump in the bath - making sure the temperature was up
- so they can practice 'the gift' without inhibitions?
Derek Prince in Today with Derek Prince broadcast on Radio Rhema, 23
February 1993, said a similar sort of thing about receiving the Holy Spirit:
'...you receive the Holy Spirit most easily when you are relaxed.' With all
due respect, I imagine you receive other spirits more easily if you are
relaxed!
55
p30. J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit,
and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, p403: 'The interpretation of
tongues is a supramental operation of the Holy Spirit. Interpretation of
tongues is in a known language; however, there is no rational
comprehension of what the prior tongues have declared. The one
interpreting has no more knowledge than the glossalalist of what has been
said; the interpreter simply speaks out and the Holy Spirit gives the
interpretation. Unlike interpreting a foreign language into common speech,
no human ability is required. Of course, as with speaking in tongues, there
must be the utilization of mouth and lips and, as with prophecy, a person
237
238
Tongues Revisited
must begin to speak in his native language. However what is said in
interpretation is basically from a realm, beyond the human mind. It is not
that the interpreter understands what is said in the tongue and so makes its
content known; rather, the interpretation is solely and totally from the Holy
Spirit.'
56
See The Holy Spirit and You, by Dennis and Rita Bennett,
Coverdale House Publishers, 1976, pp99-100: 'The interpretation of
tongues is bringing the meaning of what has been said through the gift of
tongues at a public meeting. A person feels moved to speak or sing in
tongues, and either he or another is given by the Holy Spirit the meaning of
what has been said. He or she cannot understand the tongue. It is not a
translation but an interpretation, giving the general meaning of what was
said. The gift of interpretation may come directly into a person's mind, in
toto, or just a few beginning words may be given, and as the interpreter
trusts the Lord and begins to speak, the rest of the message
comes...Interpretation may also come in pictures or symbols, or by an
inspired thought, or the interpreter may hear the speaking in tongues, or
part of it, as though the person were speaking directly in English.' This last
sentence appears to contradict what was said emphatically earlier on: 'He or
she cannot understand the tongue.'
p30.
57
J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit,
and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990. Williams seems to deny that this
can occur, saying that when people hear a real human language spoken, it is
because the Holy Spirit is doing an instantaneous translation for them in
their own head (p215).
p30.
58
For example, a correspondent, Murray Dixon, in the Challenge
Weekly of 12 September, 1991, referred to a case that reputedly occurred
during the Gulf War. 'Outside his tent in the desert, thinking he was alone, a
British soldier used the opportunity to worship the Lord in an unknown
tongue. A Saudi soldier overheard what was being said and recognised the
language as his own. The message spoken by the British soldier was of
salvation in Jesus.' Also see letters by Dudley Opie and Alan Clarkson in
the same edition.
p30.
59
Jack Hayford in The Beauty of Spiritual Language, Word, 1992,
p107, says: 'I had hardly begun when it seemed I turned a linguistic
corner, and I heard myself speaking a language unlike any I'd heard in
prayer before. The total length of all I spoke was approximately the
p30.
Endnotes
239
length of this paragraph. I stopped and looked back at Bill. His
response was immediate and businesslike. “That's a pre-Kiowan
language, from which our Kiowa Indian tongue came.' (I remained
amazingly composed, even though everything inside me wanted to
shout, 'IT IS?!-HALLELUJAH!') He continued: 'I don't know all the
words you spoke, but I do know the idea they express…' I could hardly
believe what he was saying – I was overwhelmed, yet totally reserved
in my outward demeanour. “What are they about?' I asked. 'Well,' he
gestured in an upward fashion with his hand. 'It's something about the
light that's coming down from above.' It was a Holy Spirit setup…'
Hayford's book is a folksy, testimony type of book filled with anecdotes
of how he trod the long and torturous path to the tongues experience (at
lest he strings it out to look like that!), and how the relating of his
journey has helped so many people. He extensively overkills the idea
that 'spiritual language is beautiful' (I'm not even sure what he means
by the term) and goes to great lengths to assure readers that tongues
speakers are not the looney lot with screws loose up top that he claims
many think they are. It is a very disappointing book for anyone looking
for any Biblical justification of his claims. He just doesn't give any. He
may have got excited by the experience he relates which I have quoted,
but that this occurred does not in any way validate his view. If it really
was God speaking through his mouth and presumably to Bill, why on
earth did God not speak in Bill's language, and why did he only speak a
vague, ambiguous message with little content, that was not much better
than a line in a horoscope?
60
An intriguing situation is described in the book For This Cross I'll
Kill You, by Bruce Olson, Creation House, 1973, p176. (A later edition of
the book has the title, Bruckho). Olson was/is? a missionary to the Motilone
Indians of Colombia.
'Now the Motilones wanted to tell Yukos about Jesus. At that time they
didn't understand that there were languages other than the Motilone
Language. They thought that the Yukos spoke just like they did. But the
languages are totally different. I couldn't see how they would manage to
communicate anything about Jesus.
But I wasn't going to try to restrain them. I suggested that they go to the
Lowland tribes, who hadn't heard about Jesus. A few days later, they left. I
prayed that it wouldn't be a shattering experience for them, that God would
comfort them in any disappointment at being unable to communicate.
They were gone for several weeks. When they got back I went to see
Arabadoyca, curious about what had happened.
"How did it go?" I asked.
p30.
239
240
Tongues Revisited
He was making arrows, and he looked up at me with his familiar crooked
grin. "Wonderful," he said. "They had not known about Jesus before."
"And did they understand?"
"Oh yes, we told them a great many things about Jesus."
"You spoke to them?"
"Of course." Arabadoyca was a little concerned about my surprise. "How
would you have told them?"
"Oh...in the same way. But how do you know they understood?"
Again he looked perplexed. "Why, they told us that they did. They were
very excited to hear the news, Bruchko."
"You mean you opened your mouth and spoke to the Yukos and they
understood you, and they talked to you and you understood them?"
"Yes of course."
The Yuko language is not a dialect of the Motilone language. It is a totally
different language. You could never understand the one from knowing the
other. Yet I am sure that Arabadoyca and the others were not lying. Lying
is almost unknown among the Motilones. And they had no reason to lie.
There is also the fact that there now are Christians in the Yuko lowland
where there were none before.
I can only conclude that God's Holy Spirit made the Motilones speak and
understand Yuko. It was a miracle to me. But to the Motilones, everything
that God does is a miracle.'
Olsen makes no claim that what occurred was a Biblical gift of languages.
61
For example, see What about the Holy Spirit. Bible Study Notes, by
Colin Graham, printed by G.P.H. Society Ltd, 1972, p20: 'In 1961 while I
was preaching the Gospel in our Te Awamutu crusade, I was interrupted by
a man speaking in tongues. Part of his utterance was in Maori, though he
was a white man and did not know the Maori language. The other part of
his utterance was a guttural noise and quite unintelligible. Immediately, a
Pentecostal man rose to give the interpretation. He said this was as follows,
"God is among you, of a truth. Hear the word of God my people." In the
providence of God, Mr Elias Kerr, a missionary to the Maoris and one who
knows their language well, was present. With him were two Maori
Christians. When Mr Kerr was asked what the message was, which was
spoken in Maori, he replied that it was a mixture of the vilest filth and
blasphemy, and he would not translate it. When asked to give some
indication of the purport of the message, Mr Kerr said that the speaker was
pronouncing the curses invoked by a Maori chief, upon his opponent, when
going into battle against him....Needless to say this incident is well
authenticated. I have the names of all the people concerned and plenty of
witnesses.'
p30.
Endnotes
241
62
p30. Medical missionary to Bolivia, Dr Roger H. Brown, published a
novel in 1977 entitled, Kingdom of the Sun, (Echoes of Service). He wrote
it during residence in New Zealand due to health problems which prevented
his return to Bolivia. The book is an imaginative and creative attempt to put
mission work carried out this century in Bolivia, into its historical setting.
Part 3 covers the time Dr Brown was in Bolivia and of it he says, 'Part III
is, of course, fiction, but is based on experiences which have happened to
us or to other missionaries known to us.' Part 3 contains a chapter headed
'Your adversary the Devil'. In this chapter, Brown relates how the growth in
numbers and maturity of Quechua believers had been a real
encouragement, but for some reason the Quechua believers had begun
staying away from the regular Bible studies. It was discovered this was due
to the arrival of some teachers from Argentina who were influencing the
believers. The two missionaries in the story decided to visit a Quechua
meeting, even though they were not invited. The following is narrated on
pp190-191:
'Soon one of the older men announced a hymn. It was one they all knew
and the missionaries joined in softly. "At least they still sing," whispered
Stan. Other hymns were sung and the missionaries noticed that the tempo
became faster and faster and the rhythm approximated more to the tunes
played in the feasts. Suddenly a man stepped over the charcoal brazier and
threw a white powder onto the coals. Smoke filled the room and Stan and
Dave recognised the sickly odour of incense...After several more hymns,
which were now accompanied by the beat of a drum, a woman got to her
feet and began to speak in a loud voice. She didn't speak Quechua and the
oft repeated syllables and similar sounds, made the missionaries think this
was no known language. Dave whispered in Stan's ear, "Glossolalia; I've
heard it before." When the woman had finished, a man called out excitedly,
"Brethren, the Spirit is here." This pronouncement was followed by a
chorus of "Amens." The tension rose as several more spoke in tongues,
among them a boy of ten. Then a young woman got to her feet and began to
speak in rapid Quechua. "The Spirit is here talking to you; the great Spirit
has come to instruct you. He that has ears let him hear what the Spirit says
to the churches. Throw your Bibles away; burn your hymn books. You're
now free from the domination of the missionaries." Her body stiffened and
her eyes took on a glassy stare. She went on talking in what Dave
recognised as an American Indian dialect. Then to the amazement of the
two missionaries she suddenly switched to English. Slowly at first, then
with increasing speed, a stream of blasphemies and obscenities issued from
her mouth.
241
242
Tongues Revisited
With a mixture of incredulity and revulsion the foreigners listened, until
Dave suddenly whispered to Stan, "Come outside." All eyes were fixed on
the girl and no one saw them leave. Dave spoke in a quiet but urgent voice,
"Look; we've got about five minutes; she'll probably go on that long. Let's
pray together and then I'll try to cast out the demon. That's obviously what's
got into her. They asked us to keep quiet, but we didn't promise." Both men
prayed briefly and asked God to act for the glory of Christ. Then they
stepped back into the demon-controlled gathering. Dave called out loudly
in Quechua, "In the name of Christ and by the power of His blood I
command you to come out of her, never to return. I claim that the Lord
Jesus Christ has won the victory over principalities and powers by His
death and resurrection. Depart for ever!" The girl stopped speaking and her
body relaxed. She sat down exhausted but the glassy stare in her eyes was
replaced by a normal look. "Men and women," Dave went on, "the spirit
you have invoked tonight is not the Spirit of God but a demon. I'll say no
more now as we are uninvited visitors, but if anyone wants to know more
of what has happened tonight you can come to Mayobamba. Good night to
you all."
While Dr Brown says quite clearly the above is fiction, he says equally
clearly it is based on things that he or missionaries known to him
experienced. I personally knew of Dr Brown through he and his wife being
camp parents at a camp I was at. He was a most impressive man, not
because of any great charisma, but because of his maturity, wisdom and
dedication to his Lord.
He was a missionary in Bolivia between 1935 and 1977, for 20 years living
at 12,000 ft doing medical work, and with others, translating the New
Testament for the Quechuas, the descendants of the Incas.
63
p30. Jack Hayford, in The Beauty of Spiritual Language, Word, 1992,
p50, makes a claim without Biblical justification. 'From the
environment in which tongues usually initiate in our experience, to the
atmosphere which tongues perpetuate, I saw it: At its core, the
purpose of tongues is a matter of worship and praise.'
64
Analytical Concordance to the Bible, by Robert Young, United
Society for Christian Literature, first published 1879, my edition 1971,
under 'tongue 2.'
Also Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, by W. E. Vine,
Oliphants, 1970, under 'tongues'. Vine not only gives a raw meaning of the
word, but also beyond the raw meaning and gives an interpretation of uses
and meanings of it. He clearly accepts a particular viewpoint regarding it.
p35.
Endnotes
65
p35.
243
The same sources as for 'glossa'.
66
p35. The New English Bible translates 'glossa' as 'tongues of ecstasy' and
'ecstatic utterance', but even charismatic Michael Green in I believe in the
Holy Spirit, p163, says this is unfounded. Worse even than the NEB is The
Message, a paraphrase by Eugene H. Peterson. In 1 Corinthians 13-14,
Peterson uses the terms 'angelic ecstasy', 'inspired speech', 'the private
language of tongues', 'private 'prayer language'', 'mysterious prayer
language'! Ironically he hits the target with his treatment of Acts 2. In
contrast to both of these, The Contemporary English Version has one of the
best treatments of 1 Corinthians 14 I've seen. In general I am not a fan of
the CEV however because of its appalling treatment of Deuteronomy 4:19.
For readers' interest, the Good News Bible wrecks Deut. 4:19 the same way.
67
p38. I have a number of tracts in my possession which all argue this. The
Promise of the Father or The Coming of the Holy Spirit, by A. Leonard
Goold, Gospel Fellowship Trust of India, 1948; Pentecost and Today;
Tongues and Healing, by J. M. Davies, Walterick Publishers, Kansas City,
no date; The Holy Spirit; Pentecostalism's Travesty and Imitation, by
Enoch Coppin, Gospel Publishing House, PN, 1964; 'What about the Holy
Spirit? - Bible Study Notes, by Colin Graham, GPH PN, 1972; Today's
Tongues, by Bryce Hartin, Jollen Press, Queensland, 1987. George W.
Marston in Tongues Then and Now, P & R, 1983, pp35-39, says 'Tongues
attended by interpretation was a minor medium of revelation. When God's
special revelation to man was finished with the completion of the New
Testament, this task was finished. If we believe in the sufficiency of
Scripture, their function was ended when the apostles had finished this
work.'
In the most extensive of Jack Hayford's scanty endnotes in The Beauty of
Spiritual Language, Word, 1992, pp280-282, he argues against this
view. Unfortunately for Hayford, all the works he writes against express
what I consider to be an equally wrong view. To quote one of them,
Henry Alford, 'Unquestionably the time alluded to is that of the coming
of the Lord.' With all due respect, it is not 'unquestionably' at all!
68
p38. Most of the tracts in the previous footnote referred to this, as did a
series of articles in the magazine Israel My Glory, (Vol 46 no1 through Vol
47 no2) by Renald E. Showers. Both former charismatic, George E.
Gardiner (in The Corinthian Catastrophe, Kregel Publications, 1974, pp3537 and 43-48) and John MacArthur (in Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan,
1992, pp230-232) take this view, though MacArthur broadens the 'sign' out
243
244
Tongues Revisited
to being not just a sign to disobedient Israel 'but also the blessing of God on
the whole world'. Both Showers and MacArthur argue for the cessation of
what they call 'revelational' or 'revelatory gifts'. Peter Masters and John C.
Whitcomb in The Charismatic Phenomenon, Wakeman Trust, reprinted
1992, say pp35-36, the '...main purpose [of tongues - RM] was to be a sign
to unbelieving Jews that God was reproving them and manifesting his
presence to a new church.' They are not specific as to when they ceased but
assert they have.
69
p38. 'The Cessation of the Gift of Tongues' by Renald E. Showers, in
Israel My Glory, Vol 47 No 2, pp23-24.
70
p38. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, by
John MacArthur, p359.
71
I have known of several people who based very strong anticharismatic beliefs on these sorts of arguments and then did a complete
about face and adopted the view they had opposed so vehemently. I suspect
this was because the inadequacies of the 'tongues shall cease' argument
were exposed to them and the only apparent option left was to join the
opposition.
p38.
72
p39. An example of this sort of thing is a tape I have in my possession by
the late J. M. Davies, an Open Brethren missionary to India. I can quite
understand the frustration that some who were toying with the charismatic
position must have felt when they heard this sort of material. Davies had
clearly, and I say rightly, picked something was wrong with the current
phenomenon, but he failed to make clear definitions and distinctions and so
simply muddied the waters.
73
This is a characteristic of John MacArthur's books, The
Charismatics, Zondervan, 1978, which was updated and now appears as
Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan, 1992, and is one reason why I mentioned
in an earlier footnote that I did not think that he dealt with this issue very
well.
It is also a characteristic of Robert G. Gromacki's book The Modern
Tongues Movement. Almost in passing Gromacki reminds readers on page
131 that he had pointed out earlier that 'all speaking in tongues...was in the
form of known languages of the world which could be translated into the
language of the congregation.' While Gromacki does spend a reasonable
amount of space establishing definitions, by retaining the word 'tongues' he
p39.
Endnotes
245
fails to cut the semantic knot and so has to remind his readers of this point
late in the book.
74
p39. I have in my possession several exceptions to this. I find it
encouraging that I had arrived at essentially the same position that these
different authors held, before I had come across any of their material. Three
of them are New Zealanders. Hudson F. Mackenzie's little books Natural
Tongues: Exploring Acts and Corinthians, Walker Printers, Hamilton NZ,
undated, and We Can Be Sure, Books, P O Box 4187, Hamilton, NZ, 1977,
are easily the most consistent.
A small pamphlet by S. R. Hewitt, Stockdale Farm, Kerikeri RD2, Bay of
Islands, called Heterais Glossais: Other Tongues: Foreign Languages,
undated, is good but I think insists on too much and therefore loses impact.
Hewitt offered through the Challenge Weekly Newspaper, a $10,000
reward to anyone who could prove that the current phenomenon was what
the Bible talked about. It was never collected, though some charismatic
commented that it was not a fitting way to do things.
Also The Holy Spirit: Pentecostalism's Travesty and Imitation, by Enoch
Coppin, Gospel Publishing House, around 1964. The booklet's attack is on
a broad front and is somewhat confusing because of the mix of ideas it
contains. However Coppin has a similar view to mine regarding 1 Cor. 14
with the major difference being that he mixes a gift of miraculous language
speaking in there with normal language speaking.
See also Victor Budgen's book, The Charismatics and the Word of God,
Evangelical Press, 1986. Budgen has seen a number of the clues that I have
picked up which indicate that the speakers of the languages knew what they
were saying. However he is strongly of the 'gift of languages' and the
'tongues shall cease' ideas. He says (p50): 'What was the gift of another
language? It was a 'mystery', an infallible utterance from God, and
therefore needed to be conveyed with precision and total accuracy to a new
group of hearers.' Also (p76): 'These gifts [prophecy, knowledge and other
languages - RM] are the three gifts whereby God communicates
supernatural, authoritative, infallible truth.' Budgen is going a long way
beyond Scripture when he makes these statements.
75
The only charismatic I have read who attempted to exegete 1
Corinthians 14 was Gordon D. Fee, in The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
NICNT, Eerdmans, 1987. Morton Kelsey, Tongues Speaking, Crossroad,
1981, is the only author who actually includes the full text of the relevant
parts of the Scriptures in his book. However Kelsey makes no effort to
exegete them whatsoever.
p39.
245
246
Tongues Revisited
76
p39. D. A. Carson, in Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p50, says,
'If the Charismatic Movement would firmly renounce, on Biblical grounds,
not the gift of tongues but the idea that tongues constitute a special sign of a
second blessing, a very substantial part of the wall between charismatics
and non-charismatics would come crashing down.' I think this is overstating the case considerably, and misses the major point completely. One
theological issue would have been resolved but the far bigger issue would
have been left untouched, that of the nature of the Biblical languages and
the current phenomenon. He is implying that charismatics and noncharismatics at root actually hold the same view of 'tongues', the major
difference between them being over the relationship between 'tongues' and
Spirit baptism or a second blessing, not their nature. I say the nature of
'tongues' is everything. The relevance or otherwise of the relationship of
'tongues' to Spirit baptism or a second blessing is determined by this prior
issue. This statement of Carson's is one of many that indicate to me that he
has been affected by the charismatic capture of language. Carson would not
call himself a charismatic though he does say (p117): 'Those of us who
have spent any time on the borders between the ranks of the Charismatic
Movement and the non-charismatics...' I can find only cosmetic differences
between what Carson is saying and what I understand a professed
charismatic would say. In fact I would think that Carson's view would fit
comfortably within the range of published charismatic views. It appears he
wants to have a bob both ways.
77
Text from The Holy Bible: New International Version, Online Bible
v.7.02, published by Larry Pierce, 11 Holmwood St, Winterbourne,
Ontario N0B 2V0, Canada.
p39.
