Two Types of Tongues? - by Nathan Busenitz

Found here. My comments in bold.

----------------

We have given extensive treatment to the Tongues issue, so we will attempt to avoid repeating those points here. Instead we will address any new arguments.

As we have discovered in our critiques of cessationists, it is typical of them to avoid Scripture. This author supplies many scriptural references, and even a couple Greek words, but amazingly, doesn't quote a single Scripture.

We also note that the author makes a concerted effort to affirm his own preconceptions, sometimes to ridiculous lengths. For example, the author switches "translation" for "interpretation" when discussing the spiritual gift of interpretation. This is simply dishonest.

--------------------

I want to respond to the idea that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is somehow qualitatively different than in Acts or even than in 1 Corinthians 12.

* * * * *

Is the gift of tongues in Acts the same as in 1 Corinthians?

Some Observations:

1. Acts – The miraculous tongues in Acts were directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (2:4, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). In fact, tongue-speaking is evidence of having received the “gift” (dorea) of the Holy Spirit (10:45). (The gift of the Holy Spirit is not synonymous with the gift of Tongues or any other spiritual gift. The gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts specifically manifested in Tongues, and later prophecy, as a sign to the Apostles that the gentiles were now included in salvation. 

But nowhere in Acts is speaking in Tongues referred to as a spiritual gift.) 

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (12:1, 7, 11, etc.). Similarly, the gift of tongues is an evidence (or “manifestation”) of having received the Holy Spirit (12:7). (This is true for Acts, false for 1 Corinthians. Let's quote the Scripture: 1Co. 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. Why did the Holy Spirit give gifts? For the common good, NOT as evidence of having received the Spirit.)

2. Acts – Along those lines, in Acts 11:15–17, Peter implies that the tongue-speaking of Acts 10 was the same as that of Acts 2, even noting that Cornelius and his household had received the same gift (dorea) as the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. (Perhaps the author doesn't quote Scripture because the Scripture he references does not say what he says it does. Let's start with the context of the cited passage:

Ac. 11:1-4 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. 2 So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him 3 and said, “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” 4 Peter began and explained everything to them precisely as it had happened...

Peter had finally learned the lesson of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which ironically he first explained when he quoted the prophet Joel [Acts 2:16-21]. But that lesson had to be repeated to Peter many times. It took him quite a while to understand that the gentiles could be part of the people of God.

So now we find Peter is being challenged by the circumcision group for hanging out with gentiles. He explains what happened, culminating in the passage cited by the author:

Ac. 11:15-17 “As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: `John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?”

This passage is clearly not about Tongues. The reader will not find mention of Tongues here, because the gift of Tongues was not the subject. Peter's point was the fact of the gentiles receiving the gift of the very same Holy Spirit.)

This indicates that the tongues of the Apostles (in Acts 2) was not limited just to the Apostles, but was also experienced (at least) by both Cornelius’s household (Acts 10) and the disciples of Apollos (Acts 19).

1 Corinthians – Paul, as an Apostle, possessed the gift of tongues (14:18). Yet he recognized that there were those in the Corinthian church who also possessed the gift.

3. Acts – The miraculous ability, as it is described in Acts 2, is the supernatural ability to speak in other tongues (meaning foreign languages) (2:4, 9–11).

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is described as a speaking gift (12:30; 14:2, 5). The fact that it can be (Actually, should be.)

interpreted/translated (12:10; 14:5, 13) ("Translated" is not the same as "interpreted." "Translated" is μεθερμηνεύω (metherméneuó), which is, I translate (from one language into another). "Interpret" is ἑρμηνεία, ας, ἡ (herméneia), an interpretation, giving the gist of a message rather than a strict translation; an equivalent meaning, rather than a "word-for-word" rendering.) 

indicates that it consisted of an authentic foreign language, (We have shown this as clearly false. The author conflates translation with the supernatural gift of interpretation and draws a false conclusion that tongues must be real languages.) 

similar to the tongues of Acts 2. (Paul’s direct association of tongue-speaking with foreign languages in 14:10–11 and also his reference to Isaiah 28:11, 12 strengthens this claim.) (No, just the opposite. See here for a discussion of Isaiah 28:10-12.)

4. Acts – The primary word for tongues in Acts is “glossa” (2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6), although it is also described with the word “dialekto” on two occasions (2:6, 8).

1 Corinthians –As in Acts, the primary word for tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is “glossa” (12:10, 28; 13:1, 8; 14:2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 39), though Paul also uses the term “phoneo” twice (in 14:10–11).

5. Acts – It was a sign for unbelieving Jews (2:5, 12, 14, 19). (No. After Pentecost, the Tongues in Acts was not a sign for unbelieving Jews, they were a sign for unbelieving apostles.)

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (14:21–22; cf. Is. 28:11). (The author is now lying to us. This verse is not about unbelieving Jews, but unbelievers period. Again we quote the verse:  1Co. 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers... "Unbelievers" is ἄπιστος, ἄπιστον (apistos), without faith or trust; faithless, unbelieving. From a (as a negative particle) and pistos; (actively) disbelieving, i.e. Without Christian faith (specially, a heathen); (passively) untrustworthy (person), or incredible (thing) -- that believeth not, faithless, incredible thing, infidel, unbelieve... 

These are not unbelieving Jews, they are pagans.) 

