Featured Xenoglossy in Church History?

If it is not before giving the Revelation of Jesus Christ which has the seal upon it saying, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, . . ." [Revelelation 22:19] Making it, as I understand it, the end of special revelation until its final fulfillments as written in that book. Then I would doubt any such find. The Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthian church that ". . . tongues, they shall cease; . . ." [1 Corinthians 13:8-10] when the two gifts of the Spirit, being in part were done away by that which is perfect. James citing that the gifts from God where both good and perfect [James 1:17]. And only those two speaking gifts were spoken of being in part (v.9). And further more the Apostle Paul indicated that this would be a time when he was present with the Lord [1 Corinthians 13:12; 2 Corinthians 5:8].

 

If it is not before giving the Revelation of Jesus Christ which has the seal upon it saying, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, . . ." [Revelelation 22:19] Making it, as I understand it, the end of special revelation until its final fulfillments as written in that book. Then I would doubt any such find. The Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthian church that ". . . tongues would cease . . ." [1 Corinthians 13:8-10] when the two gifts of the Spirit, being in part were done away by that which is perfect. James citing that the gifts from God where both good and perfect [James 1:17]. And only those two speaking gifts were spoken of being in part (v.9). And further more the Apostle Paul indicated that this would be a time when he was present with the Lord [1 Corinthians 13:12; 2 Corinthians 5:8].

 

I remember you, Steven. Welcome back.

 

The usual story is like what I heard when dragged to a FGBMFI meeting long ago:

"If you had only been here last week--someone spoke in tongues and an old lady in the back stood up and said it was her native Lithuanian that she hadn't heard since emigrating as a little girl."

Of course it never came close to occurring in any meeting or tongues-based tent revival in which I ever was present, but why let that get in the way of their good stories?

 

I think this link pretty much presents the mainstream view of the topic:
The Gift of Tongues | Grace Community Church

 

St. Pachomius

 

The original Pentecostals circa 1905-10 thought their frenzied gibberish was actual foreign languages! Some actually went overseas just to be disappointed.

 

Same happened to the Irvingites in the 1820's.

In the late 1600's there were claims and certified statement sworn in front of notaries of children speaking in good French, a language that they did not understand. One child was said to be two young to speak ao to go on its own was heard to speak in good French. The main object of their utterances was the rapid downfall of Antichrist and Babylon (the pope and the Catholic Church. (Warnings, by Elias Marion published in France and England and A Cry from the Desert by John Lacey, both published about 1705. Dr Williams Library, London. Extracts in Modern claims to the Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Spirit by Wm Goode 1832 2nd edition 1833 Evangelical Library London. Mr Goode traces a history of such claims throughout history.. )

 

They weren't the original Pentecostals. In the 1820's There was a similar Pentecostal movement in England and Scotland under Edward Irving. Their followers thought they also spoke real languages. They were later called the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued into the 20th century. One of my Aunts attended their meetings in the 1920's or 30''s in London. Tgheir Main church in London was "The University Church of Christ the King.", now an Anglican Church I take it from their web site.

 

I suspect you won't find any examples, including the miracles at Pentecost.

Acting like they are "full of inferior wine?"

I'm glad you are informing yourself. Be sure that you are not focused on winning an argument, but instead fairly and carefully presenting the truth of scripture.

A few weeks ago, I was carefully reading through Acts 2 and was surprised at a few things. I grew up hearing that the 120 at Pentecost were speaking in other languages, and my casual reading of the passage affirmed my prejudices. Over the years I have heard preachers and commentators suggest that the "tongues" miracle at Pentecost was actually a miracle of hearing, since many in the crowd asked, "...how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born," – that is, the intimate language that their mothers spoke to them as children – the language of their hearts and thoughts (see Acts 2:8). Luke explains that there are people in attendance from all over the known world, as Palestine sits at the crossroads of Africa, the Middle East, Northern Asia, and Europe. The Arab trade routes undoubtably even brought goods and people in and out of India and the Far East from time to time. Also it is interesting that the those who heard what the 120 (it actually doesn't say what they were saying or what the crowd was hearing) seemed to only hear "them" in their own language, not one or two out out of the 120 being heard over the din of the rest of the group speaking a variety of different languages. That little observation tied together with the substance of the mockers' accusation that the 120 were speaking the way they were because they were drunk on inferior wine doesn't make any sense if the 120 are speaking the common language (probably Aramaic or possible Greek).

So let's think about the evidence given in the Luke's account. Was it a gift of speaking in a language not previously known? Was it a gift of hearing one's own language with the 120 speaking their own language? Or was it something like what was experienced in the church at Corinth, where someone spoke in a tongue and it was interpreted by another?

I have attached a graphic that breaks out the three basic interpretations for quick analysis:



As you can see, only the interpretation where the 120 were speaking in "other tongues" and those who are open to God (under conviction) were given grace to interpret the message seems to fit the facts.

