(3)
Scripture Reading: Acts 2:1-13
In this message we shall consider the matter of speaking in tongues. The fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy on the day of Pentecost implies tongue-speaking.
Acts 2:3 says, “And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which were divided and sat on each one of them.” Here “tongues” are a symbol of speaking, symbolizing that God’s economical Spirit of power is mostly for speaking. He is the speaking Spirit.
Verse 3 says that tongues as of fire sat on each of the one hundred and twenty. In this verse “fire” symbolizes burning power for purging and motivating in God’s economical move. The fact that the verb “sat” is singular indicates that one tongue sat on each one of them.
Acts 2:4 says, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in different tongues, even as the Spirit gave them to speak out.” Here “all” modifies only “filled” in the first clause, not “began to speak” in the second clause. The word “all” cannot be used as evidence that all the disciples who were filled with the Holy Spirit began to speak in tongues.
We need to read verse 4 carefully, paying attention to the punctuation. Notice that there is a comma after “Holy Spirit.” This verse says, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak in different tongues, even as the Spirit gave them to speak out.” The comma after “Holy Spirit” may help us to see that “all” does not modify both “filled” and “began to speak.” Here we have two predicates: “were filled” and “began to speak.” We need to have the discernment to know whether the modifier “all” modifies both predicates or only the first predicate. If it modifies both predicates, then verse 4 is saying that all spoke in tongues. But if it modifies only the first predicate, then this verse is saying that all were filled with the Holy Spirit, but not all spoke in tongues. If Luke’s meaning is that all spoke in tongues, he should have used the word “all” a second time, before the word “began.”
According to grammar, verse 4 is not saying that all were filled with the Holy Spirit and that all began to speak in different tongues. For example, suppose we said, “All the saints came into the meeting, and they began to pray.” Does this mean that everyone prayed? No, this is not the meaning. Likewise, verse 4 is not saying that all those who were filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in tongues.
Those who promote today’s tongue-speaking may insist that “all” in 2:4 modifies the second predicate as well as the first. Then they may go on to use this verse as a basis for claiming that on the day of Pentecost each of the one hundred and twenty spoke in tongues. However, after spending much time in studying this verse, I have the assurance to say that “all” does not modify the second predicate. On the contrary, this word indicates only that all of the one hundred and twenty were filled with the Holy Spirit. Therefore, verse 4 does not indicate that they all spoke in tongues.
The “tongues” spoken in 2:4 were dialects (vv. 6, 8). The disciples were Galileans (v. 7), yet they spoke the different foreign dialects of the attendants who came from various parts of the world. This is strong proof that tongue-speaking must be an understandable language, not merely a voice or sound uttered by the tongue. The Greek word rendered “speak out” in verse 4 is “a peculiar word, and purposely chosen to denote the clear, loud utterance” (Vincent).
We have pointed out that the tongues in verse 4 were dialects. Concerning this, verses 5 through 8 say, “Now there were Jews dwelling in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying, Look, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own dialect in which we were born?” The Jews in verse 5 were devout Jews who came from their dispersion to Jerusalem to keep the feast of Pentecost. Verse 10 speaks of proselytes, Gentiles who were converted to Judaism (6:5; 13:43). The word “dialect” in verses 6 and 8 is synonymous with “tongues” in verse 4.
According to verse 11, the people exclaimed, “We hear them speaking in our own tongues the great things of God.” The Greek word for “tongues” here is glossa. In this chapter glossa is used for two things: the speaking organ (v. 3) and dialects (vv. 4, 11), referring to the dialects in verses 6 and 8. This evidence affords no ground to say that tongue-speaking may be merely a voice or sound uttered by the tongue, the speaking organ. Rather, tongue-speaking must be a dialect, because what the disciples spoke in tongues were all different dialects. In this sense, tongues and dialects are synonyms, interchangeably used in these verses.
Those who promote tongue-speaking may insist that it is not necessary for the tongue that is spoken to be an understandable human language. They may claim that to speak in tongues is simply to utter some kind of sound. Promoters of tongue-speaking need to say this because much of today’s so-called tongues are not dialects but meaningless sounds. However, the tongues spoken on the day of Pentecost were a miracle caused by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Galileans who spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost did not speak with a Galilean accent. “Each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.” Although the tongues spoken on the day of Pentecost were dialects, it is not likely that you will hear any dialects spoken by today’s tongue-speakers in meetings held for that purpose.
