Understanding the True Nature of Tongues - by Scott Aniol

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------

The author is unable to quote more than a snippet of two Scriptures. That's it. He's a Bible teacher who does not quote the Bible.

The issue of tongues is perhaps one of the more complicated issues of the Church, and clearly the author is not up to the challenge. He doesn't appear to even be acquainted with the pro-tongues arguments, let alone the Scriptures that are contrary to his doctrine. 

Once again we must deem his work Bad Bible Teaching.

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

In the early church, believers experienced miraculous gifts from the Holy Spirit, (All gifts from the Holy Spirit are miraculous, by definition.)

including healing, prophecy, and speaking in tongues. Today, many Christians—particularly those in charismatic and Pentecostal movements—believe that these gifts continue. However, there is significant debate surrounding the nature and continuation of these spiritual gifts, especially the gift of tongues. Understanding the biblical context of tongues (Actually, the author will provide the cessationist context of tongues.)

is crucial to discerning whether this gift continues today (Yes, this the correct question.)

in the same way (No, this proviso is not part of the question.)

or whether it served a specific, time-bound purpose in the early church. (From the Bible, we hope.)

The first appearance of the gift of tongues occurs in Acts 2, a pivotal passage for understanding the nature of this spiritual gift. When examined closely, this text reveals important insights into what the gift of tongues truly is (The Tongues in the book of Acts are never described as a gift. This is the first crucial distinction as it relates to two kinds of tongues.)

and how it was used by the early church.

The Gift of Tongues in Acts 2: Known Human Languages

In Acts 2, Luke records the event of Pentecost, where the apostles and about 120 followers of Jesus gathered together in Jerusalem. Suddenly, they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in “other tongues.” The word used here for “tongues” is glossais, which refers to the tongue as an organ. (No, the Greek word is not referring to the tongue as an organ, it refers specifically to spoken language: 2. a tongue, i. e. the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations...)

At first, the text does not clarify whether these tongues were actual languages or something else. However, in verse 8, the crowd of Jews gathered in Jerusalem from various nations expressed amazement, asking, “And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?” (Number one of two Bible verses.) 

Here, the word used for “language” is dialecto, which means a specific language.

These two terms—glossais and dialecto—are used interchangeably in Acts 2. In verses 10–11, the crowd continues to marvel that they hear the apostles speaking in their native languages. Thus, it becomes clear that the tongues being spoken by the apostles were distinct, known languages, not unintelligible speech. (No one claims otherwise.)

This was not an example of a “heavenly” or “angelic” language, but the miraculous ability of the apostles to speak languages they had never learned. (Quite correct. But this does not mean every tongue must be a human language.)

This first occurrence of tongues in Scripture provides a clear biblical definition: the gift of tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in known human languages. (The Acts tongues are not identified as a gift. Here is the author's first error.)

This is a significant departure from how many charismatic Christians understand tongues today, where it is often associated with ecstatic, unintelligible speech. Even early Pentecostal leaders, such as Charles Parham, initially believed that the modern phenomenon of tongues was the ability to speak foreign languages, though this claim was later disproven.

Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14: Known Languages or Something Else?

Those who believe in the continuation of the gift of tongues often argue that there are two types of tongues in the New Testament. They assert that while the tongues in Acts 2 were known languages, the tongues described in 1 Corinthians 14 represent something different—possibly a personal prayer language or private form of worship. (The author will make no effort to refute this position, other than to simply reassert his own position.)

For example, Sam Storms claims that Acts 2 is the only instance where tongues consist of known languages. He argues that 1 Corinthians 14 describes a different kind of tongues-speech, one that is not necessarily intelligible. According to Storms, tongues in 1 Corinthians are a private spiritual gift used for personal devotion, and he even suggests that Christians have a “moral and biblical obligation” to seek such spiritual gifts.