What do you think?

 

Hello BB, always glad to see you posting. I'm curious, where do you derive the number 120 speaking?

They weren't just generic 'people' from all over the world, they were specifically 'devout Jews from every nation under heaven':

5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.

 

People often miss how many people were speaking at Pentecost.

In Acts 1:15, Luke tells us that about 120 people were gathered together to pray. The next few verse identify who were part of the 120 - the primary surviving 11 leading disciples, as well as a number of women and men who had followed Jesus through His ministry, some even from the very beginning in Galilee. This same group was "all together in one place" (Acts 2:1) on the day of Pentecost, and the tongues of fire rested on each one of them (Acts 2:3) and they all were filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke with other tongues (Acts 2:4). Moreover, we know that there were women who were speaking in tongues, because Peter references the prophecy of Joel to explain what was happening -- "And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy..." (Acts 2:17).

It's quite clear if you read Acts in context.

Sure. I did not mean to imply that they were not Jews. These travelers were there for Pentecost, so I assumed it was clear that they were Jewish, or at least, God-fearers who worshiped with Jews.

I was simply stressing how many different native languages there might have been among the crowd.

 

No, it's not quite clear that there were 120 'speaking in tongues' at Pentecost. The context is clear that it was to 'the eleven' that the charge from Christ was given, not to 'the 120':

1 The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,
2 until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
3 To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God:
4 and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, said he, ye heard from me:
5 For John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.
6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.
8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is nigh unto Jerusalem, a Sabbath day`s journey off.
13 And when they were come in, they went up into the upper chamber, where they were abiding; both Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. Acts 1

(count them, eleven, not 120)

16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.
18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: Mt 28

18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world. Ro 10

 

That's possible, but this kind of scoffing is quite specific. They are not saying that nothing happened, or that it was done through the power of the evil one, but that it looked like drunken behavior. Scoffing and mocking have power only when it has at least some correlation to reality.

Yes, and you also need to look at the other two incidents of tongues speaking in Acts:

Acts 10:46 - There is no mention of languages, nor any mention that Peter and his companions heard Cornelius and his friends and family speak a language they did not know. However, this was a clear sign to Peter than Gentiles had received the Spirit just as the believers at Pentecost (Acts 10:47).

Acts 19:6 - There is no mention of languages, nor any mention that Paul and his companions heard the disciples of John speak a language they did not know. However, it seemed to be confirmation to Paul that the disciples of John had come into the faith toward Jesus.

No, the word in Greek means "tongue." That world was also used in that passage to describe the appearance of the fiery manifestation that appeared above the heads of each of the 120. It is also used to indicate the sounds the tongue makes, including the languages that people speak. Don't let anyone tell you that "the Greek word means languages." That's an interpretation of the word, not the word itself. And it is not clear to me at all that it should be translated "languages" in the way we normally think of the term. We are safer using the biblical phrase, "gift of tongues," so that we don't prejudice ourselves against what the scripture might have to say about it.

I'm assuming that you are referring to the miracle, not the natural ability of the crowds who likely were at least bilingual. Regarding the miracle, it seems that if the speakers are constantly shifting languages and all 120 are speaking at once, it would not be very clear, nor could much information be shared. Moreover, it would be relatively easy for the 120 to each learn a few phrases in various languages and repeat them, but that would probably not appear to the hearers like a miracle. I just don't think it is likely.

Well that's good. Unfortunately, the few people I know who have experienced the gift of interpretation can't really explain it except that they hear both the noises that the person is making as well as another voice corresponding in some fashion to the utterances, speaking a clear word to their heart. I have never personally experienced either tongues or interpretation, although I believe I have witnessed a legitimate tongue speaker with interpretation by a friend of mine who had never had the experience of interpreting before. I believe that almost all public tongue speaking that we see in Pentecostal/charismatic circles today in false, since we do not usually get interpretation. Moreover, when I have heard so-called interpretation in those contexts, the Spirit did not bear witness to me in my heart that it was legitimate. That's quite subjective, but that's all I can say about it.

Another phenomenon you probably need to think about is what happens when a preacher preaches. Any pastor who has preached more than a few God-used sermons has had the experience of someone coming up to them after the sermon and thanking you for what you allegedly said that spoke directly to their heart -- to a secret need. In my experience, it is almost always NOT something that I actually said, and sometimes even on an entirely different topic than I addressed. I suspect that the Spirit is quietly taking the fallible human words we utter in the power of the Spirit, and speaking/interpreting them in ways that are not easily discernible to the hearers. To me, that seems to be a similar effect to the biblical miracle of speaking in tongues.

 

If Acts ended there, then that would be the correct interpretation. But it does not. The next two verses tell us who else was there:

14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together)

I realize this harms some beloved teaching, especially teaching about women in ministry, but it is plainly there in scripture.