78
One version that has clearly been influenced by the charismatic
control of language is 'The Message: The New Testament in Contemporary
English' by Eugene H. Peterson, Navpress, 1993. 'The Message' is a
paraphrase and is very free in some of its paraphrasing. For example the
Revelation references to 'languages' is subsumed twice within the phrases,
'men and women...from all over the earth' (5:9), '...the curious from all over
the world' (11:9). On other occasions it is given as 'tongue/s' (13:7 and
14:6), and on others 'languages' (7:9, 10:11 and 17:15). The charismatic
capture of language is very clear in 1 Corinthians 14. The following are
some of the ways the word 'glossa' is used there: 'private language of
tongues', 'a private "prayer language"', 'a mysterious prayer language', 'pray
privately to God in a way only he can understand', 'when you pray in your
p39.
Endnotes
247
private prayer language', 'private prayer language'. I suspect Peterson
accepts the 'private prayer language' idea.
79
p40. The Modern Tongues Movement by Robert G. Gromacki,
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1972, pp56-57.
80
p40. Ronald E. Baxter, Charismatic Gift of Tongues, Kregel Publications,
1981, p1.
81
p40.
The Wakeman Trust, 1982.
82
These other references are: Luke 1:64, 16:24; Romans 3:13, 14:11;
Philippians 2:11; James 1:26, 3:5, 6, 8; 1 Peter 3:10; 1 John 3:18.
p42.
83
p43. George Mallone, Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press,
1983, uses this line against 'cessationists' by claiming they go beyond the
text of Scripture. He says on p18, 'Again however, this is a theological
deduction from the text and not something the text explicitly states.' On
p19: 'In summary, to state that some gifts have ceased and others have not
is to go further than Scripture allows.' 'That experience highlights the
controversy we are about to look at now: Should we believe theological
deductions which have little or no explicit scriptural support?' Mallone
seems blithely unaware that the very axe that he wields against cessationists
cuts his own position down equally effectively. He himself goes
extensively beyond the text.
84
In 1 Corinthians 15:29, we read: 'Now if there is no resurrection,
what will those do who are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not
raised at all, why are people not baptised for them?' This is the only
reference to 'baptism for the dead' in Scripture. There are therefore no other
passages that can throw light directly on it for us. It is contrary to many
other things in Scripture. What is Paul referring to? We don't know - at
least I don't know at the moment. It certainly doesn't fit with the rest of
New Testament theology, so what does Paul mean by it all? Our lack of
knowledge and understanding provides us with no basis for action. We
therefore do not 'baptise for the dead'. Likewise if a passage with 'glossa' in
it is not clear, then we can't just proceed as if we knew what it meant.
p43.
85
Ronald E. Baxter, in Charismatic Gift of Tongues, following Vine's
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p109, argues that the 'new
languages' Mark refers to cannot be the current phenomenon because 'new'
p44.
247
248
Tongues Revisited
means newness in the sense 'of that which is unaccustomed or unused, not
new in time...'. He also argues for a unique meaning to the word by making
the somewhat surprising statement, 'But the expression kainaia, new, is
different from all of the other occurrences.' Young's Concordance does not
indicate this at all. Young lists the word 42 times and does not point out
anything special about the Mark usage. I'm not sure that much of an
argument can be made based on this particular word.
86
p44. These verses come in a section which has had questions raised about
its authenticity. The NIV indicates this with a break and a note after chapter
16:8.
Robert G. Gromacki in his book, The Modern Tongues Movement, has a
section dealing with the question of the authenticity of the passage (pp7279). Gromacki makes a case for it not being authentic through looking at
manuscript and doctrinal evidence. His basis for the manuscript position he
holds relies on those who hold the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts as
being the best available, but this seems questionable in the light of Burgon's
work quoted later in this footnote.
Ronald E. Baxter in Charismatic Gift of Tongues, Kregal Publications,
1981, in a footnote on p2 says, 'While many reject the authenticity of Mark
16:9-20, believing it to be an interpolation, I am treating it as authentic. The
subject of whether or not to accept the passage is outside the scope of this
work. However, there are reasons for disagreement with the interpolation
theory.' He does not say what those reasons are.
Norman Geisler in personal conversation said that he does not think the
passage is authentic but treats it as though it is.
B. B. Warfield in Counterfeit Miracles, Banner of Truth, reprint 1986,
pp167-169 has no hesitation about saying in very blunt terms that the
passage is spurious.
In contrast to the indecision or negative views of the above, John William
Burgon, Dean of Chichester, in The Revision Revised. Centennial Edition
(1883-1993), A.G. Hobbs Publications, PO Box 14218, Fort Worth, Texas
76117, p350, says: 'Thus these learned Professors [that is Drs Hort and
Westcott – RM], - who condemn the 'last Twelve Verses of the Gospel
according to S. Mark:' which have been accounted veritable Scripture by
the Church Universal for more than 1800 years; -...'. Burgon wrote a book
dealing specifically with this subject entitled, 'The Last Twelve Verses of
the Gospel according to Mark, Vindicated against Recent Critical
Objectors, and Established' 1871, which at the time of writing I had not
been able to obtain. Burgon was confronting the Textual Criticism of Hort
and Westcott (and earlier aspects of the Textual Criticism of Lachmann,
Endnotes
249
Tischendorf, Tregelles), which led to their Greek Text which was used as
the basis for the Revised Version of 1881. In a letter dedicating The
Revision Revised to The Right Hon. Viscount Cranbrook, Burgon says
p.vii, 'As Critics they have had abundant warning. Twelve years ago (1871)
a volume appeared on 'The last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to
S. Mark,' - of which the declared object was to vindicate those Verses
against certain critical objectors, and to establish them by an exhaustive
argumentative process. Up to this hour, for a very obvious reason, no
answer to that volume has been attempted. And yet, at the end of ten years
(1881), - not only in the Revised English but also in the volume which
professes to exhibit the underlying Greek, (which at least is indefensible), the Revisers are observed to separate off those Twelve precious verses
from their context, in token that they are no part of the genuine Gospel.'
When Burgon talks of 'exhaustive argumentative processes', that is exactly
what he uses. A comment in the Foreword of The Revision Revised says:
'After 112 years it [Burgon's book on the last twelve verses of Mark - RM]
remains unanswered...'
On pp422-423 in reply to a pamphlet written in defense of the revisers of
1881 and the Greek text of the New Testament, by Bishop Charles John
Ellicott, Burgon says,
'(b) Similarly, concerning THE LAST 12 VERSES OF S. MARK, which
you brand with suspicion and separate off from the rest of the Gospel, in
token that, in your opinion, there is “a breach of continuity”
(p53),(whatever that may mean,) between verse 8 and 9. Your ground for
thus disallowing the last 12 Verses of the second Gospel, is, that B
[Vaticanus] and X [Sinaiticus] omit them :- that a few late MSS, exhibit a
wretched alternative for them :- and that Eusebius says they were often
away. Now, my method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to “the
consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities.” And I invite you to
note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The Verses in
question I find are recognised,
In the IInd century, - By the Old Latin - and Syriac Verss. : - by Papias; Justin M.; - Irenaeus; - Tertullian.
In the IIIrd century, - By the Coptic - and the Sahidic Versions : - by
Hippolytus; - by Vincentius at the seventh Council of Carthage; - by the
'Acta Pilati;' - and by the 'Apostolical Constitutions' in two places.
In the IVth century, - By Cureton's Syr. And the Gothic Verss.:- besides the
Syriac Table of Canons; - Eusebius; - Macarius Magnes; - Aphraates; Didymus; - the Syriac 'Acts of the Ap.;' - Epiphanius; - Leontius; - ps.Ephraem; - Ambrose; - Chrysostom; - Jerome; - Augustine.
249
250
Tongues Revisited
In the Vth century, - Besides the Armenian Vers., - by codices A and C; by Leo; - Nestorius; - Cyril of Alexandria; - Victor of Antioch; - Patricius; Marius Mercator.
In the VIth and VIIth centuries, - Besides cod. D, - the Georgian and
AEthiopic Verss.: - by Hesychius; - Gregentius; - Prosper; - John, abp. of
Thessalonica; - and Modestus, bishop of Jerusalem....(See above, pages3640.)
And now, once more, my lord Bishop, - Pray which of us is it, - you or I, who seeks for the truth of Scripture “in the consentient testimony of the
most ancient authorities”? On my side there have been adduced in evidence
six witnesses of the IInd century: - six of the IIIrd: - fifteen of the IVth: nine of Vth: - eight of the VIth and VIIth, - (44 in all): while you are found
to rely on codices B and X (as before), supported by a single obiter dictum
of Eusebius. I have said nothing as yet about the whole body of the Copies:
nothing about universal, immemorial, Liturgical use. Do you seriously
imagine that the testimony on your side is 'decidedly preponderating”?'
Regarding 'Copies' etc, Burgon says on page xxiii: '...Why do you deny the
genuineness of the 'last Twelve Verses of S. Mark's Gospel, which are
recognised by every one of the Versions? Those Verses are besides attested
by every known Copy, except two of bad character: by a mighty chorus of
Fathers: by the unfaltering Tradition of the Church universal.'
Burgon does not appear to me to be a 'King James Only' person, because he
was not against the revision of the KJV per se. What he objected to was
what he considered to be a hijack of the revision process (which produced
the Revised Version, 1881) which not only took the revision far beyond
what was intended, but virtually ignored the brief given to the Revision
Committee. Clearly he also objected to the theories of Westcott and Hort.
87
p46. Unbelievably, some do actually argue that Acts 2 does not refer to
normal human languages. J. Rodman Williams, in Renewal Theology,
Zondervan, 1990, p215 says: 'But now one may advance the argument that
Pentecostal tongues must have been foreign languages because, according
to Acts 2:6, "each one heard them speaking in his own language," and in
2:11, "we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of
God' (NASB). What is said in these passages, however, is not the hearing
of one's own language but the hearing in one's own language. Such being
the case, at the same moment that "other tongues" were spoken through the
Holy Spirit, they were immediately translated by the same Holy Spirit into
the many languages of the multitude [Footnote 26 at this point: 'Hence
there is both a miracle of speech - other, different, spiritual tongues - and a
miracle of understanding: each made possible by the Holy Spirit.']...In any
event the tongues spoken at Pentecost and thereafter were not foreign
Endnotes
251
languages but pneumatic speech - the speaking by the Holy Spirit through
the mouths of human beings.'
In footnote 28 on p216 Williams says: 'However, with the account of
Pentecost as our guide, the best way to describe such a happening is that it
is not a foreign language that is being spoken but an "other" tongue, which
through the Holy Spirit people hear in their own language.' With the
account of Pentecost as our guide??!! Where did this guy come from? This
is simply unreal!
88
p46. Hudson Mackenzie in his book, Natural Tongues, Walkers Printers,
Hamilton, NZ, and tract, We Can be Sure, Books, Hamilton, NZ, 1977, is
the only person I have seen who has raised the question of whether the
languages were naturally or supernaturally spoken. While I had arrived at
the normal languages position for 1 Corinthians myself before seeing
Mackenzie's book, I had not thought of it for Acts. Mackenzie's book is
endorsed by Prof E. M. Blaiklock.
89
For an instance of this see the situation in Acts 21:27 – 22:29 where
Paul addresses a crowd in Aramaic.
p47.
90
For example here are a few non-charismatics who make one or both
of these assumptions. John Calvin predated the charismatic movement so
perhaps should not be called a 'non-charismatic', though given what he
says, he would be if he were alive today. In Calvin's Commentaries: The
Acts of the Apostles 1-13, Oliver and Boyd, 1965, p52, regarding Paul's
abilities with languages, Calvin says: 'He had not attained this skill [i.e. '…I
speak in languages more than all of you.' 1Cor 14:18 – RM] either by his
own study or industry, but he had it by the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the
same place he affirms that it is a special gift, with which all are not
endowed. From this I take it as evident that the apostles had the
understanding of various tongues given to them so that they might speak to
the Greeks in Greek, and to the Italians in Latin, and thereby have true
communication with their hearers...At all events it was evidently a miracle
when they saw various languages come readily to them.' Regarding the
interpretation of languages mentioned in 1 Cor. 12-14, Calvin says in
Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Corinthians, The Saint Andrews Press, 1960, p263: 'The interpretation of
tongues was different from the knowledge of tongues, for those who had
the latter gift often did not know the language of the people with whom
they had to have dealings. Interpreters translated the foreign languages into
the native speech. They did not at that time acquire these gifts by hard work
or studying; but they were theirs by a wonderful revelation of the Spirit.'
p47.
251
252
Tongues Revisited
This makes me wonder what Calvin actually thought. The rest of what he
says makes me think he is referring in this latter statement at least, to these
people having an ability to learn languages, or to interpret them, in such a
way that it was simply no effort for them. In the latter quote he says that a
person with the gift of tongues - or the knowledge of tongues as he also
calls it, '…often did not know the language of the people with whom they
had dealings.' This seems to indicate he viewed this knowledge as a
normally acquired knowledge of language where a person may have known
a number of languages but not others, rather than some supernatural ability
to speak to all language groups. Whatever he means here, he definitely
indicates all through his works that he takes the languages spoken as being
normal human languages known to the speakers.
Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry's Commentary, Marshall Morgan & Scott,
1960, New Testament p438, says: 'They began to speak with other tongues,
besides their native language. They spoke not matters of common
conversation, but the word of God, and the praises of his name, as the Spirit
gave them utterance. We may suppose that they understood not only
themselves but one another too. They spoke not from any previous thought
or meditation, but as the Spirit gave them utterance; he furnished them with
the matter as well as the language. Now this was, (1) A very great miracle;
it was a miracle upon the mind, for in the mind words are framed. They had
not only never learned these languages, for aught that appears, they had
never so much as heard these languages spoken.' Henry here says the
speakers knew what they were saying.
John MacArthur in Charismatic Chaos, p178, says: 'At that point all were
filled with Spirit and began to speak in other languages. The miraculous
languages...' While I have not found MacArthur saying that in Acts 2
languages were spoken that had not been learnt, everything else he says
indicates that is his view.
Ronald E. Baxter in Charismatic Gift of Tongues, p3, says: 'The
implication is that the tongue would not be a learned language.' He says on
p59: 'As the language was supernaturally given, so was the content.'
Kurt E. Koch in Speaking in Tongues, Kregal Publications, 1969, p46,
refers repeatedly to the 'miracle of languages'.
Enoch Coppin in The Holy Spirit, GHP, 1964, p22, says: '...and the at least
14 languages miraculously spoken by the apostles...'. Coppin makes
another mistake here as well. The passage does not refer to languages, but
geographical regions and ethnic groups.
Renald E. Showers in Israel My Glory Vol 47, No 2, 1989, p22, says: 'The
Spirit gave the believers the ability to speak human languages which they
had never learned.'
Endnotes
253
Bryce Hartin in Today's Tongues, Jollen Press, 1987, p12, says: 'Biblical
tongues was the God-given ability to speak another language that the
speaker had not learnt. It was not an acquired language, but a language
supernaturally given by the Holy Spirit.'
Tony Rummery in Origins, the Journal of the Biblical Creation Society,
Vol 5, No 14, p9, uses the word 'xenoglossia' to describe what happened on
the day of Pentecost, meaning: the 'ability to speak an actual foreign
language without having first learnt it...'. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit,
Lancer Books, 1988, p79, also uses the term, as does J Rodman Williams xenoglossolalia - on p215 of his Renewal Theology. The term seems to be
fairly widespread.
91
Even as early as the fourth Century, some were confused about the
issue. John MacArthur in The John MacArthur New Testament
Commentary: 1 Corinthians, p361, has some interesting material. He says:
'The gift of tongues is nowhere alluded to or found in any writings of the
church Fathers. Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthian church in
the year 95, only about four decades after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. In
discussing problems in the church, Clement made no mention of tongues.
Apparently both the use and misuse of that gift had ceased. Justin Martyr,
the great church Father of the second century, visited many of the churches
of his day, yet in his voluminous writings he mentions nothing of tongues.
It is not mentioned even among his several lists of spiritual gifts. Origen, a
brilliant church scholar who lived during the third century, makes no
mention of tongues. In his polemic against Celses he explicitly argues that
the sign gifts of the apostolic age were temporary and were not exercised
by Christians of his day. Chrysostom, perhaps the greatest of the post-New
Testament writers, lived from 347 until 407. Writing on 1 Corinthians 12
he states that tongues and other miraculous gifts not only had ceased but
could not even be accurately defined.'
'The historians and theologians of the early church unanimously maintained
that tongues ceased to exist after the time of the apostles. The only
exception of which we know was within the movement led by Montanus, a
second century heretic who believed that divine revelation continued
through him beyond the New Testament.'
In 'Charismatic Chaos', p133, MacArthur writes: 'Chrysostom...Writing in
the fourth century, he described tongues as an obscure practice, admitting
that he was not even certain about the characteristics of the gift. "The
obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their
cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place."'
I am interested in MacArthur’s historical comments. If as I maintain, all
Paul was addressing in First Corinthians was an ethnic problem which at
p47.
253
254
Tongues Revisited
that time expressed itself to some degree through insensitive use of
different languages in the church, one would not expect to find it mentioned
often, if at all. It is not the sort of thing that would normally be mentioned
and it is only because of the childish way the Corinthian situation was
being handled that Paul even needed to take it up in the first place. The
solution to language problems is usually so self-evident it is not surprising
that Clement, and the others mentioned, don't address them. I think is very
significant that Justin Martyr doesn't mention 'languages' in his list of
'spiritual gifts'. It supports my contention that it was not the use (or abuse)
of a 'spiritual gift' Paul was addressing, but just a normal linguistic
situation. Perhaps by Chrysostom's time the Montanists had captured some
of the language - as the charismatic movement has today - such that
Chrysostom overlooked naturally spoken languages as the explanation or
definition. After all, it took only 60 years or less for the capture of language
to occur in our own time.
92
p55.
1 Corinthians 12:2-4.
p55.
Revelation 1:1, 9-11.
93
94
Robert G. Gromacki in The Modern Tongues Movement,
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972, p111 says: 'Now that the spiritual gifts
have been enumerated, what are they? Paul called them ton pneumatikon
(12:1). This word grammatically can be either neuter ("spiritual things") or
masculine ("spiritual men"). If neuter, it would refer to the gifts and their
exercise (cf. 1 Cor 14:1). If masculine, it would refer to gifted men and
their testing (cf 1 Cor. 14:37).' Gromacki retains the idea of 'gifts' even
though he uses the word 'things' which is a far broader category.
p57.
95
Verse 6 is one of those verses that especially show that Paul was
dictating and not actually writing this letter. (See ch 16:21 where he says
that he is writing the greeting as opposed to writing the letter.) The way v6
reads is reminiscent of the way we speak, but not the way we write.
p63.
96
Some charismatic authors try to make this an illustration as well,
along with the musical instruments and the trumpet call. They say the
movement back to the Corinthian situation from the illustrations does not
occur in v9 but rather in v12.
p63.
97
George Mallone, Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press,
1983, p82 says: '...if we assume that all tongues in the New Testament are
p64.
Endnotes
255
foreign languages, then it is impossible to make sense of 1 Corinthians 14.'
He then goes on to ask some supposedly unanswerable questions given
'tongues' being foreign languages. He says: 'One must candidly ask the
following questions of the text in both observation and interpretation. Why
would God, in order to have someone speak to him, bestow a foreign
language upon that person (1 Cor. 14:2)? How do you speak in a foreign
language to God in the Spirit and have it as a mystery (v. 2)? How would
speaking in a foreign language edify yourself (v. 4)? Is the interpretation of
a foreign language something you pray about (v. 13)? How do you pray in
a foreign language and your mind not be engaged in the process, to think in
form and syntax (v. 14)? Similar questions could be asked of a number of
other verses in this section (vv. 16, 18, 27).' Mallone has just not thought
this through sufficiently. I answer every one of these 'unanswerable'
questions in a very straight forward manner in this work rendering his bold
assertion void.
98
p64. W. Harold Mare in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1
Corinthians, Zondervan, p273, says: 'Paul's speaking of the languages of
the world along with his reference to the "foreigner" (barbaros,
"barbarian"...) substantiates the conclusion that in his discussion of tongues
he has in mind known foreign languages. Phonai ("languages") can at times
mean "voices," "sounds"... but here in connection with aphonos ("without
meaning"), it indicates languages that can convey meaning by their
systematic distinction of sounds.' Mare does not think the languages were
normally learnt and normally spoken, but he does think they were normal
languages.
In this regard he also says on p278: 'Sixth, on the basis of the phenomenon
of foreign languages spoken of in Acts 2:5-12, we have argued that the
tongues referred to in 1 Corinthians 14:13-15, 20-25 were also foreignlanguage tongues - not ecstatic utterances, gibberish, or nonunderstandable
erratic variations of consonants and vowels with indiscriminate modulation
of pitch, speed, and volume.'