However, is there evidence that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 were different from those in Acts 2? A careful examination of the biblical text reveals no indication that tongues in 1 Corinthians are substantially different from those in Acts. In both contexts, the gift of tongues is described as a miraculous ability to speak languages unknown to the speaker but understandable to others. (This is spectacularly incorrect. Let's actually quote part of 1 Corinthians 14: 

1Co. 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no-one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.

What do we see here? The tongues-speaker

• does not speak to men but to God
• is not understood by anyone
• is speaking mysteries

These characteristics clearly have nothing to do with an intelligible language that is understandable to others. This is the author's second error.)

 

Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians regarding tongues emphasizes the need for interpretation in the church so that those hearing the message can understand and benefit from it (1 Cor 14:5-6). (Why would a message in a human language, being understood by humans, need interpretation?)

Furthermore, the purpose of the gift of tongues in the early church was not merely for private devotion but to serve as a sign—particularly to the Jewish people. (We agree, two purposes. This of course indicates two types of tongues.)

The Purpose of Tongues: A Sign to the Jews

To understand the purpose of the gift of tongues, we must consider the historical and theological context in which it was given. Throughout the Old Testament, God’s focus was primarily on the nation of Israel. They were his chosen people, and salvation came through the Jews (John 4:22). However, with the coming of Christ and the establishment of the church, God’s plan for redemption expanded beyond the boundaries of Israel to include people from every nation. (Well, no. God's plan always included the gentiles: 

Is. 49:6 “...I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”  

Hosea 2:23 “I will call them `my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her `my loved one’ who is not my loved one.”

We are beginning to question the author's Bible competence.)

The gift of tongues was a powerful sign of this shift. It demonstrated that the gospel was for all people—Jews and Gentiles alike—and that the dividing wall between nations had been broken down. (No, tongues were a sign of judgment against Israel [Is. 28:11].)

Tongues were a sign to the Jews that salvation was no longer exclusive to Israel, but that God was now drawing people from every tribe and language into his church.

This is why tongues first appeared at Pentecost in Acts 2, a time when Jews from many nations were gathered in Jerusalem. The fact that they heard the apostles speaking in their own languages was a clear indication that the gospel was now going out to the nations. In 1 Corinthians 14:21-22, Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11-12, which speaks of God using “foreign tongues” as a sign of judgment on Israel for their unbelief. (Oh, so the author does understand this idea. So which is it, a sign that both Jew and gentile are included in the Gospel, or is it a sign of judgment on Israel?

Isaiah himself contradicts the idea that tongues must be a human language, for when we read Is. 28 we find that Israel was being judged for drunken prophets who were speaking with slurred speech. The judgment was nonsense words [Is. 28:11, 13], not intelligible language. In essence, God was mocking them with unintelligible speech.)

Paul applies this to the gift of tongues in the church, reinforcing the idea that tongues were a sign to the Jewish people that God was now extending His grace to the Gentiles. (The author repeats himself. In fact, he will repeat this claim at least a half dozen times.

Curious he doesn't quote the verse. Curious indeed. Because we find that when we read the actual text it doesn't say what he tells us it says: 

1Co. 14:22 Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers...

The Acts tongues were a sign against Israel, and the Corinthians tongues were a sign for unbelievers. The two are not the same. We have now noted two reasons for two types of tongues:

1. the tongues of Acts were not described as spiritual gifts
2. the tongues of Acts were a sign to the Jews, but the tongues of 1 Corinthians was a sign for unbelievers)

Let's add some additional clear reasons:

In Acts,

• Tongues were real languages not needing interpretation
• Tongues did not occur in the church
• Tongues were specific, isolated events for a specific purpose
• Tongues were specifically a sign against Israel and to the Apostles that the gentiles can be saved and receive the Holy Spirit.

In First Corinthians,

• Tongues must be interpreted to be understood
• Tongues operate in the generalized gathering of the saints 
• Tongues is a spiritual gift
• Tongues is spoken mysteries
• Tongues is a sign for unbelievers.

