"I Speak in Tongues
More Than You All"
G.-F. Rendal
K Benson and V Dinsmore
"...they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were
so."
|
|
To obtain your personal copy of this book, please contact:
Believers Bookshelf
Box 261, Sunbury, PA 17801 USA
Phone: (717) 672-2134
Email: believer@mail.csrlink.net
or order online at:
http://www.usbusiness.com/bbs/
Also available at:
Edition de Beree
CH-1349 JURIENS
Switzerland
Most of those who have preceded G.-F. Rendal in dealing with this doctrine of speaking in tongues have often dealt with it in a presumptuous spirit common to the doctrine's opponents. Their process of reasoning, drawing conclusions, and application of these to the problem at hand are all too frequently suffocating, incomplete, and prejudiced. Thus, they remain unconvincing or at least not convincing enough.
G.-F. Rendal approaches this doctrinal problem and deals with it from the inside out. He, as it were, takes a step back and looks at it both objectively and subjectively. He shows it to be an outdated, erroneous or fraudulent teaching.
Under his pen, the whole body of Scripture is convincingly shown to be harmonious.
It is highly desirable that pastors, those responsible in local churches, assemblies and bookstores, as well as editors of Christian periodicals, and teachers in Bible Institutes and Seminaries recommend this book so as to give it the publicity it deserves.
My wife and I had the joyous privilege of serving our Lord Jesus Christ for over 32 years on the Island of Martinique in the French West Indies. During the latter months of our missionary church-planting ministry there we learned of G.-F. RENDAL's book I Speak in Tongues More Than You All. After a careful reading of this unusual book we felt that we should do all we could to acquaint everyone possible with his treatment of every scripture text having to do with this question of speaking in tongues.
The modern-day teachings and practices erroneously based on these texts have sown untold confusion worldwide.
It is certainly no understatement to say that his treatment of this modern doctrinal aberration (his quotations of Augustine are refreshing) is the most complete, competent and convincing of any writing we had seen on the subject. Mr. RENDAL's fair, lucid and thorough examination of the subject, based on a background of personal knowledge and experience, deserves a wide reading.
As missionary church planters looking forward to further Gospel ministry in France, we delight to add our personal recommendation of this significant work, encouraging everyone who has any interest whatsoever in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, to examine this book with great care.
May God's rich blessing multiply its usefulness to untold numbers of people.
How surprised I was when, the day after my conversion from the world to Jesus Christ, I found that supposedly stable, spiritual and dedicated people-people being used by the Holy Spirit for the salvation of souls-bristled at the mention of the gifts of the Spirit, especially that of speaking in tongues. I sadly listened to them run down the work that God was doing through those whom they ironically called "holy rollers". With the delicacy of a bulldozer plowing into a mountain they silenced any objections, like "the gift of tongues no longer exists" or "that was only for the apostolic period" with sweeping declarations which I considered to be dogmatic and hollow. I was more impressed with their conviction than by their arguments. For, to tell the truth, they did not defend their beliefs biblically. In their churches the subject of tongues was as taboo as sex or healing; they just did not talk about it, and that was that! It was as if they said with an air of superiority, "I know all that by heart..." (An ironic song known by the French which makes fun of the school "inspector" who wants to teach a lesson to those who know more than he does.)
I didn't dare discuss the subject with them because I was young, inexperienced and had little Bible knowledge. But as elementary as my knowledge of the Word was, I wondered how these people could miss the many texts in the New Testament which refer to speaking in tongues.
As for myself, even if I wanted to ignore them (which was not the case), I could not do so. I wondered how a small part of the evangelical world was able to play hide-and-seek with these passages. They might be ignored in preaching, but it was impossible in the reading and personal study of the Scriptures. To me they seemed to be everywhere in the New Testament.
To ignore them seemed as serious as ignoring the
Apostle Peter in the Gospels. Had not Jesus said, "And these signs will
accompany those who have believed in My name: they will cast out demons;
they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on
the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18)? Certainly all those
who have believed unto salvation do not have to prove their faith by each
one casting out demons or by all drinking a poisonous beverage or by all
eating poisonous mushrooms without harm or by all speaking in tongues or
by each one healing some sick person. But do we have the right to take
away such a piece from the marvelous puzzle of the whole Bible picture?
One day someone told me in all seriousness that it was satanic. Wow! I
have learned that he has since modified his opinion. How can we ignore
that so many Christians have had the experience of speaking in tongues
and that they testify of having received great blessing? Can we pass over
in silence, or try to hush the fact that in the world it is the Pentecostal
Churches that are growing the fastest (except for Islam and perhaps Jehovah's
Witnesses)? The work done among the gypsies of Europe is due to their activity,
and it is remarkable. Did not the Apostle Paul, who has been called the
greatest since the Great One, say, "I speak in tongues more than you all
(I Cor 14:18)? This citation of the great apostle to the nations has been
chosen as the title of this book.
I once came upon an interesting pamphlet. What a surprise to read from the pen of someone who wanted to be taken seriously......."the gift of tongues is no longer needed because we can learn languages in school!" (But what about the apostle Paul? Had he not been to the finest schools of his day?) Paul received this miraculous gift more than anyone else so that he could be understood by the many Gentiles of diverse tongues. For me, Paul's example immediately pointed out the weakness of this argument. During this time I had already delved into my Bible and had begun to know it a little better. How was it that Paul used the gift of tongues to teach when he himself taught that, "anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men..." (I Cor 14:2)? If speaking in tongues is limited to speaking to God and not to men, Paul would have been in flagrant contradiction with the Holy Spirit who had inspired him to write this conclusive text, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God" (I Cor 14:2).
This explanation seemed to me to be very weak, coupled as it was with insincerity, in the light of such clear truths. This explanation which explained nothing, made me suspicious of those who opposed speaking in tongues. Now I cannot speak to God except by praise or prayer; I cannot teach God; I cannot evangelize God. No one can exhort God and no one can prophesy to God.
There Is No Alternative
Speaking in tongues is never a question of God speaking to men but of men speaking to God. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. Taking a good look at the day of Pentecost, there was no preaching in tongues, but "the proclaiming of the wonders of God" (Acts 2: 11). This praise to Jehovah borrowed the tongues of pagan nations, and Jewish ears, accustomed to the languages of these countries from which they came, understood. Certainly this must have been a shock for all those Jews who had come to Israel, who believed that their Jewish tongue, the tongue of God's chosen people, was the only one that the "Good Lord" could understand. You see, their God was theirs alone, not everybody's God! Share Him with pagans? No way! But lo and behold, their Jehovah understood not only Arabic, Greek and thirteen other languages besides Hebrew, but, to top it all off, His Holy Spirit also spoke these tongues through the apostles and the disciples. In other words, praise coming from heaven returned there again after a dip in the sea of pagan tongues. Did this mean that the pagans with their barbaric languages were accepted by Jehovah on the same level as the Jews? And the gift of tongues, could it be a sign of this?
The First Tongues Movement
Before going further I must tell you an anecdote in which my Bible knowledge was put to the test. I was with some devoted Christian brethren who were experienced in the faith. Each one knew his Bible well and our discussions often came around to theological subjects. The oldest asked a question, "Where do we find speaking in tongues for the first time?" The answers came spontaneously and in unison, "At Pentecost." We were so sure of ourselves! But no! It was at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:7). I was a bit perturbed. Why hadn't I thought of that? Now I was really listening. I will never forget the explanation that followed. The diversity of languages at the Tower of Babel was a judgment. Now, in the Bible there is a principle of hermeneutics called " First Mention". That is to say, a truth mentioned for the first time in the Bible will keep that same meaning to the end. Along the way, this truth can take on more meaning, can be developed and become richer, but its first emphasis will not be lost. Was it possible that speaking in tongues carried with it an idea of judgment? This is, in any case, what the text confirms. The principal passage on speaking in tongues, treated by Paul in I Corinthians 14: 21, is found in Isaiah 28:11,13. Paul, led by the Holy Spirit, quotes freely the prophet Isaiah, "Indeed, He will speak to this people through stammering lips and a foreign tongue....that they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared, and taken captive." I then remembered that at the Day of Pentecost tongues of fire (Acts 2:3) came down on those who were present. Tongues of fire... and without a doubt, in the Scriptures, fire is a symbol of judgment. Even if fire has the effect of purifying, there is always an aspect of judgment associated with it. For an instant I held on to the idea that fire did not necessarily have to mean judgment because we often sing the beautiful hymn, "Clothe us with Thy power, and baptize us with fire ... !",quoting the exact words of John the Baptist, "He Himself will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt 3: 10).
First Verification
In order to have a clear conscience I looked more carefully at the texts of the Bible related to this hymn. Going through one after another I found that our hymnology is not always good theology. The Bible showed me that the baptism of fire is in opposition to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that it is synonymous with condemnation. It is true that the four Gospels record what John the Baptist said. All four Gospels speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit but only two of them mention the baptism of fire. As I carefully read the context, I discovered that there is a reference to the baptism of fire only in Matthew and Luke precisely because John the Baptist's opponents, or the Pharisees, were present. Fire is mentioned because of them. The Pharisees were absent in Mark's account and in John's account, so the baptism of fire and the judgment are absent as well. The explanation very naturally comes in the verse that follows, "He will gather His wheat into the barn (the baptism of the Holy Spirit), but He will bum up the chaff with unquenchable fire (the baptism of fire)" (Matt 3:12).
The first baptism, that of the Holy Spirit, is linked
with the heavenly storehouse; the other, that of fire, is tied in with
the idea of inextinguishable fire. A few years later the Apostle Paul,
moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote the same truth in different words saying
that the Gospel is "to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other
an aroma from life to life" (II Cor 2:16). 1 must admit that this revelation
did nothing but create more confusion. Then a new question came up. If
speaking in tongues also carried the idea of judgment, then...
I did not have an answer to this question, and it bothered me for a long time. Up until then the explanations that I had heard for speaking in tongues had to do with exhortation, praise, power, evangelisation and especially with the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But associating speaking in tongues with judgment had never dawned on me. The problem began to clear up when, after reading in Proverbs 16:4 that God had made everything for His own purpose, I asked myself, "What was God's purpose in the giving of the gift of speaking in tongues?"
