It would be easy to say that the opinions boil down to two main ones: Those who believe in it, and those who don't. But it actually varies much more than that, and goes to two extremes.
There are those who believe speaking in tongues finished in the days of the Bible, and is not a Spiritual gift meant for today. There are those who believe speaking in tongues is meant for today, but not for everone. There are those who believe it is available today, and is for everyone. And there are those who believe that speaking in tongues is not only for everyone today, but is essential to Salvation (if you don't speak in tongues, then you're not saved). And even then, there are a lot of individual and wildly contrasting views on what various passages of the Bible say about such the subject.
One thing people do seem to agree on, as far as speaking in tongues is concerned, is that we must go to The Bible to understand for ourselves what God has to say about the subject. And that is indeed what God has commanded us to do: 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Those two verses tell us that whatever answers we are looking for in our Christian lives... in whatever way we need to be equipped, God's Word is the answer. If He wants to give us an answer or an explanation, then we need look no further than The Bible. Our own experiences, and the experiences of others, can certainly be helpful, and we can learn from them. But our ultimate authority must be with Scripture. God has told us that The Bible is COMPLETELY His words to us, and is available to us so that we may be equipped for EVERY good work. EVERYTHING in our lives.
Now, I don't speak as a Spiritual giant. I do not lead a church of thousands like some others do. I have written no books. I have never been to Bible college. But I still feel I have something to offer people out there who might be interested in the subject of speaking in tongues. You might be someone who does it yourself; who believes that it is for your self-edification, and you do it every day. Maybe you are someone who doesn't speak in tongues, and wonders what it's all about. Or you might not speak in tongues, and are made to feel inferior by others around you who say you should. You might even be someone who's been told you are not going to Heaven because you don't speak in tongues, even though you've asked Jesus Christ into your heart.
I ask you to follow what I have to say, follow what I believe The Bible says about the subject, then decide for yourselves. What does His Word say about speaking in tongues? What I am going to do is go through The Bible and refer to every verse or passage that mentions speaking in tongues, and discuss what the words might mean. I will also draw attention to the verses or passages (as far as I'm aware of) that people believe is about tongues, even though no precise mention is made of the subject. I will also mention what various people believe the verses or passages to mean, then ask you to draw your own conclusions. I imagine there are some beliefs and interpretations people have that maybe I am not aware of. Please write and let me know what they are. That would help as we try to make sense of this highly controversial subject.
One thing I would like to ask is, when I refer to a verse or verses, please do read them in your own Bible, and make sure you don't just read the specific verses I note, but also the verses around them - preferably the whole chapter at the very least. It is very important to take all God's Word in context. It can be very easy to take one verse and make it sound like something, yet when read in context with the verses around it, we realise it means something completely different. Follow in your own Bible what the verses say, and read the verses around them (which I will be referring to myself at times). Read them in context. Also, this has become a very long piece of writing - almost the length of a small book. Thus, it has been put into four parts.
It is well know that The New Testament of The Bible is where the bulk of the teaching of speaking in tongues is, but there is actually a passage in The Old Testament which mentions tongues. We'll have a look at that first.
Isaiah 28:11 and 12 states, "Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to His people, to whom He said, 'This is the resting-place, let the weary rest'; but they would not listen."
Now, if we are reading through The Bible from Genesis, then these words, which are part of a prophecy to Ephraim, mean very little. Therefore, I will not delve into them at the moment, but will when a passage from The New Testament refers to it.
That is the only mention of tongues in The Old Testmament and, to my knowledge, there is none other that anyone assumes to be speaking on the subject.
The first mention of tongues in the New Testament appears in Mark 16: 15 - 18: "He (Jesus) said to them (the disciples), 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And thse signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 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.'"
This was Jesus speaking to the disciples just before He was taken up to Heaven. It was part of The Great Commission, and Mark is the only Gospel to mention such things as believers speaking in tongues, driving out demons and healing others as part of our Great Commission to go out into the world.
Some believe this passage to mean that, as believers, we should all speak in tongues. But is that what the passage says?
For a start, we must ask ourselves what "speak with new tongues" actually means. If we are reading through The Bible at this point, there is nothing to tell us that this mention of tongues is any kind of strange or miraculous gift. Could it be that it is referring to a learning and understanding of other languages, rather than a sudden and amazing gift the Holy Spirit might bring upon us?
