The Study of the Holy Spirit
by
WordExplain
|
Pneumatology
The Study of the Holy Spirit by WordExplain |
"Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit." Acts 8:17 |
                   |
 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness. Acts 4:31
E. Is Tongues-Speaking in the book of Acts
normative? The questions immediately arise: (1) “Is speaking in tongues a required indicator of salvation in the book of Acts?” (2) “Is speaking in tongues a required sign
of the baptism of the Spirit in the book of Acts?” (3) “Is speaking in tongues a sign of a
‘second blessing’ or a ‘deeper walk with God’ in the book of Acts?” The best answer, in any case, seems to be,
“No.” In fact, it seems unwise to take
the position that the book of Acts is normative (normal) for all Christian
experience. Let me raise several
questions to demonstrate the truth of that statement. 1. The first
occurrence in the Bible of speaking in tongues is found in Acts 2:1-13. (See a chart for the
only three occurrences of speaking in tongues in the book of Acts.) Is Jesus’
founding of His Church on the
Day of Pentecost a repeatable event? The
answer? Of course not. Jesus can found His Church only once. He can send His Spirit to the
collective Church only once. a. Since
the Day of Pentecost is an unrepeatable event, does it not make sense that
there might be unusual signs marking that official event? Yes, that makes sense, particularly when one
acknowledges that it is impossible to see a spirit. Spirits are bodiless. So how would anyone know whether or not the Holy Spirit had
been given by Jesus unless
there were some tangible, observable phenomena unique to that day? When the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus at
His baptism, He did so in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This
was necessary because how would anyone know the Spirit had descended upon Jesus
otherwise? The dove has become a
universal symbol of the Holy Spirit. b. Does it
make sense to demand or even expect that these same signs would mark every day
of the life of the Church, or the
life of an individual member of the Church?
No, that does not make sense. c. By way
of illustration, when ground has been set aside to erect a new building, whether
for a church building, a civic building, or a commercial building, there is
usually some sort of “Ground-Breaking” ceremony. Officers of that group gather together,
sometimes accompanied by dignitaries and officials, and hold a brief ceremony outdoors
on that land. They use fancy shovels and
ceremonially turn over shovels full of earth to mark the official commencement
of new construction. The Ground-Breaking
Ceremony is a public sign that construction is to begin officially. A picture is often published in a local
newspaper or magazine. Does it make
sense to conclude that officials will hold this same ceremony each day of the
construction process? Of course not. We do not expect that. And we should not expect that the events of
Pentecost would continue on day by day in the life of the Church. d. When the
new building is complete, there is, in many instances, a “Ribbon-Cutting”
ceremony. This ceremony inaugurates the
completion of the construction of the new building and the opening of that
building for public use. A brief service
takes place, speeches are given, and someone brings out a giant pair of scissor
to cut the ribbon that has been ceremonially placed in front of the
entrance. Once that has been done, the
public are invited to enter the building for an “Open House,” where they may
view the new facility. Does it make
sense to expect a Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony each day as one enters the building
thereafter? No, that does not make sense. There is only one Ribbon-Cutting
Ceremony. Should the Church collectively or church members individually
expect that the events of the Day of Pentecost repeat themselves each day of
the life of the Church? No, we
would not expect that. e. And yet,
practitioners of glossolalia, speaking in tongues, apparently do just that. Instead of viewing the Day of Pentecost as an
unrepeatable event, they take the position that speaking in tongues, at least,
is normative for the whole Church age.
Let us proceed with some more questions. 2. Is the
sound of a mighty, rushing wind to be expected each time the Holy Spirit enters
a person? No, we would not expect that,
would we? But why not?