99
p64. David Wilkerson in David Wilkerson Speaks Out, Bethany
Fellowship, 1973, p17, says: 'I speak with tongues in my secret closet of
prayer. It is a beautiful devotional experience with me. It is not a group
or public experience. No one else is involved but Jesus and me!' While
such an idea is widely held, it has no basis in Scripture. There are two
things wrong with it. Firstly, 1 Corinthians 14, from which the idea is
drawn, clearly identifies the languages spoken as normal human
languages normally spoken. Secondly, the chapter is all about meetings
of the church which are most definitely group and public experiences!
255
256
Tongues Revisited
That is why the emphasis is all on translating so others present can
understand what is being said. The 'private prayer closet' idea can only
be found if the chapter is fragmented and parts of it taken out of context.
100
p65. Peter Masters and John C. Whitcomb in The Charismatic
Phenomenon, Wakeman Trust, 1992, pp50-51, are very definite about this.
They say: 'The fact that the tongues-speakers were edified...tells us that
they definitely understood the meaning of their tongues themselves.' Also,
when referring to the meaning of 'edify' say: 'Beyond all controversy it
means - to build up the understanding.'
101
John Calvin in Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the Corinthians, The Saint Andrews Press, 1960, pp287, says
regarding this verse: 'In our own day [1600's – RM] when there is a crying
need for the knowledge of tongues, and when, at our stage in history, God
in his wonderful kindness has rescued them from darkness and brought
them to light, there are great theologians who, faced with that situation, are
loud and violent in their protests against them. Since there is no doubt that
the Holy Spirit has bestowed undying honour on tongues in this verse, it is
easy to deduce what sort of spirit moves those critics who make strong
attacks against the study of languages with as much insulting language as
they can muster. Yet they are dealing with different things. For Paul is
referring to all languages, without distinction, which were such a great help
in proclaiming the Gospel among all nations. On the other hand those
present-day critics are condemning the languages from which the pure truth
of Scripture is to be drawn as from a fountain.' It is especially interesting to
see the way Calvin speaks in these passages because he was living well
before the rise of the modern charismatic movement and was unaffected by
its capture of the language. Charismatic type interpretations did not even
enter his head. The 'tongues' he was referring to as being rediscovered were
Hebrew and Greek.
p66.
102
J. I. Packer, in Keep In Step With The Spirit, IVP, 1985, pp208209, says: '...furthermore, it is hard to believe that in verse 4 Paul can mean
that the glossolalists who do not know what they are saying will edify
themselves, when in verse 5 he denies that the listening church can be
edified unless it knows what they are saying. But if in verse 4 Paul has in
view tongues speakers who understand their tongues, today's charismatics
cannot regard his words as giving them any encouragement, for they
confessedly do not understand their own glossalalia.' AMEN!
p66.
Endnotes
257
103
p66. Peter Masters and John C. Whitcomb, in The Charismatic
Phenomenon, Wakeman Trust, 1992, p50, say: '...Paul is...dealing with the
great mistake of failing to translate the tongue for the rest of the
congregation. Throughout his statement he says repeatedly that tongues
must yield a message for the assembly. Says Paul - 'Whoever speaks a
foreign-language message without providing an interpretation speaks to
himself alone, edifies himself alone, and so misuses the message which he
has been given.''
104
p66. Perhaps 'defined' is slightly too strong a word. John Calvin in New
Testament Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Corinthians, The Saint Andrews Press, 1960, p271, says: 'I am certain, in
my own mind, that he [that is Paul – RM] means by prophets, not those
endowed with the gift of foretelling, but those who were blessed with the
unique gift of dealing with Scripture, not only by interpreting it, but also by
the wisdom they showed in making it meet the needs of the hour. My
reason for thinking so is that Paul prefers prophecy to all other gifts,
because it is a greater source of edification, a statement that can hardly be
made to apply to the prediction of future events. Again, when he defines the
work of the prophet, or at least deals with the main things which he ought
to be doing, he says that he devotes himself to consolation, encouragement
and teaching. But these activities are quite distinct from predictions. From
this verse let us therefore learn that prophets are (1) outstanding interpreters
of Scripture; and (2) men endowed with extraordinary wisdom and aptitude
for grasping what the immediate need of the Church is, and speaking the
right word to meet it. That is why they are, so to speak, messengers who
bring news of what God wants.'
Regarding prophecy, there are a number of verses that need to be pondered
on long and hard. Jesus in Luke 4:24 says: 'I tell you the truth, no
prophet is accepted in his hometown.' Matthew has a variant of this in
13:57: 'They took offence at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his
hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honour".' John
has a similar comment in 4:44: 'Now Jesus himself had pointed out that
a prophet has no honour in his own country.' In 1 Thessalonians 5:20,
Paul says: '...do not treat prophecies with contempt.' Why is it that Jesus
said the things he did, and why would anyone treat prophecies with
contempt? Why would the insightful wisdom which Calvin talks about, that
perceives the true nature of the church's situation and speaks to it by
teaching the Scripture in a way applicable to it, be treated with contempt?
Can I make some suggestions:
257
258
Tongues Revisited
• What say this insightful wisdom went contrary to the prevailing
thoughts that other church members had about things?
• What say it was contrary to what the church wanted to hear?
• What say it was insightful wisdom regarding an error members of the
church had committed themselves to?
• What say it was insightful wisdom from someone with the Spirit's fire in
their bones (1 Thess. 5:19), to people who had put out the Spirit's fire?
Much of what Old Testament prophets spoke was prophecy as Calvin
defined it. Of course they had more. Much of what they said was 'Thus says
the Lord!' But they brought an insightful analysis of Israel's situation, an
analysis based on the Word of God. Were they accepted? No they weren't.
In most cases what they said was held in contempt.
Prophets were people who spoke forthrightly to corrupt situations; who
raised awkward questions; who addressed deviation from the truth,
deviations in both doctrine and practice. They did not use weasel words or
fudge issues but rather stated them in stark terms.
Prophets never figured highly in the popularity stakes. They were never
voted 'people most likely to succeed' because they made people feel
uncomfortable. They did not massage people's egos but were more likely to
have rubbed people up the wrong way, not because they were unnecessarily
abrasive or were wrong, but because the people were wrong. It is the way
of the sinful nature to hold prophets and prophecy in contempt.
105
p70. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p117, toys
with the idea of a non-absolute 'all' in v31, 'For you can all prophesy in turn
so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged', and (also p117", a
non-absolute 'everyone' in v23-24.
106
William Barclay in Letters to Corinthians. The Daily Study Bible,
The Saint Andrews Press, 1975, translates 'mysteries' as 'things which only
the initiated can understand.'
p71.
107
Numerous people give the meaning for 'mystery' as 'what was
concealed but is now revealed', or, 'truth revealed'. See Victor Budgen, The
Charismatics and the Word of God, Evangelical Press, 1986, p48. This
meaning is not correct.
p71.
108
The 'mystery of the gospel'. Romans 16: 25-27; Ephesians 1:9-10,
3:2-13, 6:19; Colossians 1:25-27, 2:2-3, 4:3. Victor Budgen, ibid, p48,
takes this view.
p71.
Endnotes
259
W. Harold Mare in, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians,
Zondervan, p272, says, '"Mysteries" refers to the deep truths of God's
Salvation.'
109
p71. For example see The John MacArthur New Testament
Commentary: 1 Corinthians, by John MacArthur, Moody, 1984, p372. The
mystery religions are the backdrop to his whole scenario for 1 Corinthians
14.
110
W. Harold Mare in, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1
Corinthians, Zondervan, p272.
p71.
111
p72. Ibid. p272: '"By [or, with] the spirit" (pneumati) is not to be
understood as referring to the Holy Spirit, who is not mentioned in the
context, but to the person's own spirit.'
112
p72. Gordon D. Fee, in The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT,
Eerdmans, 1987, pp669-676, recognises a problem with verse 14. He says
of it on p669: 'This seems to make the best sense of what is otherwise a
very difficult sentence in the middle of this argument...' He recognises that
the context is all about getting others edified and that the interpretation
therefore is not for the speaker himself but for others. In footnote 15 he
notes the point I am arguing here, suggesting it moves things in the right
direction. However he is not satisfied that the contrast in the passage
between 'my spirit' and 'my mind' is between 'what benefits me and what
benefits others'. May I suggest he has gone some way in the right direction,
but because he has missed the clues that indicate that the speakers knew
what they were saying, or because he is committed to a position which says
the speaker does not understand, he has stumbled and is left with the
problems and ambiguities that he acknowledges. All of these can be
resolved in a straightforward way by the position I am putting forward. He
doesn't indicate that he has even heard of it, let alone considered it.
113
p73. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p104, has a
very confusing comment about this. He says: '...- his spirit praying - but his
mind remains "unfruitful." This may mean that such prayer leaves him
without mental, intellectual, or thought benefit; but it may mean that under
such circumstances, since his mind is not engaged in the exercise, it does
not produce fruit in the hearers - the presupposition being that the
edification of the hearers requires intelligibility of utterance, and the
intelligibility of utterance requires that the mind of the speaker be engaged.
259
260
Tongues Revisited
In the light of the sustained emphasis in this chapter on the edification of
the hearers, this latter interpretation is marginally more likely.'
Apart from being the author of a passage which borders on being
incomprehensible, Carson has a problem here. He says 'the latter
interpretation is marginally more likely', but in this interpretation, he has
'unfruitful' referring to both the speaker's mind and the minds of the hearers
at the same time. He starts off presupposing the speaker's mind is not
engaged, an idea he clearly gets from Paul's words 'my mind is unfruitful'.
He retains this idea but then switches and says that because the focus of the
chapter is on the edification of the hearers, it is marginally more likely that
the lack of 'fruit' is in the hearers. The lack of 'fruit' i.e.. understanding, as
far as the passage is concerned, is only in one place. It is either in the
speaker's mind, or the minds of the hearers, but not both. If this is so, and if
it is the hearers understanding which Paul is talking about - which Carson
himself concedes is 'marginally more likely' - then there is simply no
requirement for the speaker's mind to be disengaged because the speaker's
mind is not what Paul has in mind! But then, if this is acknowledged, the
charismatic position has the final rug pulled from underneath it. Perhaps
that's why Carson wants to shoot in two directions at once.
What I'm arguing of course is that both the speaker and his hearers have
their minds fully engaged at all times. However the hearers, even with their
minds engaged, do not understand what the speaker is saying if he speaks
in a language they don't understand.
114
Some Samoan people in my church asked if the congregation could
sing a Samoan hymn. The tune was the same as the English hymn, 'Take it
to the Lord in Prayer'. Because of this, the European who led the singing
assumed the hymn was 'Take it to the Lord in Prayer', in Samoan. She
announced this to the church. As the tune was familiar to me but Samoan is
not at all, I sang in English while the Samoan people sang in Samoan, and a
variety of other non-Samoan speakers had a go at mouthing the words in
Samoan without comprehendo. One woman of European descent knew a
smattering of Samoan, and thought something wasn't right. The following
week she asked the Samoan people for a translation. It turned out it was not
'Take it to the Lord in Prayer' at all, but a totally different hymn!
p73.
115
It is amazing how many people miss this point. John Calvin in
Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Corinthians, misses it. On p292 he says: 'For it is not correct to describe the
understanding as...unfruitful, on the grounds that the Church derives no
benefit, in view of the fact that Paul is speaking about the private prayers of
individuals here.' Calvin says this is part of a hypothetical situation that
p74.
Endnotes
261
Paul is using for teaching purposes. But Paul is not talking about the private
prayers of individuals at all. He is talking about public prayers in the
congregation of believers! Calvin does say Paul has public prayers in mind
from v16 on (p293). In expounding that section, Calvin berates the 'Papists'
for conducting the mass in Latin which most don't understand.
For a few charismatics who miss the point see, Charles Widdowson, Speak
in Tongues....Five Reasons, pp9-11: 'I know many of us don't like to think
that 'our mind is unfruitful', we really do rebel at not being able to
understand what God is doing...but that is really a lack of maturity and an
unwillingness to place our mind under the dominion of the Holy Spirit.'
'There is a very real need for each one of us to place our minds under the
dominion of the Holy Spirit, so that even when it is 'unfruitful' it doesn't
matter, because what we cannot understand in the natural, we have learnt to
accept by faith in the supernatural.'
Also, I Believe in the Holy Spirit, by Michael Green, Hodder & Stoughton,
1975: 'Perhaps one of the areas of profit that we may need to be reminded
of in an over-cerebral age is this: it allows the human spirit to pray, even
when the mind is unfruitful because it cannot understand (1 Corinthians 14:
14).'
Also, A Daily Guide to Miracles, by Oral Roberts, Spire Books, 1975,
p253. Commenting on 1 Cor. 14:14, Roberts says: 'I recall various times
when I have held that verse before the Lord and tried to relate it to my own
experience. Eventually, I was able to do so. I believe Paul is saying here
that he actually is praying with his spirit, but his mind is not necessarily
part of that prayer. That is, his mind is not creating the prayer. Paul even
goes so far as to say that his mind doesn't even comprehend it at all. It is in
an unfruitful or inactive state.'
Also, Renewal Theology: Salvation, the Holy Spirit, and Christian Living,
by J. Rodman Williams, Zondervan, 1990, p395: 'These last two
manifestations of the Holy Spirit [i.e. 'tongues' and 'interpretation of
tongues' – RM] form a distinctive category of gifts that operate beyond the
mind. When Paul says, "If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind
is unfruitful ['my intellect lies fallow' NEB]" (1 Cor. 14:14)...these are
supramental gifts. Tongues and interpretation of tongues operate on a level
above and beyond the mind; they signify the climax in spiritual directness
and intensity.'
116
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle of Corinthians,
Harper/Black, 1968, misses this completely, but acknowledges difficulties
in understanding what Paul's point is. On pp319-320 he says: 'For if I pray
in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is inactive (literally, unfruitful,
i.e., it produces nothing, contributes nothing to the process). It is evident
p75.
261
262
Tongues Revisited
that the mind is the rational element in man's being, prized by many of
Paul's contemporaries as the highest and intrinsically good part of human
nature. Paul did not rate rationality so high; the mind is not sinless, but
needs to be renewed (Rom. 12:2). My spirit is not so easy to understand. It
must be taken with the wording of the next verse, where spirit recurs
(without the possessive pronoun, though it would be wrong to lay much
stress on this). There are three main possibilities. (a) My spirit is part of my
psychological make-up, a non-rational part serving as the counterpart of my
mind. (b) My spirit is the spiritual gift entrusted to me, as in verse 12, or
rather the particular spiritual agency which induces my inspired speech. (c)
My spirit is the Holy Spirit as given to me. The verse would then
correspond with Rom. 8:26, where the Spirit is said to make intercession
for the elect in unutterable speech. (a) is supported by parallelism, but not
by Paul's usage elsewhere. (b) would seem the most probable view if it
were not the pronoun my. To describe the Holy Spirit as in any sense mine
is intolerable, and certainly not Pauline. (c) is the best view, though if stated
as baldly as by Calvin (' "My spirit" will mean exactly the same as "the gift
conferred on me" ') it is open to the objection that the gift itself cannot be
said to pray. Paul's language lacks clarity and precision here because he is
compressing into a few words ...' He then gives three thoughts he thinks
Paul is compressing. Barrett makes an ordering mistake here. In his
discussion about which of the three options is best, comment b should have
referred to option c, and comment c to option b.
117
In New Zealand at the moment (2000) there is occurring a
resurgence of the Maori culture and language. Some sensitivity is
connected with this resurgence because it is thought by many Maori (and
others) that the Europeans have suppressed the Maori culture and language
over the past 150 years and therefore now 'owe' the Maori recognition in a
variety of ways. These sorts of situations can easily produce feelings of
guilt in members of the 'guilty' culture. As a result of these guilt feelings, a
tokenism can arise where Maori greetings are used, or Maori songs are
sung - to show your cultural sensitivity - even though neither those doing
the greeting, nor those singing, know the Maori language. I have been in
meetings where I know there are no Maori speakers and yet we have been
asked to sing a hymn in Maori! Frankly this is nonsense as nobody
understands. The only reason we can even approximate the sounds of the
Maori words is because when Maori was reduced to writing, the same
alphabet was used that English uses. Because we know the sounds of the
letters, we can approximate the sound of the words. However, such
mouthing of a language brings us no understanding. To highlight the
absurdity of the situation even more, why is it we don't even try to sing
p75.
Endnotes
263
Khmer hymns in our church even though we have a number of Khmer
believers in it? Because not only do we not know the language, we can't
even approximate the sounds of the words because Khmer is written in a
script we don't know. Therefore we don't have the slightest idea what
sounds any of the symbols represent. I am aware of the culturally sensitive
nature of the issue and of some of the very bad things done in the 50 or so
years after European settlement. However 1 Corinthians 14 speaks directly
to the sort of situation I have related. Christians should recognise the value
of all languages but we should idolise none. More important than any
language in any particular situation, is understanding.
John Calvin, in Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Corinthians, The Saint Andrews Press, 1960, p289, says: 'It
is therefore pointless and absurd for a man to speak in a gathering of
people, when the hearer understands not a word of what he says, and
cannot even catch the slightest inkling, to show what the speaker means.
Paul is therefore quite right in regarding it as the height of absurdity that a
man should prove to be a 'barbarian' to his audience, because he talks away
in an unknown language.'
118
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle To The Corinthians (NICNT),
Eerdmans, 1987, p111, says: 'The analogy itself is a simple one, and insists
that just as the only person who knows what goes on inside one's own mind
is oneself, so only God knows the things of God. Paul makes the point by
using the word "spirit" because first of all he is talking about the Holy
Spirit and secondly because it is for him a common word for the interior
expression of the human person.' On p112: 'And the analogy does not have
to do with the constituents of personality; rather, it has to do with our
common experience of personal reality. At the human level, I alone know
what I am thinking, and no one else, unless I choose to reveal my thoughts
in the form of words.'
p75.
119
p75. John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1
Corinthians, Moody, 1984, p62, says: 'To illustrate the Holy Spirit's unique
qualification for revealing the Word, Paul compares the Spirit's knowledge
of God's mind to a human being's knowledge of his own mind. No person
can know another person as well as he knows himself.'
120
p76. Of course people can talk and still not reveal themselves. I know a
number of people that I have talked to for years but still don't know.
263
264
Tongues Revisited
121
p77. D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p118, and
footnote 26, pp118-119, finds the idea of knowing in advance that an
interpreter is present an unresolved difficulty. He also says there is no
certainty as to why Paul included this limitation of only two or three
speaking.
122
Some people make a very firm distinction between translation and
interpretation. Translation is supposedly the conversion of words to
meaning, whereas it is claimed interpretation does not require this
connection between words and meaning. What is trying to be gained by this
is legitimacy for the charismatic 'interpreter' who does not understand any
sounds that are made. A message is interpreted which does not come from
the understanding of particular words. Frankly, such a distinction seems to
me to be simply playing with words. The terms are effectively
synonymous. The Greek word used is 'hermeneia' which is the noun form
of the verb 'hermeneuo' which is used in John 1:42, '"You are Simon son of
John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).'
'Translation', technically may refer more to the bringing over into another
language, the words of the original one, and 'interpret', more to the
transmission of ideas as opposed to words. However in practice, because
languages don't overlap exactly, they mean the same thing.
The following was taken from Ministering in the Power of the Holy Spirit,
a seminar instruction book by the Subritsky Family, Dove Ministries Ltd,
1989, p28:
'(2)
Use of a public tongue and
(3)
Interpretation of tongues.
Instructions:
(a)
One or two persons in each group should be encouraged to speak
in turn in their prayer language.
(b)
Another person should then speak out in English what they believe
the Holy Spirit is saying. It may, of course, not be correct, but remember,
we are encouraging people into the gifts and people have to step out first.
(c)
This should be done several times in the group to encourage people
to speak out something they believe God is saying to the group. As they
allow the Holy Spirit to quicken thoughts or impressions, suddenly they
will find they are coming into what the Holy Spirit is seeking to say
through them. Remember, interpretation of tongues is not a translation, but
an interpretation.
(Allow 5 minutes)'
There of course is no basis in Scripture for any of this. Frankly it seems
more like an introduction to the occult than anything else. If the trial
p78.
Endnotes
265
'interpretation' is not correct, how do they know this? Perhaps we could
also ask, "How do they know when an interpretation is correct?"
