|
|
|
- Preaching the Living WORD through
the Written WORD - 2 Tim 4;:2 - |
|
|
SPEAKING
WITH OTHER TONGUES - 2 Acts 2:4-11
(5/26/13) Grace Bible Church,
Gillette, Wyoming Pastor Daryl Hilbert I. ACTS 2 SHOWS THAT TONGUES IS A LANGUAGE A. When these foreigners said that what they heard (speaking in
tongues) was in their “own” (idios - particular, Eng. idiosyncrasy, 6, 8;
cf. “their” - hēmereteros - emphatic possessive adjective, “our”,
11 )
language, they meant their own particular language. B. It was indeed their own intelligible human
“language,” or to be more precise, “dialect” (dialektos - Eng. dialect).
This phrase is used twice in Acts 2 (Ac 2:6, 8). II. 1 COR 14 CAN BE PRESUMED TO BE TONGUES IS
A LANGUAGE A. It can be presumed
that speaking in tongues was a language based on context and logic. 1. If no one is present in a particular
dialect, no one will understand what is spoken (1Co 14:9). 2. A language can only have meaning if it is
understood by its hearers (1Co 14:10). 3. No one can be in agreement with
meaningless communication (1Co 14:16). 4. No one is edified by meaningless
communication (1Co 14:17). 5. The purpose for church is edification
through meaningful communication of God’s truth (1Co 14:19 cf. 1Co 14:3, 12,
26). 6. The church is
particularly edified by gifts that communicate God’s truth (1Co 14:6). B. It can be presumed
that speaking in tongues was a language based on Hermeneutics (Principles of
Interpretation). 1. The book of Acts has clearly defined the
gift of tongues, namely the supernatural enabling to speaking in an
intelligible human dialect (Ac 10:45-46 cf. Ac 11:17). 2. This description of tongues in Acts
should be the foremost description (Principle of First Mention) for
understanding the gift of tongues everywhere in the NT. 3. The only time that we should adopt an
alternative view of tongues, is if Scripture itself were to give a clear
reason for it. 4. It would be, certainly, arbitrary and
strained exegesis to make a distinction when none is made in the text…The
only safe principle to follow in discerning the doctrine of speaking in
tongues is to assume that basically the gift is the
same in its various references. (Walvoord, The Holy Spirit) III. 1 COR 14:2 IS CONSISTENT WITH TONGUES BEING
A LANGUAGE A. The idea that 1Co 14:2 introduces an
ecstatic unintelligible non-language is an unnecessary assumption. 1. Just because there was a pagan use of the
false gift of tongues (ecstatic utterances), does not by itself, prove that
the early Christian church had adopted such practice. 2. Just because there is a contemporary use
of the false gift of tongues (ecstatic utterances), does not by itself, prove
that the early Christian church had adopted such practice. 3. Without an additional and clear
description of tongues as an ecstatic unintelligible non-language from
Scripture, it precludes us from making such an assumption. B. The construction of 1Co 14:2 can easily be
interpreted as tongues as a language. 1. Though “tongue” (glōssa - same
root used in Acts) is in the singular, it does not mean that it refers to
the false gift of tongues as an ecstatic non-language (1Co 14:13, 14, 26,
27). It refers to a singular person speaking in a singular language. 2. The tongues speaker is not “speaking to
men” because there are none present who speak in that particular dialect. 3. Therefore, “no one” (oudeis - negative
substantive), that is, “no one present” (not a universal expression),
“understands” (akouō - to hear or comprehend what is heard) a
language with which they are not familiar. 4. They are “speaking to God” because God
understands all languages. But even God does not
understand an unintelligible non-language. 5. Even the tongues speaker himself does not
understand his tongues in his mind and must “pray that he must interpret”
(1Co 14:13). “In his spirit” refers to the place where the Holy Spirit
produces the spiritual gift of tongues. 6. “Mysteries” (mustēria) in the
NT is predominantly something unknown to man but revealed by God (Ep 3:3; Col
4:3; Re 1:20). In this case and in this sense, no one understands the mystery
of the message in an unknown language. IV. PURPOSES OF TONGUES A. Speaking in Tongues was a Sign 1. When the Bible refers to a “sign” (sēmeion),
it serves as a proof or pointer to God’s programs. These signs are divine
supernatural manifestations or miracles, so that
there is no mistaking that they came from God and confirm His purposes and
message. 2. Israel always asked for a sign from God
(Mt 12:38-39; Jn 2:18). Jesus performed signs (miracles) to prove that he was
the Son of God (Lk 5:24; Jn 2:11, 23; 3:2; 10:38). God gave signs to confirm
His message of salvation in Christ (He 2:4). 3. What were the purposes for the sign-gift
of tongues? V. OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS A. One of the great results of the
Reformation was when Martin Luther translated the Bible in the German
language. With the aid of the printing press, access to the Bible was given
to the common man. The common man
could come to the correct interpretation of the Bible for himself. However,
even though man can come to the correct interpretation of the Bible for
himself, he has no right to his “own” interpretation. He is still responsible
for coming to the correct interpretation (2Pe 1:20-21). B. Understanding how to interpret the Bible
is just as important as knowing what the Bible says. For if I come to the wrong interpretation, I still do not know
what the Bible says. Perhaps one of the greatest difficulties for every believer
is to be able to interpret the Bible without his own personal bias. A bias
comes in all shapes and forms. I might be biased
because of incorrect teaching or because of trying to justify a behavior or
experience. The folly comes when I look for some semblance
of Scripture to support my bias. “A text, taken out of context, is pretext.”
If the Scriptures clearly revealed what genuine tongues was
in the book of Acts, it is incorrect interpretation to force another meaning
to it anywhere in Scripture. |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