If speaking in tongues, according to Charismatics and Pentecostals,
is normative, why is a mighty, rushing wind not normative? Isn’t it inconsistent to hold that tongues is
to be expected but the mighty, rushing wind is not? And conversely, if the sound of a mighty,
rushing wind is not normative, why is speaking in tongues? 3. Are
flickering flames of fire to be expected each time the Holy Spirit enters
a person? No, we would not expect
that. But why not? Again, if speaking in tongues is normative Christian experience, why do we
not hear reports of flickering flames of fire on the heads of people today, at
least once in awhile? 4. Why did
the baptism of the Holy Spirit take place years after the salvation of most
if not all of the people gathered together in the house (Acts 2:1-12)? If that experience is
normative, why should we not expect the same today – that speaking in tongues would only occur years after salvation? 5. Why is
it that the first instance of speaking in tongues in the early Church
occurred without the laying on of hands?
For those who lay hands on people in order to dispense the gift of
speaking in tongues, why? There is no
evidence on the first occurrence of tongues that anyone laid hands on
anyone! So if Pentecost represents a
normative experience, why lay hands on anyone?
6. While we
are asking questions about Pentecost, here is another. Is there any evidence that those who spoke in tongues had to practice in order to learn how to do
it? There does not appear to be any
practice required, either on the day of Pentecost or on any other subsequent glossolalic
manifestation of the Spirit, whether in Acts or Corinthians. It was miraculous and one doesn’t need to
practice a miracle. Either one can do it
or else one cannot. So why do people
today even attempt to coax or instruct or teach others how to speak in
tongues? Doesn’t that sound phony? It certainly does to me. 7. Why is
there no evidence given that the three thousand who placed their faith in Jesus also spoke in tongues (Acts 2:37-47)? If speaking in tongues is that important and is normative, why did
the new converts not speak in tongues? 8. Why is
there no evidence stated that the additional two thousand males who placed
their faith in Jesus at
Peter and John’s preaching also spoke in tongues (Acts 4:1-4)? 9. After
Peter and John had been arrested, imprisoned, and forbidden to teach in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:1-18), the gathered believers prayed that they all might speak God’s word with all boldness (Acts 4:23-29). They asked specifically
for accompanying healing and signs and wonders (Acts 4:30). In response to their
prayer, “the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were
all filled with the Holy Spirit and
began to speak the word of God with boldness (Acts 4:31). Why was there no mention
of speaking in tongues? 10. When
multitudes of believers were being added to their number, why was there no
mention of their speaking in tongues (Acts 5:14)? 11. After
the selection of the first deacons (Acts 6:1-6), the word of God kept spreading, and the number of disciples in Jesus
increased greatly (Acts 6:7). Why was there no mention
of speaking in tongues? 12. When
Philip successfully evangelized among the Samaritans, men and women were being baptized (Acts 8:1-12). Why was there a delay in
their receiving the Spirit (Acts 8:14-17)? Could it have anything to
do with the fact that it was Peter who had been given the keys to the kingdom (Matt. 16:13-19), and that He needed to be present officially
to inaugurate the despised Samaritans into the Church? And
when Peter and John did lay their hands on the new Samaritan believers and they
received the Holy Spirit, why is there no mention made that they spoke in tongues (Acts 8:17)? If speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of the baptism of the Spirit, why is it not mentioned here? 13. The Holy Spirit
instructed Philip to go to the road that leads southward from Jerusalem to Gaza
(Acts 8:26-40). Philip did so and was
able to present the good news about Jesus to an
Ethiopian eunuch who was an official in the court of Candace, queen of
Ethiopia. The unnamed official seems to
have been a proselyte to Judaism returning from Jerusalem to Ethiopia, for he
was reading from the scroll of Isaiah (Acts. 8:30-33). After Philip instructed
him about Jesus from
the Old Testament Scriptures, the man obviously believed in Jesus and requested to be baptized (Acts 8:35-38). The Holy Spirit “snatched
Philip away” to a place called Azotus but the
eunuch “went on his way rejoicing” (Acts 8:39-40). The conversion of this
official to Christianity clearly was significant, for it opened the Gospel to
the Ethiopians of North Africa. Why was
there no mention either of the official’s having received the Holy Spirit or of
his having spoken in tongues? Clearly
the Holy Spirit was mentioned several times in this account by Luke, the
historian! 14. Acts 9:1-19 recounts the amazing conversion of Saul of Tarsus to faith in Jesus. He was blinded by a light flashing from
heaven, and he heard Jesus ask him why he was persecuting Him (Acts 9:3-9). In a vision, Jesus
instructed a man named Ananias to lay hands on Saul so he could regain his
sight (Acts 9:10-12). The Lord assured Ananias
that Saul was His chosen instrument to bear His name both “before nations and
kings and sons of Israel,” who would suffer on behalf of Jesus’ name (Acts 9:15-16). When Ananias had come, he
laid his hands on Saul, telling him that the Lord Jesus had sent him so Saul
“might look up and be filled with [the] Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17, literal translation).