123
p78. I have a tape in my possession which records some 'tongues' being
tested. Also Today's Tongues; Spiritual Renewal or Spiritism made
Respectable, by Bryce Hartin, Jollen Press, 1987, pp38-54, outlines some
similar procedures for testing 'tongues'. Both the tape and the booklet
assume that a spirit, distinct from the spirit of the individual whose 'tongue'
is being tested, is in residence at the time the phenomenon occurs and is
originating it. In the name of Christ, the spirit producing the 'tongue' is
commanded to identify itself. The spirit is then required to make confession
of orthodox Biblical doctrine. After the spirit is identified as a demon
through its failure to confess to orthodox doctrine, it is then commanded to
leave the person. This certainly is a possible way to get a test on the 'source'
of the 'tongue'. Hartin says p27: 'People who have this supposed 'gift of
tongues' claim that this is the Holy Spirit speaking through them. After
counselling large numbers of tongues-speaking people, I have observed that
in about 95% of cases, it is a spirit speaking though them, but it is definitely
NOT the Holy Spirit. The other 5% have proven to be psychosomatic.' In
discussion with one charismatic I mentioned this sort of test. He said, "Go
on! Test mine!" and immediately switched on his 'tongue'. While such a
test is interesting, I do not think it is required as the text of Scripture is clear
enough to show the current phenomenon is not Biblical. But even if a test
of the type mentioned is done, the test is not of the claimed speechinterpretation event, but rather of the source of the phenomenon.
124
p78. Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, by Robert Young,
United Society for Christian Literature, (first published 1879, reprinted
1971): p926, Spiritual - No 3; p390, Gift – No 21.
125
p79. John MacArthur would be representative of non-charismatics who
hold this view. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, The MacArthur New
Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, Moody Press, 1984, p290, he says:
'Spiritual gifts are not talents. Natural talents, skills, and abilities are
granted by God just as everything good and worthwhile is a gift from him.
But those things are natural abilities shared by believer and unbeliever
alike. An unbeliever can be a highly skilled artist or musician. An atheist or
agnostic can be a great scientist, carpenter, athlete, or cook. If a Christian
excels in any such abilities it has nothing to do with his salvation. Though
he may use his natural talents quite differently after he is saved, he
possessed them before he became a Christian. Spiritual gifts come only as a
result of salvation.
265
266
Tongues Revisited
Spiritual gifts, however, are not natural, but rather are supernaturally given
by the Holy Spirit only and always to believers in Jesus Christ, without
exception (v7). [Using this verse (1 Corinthians 12:7) as a proof text for
this idea stretches the verse somewhat I think - RM] Spiritual gifts are
special capacities bestowed on believers to equip them to minister
supernaturally to others, especially each other.'
126
John MacArthur talks of present gifting as 'supernatural' but I take
it he means something quite different from what charismatics mean.
p79.
127
W. Harold Mare in, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1
Corinthians, Zondervan, p278, says: '...not all of the charismata mentioned
are miraculous.' He understands some of them to be so, a gift of foreign
languages included among them.
p80.
128
Obviously the apostles were a channel through which some
miraculous things were done. Peter was used in the healing of the crippled
man (Acts 3:1-4:22). They all are said to have been involved in miraculous
events in Acts 5:12. Note that here it was only the apostles through whom
these things are said to have been done. Philip, one of the seven deacons
chosen in Acts 6:5 (not the apostle Philip), had God perform miracles
through him in Samaria, so a close associate of the apostles was also
involved. Peter was used to heal Aeneas the cripple (Acts 9:32-35) and
raise Tabitha from the dead (9:36-43) and was miraculously released from
prison (Acts 12). Paul also was the vehicle through which numerous
miraculous things occurred. Hebrews 2:3b-4 says: 'This salvation, which
was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who
heard him. God also testified to it by signs, and wonders and various
miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.'
The word translated 'gifts' here, is a word only used twice in the New
Testament, both in Hebrews - here in this verse and also in 4:12 where it is
translated 'dividing'. It has the idea of 'dividing into parts' or 'distributions'.
p80.
129
p82. I have experienced on a number of occasions, the navel-gazing
exercise of 'seeking to discover your spiritual gift'. A huge amount of
needless introspection, confusion, feelings of inadequacy, of worthlessness,
inability, and rejection, have come out of these sort of exercises because
often we are hunting for something we know not what. No doubt some who
run these 'find your gift sessions' create a niche for themselves in the
preaching circuit and so get to have their egos massaged and to see the
world.
Endnotes
267
I was saved when I was seven. Therefore virtually all the skills and abilities
I possess, have developed since I was converted. Which are spiritual gifts
and which are natural talents? A Christian woman may be wonderful at
showing hospitality. Is that because she has a 'spiritual gift' of hospitality,
or because she is just a hospitable sort?
When you get right down to the nitty gritty, how do you tell a 'spiritual gift'
supernaturally bestowed, as outlined by John MacArthur in footnote 125,
and a natural talent? In my view, this idea produces much trauma for many
people because they simply cannot identify any 'spiritual gift' with
certainty. And yet we are told that if we are Christians we definitely have at
least one! Then of course there is the inevitable comparison of (and by) the
'have nots', with those who seem to simply be overflowing with gifts. How
could God be so unfair to give so much to some people and so little to
others?
At least charismatic people who hold this view can point to some
experience as confirmation of what they consider to be the supernatural
gift/s they have received. Though after talking to charismatic friends and
watching their lives, and listening to charismatic programmes on the radio,
it is obvious to me that charismatic people have all the same problems that
non-charismatic people have about most things - in fact often it seems they
have more! At the end of the day, all the hype and razzmatazz, and the
claims about supernatural gifts, and tapping a power that energises them for
victorious living, simply rings hollow. Historically, if the charismatic
experience made everything right, why is there such obvious and continual
hankering after something to satisfy in charismatic circles? And why is
there the need for a 'new move of the Spirit' every few years?
One such claimed 'move' in 1994-95 that got people buzzing was a socalled 'laughing revival', and its offshoot 'The Pensacola Revival'. Some
people must be desperate! While much was made of this 'Toronto Blessing',
uncontrollable laughing is not something new in charismatic circles.
Murray Robertson in Riding the Third Wave, editor Kevin Springer,
Marshall-Pickering, 1987, pp189-190, says: 'God had not finished with me
that night. John Wimber continued speaking, 'There are some of you here
who have been active in ministry for a long time, but you have grown
weary and discouraged, and the Holy Spirit is going to come and refresh
you.' I had a feeling that I wanted to laugh, but thought that was hardly
appropriate! 'The Spirit will come in waves', said Wimber, 'each wave
catching up more people than the one before.' Down the front someone
started laughing. Then someone else. This must be the refreshing of the
Spirit, I thought - by now no longer able to repress my own desire to laugh.
This sense of joy in the Spirit continued across the auditorium for ten
minutes or so, then subsided. Those who had been laughing, stopped. That
267
268
Tongues Revisited
was, except for myself. I found I just could not stop. Neither, after a while,
could I stand! I ended up falling over the seats in front, then the row
behind, and finally rolling around the floor, holding my sides and roaring
with laughter. By now, a knot of spectators was gathering as I must have
been providing some good entertainment! Interestingly enough, part of me
felt somewhat detached from the whole experience. I knew what was going
on - there were months, if not years, of frustration in ministry that were
being drained out of me...
The laughter went on for about three quarters of an hour. Then, as it was
stopping, a fellow pastor and very good friend of mine put his hand on my
head and said, 'Lord, give him some more' - which set me off for a further
three quarters of an hour! By the end of that time, I was pleading with him
not to pray for me any more as my ribs were hurting so much from all the
laughing!'
130
p83. D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p100,
makes some valid comments about an author's intent in any ranking that he
does. What is the scale of reference? Is it an absolute scale or a relative one
chosen to make a limited comparison?
131
p84. Ibid, pp108-109, says of verses 20-25: 'These verses are
extraordinarily difficult, primarily because tongues are said to be a sign for
unbelievers in verse 22, while in verses 23-25 unbelievers respond
negatively to tongues and positively to prophecy, at first glance
contradicting the judgment of verse 22.' Carson spends eight pages
outlining various views and while he defends one of them, he doesn't seem
to have his heart in the defense.
J. B. Phillips in his paraphrase, The New Testament in Modern English,
Geoffrey Bles Ltd, 1966, feels the problem so intensely that he has been
prepared to change what the verses say. Phillips' verse 22 reads: 'That
means that tongues are a sign of God's power, not for those who are
unbelievers but to those who already believe.' In note 5 on p552 he says:
'This is the sole instance of the translator's [that is Phillips – RM] departing
from the accepted text. He felt bound to conclude, from the sense of the
next three verses, that we have here either a slip of the pen on the part of
Paul, or, more probably, a copyist's error.'
W. Harold Mare, in The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1Corinthians,
Zondervan, p274, note 22, says: 'The interpretation of this v. [v22 – RM] is
difficult in the light of vv.23,24, where unbelievers are repelled by tongues
and blessed by prophecy. We reject, however, the view expressed by R. St.
John Parry (in loc.) that v22, therefore, possibly be considered a gloss.
Rather, we feel an answer is to be found in seeing a difference in emphasis
Endnotes
269
in the vv., as suggested in the commentary.' Mare recognises the apparent
contradiction and that a distinction needs to be made between v22 and vv.
23-25. He also rejects the idea the problem is with the text. His resolution
involves making a distinction, not between the unbeliever of v22 and the
unbeliever of vv. 23-25 as I have done, but between two different
circumstances the same unbeliever may face. The first is where languages
are spoken and the unbeliever is impressed. The second is where an
'excessive use of this gift will have an adverse effect on them...' and the
unbeliever will be repelled. He does however see the one who 'does not
understand' (v24), as 'an unbeliever who has already begun to show interest
in the Gospel - an inquirer', the same as I do. I personally found Mare's
argument very difficult to follow.
132
The Lord Jesus had made very clear that judgment was coming on
that generation:
p85.
Matt. 23
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been
shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of
Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the
temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
Matt. 24
34. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away
until all these things have happened.
To secure the fact that the 'generation' being talked about was the
generation Jesus was speaking to, every other use of the word in Matthew
should be looked at. Every time, apart from the times it is used in the
genealogies in chapter 1, it refers to the generation then alive. See Matthew
11:16, 12:38-45 and also 16:1-4, 17:17.
For other references to the judgment soon to come on the generation Jesus
was speaking to, see Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19, then
compare them all to Isaiah 5:1-30.
133
p85. Clearly the Gospels and Acts contain many miraculous
confirmatory signs. Hebrews 2:3-4 points to these as confirming the
message of the Gospel. They appear to have been mainly carried out by the
apostles and served the purpose of authenticating them and the message
they brought. It has been pointed out by many that the miracles in the Bible
are not distributed evenly through the history recorded there. They are
269
270
Tongues Revisited
clustered at two or three significant times. The Lord's ministry and the
beginning of the church was one of those times.
134
p87. Verse 39 is another instance of an absolute statement being used in
a relative way. Here he says, '…do not forbid…', but elsewhere he forbids!
135
p88. John Calvin in Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the Corinthians, Saint Andrews Press, 1960, p287, says:
'Except he interpret. For, if interpretation is added, then there will be
prophecy. Do not, however, imagine that Paul is here allowing anybody to
waste the time of the Church by muttering foreign words. For how
ridiculous it would be to proclaim the same thing in many languages, when
there is no need to do so! But it often happens that the use of a foreign
language is timely.'
136
George Mallone, Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press,
1983, has a blatant contradiction on p86 in regard to this. He quotes Larry
Christensen approvingly as saying, 'the speaker does not decide what sound
will come out next; he simply lifts up his voice and the Spirit gives
utterance (Act 2:4).' So for Christensen - and Mallone - it is the Spirit who
produces the utterance. In the very next paragraph however Mallone says,
'The Corinthian gift was out of control, however, and needed apostolic
instruction in order to be used legitimately.' You just cannot have these two
statements being true at the same time. If the Spirit gives the utterance
directly, as Mallone has it, then by definition it cannot be out of control!
p88.
137
Here is an example of such an idea. Mankind up until the Tower of
Babel had one language. Though languages are amazing things, the fact
that we have more than one of them at present, results from the judgment of
God. They were introduced to fragment and separate humanity so that evil
could be limited. Man in rebellion had aspired to deity, and the potential for
evil in a world with only one language was enormous. God therefore
judged the rebellion at Babel and confused the languages.
When the 'ethically perfect state' comes - that time when God will confine
all evil creatures in hell and establish those which are obedient in a sinless
situation - there will be no need for the ongoing judgmental restraints of a
multiplicity of languages. Humanity will then be restored to a one language
situation. Languages - (plural) - will cease. I once lightly held this idea as
an explanation, but no longer do. Perhaps in heaven we will have only one
language, but even if this is so, it has nothing to do with this passage.
p89.
Endnotes
271
Numerous people have talked of Acts 2 being a reversal of Babel. For
example, Victor Budgen in, The Charismatics and the Word of God,
Evangelical Press, 1986, p47, says: 'Much of the significance of Pentecost
was that it was a resounding reversal of Babel, which involved the
confusion of languages.'
Of course it was nothing of the sort as there were still a variety of
languages. A reversal of Babel is a reversal to a one language situation and
that did not occur.
Gene Edward Veith, Jr, in Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to
Contemporary Thought and Culture, Crossway Books, 1994, several times
refers to a reversal of Babel through the Gospel, in his discussion of
Postmodern use - or abuse - of language. On pp21-22 he says, 'God
punished Babel by undermining the faculty that made possible their success
- their language. The human race splintered into mutually inaccessible
groups. [He then quotes Genesis 11:7-9 – RM].
This is exactly what has happened with the fall of modernism. The
monolithic sensibility of modernism, which seemed to have an unlimited
potential, has fragmented into diverse and competing communities. People
can no longer understand each other. There are no common reference
points, no common language. Totalitarian unity as given way to chaotic
diversity. Scattered in small groups of like-minded people, those who speak
the same language, human beings today are confused.
God's people can only agree with the judgment on the Tower and the curse
of Babel. They will likewise agree that modernism is idolatrous and will
rejoice in its fall. The curse of Babel, while appropriate, was a punishment
for sin. When Christ atoned for the sins of the world, the curse for sin was
removed. When the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the church, the curse
of Babel was undone. [He then quotes Acts 2:1-12 – RM].
What it means, among other things, is that the gospel is for the whole
human race in all of its diversity, that through the Word preached by the
apostles the Holy Spirit communicates faith to people of every language
and culture. Far from being unintelligible utterance, the tongues of
Pentecost were uniquely intelligible - to everyone, no matter what their
native language. The restoration of language was a sign of the Kingdom of
God.'
While I agree that Pentecost shows the gospel is for the whole human race
in all its diversity, there is a fundamental difference between what Veith is
arguing and the Acts 2 situation. The breakdown of communication today
which Veith is highlighting, is between diverse groups who often speak the
same actual language, but who do not have a common conceptual
framework. (They probably all share the same all-encompassing
worldview, i.e.. materialism/secularism/humanism/atheism, but emphasise
271
272
Tongues Revisited
different things within it). By contrast, the people in Acts were all Jews
who shared a common world view and mostly a 2nd language as well.
Veith's use of Acts 2 is simply not justified, nor really is his use of Babel.
His comparison between Acts 2 and Babel, and Postmodern times, does not
derive from what is actually narrated in the text, but from the fact that in
both there is a loss of communication - though of very different sorts - and
in Acts, a presumed restoration, which actually there was not.
138
p90. Some implicit references to immaturity can be found in 1 Cor.
3:16, 6:2 and 6:19. Some explicit references:
• 3:18 - 'Don't you know?' - they were liable to self deception.
• 4:8-13 - they were undiscerning.
• 5:2 - they were proud when they should have been grieving.
• 10:1 - 'I don't want you to be ignorant...' but they were.
• 10:12 - they thought they were standing, but were on the verge of
falling.
• 10:15 - 'I speak to sensible people...' but he indicates he thought
they weren't!
• 11:19 - they did not discern the Lord's body.
• 11:31 - they failed to judge themselves.
• 15:34 - 'Come back to your senses and stop sinning.'
139
p91. W. Harold Mare in Vol 10, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: 1
Corinthians, Zondervan, p269, says, 'Paul's illustration of a child's thoughts
and speech, real but inadequately conceived and expressed in comparison
with those of a mature person (v.11) aptly conveys the difference between
the Christian's present understanding and expression of spiritual things and
the perfect understanding and expression he will have in heaven (v.12).' I
say it conveys the difference between an immature and a mature Christian which is what all the illustrations are illuminating, and has nothing to do
with knowing in heaven.
140
1983, p18, says: 'The second image suggests that with the "perfect" comes
a face-to-face encounter with Jesus Christ - at his Second Coming. We
shall see him just as he is (1 Jn 3:2). At that moment, all human knowledge
will pass away and shall be replaced by heavenly knowledge granted the
children of God.' What does this last paragraph mean? If we have humans,
we have human knowledge, don't we - so how can human knowledge pass
away? We are still going to be human in heaven.
Endnotes
273
141
p92. Perhaps these terms are just colloquial names for certain types of
verbal contributions or messages given to the congregation. The 'message
of wisdom' mentioned in 1 Cor. 2:6 at any rate is simply another name for
the gospel. In the list at the end of chapter 12, only prophecy and teaching
are mentioned so perhaps 'messages of wisdom' and 'messages of
knowledge' are subdivisions of teaching.
142
This statement comes from Lenski as quoted in Tongues Then and
Now, by George W Marston, Presbyterian & Reformed, 1983, p47.
Marston's book follows the 'sign-gift' idea and is frustrating to read.
However this quoted statement conveys the exact idea I am proposing.
p93.
143
p95. I don't think every servant of Satan is knowingly his servant. I
think it is very possible for genuine believers to be conned and so do the
Devil's work. For example, I have read numerous accounts of charismatic
people claiming to see Jesus. Such accounts don't differ greatly from
accounts I have read of New Agers meeting their spirit guides. A being of
light appears and speaks to them. Such a being should be asked for its
credentials. Jack Hayford, speaking at 'Azusa 92', a celebration of the start
of the Pentecostal movement (and replayed on Radio Rhema, NZ, 24th
March, 1993) described how he had a vision of Jesus just beginning to rise
from his throne. The anointing oil that had been poured on his head had run
down and collected in the folds of his garments. As he rose this oil spilled
out. Then Jesus supposedly spoke to him and said, "I am beginning to rise
now in preparation for my second coming. Those who will rise with me
will share in this double portion of anointing." Did Hayford really see
Jesus? And how did he know it was Jesus? How did he know it was not an
impostor - after all, an angel of light is reputed to have appeared to Joseph
Smith, founder of the Mormons? Did Hayford ask for any credentials?
Frankly it sounds to me like yet another stirring of the Pentecostal pot.
144
p95. The reports of charismatics, that a variety of good things - exalted
fun, relief of tension, an inner exhilaration, a strengthened sense of God's
presence and blessing, a focusing and intensifying of an awareness of
divine reality - have persuaded J. I. Packer, in Keep In Step With The Spirit,
IVP, 1985, pp210-211, no's 3, 4, 5, 6, to say the current phenomenon may
be from God even though it is not grounded in Scripture.
145
See The New Charismatics, by Michael G. Moriarty, p263.
Moriarty quotes Kenneth Copeland. 'Pray in tongues. Pray in the Spirit. Not
p95.
273
274
Tongues Revisited
only just your hour a day that surely you spend praying in tongues, but all
during the day...'
146
p95. J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy
Spirit, and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, p232, adds a twist to this
that I have not seen anywhere else. He says: 'Earthly tongues are far too
limited - indeed far too soiled - to express the deeds of the all-powerful, allholy, and all-loving God.' This places 'tongues' above Scripture as Scripture
is written in the 'soiled' languages of earth! In a similar way he also says on
p233: '...speaking or singing in tongues is the expression of highest praise
and joy in the Lord.' Even higher than the Psalms? This is vintage
Williams!
147
p95. John Calvin, in Calvin's Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul
the Apostle to the Corinthians, Saint Andrews Press, 1960, p292, while
addressing the situation of the Roman Catholics requiring prayers to be said
in Latin by people who did not know Latin, says some things which are
very pertinent to the present situation. He says: 'We should note that Paul
thinks it a great fault if the understanding takes no part in prayer. No
wonder! For what else do we do in praying but pour out our thoughts and
desires to God? Again, in view of the fact that spiritual prayer is a means of
worshipping God, what is more out of keeping with its very nature than its
coming only from the lips, and not from the innermost recesses of the soul?
Everybody would have been thoroughly familiar with all these things, if the
devil had not so deprived the world of its senses that men believe that they
are praying properly, when they make their lips move!' How much more
scathing would he have been had he been addressing the claims made for
the current phenomenon?!
148
1983, p85, says: 'It is expressing the inexpressible' – yet another instance of
Mallone's muddled musing.