It is possible, but very unlikely. As we go into Acts, we can see that God quite clearly brought an amazing gift of tongues upon people, and it is reasonable to assume that what Jesus was talking about here was indeed a miraculous gift of tongues. That argument becomes all the stronger when one sees that also mentioned in this passage are undoubtedly other amazing gifts as healing the sick, casting out demons and not being poisoned. So we must come to the assumption that Jesus was talking about a miraculous gift of speaking in tongues.
We then must question whether Jesus is telling everyone of His children, back then and today, to speak in tongues? If that is the case, then we must also assume He must be telling us that we can heal the sick and drive out demons. Not only that, we can not die from poison or can have no fear from picking up snakes! But can anyone of us confidently say we can do all those things today?
Some people believe that the mention of poison and snakes is metaphorical, and is just a way of referring to Satan's varying threats and opressions he brings upon Christians. This is possible, but if it is believed, then one must then struggle with the passage being a bit inconsistent. If we do not take the snakes and poison literally, why should we then take tongues, healing and casting out of demons in the literal sense? Jesus definitely spoke in metaphors, but it was always clear when He was doing so, and it's unlikely He would merge the literal and the metaphorical so seamlessly.
Also, if we flip over to Acts 28: 3 - 6, we read this: "Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out of the heat, fastened itself on his hand. When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, 'This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live.' But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god."
This happened just after Paul got shipwrecked on the island of Malta. Now, we have to remember that back in Mark, Jesus said, "they will pick up snakes with their hands", and Paul didn't do that. But the fact that Paul still survived a snake bite is a striking similarity. Not only that, it supports Jesus' words of, "and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". True, Paul did not drink any poison, but he was kept from being harmed by the poison in the snake.
These do suggest that what Jesus spoke about in Mark was quite literal, and if they are, we then have to say that if that passage tells us that we are to speak in tongues, then we must also be able to pick up snakes and drink poison with no ill effects. But are any of us able to do that? There have been notorious cults in the past which believe this is indeed the case. They have handled snakes, believing God to protect them - and have died as a result. We know for sure that we are not automatically protected from such dangers, unless God wishes to miraculously help us in such a way.
So, using that reasoning, it is hard to accept that the passage in Mark 16 is telling us that all Christians today should speak in tongues.
So what is Jesus saying there?
It is quite likely that Jesus was speaking specifically to His disciples, and the early Christians mentioned in the book of Acts. This would make most sense going by what we have just studied.
Alternatively, if we are to believe that the words Jesus spoke were meant for Christians after the disciples, then it still doesn't tell us that everyone should do the things He mentions. For instance, if something like the Pleasantville Baptist Church was said to be running a cake stall, that wouldn't mean that every single person in the church was running the cake stall. But the people running it would represent the church. This could also be what Jesus meant when he spoke the words of Mark 16.
The extremists, those who believe Christians are not actually saved unless they speak in tongues, use this passage to support their view, but as we have seen, in no way can we be led to believe that we must speak in tongues to be saved, basing our beliefs on that particular passage.
That is the only mention of speaking in tongues in the four Gospels. The next mention of it comes in arguably the most famous passage on the subject in The Bible - on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2: 1 to 12: "When the day of Pentecost came, they (the disciples) were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that seperated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Now there were staing in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 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?'
They then go on to mention the various languages the discipiles are speaking, such as languages from Parthia, Judea and Cappadocia.
This was at the time of the gift of the Holy Spirit that God brought upon the disciples; the gift that was promised to them. The Holy Spirit filled them and, as a result, they began speaking in other tongues, with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Now, we can note a couple of clear factors here. First of all, the Holy Spirit filled them suddenly. While Jesus promised it would happen to them (Acts 1: 8), He never said specifically when, so this was a sudden, unexpected (to the disciplies) event.
Secondly, we see that the languages the disciples spoke were recognizable, Earthly languages. There are some people today who believe speaking in tongues can sometimes mean an angelic language which is not known on Earth. This belief seems to be taken from 1 Corinthians 13: 1 where Paul says, "If I speak in the tongues of mean and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal". I will enter a discussion on that particular verse later, but that's just to make it clear about what some people believe.
There is no doubt that the tongues the disciples received were a miraculous gift enabled by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke understandable, Earthly languages.
The next time speaking in tongues is mentioned is Acts chapter 10, but there are a few passages before that that some people believe suggest tongues, even though The Bible doesn't mention them. Let's have a look at them now.