Note that the gift is even called a “sign” in 14:22 (the word “sign” is from the same Greek word as “sign” in Acts 2:22). Thus, the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign. (We agree that Tongues is a sign. For whom the sign is intended has clearly changed from Acts to 1 Corinthians.)

6. Acts – It is closely connected with prophecy (2:16–18; 19:6) (Um, no. In Acts 2:16-19 it was a particular prophecy, Joel's prophecy, that was used to explain what happened. The apostles, particularly Peter, persisted in not understanding the gift of the Holy Spirit was also for the gentiles. 

So by the time we come to Acts 19:6, the apostles witnessed not only the gentiles speaking in Tongues, but also prophecy. The gentiles were not only speaking in other languages, they were now speaking the very word of God.

This does not connect Acts Tongues to the gift of prophecy or to the 1 Corinthians tongues. The author continues his dishonesty.)

and with other signs that the Apostles were performing (2:43)

1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is closely connected with prophecy (all throughout 12–14). 

7. Acts – Some of the unbelieving Jews at Pentecost accused the apostles of being drunk when they heard them speaking in other tongues (languages which those Jews did not understand). (No, again the author is mistaken. Ac. 2:13 Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had
too much wine.” Who are these  people? The very next verse tells us: Ac. 2:14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 

Jews and others who lived in Jerusalem. And they each heard in their own language:

Ac. 2:8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?

That's what made them accuse the tongues speakers as being drunk. They understood the tongues. It wasn't a sign only to the Jews. A variety of people in Jerusalem witnessed this.)

1 Corinthians – Similar to Acts, Paul says that unbelievers will accuse the Corinthians of being mad [not unlike “drunk”] if their tongues go uninterpreted (14:23), and are therefore not understood by the hearer. (Why would an uninterpreted Tongue in 1 Corinthians be like a Tongue that didn't need interpreting in Acts? The two are not the same.

Let's quote the verse, since the author seems reluctant to do so: 1Co. 14:23 So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand, or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

Before we discuss this verse, let's look at the verse just before this to get some context. Paul tells us he would rather speak in intelligible words: 1Co. 14:19 But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. So, if his Tongues are indeed real languages, why does he suggest these these words would not be intelligible?

"Intelligible" is νοῦς, νοός, νοΐ, νοῦν, ὁ; (nooce) the intellective faculty, the understanding... opposed to τό πνεῦμα, the spirit intensely roused and completely absorbed with divine things, but destitute of clear ideas of them...

So when Paul refers to intelligible words, he's talking about words that can be naturally understood. That is, "intelligible" is human language. He would rather speak in an intelligible human language than in Tongues. 

So now we are at the verse quoted by the author. Paul tells the Corinthians about "those who do not understand." This word is ἰδιώτης, ου, ὁ (idiótés), which means "destitute of the 'gift of tongues...'" That is, if you don't understand the Tongue, it is because you are dealing with it with natural understanding. You lack the spiritual condition whereby you can comprehend what is going on.

This should immediately clear up any misconception as to what Paul is saying. Paul is contrasting the natural mind and natural understanding, with the spiritual expression that is the gift of Tongues, which no one can understand apart from the supernatural gift of interpretation.)

The biblical evidence (from the correlating observations above) supports the conclusion that the gift of tongues described in 1 Corinthians consists of the same phenomenon as the miraculous sign of tongues depicted in Acts. (Which of course the author did not demonstrate.)

Added to this is the fact that Luke (the author of Acts) was a close associate of Paul (the writer of 1 Corinthians). Moreover, the book of Acts was written after the epistle to the 1 Corinthians. It is unlikely, then, that Luke would have used the exact same terminology as Paul if he understood there to be an essential difference between the two (especially since such could lead to even greater confusion about the gifts — a confusion which plagued the Corinthian church). (Astonishing. On the basis of a single word used by Luke and Paul, the author concludes that it has to mean exactly the same thing in every instance. 

No honest exegete believes such a thing about word usage.)

Added to this, the church fathers understood the gift of tongues in Acts to be the same as the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians. (Appeal to History.)

(...)

What’s the point of all this? (Yes, what is the point? The point is to explain away the gift of Tongues.)

Simply to make the case for the following:

1) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 2 was clearly the ability of the apostles to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned. (No, there is no record in Acts of the apostles speaking in Tongues, except for Pentecost. And of course, the author admits that many others in Acts spoke in Tongues.)

2) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 10 (and by implication Acts 19) is said, by Peter, to have been the same as what occurred in Acts 2.

3) The exegetical and historical evidence indicates that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians consisted of the same phenomena as that described in Acts. (Which of course we demonstrated is not true.)

4) The exegetical and contextual evidence further indicates that, at least in its essence (or nature), there is only one gift of tongues being described in 1 Corinthians 12–14.

5) Thus, I conclude that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 was (as in Acts 2) the ability of select believers to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned. To assert that the gift in 1 Corinthians 14 is something categorically other than that (as in a non-rational spiritual prayer “language” which can be learned, and should be sought by every believer) is exegetically and contextually untenable. (The author never discussed "spiritual prayer language," let alone demonstrated that it is untenable.)

6) Because the purpose was to edify the body—a purpose which, in order to be fulfilled, demanded that the foreign language be translated (emphasis added.) so that those in the congregation could understand it, Paul emphasizes the importance of interpretation (translation) in 1 Corinthians 14. (One might wonder why the author thinks [by implication] that there is no gift of Tongues today, since many churches have multi-lingual attendees.)