149
p97. A number have made a lot of the idea that 'tongues' were only for
prayer. One is G. F. Rendal in his book translated from French, I Speak In
Tongues More Than You All, Believers Bookshelf Inc., 1987. He says on
p10: 'Speaking in tongues is never a question of God speaking to men but
of men speaking to God.' This is a totally unnecessary distinction given my
thesis. Rendal is opposed to the current phenomenon.
Endnotes
275
150
p97. D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p104,
rejects this saying: 'Verse 14 does not introduce a new subject, a switch
from speaking in tongues to praying in tongues, for 14:2 has already
established that speaking in tongues is primarily directed to God. In other
words, speaking in tongues is a form of prayer.'
Peter Masters and John C. Whitcomb in The Charismatic Phenomenon,
Wakeman Trust, 1992, p107, say precisely the opposite. They say: 'Paul
does not mean to say it is possible to pray in a tongue.' nor is he '...giving
sanction to the practice of praying to God in a tongue.' They argue that
'tongues' are a message from God to man, so if tongues are used as prayer,
God is in effect the only listener to himself, something they say Paul is
arguing against.
151
J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy
Spirit, and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990, says on p220: 'Furthermore,
there is the testimony of countless numbers of people that their speaking in
tongues was closely related to an original experience of receiving the gift of
the Holy Spirit.' I would like to question what spirit was being received in
the experience that had 'tongues' closely associated with it.
p97.
152
p98. D. A. Carson in Showing the Spirit, Lancer Books, 1988, p50, says
regarding 1 Corinthians 12: 'We have not yet considered other passages in
the New Testament, of course; but on the basis of this chapter at least, and
its concluding rhetorical questions, how dare we make any one charisma
the criterion of a certain endowment of the Spirit? How dare we make
tongues the test of the Spirit's baptism?'
153
See Charles Widdowson, Speak in Tongues....Five Reasons, p9,
'This is not the end, however, and Paul continues: 'Pray at all times IN THE
SPIRIT (i.e. in 'tongues') with all prayer and supplication.'' One of the
characteristics of Widdowson is that he shouts at us.
p98.
154
Perhaps Debbie Boone agreed to sing this line in one of her less
perceptive moments. The thought scares me that she actually meant it.
p99.
155
Challenge Weekly, 31st October, 1991, Letters: 'The common
thread to tongues usage is that the mind of the believer has relinquished
control to the Holy Spirit. The tongue is like a rudder, yielding it is an act
of surrender to the control of the Holy Spirit.'
See also the approving quote of Larry Christensen by George Mallone,
Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press, 1983, p86: 'When you speak
p100.
275
276
Tongues Revisited
your native tongue or any language which you have learned, your mind
controls what is said. But speaking in tongues is speaking forth prompted
not by the mind but the Spirit. The speaker does not decide what sound will
come out next; he simply lifts up his voice and the Spirit gives utterance
(Acts 2:4).'
156
Bob Zerhusen, 10216 Farralone Ave,Chatsworth, CA. 91311,
United States of America.
p102.
157
Mr P. Roberts, writing in The Expository Times (I have a
photocopy only without edition details), pp199-202, deals with this
section, vv21-25 of chapter 12, in his paper, 'A Sign - Christian or
Pagan?' Zerhusen (at the time he sent the material to me) and Roberts
agreed about what they thought was meant by 'tongues are a sign to
unbelievers'.
A significant difficulty with Roberts' paper is that he nowhere defines
what he thinks Biblical 'tongues' are. It is clear however he thinks of
them as being ecstatic vocalisation - exactly the same thing as occurred
within pagan situations. In this regard he says: 'In using ecstatic
experience, the Corinthians, and indeed the rest of the early Church,
were sharing in the culture of their time and place. Such experience was
a part of the fabric of life for the common man in many parts of the
ancient world. He met it in many of his religious cults and mysteries.
Ecstatic experience, in fact, is a part of the common religious heritage of
mankind and was no stranger in the first-century Mediterranean world.
The genius of the early Church was that it took ecstasy, in itself morally
and spiritually neutral, and transformed it into a vehicle for the power
and love of God. The problems arose at Corinth, not because they used
ecstatic phenomena, but because, in a Christian context, they adopted a
pagan attitude towards them.'
I find this sort of statement incredible. The nature of ecstatic experience
(whatever it is) is assumed but never discussed. On what basis does he
determine it is 'morally and spiritually neutral'? From where does it
originate - from inside or outside of the human psyche? Is an ecstatic
experience under demonic influence morally and spiritually neutral? Is
an ecstatic experience which is just psychological in origin, morally and
spiritually neutral? If this view is accepted, Paul himself must have been
heavily into ecstatic experience given all of his positive comments about
'tongues'- and no doubt Roberts would say he was. But this all comes
unstuck given the calls for interpretation and the evidence that people
who spoke, knew what they were saying. Roberts takes no account
whatsoever of all this evidence in the text itself. Ecstatic vocalisation is
p109.
Endnotes
277
always uninterpretable, yet Roberts never touches 'interpretation', which
is called for by Paul. His unproven assumptions about the ecstatic nature
of what was going on, provide the basis for his solution regarding
'tongues' being 'a sign to unbelievers'. He argues they were a pagan sign a sign to pagans within their pagan religious systems of the presence or
activity of the divine. Roberts says on p202: 'In 1 Cor. 14 v22-25, Paul is
saying that in treating tongues as an indispensable sign of God's activity,
they are being naive in their faith; they are thinking like unbelievers who
seek only the ecstatic. The truer sign of the two is prophecy, because it
communicates God's Word and edifies the people of God.' Regarding the
differing responses of unbelievers as they come into the church and face
either prophecy or 'tongues', Roberts says on p202: 'The difference
between the two events is that prophecy produced results in the
conversion of an unbeliever, while speaking with tongues was
ineffective. Of tongues the unbelievers could only say what they might
say of any person undergoing ecstatic experience, 'You are possessed'.
There was no communication of the Christian faith. The sign was
imprecise. Only those who are outside the Christian faith would expend
so much energy on such an ineffective phenomenon. In giving it so high
a place in their esteem, the Corinthians were behaving like unbelievers.'
Zerhusen did not accept all of Roberts' thesis - particularly that relating
to the validity of an ecstatic experience which Christians had in common
with pagans and which was 'morally and spiritually neutral'. He did
however accept the idea that the sign was a pagan sign and that the
Corinthians had adopted pagan attitudes and thus had accepted ecstatic
vocalisation. This Zerhusen said was inadmissible for a Christian and
ruled out completely by Paul's treatment of the issue.
158
p125. I imagine the original language did continue for a number of
reasons. I'm convinced that Genesis prior to 6:9b was written before the
Flood and carried through it on the Ark. To be readable post-Babel, the
language would have to be known. Further not all humanity of the time was
at Babel. Babel was the centre of a revolt against God, something the godly
descendants of Shem presumably would have had nothing to do with. I
think the family records, including those written before the Flood, i.e. Gen.
1 through 6:9b, were passed on to Abraham, and in turn passed on to Isaac,
then to Jacob, and taken by him and his family into Egypt when they went
to be with Joseph. They then came into the hands of Moses who edited
them along with the post Flood records - and with a few of his editorial
comments - into the form Genesis now has. If Moses had the originals, then
he had to be able to read them - or at least someone had to be able to. This
277
278
Tongues Revisited
line of reasoning supports the idea Hebrew was the original language as I
have heard some suggest.
159
p129. The Treaty of Waitangi, by Claudia Orange, Allen & Unwin,
1987, pp90-91.
160
p131. The idea that theories will be dropped when they are shown to be
inadequate, is fine in theory but in practice is another matter. Particularly is
this so with big, all-embracing theories, or worldviews as they are called.
All people have a worldview and interpret all things within the framework
of their worldview at all times. There is little place for agnosticism or
skepticism at this level. There are 'smaller' or sub-theories however which,
though they are more limited in scope, can nevertheless still be a major
point of integration for a person. Discarding them may prove almost as
difficult as discarding a 'big theory'.
There are many instances of people who know of fatal flaws in their
theories large or small and yet who continue to hold to them for a variety of
reasons, either personal or sociological (See Darwin Retried, by Norman
Macbeth, Gambit, 1971, pp6-8.). As a saying goes, 'Theories don't die, only
their proponents do'. For example, a person who says that 'nothing makes
sense except in the light of evolution', is hardly likely to become agnostic,
no matter how many flaws the evolutionary paradigm is shown to have.
They have too much at stake in the view. They may end up saying
something like D. Watson said ('Adaptation', in Nature, 123[1929]:233,
quoted in The Creation-Evolution Controversy, by R. L. Wysong, Inquiry
Press, 1981, p31.): 'Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it
has been observed to occur...or can be proved by logical coherent evidence,
but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.' To
change would require 'conversion', to be agnostic would leave you with
nothing.
161
p134. Ancient Greeks called their land Hellas and called themselves
Hellenes. Hellenic culture refers to Greek cultural achievement which
reach its highest point in Athens in the 5th Century B.C. Hellenistic
culture is the subsequent development of Greek culture among eastern
Mediterranean peoples, a culture spread by the conquest of the region by
Alexander the Great.
For an interesting discussion of claimed Hellenistic influence on early
Christianity see, The Gospel and the Greeks, by Ronald H. Nash, Probe
Ministries International, 1992. Nash carefully examines the proposition
that Christianity is dependant on a number of Hellenistic philosophies,
the Greco-Roman mystery religions, and Gnosticism, and rejects it.
Endnotes
279
162
p135. One indication of the switch from Hebrew to Greek in the western
Diaspora is the translation of the Old Testament into Greek around about
250BC. The origins of this translation, called the Septuagint, or 'LXX' because it was reputed to have been translated by around seventy
translators, are said to be obscure by The New Bible Dictionary, IVP, 1962,
pp1258-1259. It is reputed to have been translated in Alexandria in Egypt.
163
The Authorised Version has 'Hebrew' instead of 'Aramaic'. This
would on the surface seem to go against the point I am making here.
However I don't think it does as Strongs' Numbers 1447 and 1446
indicate (accessed through the Online Bible v.7.02, published by Larry
Pierce, 11 Holmwood St, Winterbourne, Ontario N0B 2V0 Canada).
'Hebrew' in this case is 1447, which gives access to 1446 Hebrais {hebrah-is'}. Under 1446 we find this note:
'1) Hebrew, the Hebrew language, not that however in which the OT was
written but the Chaldee, which at the time of Jesus and the apostles had
long superseded it in Palestine.'
p135.
164
p135. Chris Gousmett in an unpublished paper, 1984, says: 'Some see
the list as one of language groups, while others see it as recording
homelands without linguistic import. Some see the list as indicating a
number of languages, but not as many languages as items in the list. By this
reckoning, those from Judaea and Arabia speak a Western Aramaic dialect;
those from the Euphrates region, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and
Mesopotamians are representative of the Babylonian group of Jews who
used an Eastern Aramaic dialect. Of the remaining countries, five were in
Asia Minor where the Jews spoke Greek, and of those remaining, Egypt,
Cyrene and Crete were Greek speaking areas. The Jews from Rome would
also have known Greek. The languages which would have been used then
need not have included anything other than Greek and Aramaic dialects.'
165
p137. It has been my privilege to correspond with Bob Zerhusen. Bob
said his '...first church experience was at an Assemblies of God
congregation where [he] learned to “speak in tongues”'. He came to
realise his '...“tongues” were not languages but were instances of what
linguists call “free-vocalisation”. Free-vocalisation is random,
meaningless, non-language utterance, easily produced by anyone, you
only need to get over your inhibitions.' Bob has done some excellent
thinking on this issue, particularly regarding the concept of diglossia. I
am in debted to him for sending me his paper which dealt with it, prior to
its publication in Biblical Theology Bulletin as, 'An Overlooked Judean
279
280
Tongues Revisited
Diglossia in Acts 2?', vol. 25, Fall 1995, No. 3, pp118-130. I quote at
length from the published version. In chapter 5, I also interact with a
view of 1 Corinthians 12-14 which he formerly held, a view, which with
variations, is held by others. His published position on this passage can
be found in the Biblical Theology Bulletin, 'The Problem Tongues in 1
Corinthians 14: a Reexamination', vol. 27, Winter 1997, No. 4, pp139152.
166
p137. Chaim Rabin, “Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century,” in
The Jewish People in the First Century, Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum
ad Novum Testamentum, ed., S. Safrai and M. Stern, Philadelphia
Fortress, 1976, 2, p1007.
167
p138.
Ibid., p1008.
p138.
Ibid., p1007.
168
169
See for example Joshua A. Fishman, “Bilingualism with and
without Diglossia; Diglossia without and with Bilingualism,” Journal of
Social Issues, 23/2, 1969, pp29-30.
p138.
170
p138.
Charles Ferguson, “Diglossia,” Word, 15, 1959, pp325-340.
p138.
Ibid., p328.
p139.
Ibid., p329.
p139.
Ibid., pp329-330.
p139.
Ibid., pp338-339.
p140.
Ibid., p330.
p140.
Ibid., p332.
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
p141. Thomas Schirrmacher in, 'The Galileo affair: history or heroic
hagiography', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol 14/1, 2000,
p98, says: 'Because Galileo interpreted the Bible as a layman and wrote
his books in everyday Italian, and thus was a forerunner of Italian
nationalism (cf. Thesis 15), he experienced the same resistance Martin
Endnotes
281
Luther had experienced one hundred years earlier when he started to use
German in his theological writings.'
178
p141. By saying this I am not rejecting the KJV in favour of modern
translations. John 21v18 in the KJV is an illustration of what sounds
convoluted to modern readers, but many other illustrations could be
used. I am simply observing that the English language has most
definitely changed since the KJV was produced and its language is not
our language. By having the KJV lifted virtually to the status of an
original autograph and favoured tenaciously in spite of language
changes, a great disservice has been done to the believing community. It
has left those convinced of the superiority of the Received Text in the
position where they are forced either to be committed in practical terms
to a diglossia - something I do not believe should be - or to use a present
day English translation they are not 100% convinced about.
179
Yes, 'thee and thou' may be singular and 'you and your' plural,
and yes, by having them we would have a greater degree of precision in
our language. However, like it or not, 'thee and thou' are not part of
present day English, and 'you and your' now fulfil the function of both
singular and plural. There is no basis for saying it is Biblically more
correct to address God in 'thees and thous'.
p141.
180
p142. Charles W. Carter, “A Wesleyan View of the Spirit's Gift of
Tongues in the Book of Acts”, Wesleyan Theological Journal 4, 1969,
p43.
181
p142.
Gustaf Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, New York: MacMillan, 1929,
p27.
182
Martin Hengel with Christoph Markschies, The 'Hellenization'
of Judea in the First Century after Christ, London: SCM, 1989, p8.
p143.
183
Henri Daniel-Rops, Daily Life in the Time of Jesus, New York:
Hawthorne Books Inc., 1962, p305.
p143.
184
Another view (expounded by Bob Zerhusen - at least at one time),
which I don't think fits the data, says that the emphasis should be placed not
on the languages being spoken but on the manner of the speaking. The
'enabling of the Spirit' in this view has to do with the boldness and
authoritativeness with which they spoke. This view does not take account
p144.
281
282
Tongues Revisited
of the fact that the Jews of the Diaspora focused attention not on the
disciples' manner in speaking (something they didn't even refer to), nor on
the content of what was said (something they did mention), but on the
languages spoken.
185
For a modern day illustration see IMPACT article no 240, June
1993, from the 'Institute for Creation Research', by Mr Dale Taylor,
Missionary with New Tribes Mission to Tarahumara Indians of northcentral Mexico. Page 2: 'First of all, as a church planting team, we
committed ourselves to a thorough investigation of their culture and a
fluent grasp of the language before any evangelism should take place. We
felt convinced that only through the medium of their own language
would they listen - a fact later testified to by the people themselves. Six
years after moving in with the people, we were finally ready to begin actual
evangelism.' (Bold added)
p150.
186
For any neo-evangelical who is overly enamoured by
evolutionary/naturalistic views of earth history who may take comfort from
my argument in support of their local as opposed global flood ideas, I
would say this. It is one thing for one universal term to have a relative sense
when the context either clearly, or even not so clearly, indicates this is how
it should be understood. It is quite another to have a passage sprouting
universal terms like mushrooms as occurs in the Flood record. Between
Gen. 6:5 and Gen 9:18, there are around 73 universal terms, 29 of those are
directly related to the Flood and what it was intended to do, or actually did.
And of course universal terms are not the only indicator of a global flood.
The fact there were two and a half months between the Ark grounding and
other mountain tops becoming visible, is another good one! Local floods
tend to be in valleys with mountains visible at all times. And why did they
wait seven months after grounding before disembarking? Actually, many
of the univeral terms in the Flood record are not absolute in the sense of
'every last one', but rather in the sense of 'almost every last one'.
p154.
187
A materialistic culture views not only our bodies, but also our
personalities, as genetically/materially grounded. Biblically however,
our personality is the manifestion of our spirit, which is not material.
Encoded information, the genetic information being one example, is
also immaterial – though often carried on a material medium - thus I
take it to be spirit. (Materialists miss the immaterial nature of the
information on genomes and imply 'information' is fundamentally
material). We can readily conceive of how our bodies come to be
through the transmission of the genetic material/information from our
p157.
Endnotes
283
parents via the reproductive act. What is less clear is how our spirits
come to be through the reproductive act. Physical similarities
(sometimes striking) between children and their parents or grand
parents, are one indication of a common genetic stock. Similarities in
personalites also occur and indicate, at least to me, that just as we can
talk of a material/informational continuity between the bodies of our
ancestors and our bodies, there is also a spirit continuity between the
spirits of our ancestors and our own spirit. An ethnic group thus has a
personality/spirit ancestry as well as a genetic/material ancestry
different to other ethnic groups. Ultimately of course, we are all related
through our first parents, Adam and Eve, and secondarily through the
various family lines represented by Noah's sons and their wives.
188
Cultures consist of a number of aspects. Some of these aspects are
simply the way people are - for example, their language, or express a valid
diversity in the way things can be done - for example, there is no
superiority in eating with knife and fork in contrast to eating with chop
sticks. However when it comes to worldviews and ethical standards,
cultures are not all equal. The Biblical worldview and God's ethical
requirements for humanity are superior to all others because all others are a
flight from God and externalise rebellion against him. Cultures are not
ethically neutral. The standard to evaluate them by is the Word of God and
its ethical requirements. Of course when a Christian evaluates a culture
other than the one he was raised in, he must be very careful that he does not
put the expressions of his own culture on a par with the absolute values of
Scripture. Christians should be the sharpest critics of their own culture and
the rebellion it externalizes. Wherever we are, we should seek, as one of
our tasks, to establish 'Christian' culture. In terms of worldviews and ethics,
all Christians of all people groups should be aiming at the same thing.
However in other matters they need not. One of the sharpest critiques of
western culture I've read is Herbert Schlossberg's, Idols for Destruction:
Christian Faith and its Confrontation with American Society, Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1983. See also, The Dust of Death, by Os Guinness,
IVP, 1973; Against the Night: Living in the New Dark Ages by Charles
Colson, Hodder and Stoughton, 1989; and How Now Shall We Live?, by
Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, Tyndale House Publishers, 1999.
p157.
189
p158. Biblically there is no such thing as 'racism'. Biblically there is only
one 'race' of man - the human race - or a more Biblical term - one 'kind',
giving us 'mankind'. The idea of multiple races of man is of evolutionary
origin and, in the early years following Darwin, involved the idea that some
'races' were more advanced biologically than others. These were superior
283
284
Tongues Revisited
because of having developed in an evolutionary sense. Some were nearer
'animals' and were therefore inferior, both biologically and intellectually, to
the more advanced. They could therefore be controlled in a host of ways by
the more advanced. These ideas were applied to the Negros in America, to
the Aborigines in Tasmania and mainland Australia, and Hitler applied
them with a vengeance. However Hitler was only implementing the ideas
of the eugenics movement which were very widely accepted in America,
England and Europe prior to the Second World War, something which does
not seem to be widely known today.
The major Biblically defined biological categories are 'kinds' - the
originally created basic types, and 'male and female'. The differences
between people/s are not understood in biological terms at all but in terms
of families, tribes, clans, nations (people groups or ethnos), languages,
geographical residency and vocation.
190
p158. Bosnia
and Rwanda.
191
C. K. Barrett in A Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, Harper/Black, 1968, p289, says: '...Paul's...main intention is
practical; the various national and social groups, and the dissident religious
cliques at Corinth, have all entered into the unity of the body of Christ,
which they ought to express, and not deny, by means of their various gifts.'
Barrett presents a more or less standard charismatic type of interpretation of
chapter 14 but it is interesting to note his reference to the various ethnic
groups in this comment.
p158.
