tonguesbmoorewritings

Tongues?

by Elder Brian Moore

The purpose of this article is to examine the current "tongues" movement that is being promoted and advocated by the leaders of the Charismatic movement. Today one can hardly turn on the television without hearing a television evangelist begging for money to do the "work of God." The airwaves have become so inundated with this heresy that many consider it to be the Christian view on the "Great Commission" and take it for granted that it corresponds with the biblical teaching. Whereas in fact it does not, that however is another article and hopefully will be addressed in the future. The point being that just as this is being accepted as the norm, so are the speaking in tongues. One would be hard pressed to find a television evangelist today that does not or has not introduced this practice into his ministry. The key terminology here is that "they" have introduced this practice into their ministry. Today, among the many charismatic "preachers" that grace television screens throughout the world, the use of tongues is considered a major recruiting tool to the addition of their ministry. Throughout the course of this article I hope to address several questions regarding this movement and it's anti-biblical stance.

Question one: What are biblical tongues?

The biblical support to this answer can be found in many scriptures throughout the bible. It is needful for one to understand that there is no confusion regarding the biblical definition of tongues, the bible clearly states that a tongue is a language. The following scriptures can be used in support of this fact:

And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. Acts 2:4,6

... I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Acts 26:14

... and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Ezra 4:7

... whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. Daniel 1:4

... whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Revelation 9:11

Therefore, it is rather clear that when the bible speaks of tongues it is referring to a language.

Question two: If a tongue is a language, then what language do the followers of the modern tongue movement speak?

They do not speak any language known to man. The speaking which takes place is of some ecstatic gibberish, which cannot be deciphered. Readers of ancient history are aware that this exact thing was very common among many pagan religions.

Question three: If they do not speak in a language that is known of man. Then do they speak in another tongue or a second type of tongue?

Many who practice the use of tongues often argue that the bible speaks of two types of tongues and that the one they speak with needs no interpreter, which was the case in the book of Acts. This however is incorrect, and a careful study will reveal that the bible does not teach of two types of tongues but only one type of tongue,..languages. In the book of Acts 2:4-6 we read "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. " The reason the tongues did not need to be interpreted, in the book of Acts, is because the "men, out of every nation under heaven" heard them speak in their own language. They heard the Apostles speak in a language which they understood, therefore there wasn't any need for an interpretation, as each man heard in his own tongue.

In the book of 1st Corinthians chapter 14 the person or persons speaking in an unknown tongue were doing so to the local members of the Corinthian Church. The members of that church being of Corinth, spoke the Corinthian tongue. Upon hearing someone speaking in an unknown tongue they became confused because none present could interpret the language. Therefore, an interpreter was needful in this instance but was not needful in the above account in the book of Acts. In fact the same thing took place in both places, languages were spoken, the only difference is that when they were spoken in Corinth an interpretation was needful for the edification of the church. With careful consideration one can clearly see that the bible does not speak of different types of tongues but rather only one type of tongue,.languages.

Question four: Does not the bible teach that there is a tongue of Angels?

The bible does mention the two words in a verse but it is a clear misrepresentation of the text to assume that this is what is being discussed. In 1 Corinthians 13:1we read,

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." Many followers of the charismatic movement misquote this verse. Their argument suggests that they are speaking with the tongue of angels. However, we must remember that a tongue is a language and that tongues (plural) means more than one language. The verse says "with the tongues of men and of angels." which indicates that man has a variety of tongues (languages) as also do angels. Paul is stating that even if he spoke in many tongues (languages) like some men do or if he spoke in many tongues (languages) like angels do and does not have charity that he is just making noise. The term "angels" in this verse may or may not refer to heavenly host, this is to be addressed in a further article. His message is that it is better to love than to speak in tongues. Do angels have a tongue? According to the wording angels do not have one language or tongue but rather many languages or tongues.

Question five: What about praying in the Holy Ghost? Does that not mean to pray in tongues?

Many followers of the charismatic movement will point to Jude 1:20 "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost," and say that it directs them to pray in tongues. In that their interpretation of the Holy Ghost means to pray in tongues. I once read a paper in which a gentleman made the following comment regarding that interpretation: "if praying in the Holy spirit means to pray in tongues, then we are also directed to walk in the spirit, does that mean we are to walk in tongues?" Of course this response is somewhat straightforward and to the point but to pray in the spirit means to pray in accordance to the direction and leading of the spirit. Therefore it appears to be a mere convenience to the followers of the charismatic movement to make this suggestion when actually no such thing is meant or implied.

Question six: Isn't the speaking in tongues a private prayer language?

Many followers of the charismatic movement will argue that although they speak in a tongue without interpretation it is justified because it is a private prayer language. What does the bible say regarding this?

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 1 Corinthians 14:2

For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 1 Corinthians 14:14

In the above verses Paul is not endorsing this act as a private prayer language. Paul is indicating that the speaking in tongues is not edifying because "no man understandeth." Paul is clearly establishing the point that the speaking in tongues to someone who does not understand is a futile attempt and should not be considered.

Question seven: If one is not to pray in tongues, what is meant by Romans 8:26?

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Romans 8:26

Charismatics commonly refer to this scripture as support for the praying in tongues. In that they believe that the Holy Spirit will pray through you that which is needful. However, after a careful reading of the verse it is clear what is taking place, the Holy Spirit is said to pray "for" us and not through us. The verse also indicates that the spirit will make intercession for us with "groanings which cannot be uttered." If the groanings cannot be uttered, isn't it a clear indication that it could not be a tongue, since tongues are spoken languages? The scripture is basically telling us that the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.

Question eight: Who or whom is edified by the speaking of tongues?

When we read the book of Corinthians we read of Paul and his rebuke of the Corinthians for their misuse of the gifts, especially the gift of tongues. It was often a familiar practice among pagan religions for individuals to get "carried away." This was done in a variety of ways, explicit gyrations, ecstatic gibberish and dancing to name a few. These practices were common among pagan worshipers in that they each wanted to take center stage in show of their "spirituality." Many would perform these acts in an attempt to say "look at me I am more spiritual than you" this actually created a chaotic scene in which all of the onlookers would proceed to act in the same manner and the scene shortly became one of gross ignorant showmanship. Paul in his rebuke to the Corinthians admonished them for edifying themselves "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church. 1 Corinthians 14:4.

In conclusion: If we were to disregard the biblical facts mentioned above and adhered only to the bible description for the manner and order for speaking in tongues, how would the charismatic movement shape up in regards to this?

Paul instructed those at Corinth "if any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret" I Corinthians 14:27

Paul clearly sets forth the proper manner of speaking in tongues. "let it be by two or at the most three." Therefore, when speaking in tongues (if this act was still applicable) it should be done by two and at the most three persons. Today in many assemblies across the country, television and radio many can be heard speaking in "tongues." Entire congregations can be heard using ecstatic gibberish, not two and at the most three, but several, this is in direct contrast to the biblical teaching. Finally, Paul also indicates that it is to be done "by course" which means in order. How often is this a common practice among charsimatics? Therefore, if the speaking of tongues as advocated by the followers of this movement is appropriate, why do they not follow the biblical directions of Paul? If one is at fault in one part it does not stand supported by the goodness of the other parts.

Summary

I hope to have supported the following biblical facts regarding speaking in tongues throughout this writing.

1. Biblical tongues were languages.

2. The tongues spoken with today are not languages.

3. The modern method of speaking in tongues is not edifying unto the church.

4. The course (order) by which tongues are spoken in the modern movement is not biblical.

5. The number of simultaneous speakers in the modern tongue movement is not in accordance with the biblical teaching "let it be by two or at the most three."