It was certainly a great sign, but why this particular one? Why not, for example, the capacity to become invisible? Or the gift of being everywhere at once; or a permanent halo over one's head? In answer I thought to myself, that wouldn't make sense. And if there were no reason for speaking in tongues, that would be senseless too. But what could the reason be? It must have meant something to someone, but what and to whom?
After considerable thought, I had to admit that speaking in tongues was neither the refining of human vocabulary nor a more elevated form of expression. I had been told that when one speaks in tongues one outdoes oneself. One goes beyond oneself into a sublime state until he joins the angels with their celestial language. I thought that was marvellous. When my human words were no longer sufficient to praise God, the Holy Spirit would transport me to unattainable heights and give me speech that would put Shakespeare (Voltaire in the original), to shame! I was troubled, however, to think that my own speaking in tongues could be just the same as that heard around me.
Uneasiness
Except for the ecstasy, there was nothing all that extraordinary about such a gift. The thing that often bothered me about what I had heard spoken in tongues was that it was always incomprehensible and that it did not really resemble a spoken language. Having studied several languages personally, I found that the sounds uttered were rather strange. I spoke about that to a qualified pastor who told me that it might be a dialect of some Indian tribes of South America, of the Matto Grasso, or of Central Africa. How did he know? I do not mean to sound irreverent but I wondered where in the world the Holy Spirit was taking us. It seemed just like too much to swallow. English (French in the original) is one of the richest, most wide-spread and most complete languages in the world. How could a rudimentary tongue with a vocabulary a hundred times more limited presume to express such exalted sentiments when English (French in the original) had proven insufficient? This obvious anomaly did not seem to bother my friend in the least. Ah! the simplicity of "just accepting by faith"! But I am not like that. I have to study things through for myself. Is that wrong, or could it be, in this case, God-given?
At any rate, I could not deny the supernatural side of speaking in tongues. We have been told that some people were able to express themselves perfectly in Pakistani without knowing a single word of that tongue. Or that others spoke in ancient Greek with such fluency and purity that even a college professor would be impressed. I had to admit that speaking in tongues was a supernatural phenomenon, but I still had not grasped its meaning or its import.
First Questions First
I went to one or two retreats that were not Pentecostal, with the hope of finding an answer to my quest for the true reason for this gift, and also to find out why the others did not speak in tongues, why they refused this particular gift of the Holy Spirit. Once again I found no satisfactory answer to my questions. Everyone was woefully ignorant of the subject. When I asked about the purpose of speaking in tongues, I encountered the same lack of biblical teaching as I had met among those who do speak in tongues. The first group spoke in tongues without really knowing why, and the second group was not quite sure why they did not. No one was really able to help me in my search. Oh, everyone was brotherly and courteous with me, but my questions really irritated them like a buzzing fly on a muggy summer evening.
The Grass Snake
One day I was flubbergasted when a veteran preacher, well-known in charismatic circles, told me that with his age and battle fatigue from so much preaching, all he needed was a few minutes speaking in tongues to restore him physically. He felt completely renewed in his body. He even spoke about it from the pulpit. Many swooned with emotion listening to him, without even wondering if the Bible allowed such an explanation of his experience. Worst of all, I too, for a moment, like a sheep easily led (following others blindly), was ecstatic along with my fellow-hearers who nodded in agreement upon hearing this error which was given out under the guise of being from the Gospel. But I quickly got hold of myself "There it is," I said after some thought, "speaking in tongues is now put among the array of pick-me-ups and other tonics used in treating the problems of old age!" A verse of the Bible came to mind, "and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (II Tim 4:4).
The Crusades
I felt sad for these people of God; so fervent, but who were like sheep without a shepherd. I thought of the Crusades and the poor Crusaders-sick, dying and discouraged on their way to the Holy Land. Their leaders used to try to encourage them with all sorts of incredible tales. At one time, one of their monks pretended to have found the point of the spear that had supposedly, several centuries before, pierced the Savior's side. And there they go again, renewed for a few days in their quest ... like the poor flock that mistakes the voice of a stranger for that of their Good Shepherd. That day, what was said in the book of Acts became precious to me, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).
If the preaching of the great Apostle Paul was to
be controlled by the Holy Scriptures, how much more are we responsible
to try the spirits by comparing what is said with what the Scriptures teach.
There was an important point that often bothered me. It was the interpretation that followed the speaking in tongues, for in the first century every time someone spoke in tongues there was to be an interpretation. The text is clear, "If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet..." (I Cor 14:28). In this matter I noticed a definite disobedience, more or less generalized, to the command written by the one who spoke in tongues more and better than anyone. His teaching was rarely applied. Would you believe that there were times when I would have almost preferred that the interpretation not be given? I was actually ashamed of the interpretation. At least what was not interpreted and not yet understood could pass as being inspired. But once the speaking in tongues was interpreted, it was what I understood that bothered me. Most of the time the interpretation was so poorly done that even a dunce would have blushed with embarrassment. The interpretation was almost always commonplace. I thought that that which was said in tongues could just as well have been said in English. In fact, the pastor or another Christian brother exhorted better in English than in tongues. If interpretation were really a gift of the Spirit, where was the promised elevation, the sublime thought, the transcendental truth? Here, on the other hand, were commonplace, run-of-the-mill, pat ideas that everyone had heard a thousand times. When Paul was caught up into the third heaven he heard inexpressible words, words that man is not permitted to utter (II Cor 12:4). I did not understand. I thought to myself, "It's like taking a glass of water and, before drinking it, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. Then after this laborious process, you put them back together to make the water you would finally drink. Wouldn't it be simpler just to drink the water directly from the fountain?" Sometimes I thought that I must have been really ignorant to ask so many questions. After all, Paul did say, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues..." (I Cor 14:5). What more did I need?
Tongues or Celibacy
All of a sudden I remembered that the apostle who said, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues ... (I Cor 14:5), also said, "Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am" (I Cor 7:7). That is to say, unmarried. (In the Greek the two expressions are identical.) It was at this point that I began to get worried. The same one who gave me the green light to speak in tongues, also gave me the green light to remain single! I wanted to follow the one but reject the other. It wasn't logical and I knew it. This may make you smile, but there is a definite theological implication behind Paul's two expressions and there was no way around it. Both commandments were given by Paul to the Corinthians in the very same letter. To those whom he says, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues..." he also says, "Yet I wish that all men were as I myself am..."-unmarried. (I realized how carelessly we overlook passages that bother us and cling to those that seem to teach our own beliefs.) We do mental gymnastics trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Thus, it is a paradox that those who affirm that all should speak in tongues, nevertheless, by the same token, affirm that all should not remain single! By what principle of scriptural interpretation do people arrive at such unsound conclusions? Isn't it more honest to admit that all the Corinthians were not called to remain single and that neither were all called to speak in tongues. Paul accepts both of these ideas. On the one hand, all do not have the gift of celibacy (I Cor 7:7), and on the other hand, all do not have the gift of tongues. He answers his own questions when he writes-All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? ... All do not speak in tongues, do they? (I Cor 12:29, 30) To ask the question is to give the answer.
The Language of the Angels
It was at this time that I asked a pastor how he
explained the incomprehensible aspect of speaking in tongues. He answered
that it might be an angelic message. "Poor angels," I thought. "Can't they
speak any better than that? Is that all there is to the heavenly tongues
of angels?" I was disappointed. I expected something better. I even went
so far (God forgive me) as to think that if angels didn't speak any better
than that, then I spoke better than they did! And what's more, I thought
that if Shakespeare (Voltaire in the original) were in heaven (God rest
his soul) the angels would have a hard time carrying on a conversation
with him. He would probably send them back to school! No, frankly the pastor's
explanation did not satisfy me at all. His answer seemed to be a dishonest
way of avoiding a relevant question. But since the Bible does speak about
the tongues of angels, I consented that it might be true. By faith I had
to accept it, admitting that I could be wrong and asking God to forgive
me for questioning the form of expression that He chose to give His angels.
Who is to judge God's choice (Rom 11:34, 35)? Since this pastor quoted
the Bible, I decided to see for myself what the Scriptures had to say on
the subject. I hoped ever so slightly that what he said was true. But all
I found was a new disappointment to add to the others. I discovered that,
without exception, every time the angels spoke it was in comprehensible,
contemporary human language, never a heavenly tongue. The only reference
I found to the tongues of angels was in I Corinthians 13:12, "If I speak
with the tongues of men and of angels..." It made me sick. I felt that
I had been duped by this distorted usage of the Scriptures. It is evident
that in this passage Paul is using "though" or "if" as a hyperbole. Paul
never had the knowledge of all mysteries since several verses later he
states that he only knows in part (I Cor 13:12). Paul never gave his body
to be burned. He never bestowed all his goods to feed the poor. Nor did
he speak all the tongues of angels and of men. Paul makes it all the more
evident that he could not speak the tongues of angels by referring to them
as "words which man is not permitted to speak" (II Cor 12:4). He also uses
the conditional mood with this hyperbolic "if". Even a child would understand
this grammatical structure. How could a mature man, the shepherd of a flock,
promote such an unfounded argument? I was stupefied. It was an isolated
case, true, but this man was not just anyone, and I fear that many may
have adopted his reasoning for their own, though in so doing, they would
only be undermining their own position.
After all of the insufficient human explanations that I had heard, at last I had found a good scriptural one. I could accept the incomprehensible aspect of speaking in tongues because of Paul's statement, "for one who speaks in a tongue ... no one understands" (I Cor 14:2). Whew!