192
Most non-charismatics and some charismatics, through
misunderstanding chapter 14, see chapter 13 as instruction about the
attitude the Corinthians were to have as they exercised 'spiritual gifts'.
Often 'tongues' is portrayed as a 'showy gift' which lends itself to
exhibitionism, and it was because of this, it is claimed, that the Corinthians
made so much of it. Chapter 13 is then seen as speaking to this pride, and
the insensitivity that is reputed to have gone with it.
p158.
193
p163. As I've already mentioned (endnote 39), J. I. Packer is a notable
exception.
194
p163. Those who don't take the Bible seriously very well could. I spoke
to a man who had a charismatic background but who had not been involved
in a church for about ten years. He still considered himself a Christian and
still 'spoke in tongues' about every three months. He said it was an
Endnotes
285
experience which gave him 'peace' when he was stressed. I asked him what
he would think if I showed him that stress reduction was not mentioned
anywhere in Scripture in the passages commonly used to support the idea
of 'tongues', or showed him that it was foreign languages that were referred
to every time in these passages. He said he wouldn't change his mind
because he had had the experience and anything I said wouldn't change
things at all.
George Mallone in Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press, 1983,
makes a similar sort of claim regarding stress release. He says on p93:
'Tongue speaking also cleanses the mind. Tensions and worries seem to
dissipate in the release of the Spirit. There is confidence that we have fully
told God of our dilemma and that he has entered into it with us. Relaxation
and trust are by-products of a heart that has been poured out before the
Lord.
'Tongues can also be a help in bearing physical pain. My wife peacefully
completed the birth of our second child by singing in tongues throughout
the entire labor. This is something which would have been impossible with
normal prayer language. Ordinary speech, directed by one's mind is often
interrupted and made impossible by pain. But the free speech of tongues
can have the same effect of intercession with no mental effort to discern the
meaning. God knows the meaning of our hearts and responds
appropriately.' I could use some colourful language matching some in
Scripture in response to this but will refrain myself! Another inconsistency
in Mallone appears here. Earlier in the book he says 'the Spirit gives
utterance', but here he says it is coming from our heart with God
responding. Where does it come from? From God or ourselves?
195
p164. I heard someone describe 'tongues' as 'spiritual orgasm'. If it's a
psychological phenomenon, perhaps a better term would be 'psychological
masturbation'!
196
p164. In Asian countries where demonism is a way of life, often a
demon comes on a person and speaks another language. In that situation,
normally another person - one who speaks that language, will be found to
interpret.
197
p166. Morton Kelsey in Tongue Speaking, Crossroad, 1981, p17, says:
'But if there is glossolalia, there can be no doubt that something beyond the
man himself takes hold of him. It can then be known for certain that
something outside the human ego, beyond the human will, can and does
take hold of certain men."
285
286
Tongues Revisited
198
p166. Charismatics do not attribute their experience to God indirectly
through angels, but to God directly.
199
On Radio Rhema (23rd August, 1993), on the morning Variety
Hour, New Zealanders Dr Stafford and Ella Burke, medical missionaries to
Haiti were interviewed. In talking about demon possession, they mentioned
a young man who they considered to be periodically possessed. At times
when he was apparently possessed, his family would chain him up to stop
him from damaging people and things. At such times he would speak
English, a language he did not know.
p166.
200
The local Baptist minister told me that this had occurred on two
occasions when he had been present.
p166.
201
p167. The
story as it came to me was as follows. 'A man was driving his
car along the Hutt Rd in Wellington and picked up two hitch-hikers. They
talked for a while and then one of the hitch-hikers said to the driver of the
car, "I get the impression that you are a Christian. I just want to tell you that
Jesus is coming back again very soon." Having said that, the two hitchhikers disappeared. The driver was so shocked that he pulled over to the
side of the road and stopped so as to compose himself. Shortly after having
stopped, a traffic officer pulled up and asked if he was in need of help. The
driver said no, but that two hitch-hikers he had been giving a lift had just
vanished and that's why he had stopped! The traffic officer said, "That's the
third time it has happened this week!" Another version of the story had it
happen on the Desert Road in the middle of the North Island of New
Zealand.
And now we have urban myths circulating at the speed of light all over the
place on the World Wide Web. I almost never pass on any of the 'urgent
prayer requests', or 'petitions against this or that', downloaded to me as I
cannot authenticate the source, nor know where it will eventually end up –
if anywhere. Some of them I imagine will circulate until the end of the
world - or at least the end of the Web, as once set going they take on a life
of their own! While the Web may be the most fantastic communication tool
ever available, it also massively increases the quantity of misinformation
and the speed at which it travels.
202
Apparent validation of the charismatic view can occur in other
ways also. In fact every claimed miraculous event is taken as a validation.
During the tussles in my own church over these issues, a very dear friend of
mine who had taken on board the charismatic view, developed cancer. A
p167.
Endnotes
287
relative of hers had a vision or 'word from God', that she would be healed,
and she apparently was. While it was never claimed to be a validation of
the charismatic view, I certainly felt I was viewed as somewhat perverse to
continue to oppose the view in face of this 'healing'. When a person is
facing a life threatening illness, it is hardly sensitive to make that illness a
focus of controversy. I simply made no comment and was glad for her
apparent recovery. However the recovery turned out to be a two year
remission of the disease and sadly for her family and us, this friend went to
be with the Lord. She was a real testimony to the grace of God in her
passing, though she was blindly convinced till quite near the end that she
was or would be completely healed. In the face of such situations the idea
has arisen that death is 'perfect healing'. This must be about the ultimate
flight from reality. I would ask people who hold such views not to pray for
'perfect healing' for me when I get sick. While it would be great to be in the
presence of the Lord, I'm not sure I want to die just yet. Death is certainly
not what most people are asking for when they pray for healing!
203
p168. At
a youth camp I was directing, many of the campers were from a
charismatic background. One evening we were having a sing song, which
after a while, started to drive me up the wall. The emotionalism I
considered to be getting out of hand, so I cut in and stopped it. One girl was
obviously disturbed by me doing this and said that I had spoiled it - they
were just about to start worshipping! It was as though they had almost
reached a climax but were robbed at the last minute and so felt hollow and
deprived. She clearly had a very narrow view of worship. Some I suppose
would say I have!
204
p168. Michael G. Moriarty in The New Charismatics, pp124-126, has
some pertinent comments on subjectivism as it relates to doctrine and
understanding Scripture.
205
p168. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, Zondervan, 1992, pp31-32
says: 'Mysticism is a system of belief that attempts to perceive spiritual
reality apart from objective, verifiable facts. It seeks truth through feelings,
intuition, and other internal senses. Objective data is usually discounted, so
mysticism derives its authority from within. Spontaneous feeling becomes
more significant than objective fact. Intuition outweighs reason. An internal
awareness supersedes external reality.' 'Objective, historic theology is
Reformation theology. It is historical evangelicalism. It is historic
orthodoxy. We begin with Scripture. Our thoughts, ideas, or experiences
are validated or invalidated on the basis of how they compare with the
Word.'
287
288
Tongues Revisited
206
p168. I have heard numerous times the idea that Westerners have a
'rational/cerebral' approach to things that has come about through the
Rationalism of the Enlightenment etc and that this rationalism has removed
from Christianity its non-rational elements, elements that have been
rediscovered through the charismatic movement. We must give up this
overly cerebral approach, we are told, and commit ourselves to the realm of
the Spirit. For an illustration of this, see I Believe in the Holy Spirit by
Michael Green, 1975, 'Perhaps one of the areas of profit that we may need
to be reminded of in an over-cerebral age is this: it allows the human spirit
to pray, even when the mind is unfruitful...'. I have heard much stronger
statements made than this.
207
Unfortunately too many Christians seem to think that the Bible is
full of hidden meanings. There were in the church I was raised in, a number
of men who found the most amazing 'types' in the most amazing places.
One continually mined the Song of Solomon and came up with fantastic
meanings. Never once do I recall him talking of the faithful love of the
shulamite for her betrothed as she resisted the lustful advances of the King.
Never once did he broach in a straight forward way, the passionate
expressions the lovers used towards each other. I can never remember him
addressing the actual context of the book at all. All we got were hidden,
'spiritual' - and very dubious - meanings about Christ and the church.
p169.
208
Michael G. Moriarty says, in The New Charismatics, p240: 'This
form of meditation and prophecy practiced by Hamon and many of the
'new Charismatics' resembles the "religious ecstasy" practiced by primitive
tribes in the Far East more than it does Biblical prophecy. Ecstasy is a
trance state in which the absorption of the mind in one idea, in one desire,
is so profound that everything else is temporarily blotted out. It is a
condition of self-absorption brought about by preparation. The means used
to effect such a condition vary: meditative techniques, prayer, spiritual
concentration, drugs, music, and dance. The motivation lies in the desire for
communication with a higher, transcendent being. In ecstasy one strives to
become possessed with divine knowledge.' The repetitive singing
characteristic of charismatic meetings sounds much like such a preparative
technique.
p169.
209
p169. Michael S. Horton in Power Religion: The Selling Out Of The
Evangelical Church, editor Michael Scott Horton, ANZEA, 1992, p337,
quotes Martin Luther. Horton says: 'In other words, the saint wanted a
Endnotes
289
direct encounter with God "in the nude," as only the German Reformer
could put it.'
210
p169. Francis Schaeffer in The God who is There, Hodder and
Stoughton, 1968, p179, in the glossary says: 'Mysticism : There are two
meanings: (1) A tendency to seek direct communion with ultimate reality
of 'the divine' by immediate intuition, insight or illumination; (2) A vague
speculation without foundation.' Schaeffer in this book, deals extensively
with mysticism in modern philosophy and theology. See pp55-77. His use
of the word describes the idea of an absolute separation between rationality
and meaning, 'meaning' being something that is totally divorced from any
foundation. As he put it, meaning is something that is only obtained for
modern man by a blind, non-rational leap of faith into the 'upper storey' of
the two tiered modern world. The 'upper storey' as Schaeffer spoke of it is
the area of the 'non-rational and the non-logical'. The 'lower storey' is the
area of the 'rational and logical' which provides no basis for meaning.
211
p169. Arthur
L. Johnson, in Faith Misguided: Exposing the Dangers of
Mysticism, Moody Press, 1988, says: 'We are now ready to develop a more
formal definition of mysticism. It will be helpful to do this from three
slightly different perspectives: first, the psychological aspects; second, the
philosophical implications; and finally, the theological expressions.
The psychological dimensions involve assigning primary significance to
inward, subjective, nonrational impressions. It involves seeing intense,
noncognitive, subjective experiences as having such deep significance that
they should be sought. One's life should be directed by them.
For many people, mysticism is an unexamined psychological attitude - one
that while it may profoundly influence their lives, is not clearly understood
and may not even be recognised. But for a knowledgeable mystic who has
sought to understand his commitment to the mystic way, this psychological
attitude is grounded in a philosophical belief. This belief sees truth and
knowledge as attainable through mystical experience. All truth is tested by
inner, subjective impressions rather than by its logical consistency or other
rational considerations. When mystical states constitute an intense
experience, this experience is seen as somehow a "union" with whatever is
ultimate, and therefore as the proper fulfillment of human existence.
When either the psychological attitude alone, or the more complete
philosophical grasp, is translated into theological terms, the resulting view
leads the person to equate his inner impressions or subjective states with the
voice of God. Such a person, if he is a Christian, tends to believe that the
activity of the Holy Spirit within us is expressed primarily through
289
290
Tongues Revisited
emotional or other noncognitive aspects of our being. Having and
"obeying" such experiences is what "being spiritual" is all about.'
212
p169. Although if John MacArthur is correct regarding what Benny
Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, Kenneth Hagin, etc, are saying,
then they are pushing perilously close to it with their teaching about
humans being 'little gods'. See Charismatic Chaos, John MacArthur,
Zondervan, 1992, pp271-276.
213
Many people, not only charismatics, seem to have a hankering
after 'something more' than the ordinary or everyday. Often this comes out
when people talk about prayer. Recently I heard Joyce Huggett say that
prayer was a 'love relationship with God'. Richard Foster in a similar way
talks of prayer being a 'relationship with God' in Prayer, Hodder and
Stoughton, 1992, pp144-147. Prayer is not a 'love relationship with God'
any more than me talking to my wife is a love relationship with my wife.
Prayer is us talking to God. Talking to God is a part of the love relationship
we have with God, just as talking to my wife is part of my love relationship
with her. Talking to her is not the relationship! Nor is prayer a two-way
conversation as some like to talk of it. Prayer is our side of any
communication we have with God. God does not pray to us, which he
would be doing if prayer was a two-way thing. But understanding prayer as
simply 'us talking to God' is too everyday, too ordinary, too unspiritual for
many. Somehow prayer has got to be made out to be more than this. It has
to be lifted to ethereal heights, to become some mystical experience that we
wax lyrical about as Foster does. That Foster's book was voted, 'New
Zealand Christian Book of the Year 1993', shows how far mysticism has
captured evangelical circles here.
p169.
214
Spirit, and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990. See Chapter 9, 'The
Phenomenon of Tongues'. Williams makes numerous comments to this
effect.
215
p170. One tactic for by-passing the mind is to say that 'tongues' goes
beyond the mind and so is 'supramental' (See J. Rodman Williams,
Renewal Theology: Salvation, The Holy Spirit, and Christian Living,
Zondervan, 1990, p396) or a 'suprarational utterance' (ibid p222), or is
'transcendent speech' (ibid p214). Williams exults in this by-passing of the
mind claiming it produces 'the ultimate' in intelligibility, the ultimate in
praise and is uncontaminated by 'soiled' human languages!
Endnotes
216
291
a letter by R Judd to Challenge Weekly, 26th September, 1991,
the following is said: 'Let go human reasoning and desire the Holy Spirit to
move in each of us and in our churches, and we will experience revival.'
p170. In
217
p170. See A Daily Guide to Miracles, by Oral Roberts, Spire Books,
1975, p251, 'THE PRAYER LANGUAGE OF THE SPIRIT...or
TONGUES... may be the single hardest hurdle you will ever have to leap
over. Because the battleground is your intellect. It wants to be supreme - it
does not want to bow to the deepest longing of your heart or soul.'
Page 257: '...It is a prayer that was prayed without the inhibitions of the
intellect.'
218
Spirit, and Christian Living, Zondervan, 1990. Williams is constantly
claiming that charismatic experiences lift a person to a higher plane of
spirituality, of praise and wonder, of contact with God, and deepened
communion with him, etc., ad nauseum.
219
p170. Recently, in my home town, a group of charismatics ran a seminar
critiquing the New Age Movement, which of course is a mystical
movement. Apparently some very good things were said. However there is
an irony in that those who accept essentially mystical things themselves,
should critique mysticism.
220
p174. Whether
the world is watching is a moot point. And even if they
are, what do they see? I would prefer the watching world not to see some of
the things I see in the Christian community!
221
I would not participate in a public pro-life demonstration of any
sort where Catholics were parading statues of Mary or Crucifixes
around.
p174.
222
I had been involved with an inter-denominational Christian
camping organisation as a camp director for a number of years. The
organisation held a position that was 'neutral' to distinctive denominational
doctrines. I was quite prepared to work within those boundaries,
recognising the temporary nature of the camping community. I had
charismatic leaders on my camping teams over perhaps five years as a
director, and had no difficulties as far as I can remember. However the
organisational head at a particular time, took on board the charismatic
viewpoint and endeavoured to push the organisation from its neutral stance
p175.
291
292
Tongues Revisited
into an actively pro-charismatic position. I objected strongly, and reevaluated my involvement with the organisation. I continued for a number
of years as a Director but that involvement has now stopped (for reasons
other than the charismatic issue). I am not sure what the status of that
proposal is today. It seemed to get buried, but may be operative in a quiet
way.
223
p175. Dr
A. E. Wilder-Smith gave a lovely talk at a Christian Brethren
Research Fellowship Conference in NZ, which highlighted various levels
of fellowship that he had attained with a passenger on a train in Europe.
Firstly, Dr Wilder-Smith found that the other passenger spoke English then that he came from England as he did - then that he had been educated
at the same University as he had been - then that he was a chemist as was
Dr Wilder-Smith - and then that he was believer. Each of these things held
in common deepened the fellowship.
224
John P. Kildahl, in The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues,
Hodder and Stoughton, 1972, pp66-71, discusses a number of emotional
responses generated when a section of a church accepts the current
phenomenon. While Kildahl makes some interesting observations, I think
he places too much store on psychology, and, perhaps as a consequence,
makes no evaluation of the current phenomenon on the basis of truth. In his
closing comments he says: 'The final judgment, we suggest, should be
based on both individual and community criteria. As behavioural scientists
and as students of the religious quest, we refer to the criteria of love and
creative work. The standard for evaluating any experience must be: Is it
conducive to a productive life - does it help people as a whole as well as the
body of men and women who comprise one's small, select company?' Such
subjective criteria are totally inadequate. What precisely are the 'criteria of
love' and the 'criteria of...creative work' for goodness sake?
p175.
225
p175. In apparently conciliatory tones, some charismatics may propose
bridge-building between the two sides. Michael Green in his foreword to
George Mallone's, Those Controversial Gifts, InterVarsity Press, 1983,
says that Mallone's book '…is a bridge-building book. There is no yawning
gap here between charismatics and non-charismatics. The whole linguistic
label is distasteful and misleading...' This is a self-serving attempt on the
part of charismatics to lull non-charismatics into thinking there really is no
real difference between the two positions, and why don't they just pack up
and join the charismatic side! Mallone's book is as charismatic as the most
rabid charismatic tract one could get, and yet it is billed as a bridgebuilding book! A similar sort of self-serving statement was made in a
Endnotes
293
debate in the NZ Christian newspaper, Challenge Weekly, 26th September,
1991, by R Judd: 'Wouldn't it be wonderful if the people of God stopped
arguing over the gift of tongues and humbly bowed in prayer to thank God
for the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church of Jesus Christ?' In other
words, 'Wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody agreed with me!' Another
book that is said to promote a 'mediating position' is David Wilkerson
Speaks Out, by David Wilkerson, Bethany Fellowship, 1973. It is nothing
of the sort. Wilkerson promotes a full-on Pentecostal position, and even
says on p17, 'I don't understand why tongues have to be an issue.' He is
being incredibly naive here. I can tell him without any difficulty why it is
an issue. It is because some people don't agree with the view he and other
Pentecostal/charismatics hold!
226
J. I. Packer, in Keep In Step With The Spirit, IVP, 1985, p207,
says: 'On the nature, worth, provenance, and cessation of New Testament
tongues, much is obscure and must remain so. Various interpretations on
key points are viable, and perhaps the worst error in handling the relevant
passages is to claim or insinuate that perfect clarity or certainty marks one's
own view. The texts (Acts 2:4-11; 10:46; 11:17; 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12-14)
are too problematical for that.'
If something is 'problematical' to us then we do not understand it. If we did
understand it, we would not have a problem. What Packer should say is that
he finds the passages problematical, rather than rule out the possibility of
them ever being understood by anyone. Packer himself gives sufficient
indication that he is a reasonable way down the track in defining '...the
nature... of New Testament tongues'. For example, he recognises that the
speaker in 1 Cor. 14:4 knows what he is saying, and he says categorically
that 1 Cor. 14 is about public use of languages. Why does he not just pursue
these tracks further? I would have thought that the serious problems that he
sees in the charismatic view of 'tongues' would have made him totally reject
it, rather than bow in part to the testimony of those who experience it. As
support for the problematical nature of the passages, Packer on p208
approvingly quotes Anthony Hoekema as saying: 'It seems difficult, if not
impossible, to make a final judgment on this matter' - the matter being the
nature of 'tongues'. Hoekema is certainly not the clearest author to have
written on this subject so it does not surprise me when he says he finds the
whole thing difficult to understand.
p178.
227
p178. Does it need to be said that wrong doctrine is evil? Yes it does.
The way some people disallow analysis of unbiblical ideas would make
you think it almost an obscene suggestion.
293
294
Tongues Revisited
228
p179. Of course splits are viewed from two sides. Those on the
charismatic side blame the splits on the reactionary or traditional outlook of
non-charismatics, or on the disobedience of those who resist the working of
the Holy Spirit. Some opposition may indeed be simply reaction, or based
on traditional denominational views. Such responses frustrate me as much
as anyone. More serious is the charge of resisting the Holy Spirit. One
'prophecy' that was given to my church some years before the split was of a
vision that had been seen: '1984 - July. As I was praying recently about the
life of the Church I saw a picture of a river flowing around an island. It
came very clearly that the flowing river was the work of God in Porirua
while the island represented those who were not prepared to move with the
flow of what the Lord wanted to do. The work of God would not be
hindered but in a sense move out and around them, thus bypassing them. I
felt really encouraged by the fact the [that? – RM] God's work would go
on, but sad that some would be left stationary in the middle of it watching it
move around them.' This statement involves some pretty heavy
intimidation and manipulation and is representative of types of statements
made over a number of years.