Immediately, something like scales fell off Saul’s eyes. He “looked up” (literally, i.e. regained his
sight) and, having stood up, he was baptized (Acts 9:18). That probably means that
Ananias baptized Saul with water, though it might also mean that he was
baptized with the Spirit. Regardless,
there is no mention of Saul’s having spoken in tongues on this occasion, though
he was certainly given that gift (1 Cor. 14:18). If speaking in tongues is a necessary sign of being baptized with the Spirit, why is it not mentioned here? Rather, as
happens repeatedly in the book of Acts, the
outward indicator of the presence of the Holy Spirit was that Saul immediately
and boldly “began to proclaim Jesus in the
synagogues,” asserting that He is the Son of God (Acts 9:20, 22, 28). 15. In the
name of Jesus, Peter
healed a man named Aeneas, who had been bed-ridden with paralysis for eight
years. All those who lived at Lydda and
Sharon saw him and “turned to the Lord” (Acts 9:32-35). Why is there no mention
of these new believers speaking in tongues? 16. When
Peter brought back to life Tabitha (Dorcas), a woman who had died, “It became
known all over Joppa, and many believed in the Lord” (Acts 9:36-42). Why is there no mention
that these new believers spoke in tongues? 17. We have
already noted supernatural events surrounding the conversion of Cornelius and
those gathered in his house as recorded in Acts 10. Both Cornelius and Peter
were given visions, and the prompting of the Spirit to Peter was
unmistakable. We have already noted that
upon the salvation of those in Cornelius’ house, immediately “the Holy Spirit fell
upon all those listening to the message” of Peter (Acts 10:43-44). It is obvious that the speaking in tongues that occurred served as a sign to the
believing Jews from Joppa present there.
What did it signify to them? It
signified that “the gift of the Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles
also” (Acts 10:45-46). From the controversy that
erupted upon Peter’s return to Jerusalem, speaking in tongues was a very
necessary sign indeed. It convinced the
Jewish believers in Jerusalem that the Gentiles had indeed been given the same
gift as they had been given (Acts 11:1-18)! Here we can see a reason
for the gift of tongues. Does that same
reason continue to exist? Evidently not,
for within a few years all Jewish converts to Christianity would be well aware
that God had
given the gift of the Spirit to Gentiles as well as to Jews. 18. Some
believers from Cyprus and Cyrene came to Antioch and preached Jesus to
Greeks. “…A large number who believed
turned to the Lord” (Acts 11:19-21). When Barnabas was sent to
confirm them, he being “a good man, and full of the Spirit and of faith,”
“considerable numbers were brought to the Lord” (Acts 11:22-24). Why is no mention made of
anyone speaking in tongues? 19. After Peter’s
miraculous escape from prison and the death of King Herod, who had planned to
kill him (Acts 12:1-23), Luke recorded, “But the word of the Lord continued to grow and
to be multiplied” (Acts 12:24). Why did he not mention
anyone speaking in tongues? 20. Barnabas
and Saul, assigned to an evangelistic work by the Holy Spirit, found
themselves in Paphos on the island of Cyprus.