Thank you brother Paul. No more need to split hairs! So if men speak so poorly, even in tongues, it is not the angels' fault. Thank you dear Apostle Paul for reminding us in your own way that revealed things are for us and our children, and that hidden things are for the Lord (Deut 29:29). This text came just in time to ease my mind and let me breathe more freely. Certainly the problem was not resolved, but at this point in my search for the truth, this inspired verse, written by the very one who spoke in tongues more than anyone else, was like an oasis in my spiritual pilgrimage under the unbearably hot rays of contradictory opinions. So if I could not understand, there was no need to worry. What a relief! It was as reassuring as a mass in Latin-and it had the same air of mystery which was not at all that unpleasant. I must admit that the adversaries of speaking in tongues were beginning to scare me. I may not have been 100% in agreement with the "charismatics" but I was at least 99% convinced that they were right. I hoped to regain the 1% that had been eaten away, not so much by those who were against speaking in tongues as by the blunders of those who were for it. This providential verse allowed me to join my Pentecostal brothers in believing that there were obviously two kinds of speaking in tongues-one, given on the day of Pentecost, which everyone understood (Acts 2:8), and the other, mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians which could not be understood (I Cor 14:2). I noticed: with a sigh of relief, that partisans of both sides were of about the same opinion on this point. The gift of tongues practiced by the Apostle Paul was not the same as the one experienced on the Day of Pentecost. Hallelujah! I was anxious to meet Paul in heaven, to shake his hand and thank him for writing those words. They allowed me to remain serene in my faith and firm in my position, for the vagueness in my understanding of this subject was in complete accordance with Bible teaching.
A Burned Child Fears the Fire
This phrase from the Bible, "no one understands him", was a real windfall. So there were two kinds of tongues! But I had been so burned in the past that I could not simply accept things at face value. I decided to stick to my usual method. Since the Bible is our authority for Christian living and doctrine, I preferred to examine what the Holy Spirit had inspired. I wanted to verify whether there were really two kinds of tongues, or if the difference in these two texts was an apparent contradiction. It took me a while to begin this verification. I shuddered at the thought. There are a number of apparent contradictions in the Bible which cannot hold up under a serious, indepth study of the passages involved. Here is how I went about it. I took a concordance and lined up all the verses that have to do with speaking in tongues. I found about thirty. Then I went to the Greek text. There I found that:
First of all, the French translations all conveyed the very idea expressed in the original text.
And secondly, in all these texts there was only one word for "tongues" and "languages". It is the same in every case.
So, it is evident that if the gift of tongues in the Epistles was a different "glossolia" than that at Pentecost, it should be seen in the Greek terms used. Such is not the case. Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles, used the same word in Chapter 2 as Paul uses in his letter to the Corinthians in Chapters 12, 13 and 14. If as I believed to be the case, the two speaking in tongues were different, Luke, who wrote the book of Acts after Paul had written this first letter to the Corinthians, would have at least shown it by using different words. There is no doubt that Luke was familiar with Paul's epistle, for it circulated widely among the churches. Moreover, Luke was one of Paul's traveling companions. If the speaking in tongues mentioned in his book was different from Paul's, he would certainly have pointed it out to eliminate confusion, but he doesn't say anything about it. No, he uses the same word because he is speaking about the same thing. It is "glossa" in one case and in the other. The Greek text is explicit. This discovery put me at a loss. There were only two ways of interpreting it:
Pentecost Updated
What exactly did happen at Jerusalem? All of those who were there understood these men speaking foreign languages which they had not learned. When the Holy Spirit was given, separate tongues of fire came down upon the the disciples (Acts 2:3). Each disciple, separately and distinctly, spoke one of the native languages of the different people present. Fifteen countries and peoples are mentioned, therefore fifteen languages are cited (Acts 2:9-11). They all understood, each one understanding the language from his own country. There was nothing complicated about it. There were fifteen peoples with fifteen different ears to understand. The speaking was supernatural but the reception was natural.
Let's suppose that there were fifteen Corinthians present the day of Pentecost with fifteen tape recorders and that each one taped separately what was being said and understood. Now imagine that these fifteen Corinthians went back to the church in Corinth and played these fifteen cassettes for the Christians who understood one or two languages at the most. They would inevitably arrive at the same conclusion as Paul: "no one understands". Obviously, because there was no one at Corinth to understand (I Cor 14:2). And if these fifteen cassettes were passed down to our day and were played in a church in New York, Paris or Madrid, the result would be the same. These fifteen languages which were so easily understood at Jerusalem would no more be understood today than they were in Corinth in the first century. On the other hand, imagine that we had been able to transport the whole congregation of Corinth to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost. Of all that was said on that day, they would have understood what had been said miraculously in their own language, that is to say, in Greek; but they would not have understood anything in the fourteen other languages. Of course, if the Holy Spirit had chosen not to include Greek on that day, they would have understood absolutely nothing! And that is just what happened in their church in Corinth! They were speaking in other languages than Greek. No one understood, not because it was ecstatic language, but simply because it wasn't Greek. It was as inaccessible to them as an Englishman receiving a telephone call in Japanese.
Here I should point out that there is no question of an ecstatic language as some have suggested. This idea is as foreign to the Greek texts as it is to our modern versions. When Balaam's donkey supernaturally spoke by the Spirit it was not in an ecstatic, incomprehensible language to her master (Num 22:28). With intelligible words the "foolishness of God" (I Cor 1:25) made a mute donkey speak with a human voice in order to stop the prophet's folly (II Pet 2:15,16). Whether it be through His Word, His angels, His prophets, or even a donkey, God has always spoken in a comprehensible way. How could I go on believing that this God who made a donkey speak as well as a man could take hold of beings created in His image and move them to speak more poorly than a donkey?
What Does All This Prove?
It proves that the speaking in tongues practiced by the Corinthians was not an ecstatic, unintelligible verbiage, nor an inaccessible angelic language, but languages as national and distinct as those heard in Jerusalem at Pentecost. And if, as Paul says, "no one understands," it is very simply because we do not have the fifteen ears to understand-no more than Paul or the Corinthians did. Looking at this a bit more closely I found that the Corinthians were not the only ones who did not understand the tongues spoken. On the day of Pentecost, without question, the tongues spoken miraculously by the power of the Holy Spirit, were the languages of the nations of that day. Many of the Jews present did not understand them either.
It is clear from Acts 2 that there were two groups of Jews present at the Feast of Pentecost:
In summary, please note:
This mystery is such that the twenty-four elders in Revelation 5:8-10 go to their knees adoring and singing to the slain Lamb Who purchased by His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
It is for this mystery that Peter and the others glorified God in foreign languages on the day of Pentecost which was the Inaugural Day of the salvation which God offered to people of all the earth. To those who did not grasp it, Peter gave, then and there, a clear explanation saying that the Lord would pour out His Spirit from that moment forward on all mankind (Acts 2:17).
That was the mystery of the Gentiles becoming fellow heirs with the Jews.
All this helped me to understand three things:
I must now go back and take up the question which had puzzled me for so long and to which I had not found an answer. Certainly speaking in tongues was a sign, but for whom? Before I could find out for whom this sign was given, I found out for whom it was not given. As I carefully read the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians again, I came across the declaration that it was:
A sign, not to those who believe (I Cor 14:22)
I rubbed my eyes. Had I read this aright? Yes, I had. This sign was not for believers. For many years I had read this passage without really seeing it. Now I wondered how I could have missed it. No one had ever brought this teaching of the Holy Spirit to my attention. The Assemblies thought that it was a sign for believers; that they should seek this sign for themselves, and that above all it was the sign of having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At first this new-found passage intrigued me. Then it troubled me. So much so that I went to see several servants of God to ask them what this meant. Their embarrassed silence and muddled answers only showed me that they had never noticed this passage either, and that my questions left them without a reply. I was acutely aware of the risks involved. My confidence was shaken. And the battering ram which had shattered my beautiful building had not come from those who were against speaking in tongues, but from the Apostle Paul whom I so admired. A chain reaction set in. Other Bible verses, one after another, became clear. Naturally, if this sign had been for believers, Paul would have encouraged its use in the assembly of believers, but on the contrary, he discouraged its practice in the church (I Cor 14:19). It was outside the church that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else, but within the church he preferred five intelligible words to ten thousand words in tongues (I Cor 14:19). That is to say, he was two thousand times more against speaking in tongues that he was for it. No one had ever told me these things. At times I was furious with those who had hidden them from me, and angry with myself for straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matt 23:23). Could it be possible that the others were right? "Get thee behind me Satan!" I firmly resolved not to budge an inch. I felt that my opinions were shaken, and I decided to attack the issue head-on. I was finished with second-hand explanations (John 4:42). 1 realized the danger of knowing doctrine only by bits and pieces on hearsay, or by "experiences" which supposedly have something to do with the subject. I discovered once again that I was totally unaware of the truth in the passages written in black and white two thousand years ago.
Then for whom?
What put me on the right track was not so much the beginning of the phrase, "a sign, not to those who believe...", but the end of it, "but to unbelievers," (I Cor 14:22). 1 was looking for noon at twelve o'clock, but the answer was the preceding verse where Paul asks us to be mature men in our thinking (I Cor 14:20), quoting Isaiah, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak to this people." (I Cor 14:21). About which people was he speaking? The Jews. So it was a sign for the Jews, especially for the unbelieving Jews. It was for those Jews who did not want to believe in the salvation of the pagans (people of other languages), and who opposed it with all their might. Paul wrote of them, "hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved" (I Thess 2:16). Everything about this point became clear in an instant. At last I had discovered the purpose of this great sign! The entire Bible glowed with life and truth before my very eyes. The film of the Jews' fierce opposition against those who were not of their own race was projected before me.
Jonah
I could see Jonah who detested "the tongues" (the Ninevites) to the point of disobeying God. He fled to Tarshish rather than take the word of salvation to them. He argued with God. He preferred to see that immense metropolis perish rather than saved. For him, the LORD was the God of Israel, and no one else; at any rate not the God of these barbarian heathens! In his spite he went so far as to cry out for his own death. If Nineveh lived, Jonah wanted to die! He reproached God for the very thing that is His glory-that He is the Savior of men from every tribe and nation. This spirit of resistance and unbelief increased throughout the centuries. They belonged to Jehovah and Jehovah belonged to them. It was a closed circle and all outside of it were cursed. Any attempt for a spirit of brotherhood or even tolerance of people of other tongues caused them to bristle with uncontrollable hate. Death to heathen tongues and to those who speak them! Daring to suggest that people with a language other than their own could benefit from the goodness of God was to risk death (Luke 9:49; Acts 22:21,22). They led the Lord Jesus to the brow of a hill to cast Him down because He said, "But I say unto you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah ... and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon..." (Luke 4:24-26). And provoking them to greater wrath Jesus added, "And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian" (Luke 4:27). In their eyes that was enough! He deserved to be put to death. Even the Samaritans, although they were closely related to the Jews, did not escape their racist hatred. One day when Jesus was refused entrance to a Samaritan village, His own disciples asked, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" (Luke 9:54). Jesus had to reply, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:54 margin). Later, after having received the Holy Spirit, these believing Jews returned to those Samaritans asking not for heaven to baptize them with fire, but that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15).