One day, in 1936, I had a talk with a leading Pentecostal missionary concerning these verses in Acts 2. Holding my Greek-English Interlinear New Testament in my hand, I pointed out to him that here glossa is used in two ways: to denote the tongue, the speaking organ, and to denote a dialect. He was not able to answer me, but instead patted me on the head and said, “Your head is too big.”
Although I myself had practiced so-called tongue-speaking and had led others to do so, I dropped this practice after speaking with that missionary. I came to realize that much of what is called tongue-speaking is not the miraculous speaking of a dialect, but something humanly manufactured. The point we are emphasizing here is that the tongues spoken on the day of Pentecost were genuine dialects and not merely sounds uttered by the tongue.
During the summer training in 1963, I asked a brother to read to the trainees an article from a certain charismatic magazine. The writer of that article said that he had contacted two hundred people who claimed to speak in tongues. Without exception, all of those two hundred doubted that the tongues they spoke were genuine. Then I asked the trainees if Peter and the others on the day of Pentecost had any doubt whether the tongues spoken by them were genuine. Certainly Peter and the others had no such doubts. However, the two hundred tongue-speakers mentioned in that magazine article had doubts because the tongues they spoke were not genuine.
Earlier in 1963 I was invited to speak at a certain Christian group in San Diego. This group strongly emphasized tongue-speaking. In one of the meetings a woman gave a short word in tongues. Then a young man gave a long interpretation of that word. After the meeting, I asked the leader of the group if he thought that the interpretation of the woman’s word in tongues was genuine. He told me that he doubted that the interpretation was genuine. Then I asked him why he engaged in such practices, since we have a rich Christ to minister to others. I said, “Brother, we have the all-inclusive Christ. Isn’t it sufficient for us to preach Him?” He had nothing to say in response to my question.
While we were visiting there in San Diego, another leader in the group told us that he had been given the ability to speak Chinese. One day he uttered certain peculiar sounds, believing that he was speaking the Chinese language. I and another Chinese-speaking brother pointed out to him that we could not understand a word he said, even though I spoke Mandarin, the other brother spoke Cantonese, and we both had some understanding of other Chinese dialects. Nevertheless, this one who claimed that he could speak Chinese proceeded to utter some different sounds. We also had to tell him that we could not recognize those sounds as words in the Chinese language. When he heard this, he was disappointed. In his self-deception he thought that he was able to speak Chinese. But the Chinese he thought he was speaking was actually a self-made language. Such incidents are common in today’s Pentecostalism.
Recently I learned of an article, written by a linguist, which points out that from ancient times until the present certain peoples have experienced utterances called “ecstatic phenomena.” Since much of today’s so-called tongue-speaking is not a genuine language, it also may be considered an ecstatic phenomenon.
Let me give you two further examples of tongue-speaking that is not genuine. In a meeting a woman gives a word in tongues. The interpretation goes like this: “My people, the time is short. I am coming back quickly. Be watchful and pray.” Then in another meeting on the same day the same woman gives another word in tongues. This second word in tongues is almost identical to the first. However, this time the interpretation goes, “My people, you are very loose and careless. I warn you that if you do not change, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” Although the tongue-speaking in each case is almost exactly the same, the interpretation is very different. To be sure, these are not instances of genuine tongue-speaking.
Another case I would mention took place in Taiwan a few years ago. A Pentecostal group rented a large stadium for some meetings. That stadium can seat twelve thousand people, but only two or three thousand attended the meetings. As a result, this Pentecostal group did not have the funds to pay for the rental of the stadium. In a meeting of those people, someone spoke in tongues, and then the interpretation was given. The one who gave the interpretation said that the Lord wanted a certain woman among them, who was very wealthy, to pay the rent. Then this very woman spoke in tongues and interpreted what she had spoken. In her interpretation she claimed that the Lord had told her not to pay the rent. This is a further illustration that much of today’s tongue-speaking is not genuine.
Some of those involved in so-called tongue-speaking have also given prophecies that have been proved false. For example, in 1963 and 1964 there were newspaper reports about Pentecostal prophecies which said that an earthquake would strike the city of Los Angeles and that the city would fall into the ocean. However, the date of the predicted earthquake passed, and nothing happened. To be sure, this lack of fulfillment is sufficient to prove that those prophecies were false.
Those who claim to speak in tongues should consider their experience. In particular, they need to check if what they utter when speaking in tongues is a dialect, an understandable language. If they are honest, many will admit that when they speak in tongues, they do not speak a dialect. But as we have pointed out from chapter two of Acts, what was spoken by those who were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was a recognizable dialect. Genuine tongue-speaking, therefore, is not merely a voice or a sound. Genuine tongue-speaking is a dialect.