Those of the non-charismatic side see those of charismatic persuasion
introducing heresy into the church. As a bit of light relief during the tension
of those days, I proposed an alternative understanding of the above
prophecy. The river was the flood of error coming into the church. The
island represented those who where standing firm on the Word of God
against the flow and resisting it!
For an historical sketch and analysis of the type of turmoil that can happen,
see, 'Tongues Must Cease: The Brethren and the Charismatic Movement in
New Zealand, by Peter Lineham, Journal of the Christian Brethren
Research Fellowship, 1982. Lineham's article begins: 'In the nineteensixties many churches throughout the western world were deeply affected
by the Charismatic Movement. Nowhere was the impact larger than in New
Zealand, and in no church in New Zealand at the time were the
consequences so extensive, so divisive or so early than they were in the
Open Brethren assemblies. The aim of this paper is to investigate the
reasons for this.' Lineham is now Professor of History at Massey
University, Auckland Campus, New Zealand.
229
I was visited by two Mormons. One of them got very angry and
aggressive when I pointed him to a number of verses in Isaiah 40 through
50. He wanted to leave, so put out his hand for me to shake and said they
had to go. I told him I would not shake his hand because he was a heretic.
While I believe all Mormons are heretics, I would not generally call them
p181.
Endnotes
295
that to their face. However when their heresy is as blatantly and
aggressively put as it was that day, I think it is justified.
230
p181. For example '...you cows of Bashan...' (Amos 4:1). The whole of
Ezekiel 23 is descriptive, as is v20: 'There she lusted after her lovers, whose
genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of
horses.'
231
p182. Psychologists, even so-called 'Christian' psychologists, would
have a field day in this sort of situation. Any 'victims' would no doubt be
set up for extended counseling sessions to free them from the hurts incurred
- and some of their money. For a critique of 'Christian' psychology's
redefining of Biblical terms and human problems and its reliance on
humanistic methodologies rather than the cross of Christ and the work of
the Spirit, see Christian Psychology's War on God's Word: The
Victimization of the Believer, by Jim Owen, EastGate Publishers, (4137
Primavera Rd, Santa Barbara, CA 93110), 1993. EastGate have also
published four books by Martin and Deidre Bobgan which highlight these
same disturbing trends. The Bobgans' concern is over the 'integration' of
Biblical Christianity with psychology. In their books they critique Dr Gary
Collins, Dr Larry Crabb, Dr Paul Meier, Dr Frank Minirth, Dr James
Dobson, and the 12 Step programs that are proliferating in evangelical
circles. The authors are very careful to define what aspects of psychology
they are critiquing, but in spite of this, the commitment of many to the
psychological way has produced some highly emotional responses to their
work.
232
p182.
See Reader's Digest, December 1992, 'Miracle at Sea', p134.
233
Yet having said that and having said it quite strongly, there is a
sense in which individuals unrelated to a situation may bear significant
responsibility, though not in ways generally thought of. For example, in
New Zealand, there has been a huge increase in crimes of all sorts over the
past few years. What is the cause? The answers range from low selfesteem, to too much junk food, to tight nappies as kids, to an education
system that favours one group and not another etc. Nobody in authority
however seems to want to put a stop to the pornography that is flooding
into the country. The freedom of adults to view such material must be
maintained at all cost. Alcohol is linked without question to one quarter of
road deaths and the majority of violent crime situations, and yet again, the
freedom to drink must be maintained at all cost.
p186.
295
296
Tongues Revisited
New Zealand has a very strong Christian heritage. Huge numbers of the
indigenous people, the Maori, were converted to Christianity through very
effective mission work during the years from about 1820 through 1840.
Most of the European settlers were from England and brought a
Christianised culture with them. These two streams established 'Christian'
values in the country and produced the safety and security that have
characterized it. This in spite of serious injustices that occurred, particularly
in regards to land acquisition on the part of the settlers. New Zealand, in
recent years however, has become one of the most secularised countries in
the modern world.
Following Charles Darwin, atheism moved, in western culture, from the
realm of private opinion into the realm of public fact - and belief in God as
Creator, travelled the opposite direction. Consequently transcendent values
were lost. Philosophers led the way, but now the idea that there are no
absolute values is entrenched in the culture. Man has become the new god
and selects the values that suit him. It is not at all surprising if some of
these new gods choose to act in ways that are contrary to what others find
acceptable. Man, personified in the State, becomes the most powerful of the
new gods. By far the majority of the Parliamentarians in New Zealand have
this philosophy. The justice system no longer has any connection to real
justice, that is a standard communicated by the Creator to his creatures.
Now justice is constantly in flux and is evolving with the community.
Biblically, all sin and crime is primarily against God and secondly against
the particular individual/s wronged. But with the true God removed, the
new substitute god became the primary victim in crime and so crime is
responded to in this light. It all goes together to form the complex that is
our present society. Who bears the responsibility for the violence in it? Of
course the individuals who commit the violence. However the Godrejecting people who are in the culturally formative areas of the culture also
share some responsibility:
- the Parliamentarians and Judges, who instead of carrying out their
primary God-ordained role of suppressing the external expression of evil,
rather use their positions of power to further their own ends or their own
ungodly agendas and values;
- the teachers teaching evolution and its denial of God in the schools;
- the news media promoting anti-God values and sensationalising evil.
But there are also the churches. Many have given away the revelation of
God and speak like warmed-over Marxists, and many others content
themselves with personal piety and do not have God's word to speak to the
judicial system or to the various spheres of government.
All of these weave together the fabric of a culture that denies God, exalts
man, and because of the denial of transcendent values, fudges on evil -
Endnotes
297
many times rewarding evil and suppressing the good. These all bear
responsibility for creating the climate which allows evil, in all its forms, to
flourish.
Clearly the Old Testament prophets did not just speak to the individual who
did violent and dishonest things, but also to the leaders who did the same
but perhaps in more sophisticated and subtle ways. God's judgment
eventually fell on the people as a whole for their rejection of him and for
what they had done to entrench rebellion against God in the culture. As Jer.
5:31 says: 'The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own
authority, and my people love it this way. But what will you do in the end? '
234
p190. There
is a shade of meaning for the word 'forgive' which has been
missed by many. As a result, the idea of extending forgiveness when there
has been no confession or repentance has become widespread. The shade of
meaning I am referring to comes through in two situations. Firstly, when
Israel was on the borders of the Promised Land. The twelve spies had been
sent to spy out the land and had returned with their report: 'A marvellous
land with fantastically fertile soil - but there are giants there'. The people,
almost without exception, were petrified, and wept and wailed all night. In
the morning they talked of going back to Egypt, and when Joshua and
Caleb remonstrated with them, the whole assembly talked of stoning them!
The Lord was so angry with the nation that he said he would destroy them
on the spot. Moses prayed to the Lord and asked him to forgive the people's
rebellion and the Lord said he would. However, he said not one of the
people who saw his wonders in Egypt and now had rebelled against him,
would see the promised land. They would all die in the desert. Here
forgiveness is not forgiveness of sin, but unmerited grace extended to
people who were under sentence of death. They were still rebels. They had
not repented, but they would have an extension of their life. The Lord's
words as he was being nailed to the cross had a similar meaning and had a
similar result. He said,
'Father forgive them for they don't know what they are doing',
Here was the most appalling crime in all history being carried out. God
would have been quite justified in stepping in and wiping out the Jewish
nation and their Roman collaborators. Yet from the cross came a stay of
execution. Grace extends their life for a while. However it was only for a
little while as the execution that brought God's judgment on Israel's
rebellion eventually came 35 years later. Israel's national life came to end in
the holocaust that was the siege of Jerusalem. Rome's execution was
delayed for several centuries. They had not had forgiveness offered to them
repeatedly as Israel had. Eventually Rome showed, by its persecution of
297
298
Tongues Revisited
Christ's people, that it sided with Israel in its rebellion. Rome was thus
executed as well.
235
p192. I heard the leader of the Full Gospel Businessmen's Association in
South Africa, interviewed on New Zealand's Radio Rhema. He waxed
eloquent about the new unity that was going to come to Christians
independent of the church and independent of doctrine. It was going to be a
unity in Jesus. His ideas were clearly heretical but he wasn't pulled up at all.
We cannot live independent of doctrine. The ideas we have about anything,
even Jesus, constitute doctrine. Who was Jesus? What has he done? What
is he going to do? How does he want us to follow him? Why should we
follow him? etc. The answers to questions like these expose our doctrine of
Jesus. Contra the aforementioned leader, Paul said to Titus, 'You must
teach what is in accord with sound doctrine' (Titus 2:1).
236
People were saved, prior to the cross, on the basis of the death of
Christ yet future. We are saved today on the basis of the death of Christ in
the past. There has never been salvation at any time in human history
except on the basis of the death of Christ.
p192.
237
It is widely held in Christian circles that we are in 'the last days'
and that Christ's return is imminent. It may be. However this has been
maintained with varying degrees of fervency at many earlier times also. For
example see Father and Son, by Edmund Gosse, William and Heinemann,
1935, pp62-64, 85-87, 284-285. In the mid 1800's, Gosse's parents spent
huge amounts of time studying Bible prophecy and were convinced that
Christ would return in their life time. He didn't. During the 1960's, many
people had the Lord's return all worked out. Israel re-established 1948.
1948 + one generation (40 years) = 1988 for the establishment of Christ's
Kingdom on earth. 1988 less 7 years for Daniel's 70th week = 1981.
Therefore the Lord was coming prior to 1981. Simple as that! I understand
somebody made a great deal of money through writing a book called, '88
reasons why Christ is coming back in 1988'. A New Zealander, George
Curle, has come up with a new date which puts everything back by around
30-40 years. He says God gave him the key to make his calculations which
show this. Charismatics are having visions etc which purport to show that
the Lord is almost on the way. See Robert Baxter's testimony in Appendix
4. Also see Jack Hayford's vision referred to in an earlier footnote. Will we
ever learn? In response to these sort of claims, some quote the Lord when
he says in Matthew 24:36: '…no man knows the day nor the hour' of his
coming. They use this verse to argue dates should not be set. I am inclined
to the view that Matthew 24 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70,
p192.
Endnotes
299
and his coming which is referred to there, as being his coming in Judgment
on Israel of that time, not to do some distant return. If this is the case, then
this statement really should not be used as an argument against setting dates
for a future return. Setting dates is just plain foolish. I am not in any way
denying that the Lord will return in the future. I'm just not convinced we
can know when that will be. Perhaps it will be another 500-1000 years!
238
Jude 8. 'In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their
own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9. But even
the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the
body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against
him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10. Yet these men speak
abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things
they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals - these are
the very things that destroy them.'
p193.
239
Churches have different authority structures. 'Authority' can turn
into 'authoritarianism' and be used for personal gain. I think we should
avoid structures which concentrate power, thus reducing the abuse of
authority.
p193.
240
To let readers in on the end of this part of the story, the total
eldership ended up leaving. This introduced a raft of new and different
problems as can be imagined. (The whole story has not ended yet.
Unbelievably, to this day (2000) - 14 plus years later - we have not, as a
church community, talked about what caused the split!)
p195.
241
p201. Victor Budgen, in, The Charismatics and the Word of God,
Evangelical Press, 1986, p179, says: 'There were many unfulfilled, even
banal prophecies (a man called Baxter admitted to forty-six of these
himself), and the 'man of sin' was declared to be the young Napoleon and
the Bible Society the 'curse' going through the earth. Yet despite these
glaring errors few wanted to investigate matters more closely. When Baxter
ultimately renounced the gifts and went to confess his numerous failures to
Irving, pointing out at the same time how other prophets had clashed and
contradicted each other or said things that were manifestly untrue, Irving
refused to investigate, taking refuge in the assertion 'that the same person
might at one moment speak by the Spirit of God, and the next moment by
an evil spirit'. On p181: 'Baxter, on his renunciation of the gifts, found that
people in the movement shrank away from him and would not even discuss
the Scriptures in question or hear arguments from the other side. He
299
300
Tongues Revisited
testified, There are some general characteristics in the work which, apart
from doctrines or instances of failure of predictions, cast suspicion upon it.
One is the extreme secrecy enjoined by the Spirit, and the manifest
shrinking from public examination...Another is, the manifest denouncement
and debasement of the understanding.'
See also Counterfeit Miracles by B B Warfield, Banner of Truth, reprint
1986, 'Irvingite Gifts', pp127-153, and extensive endnotes pp287-300.
242
p212. The Feminist Gospel: The Movement to Unite Feminism With the
Church, by Mary A Kassian, Crossway Books, 1992.
243
Liberation Theology: Human Hope Confronts Christian History
and American Power, by Rosemary Radford Ruether, Paulist Press, 1972.
p212.
244
See Mathmatics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel, Ross House
Books, 1990, for an insightful look at the history of the development of
mathmatics from a Christian perspective, and the application of this
perspective into the area of mathmatics education.
p214.
245
In Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, Institute for
Christian Economics, 1989, Dr Gary North has a very significant critique
of Dr Schaeffer. On pp215-216, he outlines three areas where Schaeffer
made major contributions. The third, North says was '...inspirational: he
offered a glimmer of hope to a generation of Christian college students who
were being indoctrinated daily by their humanist professors. He showed
them that they could remain Christians without sacrificing their intellects.
He thereby broke the spell of an influential humanist myth as well as a
paralyzing evangelical suspicion, a myth that had prevailed since at least
the Scopes trial of 1925. Schaeffer performed an intellectual service for the
evangelical world comparable to what Henry Morris and the Creation
Science movement performed for fundamentalism: he encouraged
Christian laymen by providing footnotes.' As part of his critique, North
goes on to say, 'The trouble was, he [Schaeffer – RM] did not always
provide all the footnotes'. As far as I am aware North is right in his critique,
however I am more than willing to acknowledge the debt I owe to
Schaeffer. I think it is insightful that North in this quote associates two
streams of thought which have done so much to restore the Biblical world
view.
p216.
246
p219. Ecclesiastes is a book which puzzles, or even scares many people
because it sounds at times so radically opposed to what the rest of the Bible
Endnotes
301
says. It is written from the viewpoint that there is no Revelation. It gives us
an insight into life without God. Nevertheless it betrays the fact that the
Hebrews did not make any division between heart and mind. Whether the
writer believed what he was saying, or was just illustrating what a life
without God leads to, I'm not sure.
247
As an example of human spirit being said to be purer than the
soul, see Toronto: Blessing or Blight, a small leaflet published by
'Intercessors for Britain', 14 Orchard Rd, Moreton, Wirral, Mersyside, L46
8TS England. The paper is a critique of the so-called 'Laughing Revival', a
critique I have a great deal of sympathy with. However, the critique, which
is from a charismatic position, makes a hard distinction between spirit and
soul and argues for the Toronto type manifestations being soulish and on
this basis rejects them. In the process of arguing this, the following is said
on p6 (pages unnumbered): 'There is a difference between the human spirit
and soul. The spirit in man is of far purer origin than the soul. What is
more, the Devil seems to be particularly interested in the soul.' Further,
regarding the soul the author says, 'It would seem that the soul (our
psychological make-up) consists of the intellect, the sub-conscious mind
including the will and the emotions. It is a very powerful part of our lives'.
I reject this dissection of the intangible part of us.
p219.