Even the Apostles
This old idea was so engrained in them that the Jewish Christians had a hard time believing other tongues were included. When Peter was sent by the Holy Spirit to the home of Cornelius, and when all who were there were converted, all of the apostles did not see the event in the same light. Peter was reprimanded because he had preached the Good News to the Gentiles. He had to explain what had happened, how he had heard them speak in foreign languages in just the same way as they themselves had in the beginning (Acts 11:15). What a shock! The sign was for them. Here they had thought that their God could only accept Hebrew, and now His Holy Spirit was proclaiming His praises through the pagan tongues and peoples they had detested. With their heads still spinning from this revelation, they said to themselves with astonishment, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life!" (Acts 11:18). They could not get over it. The God of Israel was also the God of the Gentiles! They needed this sign in order to begin to admit it. But they were so hardened that they relapsed into their former way of thinking. It was second nature to them. A few years later this unfortunate state of mind showed up in the great Apostle Peter. We find the account in Galatians 2:11-14. It called for the intervention of an exceptional man, a contender for the faith like the Apostle Paul, to size up the situation quickly and stand up to them all (Gal 2:5).
Peter too!
Paul had to reprimand Peter severely because of his two-faced behavior. He was all the more reproachable because he, more than anyone else, had been made aware of the universality of the Gospel (Gal 2:11-14). If the new Jewish converts were not ready to believe that salvation extended beyond Israel, what could be expected of the fanatic unconverted Jews? The experience at Antioch illustrates this very well. When the Jews saw the crowd of Gentiles listening and receiving the Word of God, they were filled with jealousy and resisted Paul, contradicting and blaspheming him (Acts 13:45). Jonah's attitude had come a long way! When they heard Paul and Barnabas say, "I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the end of the earth" (Acts 13:47-50), the Jewish leaders stirred up persecution against them and expelled them from their city. From Antioch Paul and Barnabas went to Iconium, where the opposition was worse. "'Paul and Barnabas, GO HOME!" (Acts 14:5,6).
Moses told them so
This was the literal fulfillment of the prophecy given 1500 years earlier, "So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation" (Deut 32:21; Rom 10:19). This violent aversion to the Gentiles came from a long way back. A chosen people they were, but they misconstrued the God-given meaning of their calling. Their entire history was that of a nation distinct and separated from other peoples, tribes, nations and tongues. But separation from the evil ways, the idolatry and the abominations of these nations did not mean that they should nurse hate, contempt, pride and superiority. They had become more Catholic than the Pope himself, going so far as to reject all that was not of, for, or by themselves, and to imprison their Jehovah instead of revealing Himself to others. So when God revealed Himself to the Gentiles, the prophecy was fulfilled to the letter, annoying the Jews greatly. This jealousy was seen in Thessalonica where the angry Jews took with them evil men to the populace who provoked gatherings and stirred up riots all over the city (Acts 17:5). All of that because non-Jews, people of another tongue, believed in the Jew's own personal God but in a different way. The whole situation went against their grain.
On the Fortress steps
Things got worse when Paul returned to Jerusalem. What a thrilling account is given in the 22nd chapter of Acts! Paul the prisoner stood on the fortress steps, motioned to the crowd and asked to speak. As he speaks in Hebrew, silence falls upon the crowd. They all hold their breath waiting to hear what he has to say. Paul tells of his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road and of his conversion. The crowd hangs on his words. No one dares interrupt him. Motionlessly they listen to him speak of his past, of his titles, of his activities, of his zeal for the Jewish cause. He speaks to them about Jesus' appearance to him. He speaks to them about baptism, and still there is no reaction-not until he comes to this sentence: "And He said to me: I will send you far away to the Gentiles..." They listened until the word "Gentiles", but when Paul pronounced that word they raised their voices, threw off their cloaks and threw dust in the air saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!" (Acts 22:22). What caused them to explode like that? The idea that God could be the God of all mankind and of all tongues. That makes it easy to understand why God chose speaking in tongues to be the sign of this great truth, and why the unobtrusive phrase, "for this people" is so essential to understanding the purpose of tongues. Their unwillingness to believe that salvation was also open to the Gentiles drove the Jews to make a binding oath, swearing against themselves, that they would not eat until they had killed the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 23:12)-the one who spoke in the Gentiles tongues more than anyone else.
A Replay of Jonah
Jonah had done the same thing. He had refused to obey the LORD and went out to sit on the east side of the city and pouted, waiting for it to be destroyed. And there, under his vine, Jonah lamented because the punishment did not come. There he was, totally preoccupied with his own gruesome expectations, wishing for the death of a nation that God wanted to save. Jonah, who reproached God for saving Nineveh, was the spiritual father of the apostles-yes, you read it correctly-the unbelieving apostles who reproached Peter because he had announced the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3). Unbelievable! Spiritually speaking, they were all hard of hearing. Peter was too, even though he had experienced the extraordinary events that took place on the day of Pentecost. In spite of the fact that he had spoken in tongues that day, he needed the vision of the sheet descending from heaven full of all kinds of unclean animals before he was ready to go to people of other tongues. The Lord had to speak to him I three times before Peter could say, "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him" (Acts 10:34).
Everyone?
Only after Peter received the vision did he pronounce
the word everyone in a key phrase-one of the greatest of history.
"Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone
who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). The
words every one give me the opportunity to confess a 20-year old
error. I had overlooked a very important aspect of John 3:16. This verse,
known by millions of Christians the world over, hid a doctrinal truth that
I had not suspected. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "For God so loved..." Who?
... the world. A Jew would never have said such a thing. Not Jonah,
not Peter, nor anyone else. They all would have said, "For God so loved
ISRAEL." Already at this early point in His earthly ministry the Lord announced
the extent of His love-the entire world composed of tongues, peoples, tribes
and nations. On Jesus' cross the reason for His condemnation was inscribed
in three languages (John 19:20-Latin (the legal language), Greek (the commercial
language) and Hebrew (the religious language). Without their knowing it,
the authors of the title proclaimed the universality of the Gospel from
then on. This title carried in it the seed of the Great Commission which
rang out a few days later, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the
nations" (Matt 28:19), of all the tongues. The matter should have been
closed. But I am a die-hard and I wanted to finish my investigations. It
remained for me to learn...
When John wrote his epistle he included this phrase
which was so self-evident that, to me, it seemed superfluous, ".......
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for those of the whole world" (I John 2:2). Of course!
But it was not all that evident to the Jews. John, the apostle to the circumcision,
(that is to say to the Jews), had to remind them constantly that God's
forgiveness, purchased by Christ's death on the cross, was not just for
them but also for all the tongues of the entire world. In his writings
all the way through to Revelation, written 60 years after Pentecost, John
insisted again and again on this point. Many times he spoke of a New Song
in contrast with the Song of Moses. And what is the main theme of the Song
of Moses? The relationship between the LORD (Jehovah) and His chosen redeemed
people. He scarcely leaves this ground. It is the Old Covenant. And what
are the words of the New Song of the New Covenant? "Thou wast slain and
didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and
nation" (Rev 5:9). The Song of Israel did not go that far. This worldwide
concept eluded Israel. To understand it, they needed an interior enlightening
of the Holy Spirit and an exterior sign: speaking in tongues.
A Mystery
I went back to listen to Paul, the teacher of the Church. He explained in his letter to the Ephesians that Gentiles and Jews form one body and together share the same promise (Eph 3:6). For us in the twentieth century there is nothing mysterious in this, but sharing the same promises with the Gentiles was an entirely new and unexpected truth for the Jews. They could not fully understand it without the help of this sign, speaking in tongues, for the Jews seek miraculous signs (I Cor 1:22). The Jews, like Jonah, wanted men to be saved, but not all men and especially not the Gentiles; whereas, God wants all men to be saved (I Tim 2:4). Paul repeated this truth in different words in his letter to Titus, reminding him that God's grace is the source of salvation for all men (Titus 2:11). It wasn't at all evident for the new Jonahs of the New Testament so Paul had to repeat it over and over again to convince them. Between them and the Gentiles they had built a kind of Berlin wall. Paul demolished this shameful wall full of theological watchtowers: first of all by speaking by the Holy Spirit the tongues of those who were on the other side of that wall, and then by teaching them that Christ is peace for those on both sides of the wall. He told them that Christ made of the two one and that He destroyed the wall of separation and hostility. His purpose was to create in Himself one new man out of the two, making peace and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross by which He put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to those who were far away (the Gentiles), and peace to those who are near (the Jews), for through Him both of them have access to the Father by one Spirit (Eph 2:11-17). Hallelujah! With ecstasy Paul exclaims, "To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ" (Eph 3:8).
Alas, not everyone shared the conviction of this man Paul who had been baptized by the Spirit to form one body with all men, Jews and Greeks (I Cor 12:13). Their unrelenting opposition exposed them to the terrible baptism of fire. Paul wrote of them, "Hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost." (I Thess 2:16). Yes, these foreign tongues, proclaimers of so great a Gospel, sign of a new and worldwide convenant, would become a fire for them, a fire of judgment. The wrath of God would set them aflame like the chaff that is thrown to the fire (Matt 3:12).