The proconsul, Sergius Paulus, requested “to hear the word of God” (Acts 13:1-7). When Elymas, a magician,
opposed them, Saul, or Paul, was filled with the Holy Spirit and called down a
judgment of temporary blindness on the man.
Consequently, the proconsul believed, “amazed at the teaching of the
Lord” (Acts 13:8-12). Why was there no mention
of the proconsul’s speaking in tongues? 21. When
Paul and Barnabas attended the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul was given
the opportunity to address the worshipers.
He reviewed the entire history of Israel culminating in Jesus. The people and rulers in Jerusalem had put
Jesus to death, but God raised
Him back to life. He is God’s Messiah,
as the Scriptures confirm. Through Jesus,
forgiveness of sins is proclaimed, forgiveness which the Law of Moses could not
provide (Acts 13:14-39). After the service had
ended, “many of the Jews and of the God-fearing proselytes followed Paul and
Barnabas” (Acts 13:43). The next Sabbath nearly
the whole city assembled to hear the word of the Lord,” but jealous Jewish
people began to oppose Paul. Paul and
Barnabas announced that they were turning to the Gentiles, who “began rejoicing
and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to
eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48). When Paul and Barnabas
were forced to leave the city, “the disciples were continually filled with joy
and with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 13:52). Luke reported, “the word
of the Lord was being spread throughout the whole region” (Acts 13:49). Why did he make no
mention that anyone spoke in tongues? 22. In
Iconium “a large number of people believed, both of Jews and of Greeks” (Acts 14:1). Paul and Barnabas “spent
a long time there speaking boldly with reliance upon the Lord, who was
testifying to the word of His grace, granting that signs and wonders be done by
their hands” (Acts 14:2-3). Why is there no
attestation by means of speaking in tongues? 23. Paul and
Barnabas preached the gospel to the people of Derbe and “made many disciples” (Acts 14:20-21). Why is no mention made of
anyone speaking in tongues? 24. Paul
took Silas with him on his second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-41). They found that the
churches that had been founded on Paul’s first journey “were increasing in
number daily” (Acts 16:4-5). Why is there no mention
of anyone speaking in tongues? 25. There
was a momentous event that would forever alter the course of western
civilization. God called Paul to spread the good news about Jesus in
Europe (Acts 16:6-10). In the city of Philippi,
the Lord opened up the heart of a woman named Lydia “to respond to the things
spoken by Paul.” She and her household
were baptized (Acts 16:14-15), but there is no account that she spoke in tongues. Why
not? 26. In the
city of Philippi, the Lord opened up the heart of a woman named Lydia “to
respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
She and her household were baptized (Acts 16:14-15), but there is no account that she spoke in tongues. Why
not? 27. In
Philippi, Paul and Silas were beaten and thrown into jail. A great earthquake released them and the
other prisoners from their bonds. The
jailer was about to commit suicide when Paul dissuaded him. The trembling jailer asked Paul and Silas
what he must do to be saved (Acts 16:22-30). Paul immediately replied
that he should believe in the Lord Jesus, and he
would be saved, along
with all his household. After washing
the wounds of Paul and Silas, the jailer was baptized, and so
was his household (Acts 16:31-33). He fed the two prisoners
in his own house and was filled with joy, “having believed in God with his whole household” (Acts 16:34). Yet there was no mention
of anyone speaking in tongues. Why
not? 28. When
Paul and Silas traveled to Thessalonica, some of the Jewish synagogue
attenders, along with “a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading
women” were persuaded to join Paul and Silas, having believed in Jesus (Acts 17:1-4). Yet there is no mention
that anyone spoke in tongues. Why
not? 29. Many
Jewish people in the synagogue at Berea believed the message of Paul and Silas,
including some “prominent Greek women and men” (Acts 17:10-12). Yet no mention is made
that any spoke in tongues. Why
not? 30. After
Paul had delivered his speech at the Areopagus in Athens, “some men joined him
and believed” (Acts 17:16-34). Why is there no mention
made of anyone speaking in tongues? 31. Paul
traveled to Corinth and began to teach in the synagogue every Sabbath (Acts 18:1-4). Crispus, the leader of
the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the
Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized” (Acts 18:8). Yet no mention is made of