These are substantial differences, despite the author's repeated undocumented assertion.)

The Transitional Nature of Tongues

The appearance of tongues in the New Testament was not a permanent feature of the church but rather served a transitional purpose in God’s redemptive plan. (Nothing of what follows even addresses this assertion.)

This transitional nature is evident in the three occurrences of tongues recorded in the book of Acts.

• Acts 2: The first appearance of tongues at Pentecost marked the inclusion of Jews from many nations into the church. The apostles spoke in known languages, signifying that the gospel was for all nations, not just for Israel.
• Acts 10: The second occurrence of tongues happens when Peter preaches the gospel to Cornelius, a Gentile, and his household. When the Holy Spirit falls on them, they begin to speak in tongues, demonstrating that Gentiles were now fully included in the church. This event confirmed to the Jewish believers that God was bringing Gentiles into the fold without requiring them to become Jews first.
• Acts 19: The third and final instance of tongues in Acts occurs when Paul encounters a group of Gentile disciples in Ephesus who had only experienced John’s baptism. When Paul explains the gospel to them, they believe in Christ, receive the Holy Spirit, and speak in tongues. This event underscores the point that Gentiles from all nations were being brought into the church, not just those within Israel’s borders.

These three instances of tongues all share a common purpose: they were a sign that the gospel was no longer limited to one nation. Tongues served as a clear indicator that God was including people from every language in his plan of salvation. (Indeed, this is quite true of the Acts tongues. But what about the spiritual gift of 1 Corinthians?)

The Cessation of Tongues

By the time Paul writes his later epistles, the gift of tongues had largely fulfilled its purpose. It had served its role as a sign to the Jews and as a confirmation that Gentiles were part of the church. This is why tongues are only mentioned in 1 Corinthians, one of Paul’s earlier letters, and not in his later writings. (The author makes a pronouncement based on no Bible text. It's an Argument From Silence.)

By this point, the church had begun to mature, and the need for transitional signs like tongues had passed. (An inference based on what is not in the Bible.)

Paul himself hints at the cessation of tongues in 1 Corinthians 13:8, where he says, “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease.” This suggests that tongues were never intended to be a permanent feature of the church but were a temporary gift that would eventually pass away once they had fulfilled their purpose. ("Suggests?" Now we determine doctrine on suppositions and guesses? 

Most cessationist Bible scholars agree that 1 Corinthians 13:8 is not a cessationism text. The reader may wish to read our essay on the "perfect," as well as our essay on tongues.)

And as argued earlier, there is no biblical support for the argument that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 were any different from those in Acts 2. (We have already seen this is very questionable, if not completely false.)

Both describe the supernatural ability to speak in known human languages for the purpose of communicating the gospel and serving as a sign to unbelievers. ("Unbelievers?" The author has told us they were for Jews. This is his first time using the term "unbelievers.")

Understanding the True Nature of Tongues

The biblical gift of tongues was the miraculous ability to speak in known human languages, given as a sign to the Jewish people that the gospel was now for all nations. This gift was transitional in nature, serving a specific purpose in the early church as the gospel went out to both Jews and Gentiles. As the church matured and the New Testament was completed, the need for the gift of tongues passed away.

While many professing Christians today believe that the gift of tongues continues as a form of private prayer language, this practice has no basis in Scripture. (Whaaat? Previously the author wrote, "...the purpose of the gift of tongues in the early church was not merely for private devotion..." Yet he now contradicts himself.

In fact, this statement is the only thing he has told us regarding "private devotion." We therefore do not grant him permission to jump to a summary, contradictory conclusion without any discussion.)

The tongues described in the Bible were always intelligible languages, not ecstatic speech, and they served a clear purpose in the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan.

In understanding the true nature of tongues, we can rejoice in how God used this gift to signal his intent to bring people from every nation into his church, and we can rest in the sufficiency of Scripture as the final revelation of his will for us today. (What does sufficiency have to do with tongues?)