The Purpose
To conclude this chapter, the purpose of speaking in tongues was very simply explained in a passage that I must have read fifty times more-the account of the day of Pentecost! It was all there. To the great question of these astonished people who wondered what in the world speaking in tongues meant, Peter answered simply with the Scriptures. He quoted the prophet Joel, "I will pour forth my Spirit upon all mankind" (verse 17), and "every one... who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (verse 21). Every one... all people... that is the answer! The purpose? To tell these stubborn Jews who come from all over the world that the Gospel was also for all people from all over the world. Thus Paul concluded, "So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers" (I Cor 14:22). Led by the Holy Spirit, Paul gave, with irrefutable exactitude, the identity of these unbelievers, specifically naming the Jews, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people..." (I Cor 14:21). In all the New Testament we find the gift of tongues used only in the presence of Jews to whom it was destined. Even when Gentiles spoke in tongues, the sign was for this people. It was for Jews and Jews alone, without exception. At this point I imagine that someone is asking, "But if the sign was for the Jews, why did Cornelius and those of his household speak in tongues?" The answer lies in the following passage. It was so that Peter could go back and tell his Jewish brethren who did not yet accept the Gentiles' right to salvation that "the Holy Spirit fell on them just as He did upon us at the beginning" (Acts 11: 15). When they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God" (Acts 11: 18). This last sentence shows to what extent preaching grace to the nations had stirred up the unbelieving Jews. But speaking in tongues was for "this people" the irrefutable sign that their God accepted foreign peoples as well as the pure children of Israel. By this exclamation we see that they were forced to admit, first with amazement and then with wonder, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). Cornelius was the sign bearer, but the sign was for "this people".
It seems there is a famous man in the Far West, a cowboy (a sort of western version of Robin Hood) played by Steve MacQueen. This Jos Rendal, up until then a suspect, was suddenly named sheriff in an emergency situation. But how could the county's citizens and especially the bandits, be brought to believe that his authority was not invalid, but, on the contrary, quite legal? The famous star, sign of his new calling and his good faith, was pinned on his chest.
In the same way Cornelius, with an unquestionable sign divinely "pinned" to his language (Acts 10:46), proved to unbelieving Israel that, Gentile though he was, he too had received the call to the heavenly vocation. He became a child of God just as did the converted Jews, as it is written, "He came to His own (things, possession, dominion), and those who were His own (the Jews) did not receive Him. But as many as received Him (such as Cornelius did), to them He gave the right to become the children of God" (John 1:11,12a).
The episode at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7), where twelve disciples suddenly spoke in tongues, is not an exception. These were not disciples of Christ, but Jews, disciples of John the Baptist who were baptized with his baptism which was for Jewish people.
So, believing in Christ, rebaptized in water in the
name of Jesus, and baptized by the Spirit, they became one body (I Cor
12:13) with the converted Gentiles to such an extent that the tongues of
these Gentiles miraculously took over their own tongues to praise the God
of Israel Who became, in their eyes, the God of the nations. They needed
the sign of speaking in tongues to teach them the worldwide dimension that
their Jehovah was now giving to His divine salvation.
What surprised me the most was the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ, our Divine Example, never spoke in tongues. He had the Holy Spirit without measure, and all the gifts, though apparently not this one. He didn't seem to miss it at all. He didn't speak about it, nor did He seem to pursue it. But if speaking in tongues is all that it is made out to be, and if it is as useful as I had heard, Jesus certainly would have needed it-He who prayed so much with weeping, who often fasted, and who preached salvation to the crowds, who wearied Himself healing the sick. This indisputable evidence of the total absence of speaking in tongues in the life of Jesus disappoints certain defenders of this doctrine to the point that, in order to save face, they are obliged to expose themselves to the twisting of the Scriptures to their own destruction (II Pet 3:16).
Here is what one says in an attempted answer to non-charismatics, "If Jesus Christ has never spoken in tongues it is because He was perfect, and being perfect, He had no need to edify Himself!"
To this skillful maneuver we answer by one simple question, "Why did the Lord, who was perfect, require that John the Baptist administer to Him the baptism of repentance since He had no need of repentance?"
He did it for us because we needed to know what was needful.
If, therefore, the divine Son of God never spoke in tongues it was because he knew that practically all of His Church would never have need of doing so.
If speaking in tongues had the renewing and restorative power that some believe it to have, Christ would have, more than anyone, needed it. He was often physically exhausted. So, why didn't Christ ever edify Himself by, speaking in tongues, I wondered? If speaking in tongues should be exercised in private, or among friends, why didn't He ever use it? Why didn't He pray in tongues when there were so many people coming to Him to be healed? Why didn't He link speaking in tongues to the casting out of demons if that were the best way to do it? Why didn't He sing in tongues when He climbed the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:26)? Why didn't He blend His voice with those of the angels when He saw them ascending and descending upon Him (John 1:51)? Why, I wondered, didn't He possess this gift? Why didn't He try to add this sign to the others for the good of His ministry?
Reading I Corinthians 12, I found nine gifts of the Spirit which are:
Faith
Healing
Miraculous powers
Prophecy
Discerning of spirits
Different kinds of tongues
Interpretation
Could it be that the people who were with Him had no need to see this sign, whereas they really needed all the others? Could Jesus really have the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit without having this one? Here, more than ever, my questions irritated those around me. I was some sort of "Jack-in-the-box" full of troublesome questions! They were just the kind that nobody wanted to answer.
Once again, I was reduced to calling upon God and waiting upon the Holy Spirit for an answer. The answer sprang out of the entire Scriptures and was in perfect harmony with the four Gospels.
The "Why" explained
Jesus rarely left the confines of Palestine. His Gospel did not go beyond the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans" (Matt 10:6). His ministry was only to the Jews, and excluded foreigners because the worldwide aspect of His teaching was still hidden. There was not yet any question of "peoples, tribes, nations, and tongues." Nothing, or almost nothing, in His words would allow us to have an inkling as to international scope of His work in the future.
The sign of tongues, therefore, had no reason for existing yet, nor any reason to be manifested. Up to this point there was nothing to irritate the Jews and make them jealous of the grace given to the Gentiles, for they had not yet been brought into the picture. Jesus only mentioned speaking in tongues one time at the very end of His ministry, when He said in Mark 16:17, "They will speak with new tongues". It is highly significant to notice that He says it in the flow of the preceding phrases, "Go into all the world..... It is the famous "...to every creature" that evoked the gift of speaking in tongues. The narrow limits of Jewish nationalism were going to break open. But the Lord knew that "this people" would do everything possible to keep the Good News from being announced to other peoples and in other tongues. At that time He would give to "this people" by His disciples the appropriate sign that He himself in His wisdom never desired, nor had the occasion to use. Still in harmony with what has been said, the inverse situation is seen in the Gentile cities of Athens and Malta. They were outside of the presence of "this Jewish people" who fiercely opposed their salvation. There, speaking in tongues was no longer necessary, not, any more than it is today, for "the Jewish people" is no longer a force against the salvation of the world.
It is so simple
The biblical explanation that speaking in tongues was a sign only for the Jews worried some of my best friends. They asked me, "How can you be sure that the "sign was not for unbelievers among the Gentiles?" The answer is simple. Two events in the New Testament had the same significance: Peter's vision in Acts 10 which gave him the green light to visit the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10:9-16), and the gift of speaking in tongues.
What was the meaning of the sheet let down from heaven full of unclean animals? What was the significance of these animals, unclean according to Moses' Law (Leviticus 11), which Peter would never have touched? Everybody knows. They represented all that was not Jewish, that is to say, peoples of other tongues. It is hard to imagine this vision being given to anyone but a Jew, for it was the Jews who needed to learn not to consider unclean those whom God had declared clean. Peter was personally edified by his vision which would in turn, edify others.
Speaking in tongues had exactly the same meaning. Peter, because he was a Jew and because of his natural unbelief in accepting the salvation of the Gentiles, needed such a vision. In the same way, other Jews who were also opposed to the salvation of the nations, needed a sign such as speaking in tongues. This sign, like the thrice repeated vision of Peter, taught them that their Jehovah's salvation (Acts 2:17,21) was henceforth for "whosoever", or "everyone", and for "all flesh", or all tongues. Some of my friends, who once thought that speaking in tongues was also for Gentiles, were confounded when I told them, "It is as if an English speaking person were to speak French miraculously by the Spirit right here. Would that prove to you that the Gospel could at last cross the Atlantic or the English Channel? Of course not! Everyone has known that for a long time. So the sign would be completely irrelevant for you." No, the Holy Spirit does not fight as a man beating the air (I Cor 9:26). Peter's vision was not continually repeated. It was seen three times successively and then "the sheet was taken back into heaven" (Acts 10: 16). The same thing happened to the gift of tongues. As Saint Augustine clearly states, "... This happened to announce something, (that the Gospel was to be announced to the ends of the earth), then disappeared." (See St. Augustine Chap 9). Is it necessary to speak the Eskimo's tongue to establish the fact once and for all that they are clean in God's eyes? Hudson Taylor and all the missionaries with him never needed the sign of tongues to realize with apostolic amazement (Acts 11:18) that God also loved the Chinese, and that He accepted them as well as their language. Christians in the world today do not need Peter's vision, nor speaking in tongues, nor anything else of this nature to convince them of this great truth. It is no longer disputed.
Similarities
I mentioned before that the vision of Peter and the speaking of tongues were one and the same thing. It must be understood that the contents are the same, only the presentation is different. Taking into account this difference of presentation, we discover between the two signs very remarkable points in common, which are not found in any other gifts of the Spirit.
If speaking in tongues is still for our time, then the same applies to Peter's vision. If the first sign should be sought then should the second? But who in our present-day church, composed as it is of all peoples, nations, tribes and languages, needs to be told repeatedly by a sign that salvation is for all peoples, nation, tribes and languages?
In conclusion then, the vision of impure animals taught Peter the Jew exactly the same thing that the speaking in tongues conveyed to the Jews who were unwilling to believe it; that the way of salvation, the access to the God of Israel, was henceforth open to foreigners and barbarians whose language was miraculously spoken by the Holy Spirit.
Based on the unmoving rock of the Holy Scriptures, I maintain with the Apostle Paul that speaking in tongues, as well as Peter's vision, was for this people (I Cor 14:21). These Jews not only despised other tongues and refused to believe (I Cor 14:21) in their salvation, but also reached the height of their sin by hindering anyone from preaching to the Gentiles (I Thess 2:16).