anyone speaking in tongues. Why is
this the case? 32. Subsequently
Paul arrived at Ephesus and found some disciples. They were believers, but were deficient in
their knowledge, having only been taught the need for repentance, having been baptized into John’s baptism. But
these disciples of John were obviously unaware of John’s teaching that someone
mightier than he would come baptizing by means of the Spirit. When Paul instructed them about Jesus, they
placed their faith in Him and were baptized by water in Jesus’ name (Acts 19:1-5). Still, they did not speak
in tongues, and apparently the Holy Spirit had not
yet descended on them. Why not? It was not until Paul had laid hands on them
that the Holy Spirit came upon them. Not
only did these believers speak in tongues, but they also prophesied (Acts 19:6). Several questions are in
order: a. Is this
normal Christian experience? b. If it
is, why is there no mention, either in Acts 2 or in Acts 10 that believers not only spoke in tongues, but also prophesied? c. Why was
it necessary for Paul to lay hands on these new believers when it was not
necessary either in Acts 2 or 10? d. Why was
there a delay in the receipt of the Spirit and in speaking in tongues after salvation here,
but there was no delay in Acts 10? Furthermore, why was the delay in the arrival of the Spirit here
only a matter of moments, but in Acts 2, the
delay of the arrival of the Spirit upon believers was surely a matter of
years? What is normal? e. What was
the purpose of speaking in tongues and prophesying here? The answer is not as evident as it was either
in Acts 2 or in Acts 10-11. We can only conclude that
the purpose of speaking in tongues and prophesying was an audible reminder to
Paul and to the Church-at-large that being merely a disciple of John the Baptist, as great and as truthful as he was, was not
sufficient to enter either Christ’s Kingdom or the church, or to receive the promised Holy Spirit from Jesus. In order for that to happen, one must believe
in Jesus. At the same time, Paul’s
authority as an apostle was also validated here. See a Chart on the instances of speaking in tongues
in Acts. 33. In
Ephesus, God performed
extraordinary miracles through Paul.
Seven sons of Sceva tried to imitate Paul’s success in casting out
demons, but they were overpowered by a demon-possessed man. This became well-known to all in
Ephesus. Many “who had believed kept
coming,” and confessed their magic practices and burned their magic books. The “word of the Lord was growing mightily
and prevailing” (Acts 19:11-20). Despite the miraculous
overtones, no mention is made of anyone speaking in tongues. Why is
this the case? 34. The rest
of Acts contains the account of Paul’s return to Jerusalem, his seizure by a
mob, his imprisonment, trials, and journey to Rome. Acts 28 ends with an account of his speech before the gathered Jewish
people in Rome. They came to his lodging
in large numbers, and Paul was “testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them about Jesus …. Some were being persuaded by the things spoken,
but others would not believe” (Acts 28:23-24). In this final account of
conversion to Christ in the book of Acts, and
indeed in the last nine chapters of the history, there is no record whatever of
anyone speaking in tongues. Why
not? 35. If speaking in tongues is the normative sign of salvation, baptism of the Spirit, or a second blessing received after
salvation, why are there only three occurrences explicitly mentioned in the
entire book of Acts, the history of the early church? (See a chart of the instances.) The
answer seems to be that speaking in tongues is not a normative experience of
salvation; it is not a normative experience indicating baptism of the Spirit; it is not a normative experience indicating a
deeper walk with God or any
kind of “second blessing.” 36. The
value of speaking in tongues in the book of Acts is
clearly a “sign” value. It is important
for the reader to understand that, important as a sign might be, the
thing signified is of greater importance than the sign itself. Let me illustrate. Jesus
performed a great many miracles in His ministry here on earth. The Apostle John in his
gospel appropriately called these
miracles “signs” (from semeion). He
used this term twenty one times. In his
conclusion, John stated, “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in
the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these
have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God; and
that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31). So what is more important
– the miracles that Jesus performed – or what the miracles signified? An honest answer, it seems to me, would be
that what Jesus’ miracles proved was
more important than the miracles themselves.