Acts 4: 31 says, "After they (Peter, John and "their own people") prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."
Acts 8:14 - 18 says, "When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samarai had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. When Simon (a Sorcerer, first mentioned in verse 9 of this chapter) saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.'"
These two passage do not mention tongues at all, but some believe that tongues were spoken there all the same. With the second passage, they believe tongues must have been spoken because Simon noticed something significant enough to want the gift of emparting it himself. But it's very presumptious to assume that it had to be the gift of tongues he saw. As we saw back in Acts 2, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (as it is also known) was quite a striking event for more than just the tongues speaking. There was a violent wind... there were tongues of fire... and, in verse 14 - 39 of that chapter, Peter preaches a mighty sermon that would seem to be because of his filling of the Holy Spirit. One would also imagine a general excitement and praising of God at the infilling of the Holy Spirit which would be quite notable. This suggests that there are several notable reactions to being baptized in the Spirit, and not necessarily tongues.
The passages in Acts 4 and 8 do not say that the people DIDN'T speak in tongues. Just that there's nothing to say they definitely did, and it is very hard to assume without doubt that they did.
Acts 9 refers to Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus. It speaks of the light that shone upon him which caused him to become blind, him falling to the ground and Jesus asking why he had persecuted Him. Then, in verses 17 - 18, we read, "Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, 'Brother Saul, the Lord - Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here - has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.' Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul's eyes, and he could see again."
Those verses suggest that Saul, who later become Paul, was baptized with the Holy Spirit when Ananias touched him, but there is no mention of speaking in tongues. Some people assume he spoke in tongues then because, in 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks on the subject himself, including saying in 14: 18, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you." There seems no doubt there that Paul eventually spoke in tongues there, but there is no mention of him doing it when he was first baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Now, the reason some people insist these three passages included tongues, even though there is no mention of them, is because of a belief they have that the first sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues. Now, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is another controversial subject in itself, and not one I am writing about here. But I am just explaining the reason many people believe that these passages refer to tongues, even though they are not mentioned. The believe that, since other passages mentioning the baptism of the Holy Spirit included a reference to tongues, these ones must have included tongues too.
But again, that is very presumptious thinking and we cannot know for sure. Maybe they did, more likely they didn't, since we would expect The Bible to tell us if they did, since it tells us in other instances.
The next mention of speaking in tongues appears in Acts 10: 44-46: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 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. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God."
If you read this whole passage, you will see that this happened at the house of Cornelius, a Gentile, in Caesarea. Up until this stage, the Holy Spirit had only been poured out to the Jews, but this event revealed to all that God's gift of Salvation, and His gift of the Holy Spirit, was for everyone.
There are a couple of things we can note from this event. First, like at the day of Pentecost, the baptism of the Holy Spirit happened suddenly, "while Peter was still speaking". It, again, was an unexpected occurence to all present, which we can see even clearer when we read that the people who came with Peter "were astonished" to see it happening to the Gentiles. It also came upon "all those who heard the message". Also, this passage suggests that it was two things that made it clear to the Jews that the Gentiles had been baptism of the Holy Spirit: "The cirumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God". This suggests that it was the speaking in tongues and the praising of God that brought them to the conclusion that they had been filled with the Holy Spirit. Now, it is not clear whether the Gentiles praised God WITH their gift of tongues, but one imagines that would have been the case, since it's hard to believe that they all would have been alternating between tongues and praises to God in their native languages.
If we keep in mind the day of Pentecost, then we must naturally assume that the tongues the Gentiles were speaking were Earthly languages and, one would think, languages the Jews could recognize. One question to be asked is what was the total use of tongues at this time? As noted earlier, it seems certain that the Gentiles praised God with their tongues. Would they have been doing something else with them too? Like prophesying? Possibly, but we are not told that here. All we are told is that they spoke in tongues and praised God. And we see, from these two things, the Jews came to the inescapable conclusion that the Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The last recording of tongues in Acts and, indeed, the last recording of any direct narrative of the gift in The Bible, appears in chapter 19: 4 - 7: "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.' On hearing this, they were baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all."
This event happened at Ephesus. These people had heard about the need for Salvation through the preaching of John the Baptist, and had accepted it, but had not received the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul shared this with them, and they were then baptized in water, Paul put hands on them, they were baptized in the Spirit, and they spoke in tongues in prophesied.