A difficult Exegesis
In I Corinthians 14:22 the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, tells us that the sign of speaking in tongues was not for believers, but for unbelievers. Then he turns around in the very next verse and says just the opposite! On the surface it looks as though the Holy Spirit is contradicting Himself when He says, "if, therefore, the whole church should assemble together and all speak in tongues, and men unversed in spiritual gifts or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" (I Cor 14:24). No one ever untangled this inextricable paradox for me. It is true that if the non-believers of verses 22, 23 and 24 are indiscriminately from Israel or from the Gentiles, the contradiction remains. But the problem disappears if you accept that Paul had two kinds of non-believers in view.
Blindness
I have also noted with astonishment to what extent the Enemy blinds the spiritual intelligence of certain Christians on this point of doctrine which is so easily grasped. Recently I questioned three persons young in the faith and of a very low level of instruction. After this, I repeated the experience with three children of 8 and 9 years of age. I read to them very slowly the account of Peter's vision in Acts chapter 10. I asked them to tell me what they had understood. With several excusable hesitations all of them gave me the correct answers which can be thus summed up: by the vision Peter understood that he could go and proclaim salvation to the gentiles.
If those without instruction, as well as children without knowledge, have understood the import of the sign given to Peter, why are older Christians who claim to be animated by the Holy Spirit, Who is to "guide us into all the truth", incapable of grasping the import of this other similar sign which is that of speaking in tongues?
It should be noted that, in the expression, "speaking in tongues", the word "tongues", which explains it all, is found; while in Peter's vision, which means the same thing, the word "tongues" is not found. As I see it, only a spirit of blindness can take from their minds that which is self-explanatory.
Why have so many among God's people become incapable of grasping the explanations of the Holy Spirit, Who says to us, for example, that:
1. "one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God" (I Cor 14:2).
2. This sign was not for believers (I Cor 14:22).
3. This sign was for the unbelievers among the Jews (I Cor 14:21, 22).
These passages are easier to understand than is John 3:16 or Romans 3:23, and yet they do not understand them.
Dare I say that they do not want to understand them lest they be "converted and healed" of their error?
Why to the Jews only?
In the face of my insistence to believe with Saint Paul that speaking in tongues, like the vision of Peter, was for "this people" (the Jews), someone asks with irritation, "Why to the Jews only?" Because the Holy Spirit teaches us in Romans 9:4 that to the Jews belong the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises.
The Savior came to them and for them first of all.
The apostles were Jews. In fact, the Church at the beginning was Jewish.
Everything was in Jewish hands. Now, the most favorably disposed among
them, Peter being the first, would have kept themselves from sharing this
marvelous Good News with foreigners whom they classed as being of barbarous
tongues. Speaking in these detested foreign tongues, and the vision of
Peter, have been the two signs by which God wished to convince this
people (the Jews) of the universal character of the Gospel. He wanted
by this means to lead them to believe this great mystery that in Christ
Jesus the Gentiles (the tongues) were made one with them (the believing
Jews) in one and the same body (Eph 3:16). Both signs meant that
and nothing but that.
In my personal experience it was the Apostle Paul himself, who gave me such a hard time with his implacable, Spirit-inspired logic. But there were still two points of resistance in my mind: one a big blockhouse and the other, a tiny fort. The blockhouse was a line of the Scripture which left me a glimmer of hope that Paul's absolute "does not speak to men" might have been watered down, though ever so slightly, by his quotation from the Old Testament, "I shall speak to this people..." (I Cor 14:21). I thought that since it was to unbelievers that God spoke by the gift of tongues, then the message must have been for men. My hope was short-lived, for my blockhouse was mined and it blew up all by itself. Of course God spoke to the Jews by this sign. But if the sign spoke to them, the words of this sign were for God, and God alone. One day an army general invited me to his office to speak to him about my faith. When I arrived, several people were already in the waiting room. I was the first to be called in. My interview was conducted with the general alone but my immediate entrance was a sign for the others of the honor bestowed on me. And so it is with the sign of tongues. Pagan tongues, having been granted this privilege, were henceforth admitted into the private chambers of the King of kings. It was to God only that they were addressed, but this gift was very significant for the others.
Lining it all up
When I had only an immature understanding of the Bible, I was satisfied with vague opinions. I floated down the stream of commonly accepted ideas without taking the time to examine the Scriptures to see if what I heard was exact (Acts 17:11).
Taking the passage on Pentecost as a basis, I unthinkingly accepted the teaching that tongues were given to communicate a message directly to men. In this case, the foreigners had such diverse tongues that a linguistic miracle had been necessary for them to hear what God wanted to say. I had been told that one single language would not have been sufficient; therefore the miracle of tongues was necessary. But when I opened my Bible, I was shocked to discover that it was not the Gentiles who were in Jerusalem at Pentecost, but Jews (Acts 2:4, 14) who had come from other countries and who spoke Aramaic as well as their mother tongue! If it were just a question of preaching to men, why was it necessary to have so many tongues (verse 15), especially when it was evident from these verses which follow that one would have been sufficient? If we want to find a message for men, we should look for it in Peter's preaching, not in the speaking in tongues. The passage clearly shows that everyone understood what Peter said, not in tongues, but in one language. The fact that everyone understood Peter's tongue means that it was perfectly superflous to add fifteen other languages. One was sufficient. What, then, was the reason for the fifteen others?
The answer which helped me to line up all these ideas was to be found in the inspired writings of Paul where he says, "...anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God." (I Cor 14:2). In accordance with Luke's account in Acts 2, those men spoke to God in fifteen tongues to serve as a sign for the Jews (I Cor 14:21), in particular those coming from the fifteen countries mentioned in the passage. This sign showed them that access to God was no longer their private prerogative, that the Lord no longer preferred Hebrew to barbarian tongues, and that they were no longer to consider unclean that which God declared pure (Acts 10:15).
My second Line of Defense
At this point I tried to defend my little fort. I say "little" because it was outside the Bible. It was the fort of experience which, when you come down to it, is talked about now-a-days more than the Word of God itself. However, nothing is to be dealt with more prudence and wariness than experience. That is why I did not want to rely on experience as an argument in this book. It is too much like quicksand.
On my desk I have two kinds of books. The first kind, through a profusion of anecdotes, relates testimonies stacking up evidence that speaking in tongues is indeed a message addressed to men. The other, through a lot of counter-testimonies demystifies the whole affair. But in this area of experiences and anti-experiences, both sides are about equal. I will therefore stick with the principle "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone). Through speaking in tongues, prophecies have concerned me personally. Of course, I am not the only one who has shared this experience. Some can positively affirm that what was said was true and actually came about. Such experiences are undeniable. I have a friend who told me, "I heard a prophecy in tongues that had to do with me, and it came true!" We have all heard this kind of "truth". Since the prophecy was fulfilled, we assume that heaven has spoken. But can we really be sure? Heaven also speaks through the Scriptures and the Scriptures contradict this experience. Experience claims that the gift of tongues is heaven speaking to men, whereas the Bible says that it is men speaking to heaven (I Cor 14:2). Who is right, God or experience? Job seems to have faced this dilemma for he says (in French versions), "I bent my will to the words of thy mouth." (Job 23:12). Experience! We find it everywhere in life, but it does not prove much of anything.
Even the Occult!
You know, the horoscope is not always wrong! Millions of people are ready to testify to it. That is experience. In Marseille the walls of the chapel of Notre Dame de la Garde are covered with small plaques attesting to miraculous answers to prayer. That is experience. Jeanne Dixon has predicted some amazingly true happenings; for example, the assassination of John E Kennedy. Do the crutches hanging on the walls of the grotto in Lourdes accredit the doctrine of Mary's intercession for believers? Divination can locate a lost object hundreds of miles away simply by holding a pendulum over a road map. That is experience. And when a diviner diagnoses your illness without examining you, doesn't that prove the validity of the experience? Thousands of people believe and practice these things because the reality of experience hinders them from seeing the occult and divinatory side of them.
Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone)
But, I kept reminding myself, it is in the light of biblical and spiritual experiences that our search for the truth takes place! "Thy Word is truth." (John 17:17) kept coming to mind. Once outside the Word of God, Satan can furnish all the experiences we want. He can easily disguise himself as an angel of light (II Cor 11:24) and tell us all kinds of truths. If we believe that wherever truth is found no matter how little, it is the Holy Spirit speaking, what must we think of Acts 16? There, in the city of Philippi, a young girl with an extraordinary gift of prophecy began to follow two men whom she had never met before. She cried out to anyone who would listen that these men were servants of God and were announcing salvation (Acts 16:17). That was experience too. But it was a demon speaking, and Paul had do drive him out. As long as this slave girl could utter these truths she was held by the spirit of error. It was not until she could not say anything more that she was in the Spirit of truth!
Pharaoh also
Experiences! Pharaoh had all he could want of them. His magicians changed water to blood, multiplied frogs, and changed staffs into snakes (Exodus 7). It was true. It was genuine. True also were the experience and testimony of the women in Jeremiah 44:17,18 who claimed, "When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven, we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine..." Who can beat that? But what determines if something is true or false, our personal testimony or the Word of God? When God declares that he who speaks in tongues does not address men, must we renounce this part of God's Word or the testimony contradicting this Word? I was forced to make a choice between "experience" and the Bible. It was not easy, but I finally chose to side with the Scriptures and against these pseudo-testimonies. It is up to you who are reading these lines to make your own choice.
Not to Men but to God (I Cor 14:2)
From there it was relatively easy to pass from doctrine to verification. With my mania to check out everything with the Scriptures, the opportunity was soon to be found. The guinea pig turned out to be one of my best friends, an enthusiastic pastor who invited me to preach several messages in his church. He told me about a woman in the church who, in a private conversation with him, had spoken in tongues. "In what she said," he explained, "I discerned a message for myself." The opportunity was ideal. I simply asked him, "How do you reconcile the idea of a message addressed to you personally with the biblical statement that 'For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God'? (I Cor 14:2) You are not God." It was like hitting him over the head. He was without a reply. He had just discovered a text that he had never seen before, or that he had never taken time to examine. I was embarrassed and felt sorry for him. I didn't tell him that these tongues addressed to men smelled of sulfur. I didn't tell him either that it was a trick or a hoax. I let him find out for himself that he was up against an obvious counterfeit. Everyone knows that, counterfeiting in other areas is liable to punishment. Is it less serious in spiritual things?
