Basic HTML Version
October 1971
of the major non-Pentecostal denomina–
tions have been more or less divided
over the issue, regardless of the "offi–
cial" policy of their church.
Theologians Divided Over
Tongues
The glossolalists naturally point to
the Bible as claimed evidence that
their experience is valid. But this view
is
by no means unanimous among
theologians.
One of the views taken by sorne, in–
duding many religious people, is that
tongues are "ecstatic speech" - the
incoberent babblings of someone in an
emotional state of "ecstasy." The
New
English Bible
uses such expressions as
"gift of ecstatic utterance," "language
of ecstasy," "tongues of ecstasy," etc.,
for the Greek word which is translated
simply as "tongues" in many otber
translations.
At the opposite pole, many glossola–
lists insist that tongues are actual lan–
guages - either ancient or exotic -
but still human speech. Others do not
feel that "tongues" constitute any
particular language, though they might
not agree that they are "ecstatic speech."
Still others see them as "tongues of
angels."
Tongues
in
the Bible
Two passages in the Bible mention
"speaking in tongues": Acts
2
and
1 Corinthians 14. In Acts 2, the Holy
Spirit carne to the disciples on the day of
Pentecost only a few days after Jesus
had departed from the earth. When
they received the Holy Spirit, the fol–
lowers of Jesus "began to speak with
other tongues."
A surprised crowd of pilgrims -
Jews from many different areas - gath–
ered. They were astonished "because
that every man heard them speak in bis
own language." There is almost no
doubt or disagreement among com–
mentators over this passage. They prac–
tically all agree that the "other tongues"
of Acts
2
were genuine human lan–
guages. The whole passage read in con–
text leaves no other choice.
But 1 Corinthians 14 is a different
matter. Sorne feel that there is a differ–
ence between the "tongues" of Acts,
written by luke, and the "tongues"
The
PLAIN TRUTH
mentioned by Paul in I Corinthians.
However, this seems to be based on per–
sonal opinion, in most cases, rather than
on a linguistic study of the passages
involved.
In both cases, the same basic Greek
word
glossa
("language" or "tongue")
is used. Elsewhere in the New Testa–
ment and in the Greek Septuagint trans–
lation of the Old Testament, this word
always has to do with intelligible
human speech. Twice it refers to stam–
mering, but this is an
attempt
to com–
municate in normal speech.
There is absolutely no indication that
21
careful analysis of the various passages
in the Greek text, concludes that "Paul
as well as luke [author of Acts] viewed
tongues as bona .fide foreign languages"
("'Ecstatic Utterance' [N. E. B.)?",
JournaJ of Theoiogicai Studies
XVII,
1966, pp. 299-307).
J. G. Davies, another New Testament
scholar, concurs this opinion: "There
seems, therefore, to be no adequate rea–
son for denying that St. Paul under–
stood glossolalia to be speaking in
foreign languages. Consequently there
is no conflict between his description
and the account in Acts
2,
which is a
Wldo
Wor/d
Photo
A group of neo-Pentecostals during an emotional session of "speaking in
tongues." This practice is causing widespread controversy in nearly all major
denominations as more and more churchgoers seek a new kind of religious
experience.
something different was intended by
Paul. As one investigator wrote, "The
attempt to make a difference between the
tongues of Corinthians and those of
Acts is wholly artificial" (E. J. G. Tit–
terington, "The Gift of Tongues,"
Faith and Thortght
[formerly the
Jotlr–
nal of the Transactions of the Victoria
Institute
J
90, 1958, p. 65).
Similarly Robert H. Gundry, after a
unity" ("Pentecost and Glossolalia,"
JTS III, 1952, pp. 228-31).
But since the tongues of the Bible
were actual foreign languages, as a
number of New Testament scholars and
theologians are convinced, what about
the present-day phenomenon? Do
tongue speakers of today actually talk in
foreign languages? Are they duplicat–
ing the Biblical experience, or is the