In Acts 2 we read of the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. When I think of Pentecost, I immediately think of tongues of fire, Peter's amazing sermon that converted 3000 people on that one day, and of course, speaking in tongues.
On the day of Pentecost, the apostles and other believers in that upper room "began speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them". Jews from all over the Roman Empire could understand them in their own language. Obviously this amazed the people, paving the way for Peter's sermon.
But I want to consider the speaking in tongues incident briefly, as it demonstrates an important principle of biblical interpretation. In Acts 2, those speaking in tongues all spoke (as far as we know) in another human language. Does this mean that tongues must always be in another human langauge? I think not.
One of the principles of interpreting scripture is to interpret narrative passages (passages that record events) in the light didactic passages (passages where teaching is given). The tongues-speaking episode of Acts 2 is clearly a narrative passage, as it describes an event that took place. The first point to note is that it does not say that none of those speaking in tongues actually spoke in the tongues of angels. There were probably over 100 speaking in tongues that day - Acts 2 does not describe the actions of everyone there. Secondly, and more importantly, there is more definitive teaching on speaking in tongues elsewhere in the bible, and this is found in the first letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Co 14, Paul seems to assume that tongues are often not understood by the listeners, unlike what occurred at Pentecost. Now, you may think that this still means tongues are in other human languages, and just that often there is noone present who understands that particular language. But one chapter earlier, in 1 Co 13, Paul says: "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels...". Here, he presupposes that tongues can be in the language of angels. Since they can be in the tongues of angels, but do not have to be, we can now interpret Acts 2 in the light of this passage and say that in this case, the tongues happened to be in another human language. We interpret the narrative in the light of the didactic.
I want to push this principle further. Some people claim that all Spirit-filled Christians speak in tongues, and that tongues is a sign of being filled with the Spirit. However, this is easily refuted by scripture. The bible clearly says that not everyone speaks in tongues. "Are all apostles? All are prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Co 12:29-30).
In the NIV, these statements are translated as rhetorical questions. The answer to each question is not specified because they are self-evident. Are all apostles? Obviously not! Are all prophets? Again, obviously not! It follows that not all speak in tongues.
I think from that it is perfectly clear, but let's push it a little further to reinforce the point. In English we use rhetorical questions when the answer is obvious, but that is generally not done in Greek. In Greek, particularly ancient Greek, the answer to a "rhetorical question" is actually provided with it. The Greek for this passage says the following: me (not) pantes (complete, all) glossais (tongues) lalousin (speak). Literally it means, not all speak in tongues.
So, we should be careful in over-applying narrative passages to our own lives unless clear warrant is given from the didactic parts of the bible.
On the day of Pentecost, the apostles and other believers in that upper room "began speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them". Jews from all over the Roman Empire could understand them in their own language. Obviously this amazed the people, paving the way for Peter's sermon.
But I want to consider the speaking in tongues incident briefly, as it demonstrates an important principle of biblical interpretation. In Acts 2, those speaking in tongues all spoke (as far as we know) in another human language. Does this mean that tongues must always be in another human langauge? I think not.
One of the principles of interpreting scripture is to interpret narrative passages (passages that record events) in the light didactic passages (passages where teaching is given). The tongues-speaking episode of Acts 2 is clearly a narrative passage, as it describes an event that took place. The first point to note is that it does not say that none of those speaking in tongues actually spoke in the tongues of angels. There were probably over 100 speaking in tongues that day - Acts 2 does not describe the actions of everyone there. Secondly, and more importantly, there is more definitive teaching on speaking in tongues elsewhere in the bible, and this is found in the first letter to the Corinthians. In 1 Co 14, Paul seems to assume that tongues are often not understood by the listeners, unlike what occurred at Pentecost. Now, you may think that this still means tongues are in other human languages, and just that often there is noone present who understands that particular language. But one chapter earlier, in 1 Co 13, Paul says: "If I speak in the tongues of men and angels...". Here, he presupposes that tongues can be in the language of angels. Since they can be in the tongues of angels, but do not have to be, we can now interpret Acts 2 in the light of this passage and say that in this case, the tongues happened to be in another human language. We interpret the narrative in the light of the didactic.
I want to push this principle further. Some people claim that all Spirit-filled Christians speak in tongues, and that tongues is a sign of being filled with the Spirit. However, this is easily refuted by scripture. The bible clearly says that not everyone speaks in tongues. "Are all apostles? All are prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Co 12:29-30).
In the NIV, these statements are translated as rhetorical questions. The answer to each question is not specified because they are self-evident. Are all apostles? Obviously not! Are all prophets? Again, obviously not! It follows that not all speak in tongues.
I think from that it is perfectly clear, but let's push it a little further to reinforce the point. In English we use rhetorical questions when the answer is obvious, but that is generally not done in Greek. In Greek, particularly ancient Greek, the answer to a "rhetorical question" is actually provided with it. The Greek for this passage says the following: me (not) pantes (complete, all) glossais (tongues) lalousin (speak). Literally it means, not all speak in tongues.
So, we should be careful in over-applying narrative passages to our own lives unless clear warrant is given from the didactic parts of the bible.
Comments
How do you explain that when Paul says I thank God more than you all(1Cor14:18)?,is he not saying that they all spoke in tongues? Which is not to say this is a sign for Spirit Filled believers, rather just all believers...I dislike labels.