What should we think of all these experiences of tongues which express a prophecy or an exhortation or a revelation-that is to say, a message to men, and which are, therefore, in open contradiction to the teaching of the Holy Spirit? How can we fail to recognize that they are counterfeits? Another friend, also pastor of an Assembly of God church, understood this truth and asked his church to apply it. He and his church were expelled from the denomination to which they belonged. When I mentioned this to another pastor friend, he did not seem very surprised. He was aware of the problem. He told me, "When this teaching of Paul began to circulate in our assemblies it was a veritable bomb. We could not accept it because we would have had to admit that all that happened in our Assemblies was FALSE." In other words, in order to make error seem as true as possible it should not be stopped! Tradition often takes priority over the Word of God. The history of the Church through the centuries demonstrates this in a humiliating and painful way.
The Martyrdom of a Text
Torture is a shameful practice which continues, alas, even in our civilized societies today. It was even used on textes of the Bible. Tormentors are ready to use any means available to disfigure and cut Bible textes to pieces so that they seem to confess the opposite of their essential meaning, the opposite of what they really say.
Let me insert a short parenthesis here that will be very helpful to us. No teaching of Paul's is clearer or more irrefutable than when he says, "There is one God and one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ..." (I Tim 2:5). He is saying that since there is only one God there can only be one mediator, Jesus, and no one else. The Roman Catholic Church modifies this truth completely by holding it in light of the wedding of Cana in particular (John 2:1-10). Because Mary pointed out to her Son that the guests had no more wine, the following miracle is credited to Mary's glory, making her the Mediatrix of all graces. In doing this, the apostles' teaching is short-circuited and thus nullified.
Under such duress, biblical texts will confess to anything, and mediators, great and small, will soon become legion. I am sorry to find the same procedure used by people from whom I have expected a more rigorous consideration of the Holy Scriptures. I must say, however, and this to the credit of my Pentecostal brothers, not one of them denied that speaking in tongues in Acts 2 was addressed to God and not to men. But Paul's clear affirmation that "anyone who speaks in a tongue speaks to God and not to men" (I Cor 14:2) is drowned out by voices trying to establish the contrary. Just as the passage relating the wedding at Cana has been used by Rome to color, annul and weaken the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, the passage in Acts 2 is being used to explain Paul's doctrine. Just the opposite ought to be done.
Slow-motion Movie Camera
I would like to look at the "triple manipulation of Acts" in slow motion.
First trial: "If the phenomenon of speaking in tongues was only addressed to God, it certainly would have been confined to the dimensions of the Upper Chamber."
First answer: In all big meetings, whether it be on the day of Pentecost or in our own times, prayers to God are not, imprisoned in some secret place. Prayers, praise and thanksgiving are addressed to God as publicly and as, visibly as our preaching is addressed to the crowds.
Second trial: "Since what they said was understood, the apostles must have been speaking to men."
Second answer: In mass meetings both then and now, everyone understands what is said in prayer, and yet prayers are obviously addressed to God!
Third trial: "They proclaimed, speaking out loud and did not whisper."
Third answer: This is the case with all our public prayers, whether they be offered in churches, on the radio, on television or out-of-doors. They are just as audible as our preaching. The fact that our prayers are addressed to God does not keep us from adding the necessary decibels with amplifiers so that they can be heard and understood by those to whom we are not actually addressing the prayer!
A Necessary Precision
Contrary to what is often hastily assumed, the tongues on the day of Pentecost did not convert anyone. Similar in essence to the prayers of praise and thanksgiving today, it was simply a declaring of the wonders of God (Acts 2: 11) and uttering the mysteries of God (I Cor 14:2). Of course, that captured the crowd's attention for what would follow. But the thing that brought them to repentance and faith was Peter's message which was not in tongues. If speaking in tongues had been a message for men, then why did Peter preach afterward? Hadn't the crowd asked, "What does this mean?" (Acts 2:12), showing that speaking in tongues was meaningless to them. It was the message that followed that gave them the key to this sign, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people..." (Acts 2:17), on all flesh, or in other words, on all tongues, all tribes and all people. So we see that the gift of tongues raised a question without giving an answer, whereas Peter's message gave the answer and brought the crowd back to its senses. "They were pierced in their heart..." (Acts 2:37) and were converted as we see in the rest of the passage.
These thousands of Jews who, saved through Peter's message, were able to return to their own countries witnessing to salvation in Jesus Christ. At the same time they could affirm before the Jews in their homelands that people of other tongues were also to be saved, that they now had equal access to their Jehovah, and that because of this they would become brothers. Certainly they had not yet understood the extent of this great mystery, but the sign of tongues prepared them to accept the penetration of the Gospel into the Gentile world and not to oppose it as would certain other Jews. These first converts who were naturally opposed to the salvation of the Gentiles, would never forget the memorable hour when God the Holy Spirit spoke barbarous tongues for the first time. The sign was luminous. God accepted them to the point of even speaking in their tongues. From now on the Jews are going to have to put up with this fact. Whether it pleased them or not, God had decided in His sovereignty to unite in one body, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Jews and people of foreign tongues (I Cor 12:13). Speaking in tongues was the only adequate sign.
A Choice
In the back of my mind I have stored a painful memory of the day when my neighbor, an experienced Assembly of God pastor, asked me to participate in a debate on speaking in tongues. His opponent was a full-time minister within the Darbyist (Brethren) assemblies. Each one had his open Bible on the table. I thought that my pastor friend was very well versed in his own doctrine, but he really lacked weight. His arguments were swept away as if by a tornado. His opponent knew the Scriptures so well that I wondered if he had swallowed a Bible. I had the impression of being with Stephen whose opponents were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking." (Acts 6:10). I do not remember the arguments which disarmed my friend - and drove him into a corner, for I was too inexperienced to assimilate them at the time. But then he did and said something which really struck me. I shall never forget it. He closed his Bible, and putting it aside, said, "Biblically you are right, but I cannot deny experience!" This scene stayed with me for a long time. It was all there in his gesture and his words. The Bible was put aside and Experience was given first place. My friend had been beaten on his own ground, forced to recognize the truth. But to keep up a good front he had to choose between Experience and the Bible, to deny the one and keep the other. It was the Bible which was sacrificed for Experience. This far reaching subjectivity has invaded all levels of Christianity-subjectivity which gets rid of whatever bothers it, even if it is the Word of God, while putting a nice biblical label on its experiences. It is pulled off very smoothly. New converts and those with no biblical foundation are easily fooled.
On the way home I was sad for my friend and would have liked to have been able to console him. But he didn't seem bothered in the least. He was happy and relaxed. After all, he had his Experience and he was satisfied. He reminded me of the Catholic priest who once told me, "If the Bible does not speak of purgatory, that does not bother me. Our church believes in it and that is enough for me." Just as the Church holds the place of divine authority in teaching for the priest, so does Experience hold for this pastor a place higher than that of the Scripture itself. The one has his "Church" as Authoratative Teacher, while the other has his "Experience" as Authoratative Teacher.
More Experiences
In this area of experiences, I enjoyed the story of how several people were converted by listening to an interpretation of speaking in tongues that had been addressed to them personally. I thought, "Error cannot convert men to Truth. Since their experience led them to God, it must have come from God." This was apparently very logical, but it was not satisfactory. I discovered that the people of Philippi in Greece could have been saved by what the young slave, indubitably possessed with a demon, said about Paul and Silas, "These men are servants of the most high God who are telling you the way to be saved." (Acts 16:17). This woman while victim and servant of Satan, was also bearer of the pure truth. It took all the spiritual discernment of Paul to unveil the confusion. But can this truth, coming from the very depths of Hell, give credit to occultism? I have met Christians who have been brought to the Bible by Jehovah's Witnesses. But their salvation, initiated by the Jehovah's Witnesses, can in no way justify the false doctrines of this erroneous sect.
The Apostle Paul tells us that certain people preached the Gospel by envy and rivalry, trying to stir up trouble for him. This preaching must have brought forth fruit because Paul says, "Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice.."(Phil 1:15-18). Can the results recommend those evil motivations? Can we justify that kind of shameful preaching in the name of the results it produced?
Behold the Opera!
I knew a servant of God who was saved in a theater. He had heard a quotation from the Bible and was gripped in his heart by the Spirit of God. There, where he was, he gave his life over to God. Not only did he never go back to the theater, but he never sent anyone there to be saved. Does the end justify the means? I am afraid that there is this worldly spirit that prevails with certain Christians.
John Bost, the founder of the "Asiles de la Force" at Bergerac in France, was a pastor's son. He went to the opera to see a play. There he was touched by the Spirit of God. He rushed out quickly, going to his room, fell on his knees and gave himself to God. If the Opera can produce such lovely fruit why doesn't the path of consecration go through a theater box? Sacrilege! But now, wasn't this precisely the principle which I tried to defend when I wanted to justify speaking in tongues because of some rare good results? One day a friend of mine, a Colonel of the Salvation Army, came back from Africa and paid a visit to our worship service and there he praised the Lord in Lingala, a West African dialect. Then came an interpretation which had nothing to do, in any way, with what had just been said in his prayer. Now this imposture was biblical in that the pseudo (would-be) interpretation was as evangelical as the words of the slave girl in Acts 16. Someone in the audience could have very likely taken this interpretation for himself, but it would take a spirit other than the Holy Spirit to go so far as to justify such a counterfeit!