And what did they prove? They
proved that Jesus is God’s Messiah and Son.
And anyone who believes in Jesus can have eternal life through His name! By the same token, that which speaking in
tongues signifies is more important than actually speaking in tongues. 37. So let
us review. What are the things signified
in the book of Acts by the miracle of speaking in languages one has not previously
learned? (See the chart on speaking in tongues in the book of
Acts.) a. First of
all when the followers of Jesus gathered
in the upper room on the Day of Pentecost spoke in tongues, it signified to them that Jesus had
succeeded in reaching heaven, and that the Father had sent the Holy Spirit at
Jesus’ request, just as Jesus had promised (John
14:16-17, 26; 15:26; Acts 1:4-5). b. A second purpose of speaking
in tongues on the Day of Pentecost was that it fulfilled prophecy. Joel had predicted that God would
pour forth His Spirit upon
all mankind (Joel
2:28; Acts 2:17).
Pentecost was at least a partial, if not a complete fulfillment of that
prophecy. c. Third, the tongues-speaking on the Day of
Pentecost would serve as a proof to receptive Jewish people in the audience
that the risen Jesus had
been exalted to the right hand of God, that
He had received the promised Holy Spirit from
the Father, and that He had sent the Spirit, who had “poured forth” the
phenomena they had both seen and heard (Acts
2:33). d. A fourth
purpose of speaking in tongues occurred in the home of Cornelius, the Roman centurion. When the Gentiles gathered in his home spoke in tongues immediately upon having trusted in Jesus, it
served as a sign to the Jewish believers that God had determined to pour out His Spirit on
Gentile as well as on Jewish believers. This
was true both for the Jewish believers who had accompanied Peter to Cornelius’
home from Joppa (Acts 10:44-48) and also for Jewish believers in Jerusalem, who had been scandalized
that Peter had eaten with Gentiles (Acts 11:1-18)! We must bear in mind that
in both these cases, not only the speaking in tongues, but also the angelic
appearance to Cornelius, the vision from God that Peter had seen, as well as
the instruction of the Holy Spirit were
all four vital cogs in reassuring Jewish Christians of the universality of the
good news about Jesus (Acts 10-11). e. A fifth
purpose for speaking in tongues in the book of Acts was to
alert Paul and adherents of John the Baptist that even following the Biblical teachings of
John was not enough for salvation if that
teaching did not include faith in Jesus Christ. Once these disciples of John had trusted in
Jesus, their speaking in tongues confirmed that they had received the promised Holy Spirit and
were now full-fledged New Testament believers, a part of the Church universal (Acts 19:1-7). 38. We
conclude then, that in the book of Acts, (1) Speaking in tongues is not a required sign for salvation. (2) Speaking in tongues is not a required
sign of the baptism of the Spirit. (3)
Speaking in tongues is not a sign of a ‘second blessing’ or a ‘deeper walk with
God’. We conclude, therefore, that in the book of
Acts, speaking in tongues is not normative.
It is not the normal or expected behavior of most Christians. Go to a Chart of Speaking in Tongues in the Book of Acts
The Significance of Speaking in Tongues Part E: Is Tongues-Speaking in the Book of Acts Normative? Prepared by
James T. Bartsch April, 2009 Published
Online by WordExplain Email Contact: jbartsch@wordexplain.com This study is based on, and the links to Scripture reference the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE ®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lockman Foundation. (www.Lockman.org) (Scripture
quotations taken from the NASB.
Used by Permission.)
Updated November 8, 2010
|