301
Subject Index
Bold page numbers = Main Text
Plain page numbers = Endnotes
A
C
absolute statement...70, 269
universal terms...152, 154, 282
ad hominem arguments...180
Adam and Eve...31, 186, 209, 282
administration - gift of...54, 80, 112,
143
amazed...44, 132, 133, 144
ambiguity of terms...27
amen...58, 65, 72, 126
angel of light...17, 26, 207, 273
angelic language...29, 54, 55, 56
angels...31, 32, 54, 55, 166, 220, 235,
285
anti-mystical elements in Biblical
faith...170
Arabic...138, 141, 142
Aramaic...32, 35, 51, 134, 135, 137,
140, 142, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154,
156, 251, 278, 279
low language...143, 144
Ark...282
army of Christian Magicians...228
Authorised Version...35, 40, 278
authoritarian leadership...167
capture
of language...22, 23, 41
of music...172
cessationist approaches...38
Challenge Weekly...170, 238, 245,
275, 290, 292
characteristics of 'current
phenomenon'...29
charisma...78, 79, 275
charismatic movement...21, 22, 221,
226, 233
chess...166
childishness...85, 127
church meetings...64, 93, 116, 118,
124, 125, 130, 255
clear conscience...184, 185, 186, 187,
188, 192, 220
possible or not?...185, 186, 187
codependency...23
confession of wrong...189
confrontation...180
confusion
desired?...29
reasons for...26
connotations...24, 79, 223, 226
context – definition from...24
contrast
child - man...90
depravity - righteousness...187
known language – unknown
language...66, 72
low level perception – high level
perception...90
maturity - immaturity...85, 90, 92
mind - spirit...72, 74, 107, 259
partial knowledge – full
knowledge...90
reflection in mirror – face to
face...90
sanity - madness...85
B
Babel...124, 270, 271, 277
reversal of...92, 270
Balaam's ass...46
baptised in the Holy Spirit...136, 155
baptism in the Holy Spirit...97, 98, 170
Beelzebub...17
belief system...216, 217
Biblical View of Reality...207, 283
Biblically defined biological
categories...283
biological life...124
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit...24,
229
302
Subject Index
true spirituality - perversity...85
uninterpreted languages interpreted languages...107
use – no use...63
Cornelius' house...48, 85
counterfeit...98, 230
created modes...208, 210
cruise liner...182
cultural
critique...283
inhibitions...150
restraints...144, 151
cultures - discussion of...282
current phenomenon – introduction of
term...28
D
deception...18, 26, 95, 164, 176, 229,
271
definition from context...24
demonic...114, 115, 164, 166, 176,
228, 276
espionage...166
demons...17, 25, 29, 30, 44, 55, 114,
164, 166, 220
destruction of Jerusalem...38, 229, 298
Diaspora...134
eastern...134, 135
Jews of...46, 52, 133, 140, 142,
143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 150,
281
languages of...134, 135, 148
western...134, 135, 149, 278
Diglossia...137, 138, 139, 140, 141,
142, 143, 144, 150, 279, 280
discernment...104, 105, 115
lack of...114
disgraceful behaviour...198
Dispensational view...38
Dispersion...46, 133
displeasing both sides...232
distinction in terms...28
doctrine...287
charismatic...175, 228
church founded on...194
church's...195
303
deviations from sound...258
distinctive denominational...291
independent of...174, 297
is important...174
not united in...176
obscure...169
orthodox...264
Pentecostal...222
wrong...178, 184, 293, 299
double-minded man...176
drunk...45, 61, 100, 133, 144, 145
Dualisms...170
as models of oppression...212
head / heart...217
matter / spirit...208
natural / supernatural...220
secular / spiritual...213, 216, 217
spirit / mind...107
that confront the church...207
E
ecstatic vocalisation...101, 102, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,
117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 275,
277
Eden...31, 125
edification...65, 66, 74, 75, 79, 91,
105, 106, 110, 114, 116, 118, 130,
257, 259
edified...57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 74, 75,
77, 80, 86, 115, 123, 160, 255, 256,
259
edifies...57, 66, 72, 106, 118, 256, 276
edify...66, 67, 72, 74, 77, 103, 254,
255, 256
education...140, 214, 215, 217, 295
eisegesis...107
e-mail...200
Emperor's New Clothes...182
enabling of the Spirit...47, 281
equally religious...217
error...180, 181
ethnic
cleansing...158
conflict...158
groups...157, 159, 284
304
issues...157, 158, 159
evangelization of the world...148
evil – evidently evil?...94, 95
evolution...27, 278, 296
evolutionary thinking...282
exalted fun...236, 273
exegesis...107
F
faithfulness...194
fake...163, 164
Feast of Pentecost...46
fellowship...149, 173, 175, 177, 291
feminists...22
fence-sitters...176
First Wave...21
flames of fire...50, 150
flood
global...282
local...282
foreign armies...61
foreign language...50, 51, 66, 86, 87,
88, 91, 92, 117, 118, 119, 121, 124,
125, 154, 234, 237, 250, 252, 254,
269
as a sign...85
singing in...126
foreign languages...47, 51, 62, 64, 66,
75, 83, 87, 118, 119, 155, 229, 236,
250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 284
forbid – yes? no?...87, 88
gift of...233, 266
in a church...123, 127
uninterpreted - as a sign...84
foreign troops...33, 62
foreigners...59, 60, 64, 74, 84, 106,
241
forgiveness...190
formalism...167
free-vocalisation...279
French Prophets...21
fruits of the Spirit...100
Full Gospel Businessman's
Association...297
Tongues Revisited
G
Galileans...44, 132, 133, 144, 145,
146, 147
Galilee...145, 146, 147
Geneva Convention...179
gift...38, 50, 52, 55, 57, 77, 78, 79, 82,
89, 104, 108, 109, 110, 114, 123,
188, 202, 229, 230, 231, 233, 237,
238, 240, 245, 251, 253, 257, 261,
265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 272, 274,
284
gifts...37, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 79, 80,
82, 85, 89, 104, 105, 116, 117, 168,
201, 202, 222, 225, 234, 243, 245,
247, 251, 253, 254, 257, 261, 264,
265, 266, 267, 284, 292, 299
greater...115, 116
giving account for our words...17
glossolalia...28, 229, 230, 231, 232,
285
gnostic...115
influence...212
view...212
gnosticism...210, 278
gnostics...114, 212
'God is on the side of the poor'...23
Gospel...123, 150
Greek
culture...102, 278
Empire...134
language...116, 117, 134, 135,
137, 140, 144, 147, 148, 149,
154, 156, 233, 251, 256, 278,
279
low language...143, 144
mystery religions...101, 102, 118
spirituality...114
Text...248, 249
thought...110, 111, 207, 210
word/s...28, 35, 39, 40, 46, 57, 59,
78, 92, 104, 105, 107, 109,
117, 231, 264
word/s – how translated...39
groans – Spirit interceeds with...96
guilt manipulation...185
Subject Index
H
Hebrew
as holy language...142
high language...143, 144, 150
language...135, 140, 142, 143,
256, 277, 278, 279
parallelism...60, 219
script...232
the word...35, 278
Hebrews
the people...300
Hellenistic...134, 278
philosophies...278
heteroglossos = other languages...84
high language...138, 139, 140, 141,
150, 156
highest state of inspiration...102
hijack of situation...172
Hillsong...172
hitchhiking angels...167
holy laughter...114
Holy Tongue...140, 142
homework...184
homosexuals...22, 23
hotline to God...97
hyperbole...55
hypnotism...114, 115
I
identity...127, 130, 134, 173, 235
immaturity...78, 85, 90, 92, 93, 271
inheritance
genetic...282
personality/spirit...282
initiated...71, 118, 258
inspiration...92, 103, 104, 105, 113,
115, 116
inter-denominational groups...171, 175
interpret...54, 58, 59, 66, 70, 73, 74,
75, 76, 77, 79, 88, 97, 106, 126,
217, 264, 269, 277, 285
interpretation...30, 46, 53, 54, 59, 73,
74, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87,
101, 103, 120, 126, 127, 143, 158,
202, 226, 237, 238, 240, 242, 243,
305
251, 254, 256, 259, 261, 263, 264,
265, 268, 269, 276
interpreter...30, 59, 70, 77, 78, 88, 126,
232, 237, 238, 263
Irvingites...30, 201, 233
Italian Regiment...154
J
Jesus of Galilee...146
Jewish proselytes...155
John's disciples – Ephesus...52
K
Khmer...70, 76, 262
King James Version...35, 141, 280
Kingdom of the Sun...240
knowledge – as a gift?...91
L
language
a functional ability...83
as a sign...84
at centre of biological life...124
cannot be spontaneously
generated...166
foreign...122
hijackers...23
initiates in...71
personal or group identity...127
range of expression...95
sacred...150
unintelligible...121
uninterpreted...121
unknown to speaker...166
languages
normal human...121
unintelligible...108
uninterpreted...160
languages shall cease...88, 92
Latin...135, 140, 154, 251, 260, 274
high language...143
high language for RC's...143
liberation
theologians...213
theology...23
limits of thesis...24
306
lingua franca...137
linguistically skilled people...80
low language...138, 139, 140, 141, 156
M
macro-evolution...27
madness...85, 127
male language...223
manifestations of the Spirit...79
Maori curses in 'tongues'...240
marae...130
Marxism...223
Master missionary strategist The...147
material realm...209, 210, 211
mathmatics
Christian perspective of...299
maturity...85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 241,
260
meaning change...36
messages
different sorts of...92
finish, end...92, 93
in foreign languages...91
limited, incomplete...92
of particular knowledge...91, 92,
93
prophetic...91, 92
three types of...91, 117, 118
micro-evolution...27
mind bearing fruit...72, 73, 74
mind unfruitful see 'unfruitful'...72
miracles as authentication...38
misnomer...78
missionary tongues...234
monism...209, 211
Montanists...21, 254
Mormons...226, 233, 273, 294
mother tongue...31, 32, 33, 62, 64,
118, 129, 140, 152, 155
Motilone Indians...239
multi-lingual
church...77, 80, 82, 83, 123, 157,
158
environment...137
Galileans...147
Tongues Revisited
people...154
situation...46, 51, 63, 66, 75, 77,
87, 123, 125, 154, 156
mystery...71, 118, 245, 254, 258
of the Gospel...258
religions...71, 101, 102, 109, 110,
118, 258, 278
something known...71
mystic...169
mysticism...168, 169, 170, 176, 219,
287, 288, 289, 290, 291
N
name calling...180, 181
national identity...134
naturalistic thinking...282
neighbour's wife...99
neo-evangelical...282
New Agers...99, 273
New Charismatics...21, 222, 235, 288
New International Version...35, 39,
246
New Tribes Mission...281
nine o'clock in the morning...133, 151
no middle ground...177
Noah's sons...282
non-Biblical views of reality...208
non-shared language...64, 101, 102,
103, 104, 105, 107, 109, 117
normal human languages...30, 36, 39,
41, 43, 46, 50, 52, 56, 62, 64, 67,
110, 121, 230, 232, 251, 255
O
occultists...99
offering...188
one hundred and twenty...145, 147,
148, 149, 233
original language...125, 277
other languages...44, 46, 47, 80, 84,
125, 132, 133, 135, 145, 150, 152,
245, 252
P
pagan...86, 104, 105, 109, 116, 122,
189, 276, 277
Subject Index
philosophy...111
practices...117, 118
thought in church...110, 111
paganism...101
Pai Mariri...129
Papists...260
Passover...46, 134
patience...192
Paul - a good linguist...87
peer pressure...163
Pensacola Revival...21
Pentecost...44, 50, 100, 132, 134, 136,
137, 141, 142, 143, 145, 148, 149,
150, 152, 229, 233, 250, 252, 253,
270, 271
meaning of...45
Pentecostal...21, 234
blessings...203
movement...21, 273
movements...222
name from...45
people...228, 240
revival...222
'tongues'...250
view...97
perfection...37, 88, 89, 90, 91, 125
of life...186
Peter's vision...48
Pharisees...17, 134, 146, 147, 148
phone=voice...40, 58
political correctness...22, 128, 130,
222
power
encounters...21
evangelism...21
practical righteousness...187
pray in the Spirit...98
prayer language...64, 96
personal love-language...234
special prayer language...29
prophecy...31, 53, 55, 57, 59, 63, 66,
83, 84, 86, 97, 103, 106, 109, 116,
119, 125, 198, 202, 237, 245, 257,
258, 268, 269, 272, 276, 288, 293,
294, 298
proto-gnostic...112, 116
307
psychological
concepts...23
phenomenon...164, 285
psychology...224, 291, 294
R
racism...158, 213, 283
Radio Rhema...79, 227, 237, 273, 285,
297
ranking of gifts...83
Rationalism...287
rebellious
angels...55
man...209
Reformed view...38
relative statement...70, 152, 282
restitution...189, 190
Revelation passages...40, 41
reversal of Babel...92, 270
rhetorical questions...97
Roman Catholicism...140, 143
S
Sadducees...134, 147
Samaria...50, 51
Sanhedrin...134
Jewish ruling Council...153
the Council...153
Sanskrit...141
Satan...26, 29, 95, 96, 97, 166, 170,
203, 207, 228, 272
Scripture in Song...172
Second Wave...21
selfcontrol...100
esteem...23
semantic confusion...26
semantic problem...39
Septuagint...278
shotgun approach...197, 198
sign gifts...37, 85
signs and wonders...169
Signs and Wonders movement...21
sociological phenomenon...167
Songs of the Kingdom...172
speak
308
into the air...58, 63, 70
to God and not to man...70
to himself and to God...59, 70, 77,
126
spiritual
gift...78, 266
things...57, 58, 63, 104, 112, 116,
254, 272
utterance...29, 231, 234
warfare...30, 166, 228, 235
spirituality
true and false...112, 113, 114, 115
spirituals...57
subjectivism...168, 169
subversive heresy...121
supramental...237, 261, 290
suprarational utterance...290
syllogisms...94
synagogues...134, 143
T
tabernacle...82
taboo...24
temple...136, 137, 143, 146, 150, 269
testing...18, 25, 26, 78, 182, 264, 265,
275
'tongues'...264
The Faith...16, 166
'the last days'...298
The Message...242, 246
'the power'...201, 202, 203, 204, 205,
206, 207
thinking charismatically...23
Third Wave...21
tongues – sign of baptism in Holy
Spirit?...97
tongues of fire...35
Toronto Blessing...21, 113, 115, 267
total depravity...186
Tower of Babel...124, 270
translation...77, 123, 125, 126, 130,
154, 238, 260, 263, 264, 278
consistency of required...42
simultaneous...77
Treaty of Waitangi...128, 277
Tongues Revisited
two-problem view...102, 108
U
Ultimate
Authority...208, 209, 218
questions...216
Reality...207, 209, 210
Worth – worthship =
worship...215
ultimate in intelligible expression...236
ultimatums...183, 196
unasked questions...37
unbelievers
inquiring unbelievers...86
perverse believers...86
unborn children...174
unconscious...23
unfruitful...58, 72, 73, 74, 75, 107,
229, 259, 260, 261, 287
unintelligible...64, 106, 107, 121, 227,
240, 271
to hearers...119
uninterpreted languages...107
unity...177
calls for...174
promiscuous...174, 192
unpardonable sin...24
upper language
high language...138
urban myths...286
V
Vatican Two...141
Vineyard Movement...228
W
who is speaking to whom?...30
X
xenoglossia...252
xenoglossolalia...252
People Noted and Quoted
Anderson Sir Robert...201
Armstrong John H...222
Coppin Enoch...243, 245, 252
Crabb Larry...225, 294
Crouch Paul...289
Curle George...298
B
D
Babbage S Barton...227
Barclay William...258
Barrett C K...261, 284
Bartz Paul...222
Baxter Robert...201, 205, 229, 298,
299
Baxter Ronald E...40, 246, 247, 248,
252
Bennett Dennis & Rita...222, 238
Bezalel...81, 82
Bird W R...231
Blaiklock E M...251
Bobgan Martin & Deidre...224, 294
Boice James M...222
Boone Debbie...99, 275
Brown Roger H...240
Budgen Victor...221, 245, 258, 270,
299
Burgon John William...248
Burke Stafford & Ella...285
Butler C S...231
Dallimore Arnold...221, 226, 233
Dalman Gustaf...142, 281
Daniel-Rops Henri...143, 281
Darwin Charles...283, 295
Davies J M...243, 244
Denton Michael...231
Dixon Murray...238
Dobson James...294
A
C
Calvin John...233, 251, 256, 260,
262, 269, 273
Carson D A...222, 225, 232, 245,
252, 258, 259, 263, 268, 274, 275
Carter Charles W...141, 281
Christensen Larry...270, 275
Chrysostom...253, 254
Church Fathers...253
Clarkson Alan...238
Clement...253
Collins Gary...294
Colson Charles...283
Copeland Kenneth...222, 273, 289
309
E
Edwards John...235
Ellicott Bishop Charles John...249
F
Fee Gordon D...245, 259, 263
Ferguson Charles...138, 280
Fishman Joshua A...280
Foster Richard...289
Freud Sigmund...23
G
Galilei Galileo...140, 280
Gandi Mahatma...211
Gardiner George E...243
Garrett Dave & Dale...172
Geisler Norman...248
Goold A Leonard...243
Gosse Edmund...298
Gould Stephen J...209
Gousmett Chris...279
Graham Colin...240, 243
Green Michael...242, 261, 287, 292
Gromacki Robert G...40, 41, 230,
244, 246, 248, 254
Guinness Os...224, 283
310
H
Hagin Kenneth...222, 289
Hamon Bill...222
Hartin Bryce...243, 252, 264
Hayford Jack...233, 238, 242, 243,
273, 298
Hengel Martin...143, 281
Henry Matthew...252
Hewitt S R...245
Hinn Benny...289
Hitler Adolf...283
Hobson Governor William...128
Hoekema Anthony...229, 230, 293
Hort...248
Horton Michael Scott...222, 224, 288
Huggett Joyce...289
Hunt Dave...226, 228
I
Intercessors for Britain...300
Irving Edward...52, 203, 229
J
Jampolsky Gerald...226
Johnson Arthur L...289
Josephus Flavius...154
Judd R...290, 292
K
Kassian Mary A...212, 223, 299
Kelsey Morton...221, 226, 245, 285
Kerr Elias...240
Kildahl John P...291
Koch Kurt E...252
L
Lachmann...248
Lenski...92
Lineham Peter J...294
Luther Martin...141, 181, 280, 288
M
MacArthur John...41, 221, 225, 226,
229, 230, 243, 244, 252, 253, 258,
263, 265, 287, 289
Tongues Revisited
Macbeth Norman...277
Mackenzie Hudson F...244, 250
Mallone George...247, 254, 270,
272, 274, 275, 284, 292
Mare W Harold...255, 258, 265, 268,
272
Markschies Christoph...281
Marston George W...243, 272
Martyr Justin...253
Masters Peter...40, 243, 255, 256,
274
Matzat Don...224
Meier Paul...225, 294
Minirth Frank...225, 294
Montanus...253
Moriarty Michael G...221, 222, 228,
235, 273, 287, 288
Morris Henry...216, 231, 300
Muktananda Guru...227
N
Napier John...225
Nash Ronald H...223, 278
Nickel James...299
North Gary...299
O
Oholiab...81
Olson Bruce...239
Opie Dudley...238
Orange Claudia...277
Origen...253
Owen Jim...224, 294
P
Pache Rene...233
Packer J I...231, 236, 256, 273, 284,
292
Parker Gary...231
Paulk Earl...222
Pearcey Nancy...283
Peterson Eugene H...246
Phillips J B...268
Pierce Larry...246
Powlison David...224
Prince Derek...227, 237
People Noted and Quoted
311
Pytches David...236, 237
V
R
Veith Gene Edward...270
Vine W E...242
Rabin Chaim...137, 279
Remine Walter James...231
Rendal G F...274
Roberts Oral...261, 290
Roberts P...275
Robertson Murray...267
Ruether Rosemary Radford...212,
299
Rummery Tony...252
S
Safrai S...279
Schaeffer Francis...216, 226, 288,
300
Schirrmacher Thomas...280
Schlossberg Herbert...224, 283
Scroggie Graham W...40
Seamands David...225
Seel John...224
Showers Renald E...243, 244, 252
Springer Kevin...222, 267
Stern M...279
Subritsky Family...264
T
Taylor Dale...281
Te Ua...129, 227
Tischendorf...248
Tregelles...248
Tyndale William...140
W
Wagner Peter...21
Warfield B B...38, 221, 248, 299
Watson D...278
Welch Edward...224
Westcott...248
Whiston William...154
Whitcomb John C...40, 243, 255,
256, 274
Widdowson Charles...234, 235, 260,
275
Wilder-Smith A E...291
Wilkerson David...255, 292
Williams Henry...128
Williams J Rodman...230, 231, 234,
236, 237, 238, 250, 252, 261, 273,
274, 290
Williams William...227
Wimber John...21, 172, 222, 228,
267
Wysong R L...278
Y
Young Robert...242, 265
Z
Zerhusen Bob...102, 137, 141, 275,
279, 281
312
Scripture Index
Scripture Index
Genesis
1:1-6:9.....277
6:5–9:18.....282
Exodus
31:1-6.....81
35:34-35.....81
36:2.....81
Numbers
14:19-20.....297
Deuteronomy
4:19.....243
Proverbs
9:9.....9
Ecclesiastes
2:15.....219
Isaiah
5:1-30.....269
28:7-13.....61
33:18-19.....62
Jeremiah
1:4-5.....148
31:33.....218
Matthew
5:23-24.....188
7:22-23.....25
11:16.....269
12:36-37.....17
12:38-45.....269
13:57.....257
16:1-4.....269
17:17.....269
18:15-17.....189
21:11.....146
21:33-46.....269
23.....134
23:35-36.....269
24.....229
24:4.....25
24:24.....25
24:34.....269
26:56.....153
26:69.....146
26:73.....146
27:1.....153
Mark
12:1-12.....269
14:54.....153
14:70.....146
16:9-20.....248
16:15-18.....43
Luke
4:24.....257
12:51-53.....176
19:46.....136
20:9-19.....269
22:54.....153
23:34.....297
23:50-51.....153
24:49.....136
24:53.....136
John
2:16-17.....136
4:44.....257
7:45-52.....146
18:15-16.....153
19:19-20.....135
19:39.....153
21:18.....280
Acts
1:1-14.....145
1:5.....136
1:13.....136
1:15.....145
1:23.....145
1:26.....145
2:1.....145
2:1-21.....44
2:2.....136
2:4.....47, 132,
134, 152
2:7-8.....132
2:8-11.....133
2:11.....236
2:13.....100
2:41.....149
2:44-45.....149
3:1-4:22.....266
4:4.....149
4:32-5:11.....149
5:12.....266
6:1-6.....149
6:1-7.....149
6:5.....266
6:22.....149
7:47-49.....136
7:59-8:3.....149
9:15.....148
9:32-35.....266
9:36-43.....266
10.....154
10:2,22.....155
10:22.....155
10:22-48.....48
10:27-29.....151
10:28.....155
11.....148
11:14.....155
11:15.....50, 156
16:16-21.....166
17:11.....9
17:26-27.....214
19:1-10.....51
21:2722:31.....146
22:2-3.....148
22:8.....134
24:16.....185
26:12-14.....32
26:25.....109
27:9-12,
28:11.....149
Romans
1:11-12.....79
2:17-20.....134
3:23.....154
8:26-27.....96
12.....80
1 Corinthians
1:10-3:23.....158
2:6.....90, 272
2:11.....75
3:1-2.....90
3:16.....271
3:18.....271
3:18-21.....158
4:8-13.....271
4:18-21, ch
9.....158
5:1-13.....159
5:2.....271
6:1-8.....159
6:2.....271
6:12-20.....159
6:19.....271
7.....159
8.....159
10:1.....271
10:12.....272
10:15.....272
11:1.....272
11:2-34.....159
11:17.....112
11:18-19.....177
11:19.....192
11:31.....272
12 - 14.....104
12:1-31.....52
12:7.....79
12:13.....98
12:21.....60, 159
12:24-25.....116
12:28-30.....80
12:31.....83
13.....90
13:1.....234
13:1-3.....55
13:4-7.....159
13:8.....56
13:8-13.....37, 88
13:11-12.....90
14.....159, 234,
255
14:1-40.....57
14:2-5.....65
14:3.....80
14:4.....293
14:5.....66
14:6-12.....63
14:9.....70, 119
14:12.....74
14:13.....73
14:14.....73, 229
14:15.....73
14:16.....65, 73
14:16-17.....64,
66
14:17.....65, 74
14:20.....91
14:20-25.....84,
268
14:27-28.....77
14:28.....70
14:40.....122
15.....159
15:29.....247
15:33.....159
15:34.....272
2 Corinthians
3:6.....218
11:3-4.....18
11:3-15.....25
11:13-15.....95
Galatians
2.....148
2:6-21.....150
2:11-14.....151
5:23.....100
Galations
4:4.....192
Ephesians
5:18.....99
6:18.....98
Philippians
3:15.....90
Colossians
1:28.....90
1 Thessalonians
5:20.....257
5:21.....25
Hebrews
1:1-2.....31
2:3-4.....269
3:3-4.....266
4:12.....266
8:10.....219
10:16.....219
1 John
4:20.....188
Jude
v8-10.....298
v20.....98
Revelation
1:1, 9-11.....254
5:9.....41
7:9.....41
10:11.....42
11:9.....42
13:7.....42
14:6.....42
313

A Third Way - Tongues Revisited

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m fine spirit.pmd - Jaico Publishing House

help in identifying the strongman!

Meeting your Spirit of Creativity— Damini Celebre

pg 2

Print/Download Bulletin - Annunciation Catholic Church

A4 Leif - Southampton Christian Network

5:00 pm - St. James Episcopal Church

Fear Not and Fear God