The Unusual
While I was not yet enlightened on this subject, I had already noticed that for certain people, speaking in tongues easily became uncontrollable. They were sliding into practices that would have been severely reprimanded by the Apostle Paul. In the same manner, a brother who believed he had a gift of healing, or who wanted it at any price, told me that he accompanied his laying on of hands with speaking in tongues. Strange. I wondered in what part of the Bible he had found an example to justify this practice. Another gave special importance to speaking in tongues when he prayed for people possessed by evil spirits. According to him, a seance of exorcism with speaking in tongues became that much more effective. Stranger than strange. Others, of whom their conversion was not beyond doubt (this being said without a judgmental spirit) were only sure of having their sins forgiven and of being saved because they spoke in tongues.
I saw that the ways used were different and certainly
innovative, but all lacked the counsel of the Word of God. Is it not possible
that the Apostle Paul, who condemned speaking in tongues outside of a prescribed
pattern (unbelieving Jews and with interpretation), would have protested
loudly at such deformations? (I Cor 14:19) Would he have not repeated what
he said to the Corinthians? "Brethren, be not children in understanding:
howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men. Wherefore
tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe
not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them
which believe." (I Cor 14:20,22).
Let me go back to a point I have already made. According to Paul, speaking in tongues is a sign for the unbelieving Jews and not for Gentiles, for the Holy Spirit said, "I will speak to this people ..." (I Cor 14:2). Having established this point, I did not want to go back and lay the foundation again, but, on the contrary, to start building on it. One thing very naturally led to another and I ended up with a troubling conclusion. The more I tried to clarify my convictions, the more entangled they seemed to become. I thought to myself, "Now that the Church is mainly composed of Gentiles, its universality is no longer an issue. So what is the use of this Sign today and for whom is it given? Centuries have gone by since anyone needed this sign to convince him that salvation is open to People of different tongues-French, Swiss, English, Chinese, Zulu, etc. No one has contested this truth for centuries. So...!?"
This rigorous logic drove me to the very conclusion I wanted to avoid. Like a trapped rabbit I strangled myself in my furious struggle. Everyone with whom the Holy Spirit has dealt knows that He will not let go until there is surrender. Jeremiah had the same experience. He fought against God until he finally said, "You Persuaded me and I was persuaded; You overpowered me and prevailed" (Jer 20:7).
The Apostle Paul, master of biblical logistics, who spoke in tongues more than anyone else, who expounded its doctrine and its limits, also had to announce its end. All good things come to an end, at least in this world here below. It is as logical as eliminating secondary railroads when there are no longer any passengers. So Paul was moved by the Holy Spirit to write, "if there are tongues, they will cease..." (I Cor 13:8).
To retain a sign that no longer meant anything to anyone would have been like keeping detour signs on a highway where the road work has long since ceased.
I found that the New Testament traces a gradual decrease which is both significant and troublesome:
1. In Acts 2-They shall speak in tongues
2. In I Corinthians 12-All do not speak in tongues
3. In I Corinthians 13-Tongues will cease.
That is the Question!
Yes, tongues will cease, but when? That is the question! Up to this point I had lost a battle or two in fact three. I had ultimately admitted, according to Bible teaching:
Saint Augustine
Meanwhile, I did some research to see what history might contribute, though approaching it warily because of the way it is sometimes written. What I hoped to find in the writings of the early Church Fathers was not to be found. John Chrysostom and Saint Augustine (354-430) both wrote in their commentaries on the Scriptures that the gift of tongues had already disappeared in their day. Here is what Augustine said in his Homilies on the First Epistle of John:
"They were appropriate signs for that time, destined to announce the coming of the Holy Spirit to humans of all tongues, showing that the Gospel of God should be announced to all the tongues of the earth. This sign appeared to announce something and then disappeared."
So what had taken me so much time and effort to discover had been written by Saint Augustine some 1700 years ago! His teaching, which I discovered by myself in my own turn, is self-evident. The Early Church and even the Apostolic Church before that, were made up less and less of Jews and more and more of people of different tongues, and consequently were more and more convinced of the universal offer of salvation. Once this had been fully accepted, there was no one left to be convinced of the fact that God so loved "the world", that Jehovah was not just the God of Israel, but also the God of the nations. Therefore the "charisma" (gift) which was a sign of this truth, as well as the practice of this gift, had no more reason to exist. So God withdrew it. He did the same thing with the divinely inspired writers of His Word. More than nineteen centuries have passed since John wrote the Revelation, and no one else has had the "charisma" (gift) of adding to the Scriptures. God withdrew this gift. There are, of course, some stubborn people like Joseph Smith, the supposedly inspired author of the book of the Mormons! Receiving and writing the New Testament was made possible by a gift of the Spirit, and yet it did not continue. Everyone, except for a few illuminated people, is of the same opinion. Everyone, including my Pentecostal brothers.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit
The teaching that speaking in tongues was an unquestionable sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit was shaken to its foundation. The only thing that the sign of speaking in tongues confirmed was that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was truly the entrance of Jews and non-Jews into the Body of Christ. This is what Paul says, "For by one Spirit we were all, both Jews and Greeks, baptized into one body" (I Cor l2:12). Why? This was the question that formulated in my mind. The answer was there, right in front of me. "....Baptized into one body" (I Cor 12:13). To those who did not believe or were opposed to the entrance of the Greeks into the body of Christ, the sign of speaking in tongues confirmed it. I was turned completely around when I saw that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was entirely different from what I had thought. I had been taught, told and retold that access to the gifts of the Spirit was acquired by this baptism.
Now the only verse in the Bible that speaks of this baptism tells me that it was to place Jews and Greeks together into one body.
Had I Read it Correctly?
I had to read this verse several times to be sure that I had read it correctly. So it was to this end that the baptism was given, "...baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks" (I Cor 12:13), that is, to form one body of Jews and Greeks. I, at last, understood that by this "baptizing" the Holy Spirit took away the hostility between these people, tore down the separation that divided them and kept them apart. He melted them into a new people, a new body: the Church itself.
Just as different grapes from different plants can be united in one cup of blessing for the Communion service, so the winepress of the Holy Spirit unites men of different tongues to receive one unique hope (Eph 4:4-6). What a blessing to be a part of these great meetings where people of different races, different colors and different cultures sing together the praises of the Lord. That is what Paul calls the baptism of the Holy Spirit, "... by one Spirit... into one body, whether Jews or Greeks", and I would like to add, whether French or English or Spanish or African... Hallelujah! We were ourselves the sign, the evidence of the entrance of the tongues into God's International Church.
A Jeopardized Duel
As you can see, I have the nature of a fencer. I like to make points. But in my duel with the Apostle Paul, he was scoring more points than I was. To keep my honor, I could see that I needed to tighten up my defense and make a point or two of my own. As it was, Paul and the "antis" had advanced too far into my territory. It was time to counter attack with my surprise tactics that I reserved for such occasions. I had one more trick up my sleeve and more than one string on my bow. All right, so the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but when? In the same passage Paul says that knowledge and prophecies will also cease (I Cor 13:8). Touche! If the first two have not ceased, why should the third one have disappeared? Touche! Doesn't it seem rather arbitrary to eliminate one and keep the others? Touche! I crossed swords with an "anti" about this and was sure that I would lay him out on the ground. But I was out of luck. He was a real Musketeer. The blow with which I intended to floor him failed and in a minute I found myself skewered like a roasting chicken. He had me over the fire.
Knowledge and Prophecy
I very quickly came to understand that before the New Testament had been written, when neither knowledge nor Bible prophecy had been sealed in holy writing, a spontaneous word of knowledge (understanding) and an equally spontaneous prophetic exhortation (I Cor 12:8) were often given by the Holy Spirit in the meetings of the Primitive Church. Paul refers to this when he says, "you have heard about...the mystery made known to me.. You will be able to understand my insight (knowledge) into the mystery of Christ..." (Eph 3:3,4). But when knowledge and prophecy were confined to the New Testament writings, these two gifts (charismas) also came to an end. From then on "Knowledge" and "Prophecy" took on another character. They became commentaries, an explanation or an interpretation which cannot add anything to what has already been written. Their "inspiration" is not the same as that of the New Testament writings. Otherwise they would have to be added to the Bible. That is what the Mormons have done with the tablets of Joseph Smith. They are made of gold, if you please! They are authoritative for the Mormons, but only for them. Other religions have their inspired prophets or infallible leaders. That is one of the characteristics of a sect. These writings are placed on the same level as the Bible and even manage to eclipse the Bible's authority and teachings. There are prophets such as Agabus who predicted a famine (Acts 11:22), but they have nothing in common with those that Paul mentioned when he said, you are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Knowledge and prophecy are part of the foundation to which no one can add anything more. Every Christian can say with Paul that Knowledge and Prophecy will cease. And they did cease when the last line was written by the author of Revelation. Dr. Scofield puts it this way, "The New Testament prophet was not merely a preacher, but an inspired preacher through whom, until the New Testament was written, new revelations suited to the new dispensation were given." This is what is meant by the expression "...when that which is perfect is come..." (I Cor 13: 10). The finished and completed writing of the Word of God is the ultimate of perfection. It is written, "I have seen a limit to all perfection; Thy commandment (Word) is exceedingly broad" (Ps 119:96).
The Blind Leading the Blind
Along with many others, I was convinced that the end of tongues was linked with I Corinthians 13:10, "But when the perfect is come...". I had heard it repeated so many times that I believed it without checking it out. After all, if it was written, it must be true. It was so evident. But a shadow of doubt came over me and I decided to read for myself what the Holy Spirit had to say on this subject. What a shock! It wasn't my Musketeer who dealt the final blow, but Paul himself. I realized with indignation that I had been duped once again . As a matter of fact, nowhere in the Bible does the Holy Spirit say that the gift of tongues will cease when that which is perfect is come. By simply, unhurriedly reading God's Word, I discovered the error. Everything was clearly written in these verses that are often misquoted and used for dishonest ends. When I reread I Corinthians 13:8-10, I found... well, let's took at it together. First of all, let's take a look at verse 8. "...but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away." That is very clear. The following two verses will now tell us what will pass away when that which is perfect is come. Let's carefully read verse 9. "For we know (knowledge) in part, and we prophesy in part," But where are tongues? They are not in the verse. I am afraid that we are the ones who put them into this verse in order to believe that they would remain at least until that which is perfect is come. In other words, the disappe