Several factors we note here are that, like the account in chapter 10, the filling of the Holy Spirit happened while one of the apostles (Paul was an "unofficial" apostle) was present, but unlike the other accounts, the filling did not happen until Paul placed hands upon them. The fact that he did this, and the baptism happened immediately, suggests Paul was expecting this to happen. Either that, or he put his hands on them just to pray for them. This is possible, but it does seem more likely that Paul put his hands upon them with the knowledge that the Holy Spirit would fill them when he did it.
The results of this filling vary slightly from the account in chapter 10. While they spoke in tongues, we are not told that they praised God, but that they prophesied.
It must be remembered that the word "prophecy" does not necessarily mean a prediction of the future, so a "prophet" is not necessarily someone who has the gift of foretelling the future. Prophecy can mean, and indeed is more likely to mean, teaching. We can take Jonah as an example. Jonah was regarded as a prophet, but he never predicted definite things that were going to happen. Instead, he went through the city of Ninevah, stating what WOULD happen if the people didn't turn away from their sinful acts. The people repented, and God did not bring his judgement upon them. Any pastor today who shares the gospel of Jesus Christ is a prophet because, like Jonah, he is making people aware of their sins, the consequences of those sins, and the oppurtunity they have to be saved if they repent.
We are not told what kind of prophecy the men at Ephesus had, but, like chapter 10, one would imagine that it was through the gift of tongues that they prohesised. Whether they brought new revelation, or simply preached the salvation of Jesus, we are not told. There is no mention of anyone believing the men had been filled with the Holy Spirit because of the tongues and prophesying, but that's not to say that didn't happen. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. We do see though that, afterwards, Paul spoke boldy for there months in their synagogue, "arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God." We are then told that some of the listeners became obsinate and "refused to believe", but the fact that Paul spent three months there preaching shows the importance he put down to sharing the good news of Jesus Christ.
This is all the mentions of speaking in tongues in the book of Acts, as well as a couple of passages that don't mention tongues, but many people believe tongues were there anyway. From these passages, we have been able to draw these conclusions.
1) The gift of tongues were Earthly languages which were recognized by the people listening. This is shown in the day of Pentecost, and there's nothing later to suggest any differently.
2) The baptism of the Holy Spirit sometimes brought the gift of tongues, but we do not know that it always did. It might have, but tongues are not mentioned in every instance, so we cannot assume this was the case.
3) The baptism of the Holy Spirit happened both as a sudden, unexpected occurence and, we imagine, an expected one in the case of Paul, although it is still possible he was not expecting it when he placed his hands upon the Ephesians, and it certainly seems like those who received never expected the gift to happen at that very time.
4) When people spoke in tongues, we are told that they "declared the wonders of God", "praised God" and "prophesised". We can see from this that all these declarations happened for everyone present to hear. The occurence in chapter 10 suggest that it convinced the Jews that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Gentiles. We can see here that tongues seemed to be both a sign to convince others that people had been baptized by the Holy Spirit, and as a way of teaching on God. We cannot conclude, however, that tongues were the only proof of the infilling of the Holy Spirit, or that they were always the evidence.
5) It is very easy, in studying the subject of tongues like this, to imagine it was a major event and one of the main themes througout the book of Acts. If we read Acts from beginning to end, however, we can see that tongues is only mentioned three times in twenty-eight chapters, and is very much overshadowed by the most important act of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ throughout the world.
There is also a notable thing that is not recorded in Acts.
There are reports today that some people who start to speak in tongues receive the gift by opening their mouths, saying words, sometimes with others around them and, eventually, they start speaking in tongues. But there is no mention of that in Acts. Every time the gift of tongues came upon people, even if Paul expected it in his instance, it was a sudden event, and there's no suggestion that the receivers were trying to "force" it to happen, or that they expected it in any way. Some people today have been known to start speaking in tongues by forcing words to come out of their mouths, maybe with friends gathered around them, encouraging them. Joy Balk's book "Tongues: Yes Or No" and Neil Babcock's "My Search For Charasmatic Reality" both portray this. The gift of tongues happened suddenly, and, of course, we know that God can give us a gift anytime He wishes. We do not need to try and help him along.
As we go into the study of tongues in 1 Corinthians, we will refer to this study on Acts, and the brief mention of Isaiah, as we go. From studying these two books, we will try to understand exactly what God's Word does say about the gift of speaking in tongues.
Speaking In Tongues - Part 2
Speaking In Tongues - Part 3
Speaking In Tongues - Part 4
