by

When I first completed the first English edition of Glossolalia, I was primarily concerned with bescripting my thoughts on the subject strictly based on my perception of "glossolaly" in the New Testament. After I began to circulate the book among other believers and in Christian bookstores, the Spirit caused me to begin to realize that there was indeed more to be told. I realized that I had not dealt with the Old Testament quotes regarding glossolalia sufficiently. Therefore, this second edition deals those excerpts more completely. In conjunction with my study and exposition of the Old Testament quotes, the Spirit directed me to illustrate Yahweh's supernatural power over speech itself. This particular power of God is presented in the section entitled Yahweh, the God of Language. It is very important that we understand this aspect of Yahweh's sovereignty if we are to comprehend speaking in tongues properly and approach it according to the Spirit.

I did wish to research the history of glossolalia in the Church from its inception to the present day, but instead came across a book, Tongue Speaking by Morton Kelsey, which covers its history well. While his book is not strictly Pentecostal its view, Kelsey presents a fair and studied discussion of glosssolalia, bringing out many of the opinions people have held, scriptural information, pros and cons. The only truly lamentable aspect of Kelsey's book is his own admission of inexperience with glossolalia, his inexperience itself limiting his understanding. Nevertheless, Tongue Speaking is well-balanced and good reading for anyone sincerely interested in the subject.

My purpose here, however, is not to cover every possible discussion or viewpoint about glossolalia, but to elaborate on the scriptural texts which either specifically deal with or otherwise apply to glossolalia. It goes without saying that glossolalia has been a controversial and sensational Christian topic in the past with much being written and preached both for and against it. While I am definitely for speaking in tongues, and consider it to be integral to solid Christian experience, glossolalia is not pivotal to walking with God as is faith toward God. It is nevertheless of great importance if we are going to be fully conformed to the image of the Son.

Perhaps the greatest problem that arises in connection with glossolalia is the tendency of many to discredit or belittle glossolalia in different ways. (I'll mention some of these in rebuttal at the appropriate places in my presentation.) The only real way to understand or approach this topic is to search the Scriptures and allow them to define and explain it to our rational minds, at the same to excluding all other extra-biblical definitions on account of the superior authority of the Scriptures over and above any other literature or opinion. The only other way is to experience it for ourselves and observe how the Scriptures explain our experiences. Anything else only lends itself to dilution and distortion of the truth. Without a solid understanding of the Biblical teaching, we are left only with faulty human reasoning, perception, and opinion as our guide to understanding.

I have deliberately avoided injecting much of my own personal testimony into my discourse here in accordance with my stated purpose of relating the biblical doctrines pertaining to glossolalia. For the same reason, I have also avoided an evangelicative tone as well as concentration on the topic of the Holy Ghost Baptism. For the record, though, I must say that glossolalia has been exceedingly good for my spirit, soul, and body, the power of the Spirit of God thereby flowing through all of these parts unto my edification in God. I must also say that my focus herein on glossolalia in no way implies that I do not believe in glossolalia as part and parcel of the Holy Ghost Baptism - I do, and like St. Peter, I recognize glossolalia as the true evidence of believers having been baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Glossolalia as an experiential aspect of the salvation and blessing of God is without doubt exponentially much more profound than a reading of Scripture might suggest and likewise difficult at best to describe. The best advice I can offer on this point is this quote of Jesus: »And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?« (Lu 11:9-13, KJV)

Much of the information in this book can be found in other books about the Holy Ghost Baptism and Speaking in Tongues. I have purposely written this book for the believer in Jesus Christ to elaborate specifically on glossolalia with regard to doctrinal aspects, God's purposes in it, and its symbology in Scripture. Some the text is written as textual commentary (most notably for the Book of Acts and 1.Corinthians 12-14). In other sections, I have concentrated on biblical symbols associated with glossolalia. Much was derived from Old Testament quotes by Peter in the Book of Acts and Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, for without them, we might not know that these passages indeed pertain to glossolalia. I have added some which appear to me to likewise pertain to the subject. And I suspect that there are many more verses than those I present here which do also. On account of the fact that I wrote this section after the original ones, many things became apparent in my study which I might not have otherwise perceived. The result is that this section ties several glossolalia concepts together and lends added weight to some of my expressions in other parts of this book.

I began earlier this year to sort through my notebooks and boxes of papers to find and collect together everything I had ever written about glossolalia. These materials had to first be typed and then reviewed. Many of these things were written under the influence of strong anointings in response to revelation given by the Spirit of God at the time. Others were earlier attempts to write just this kind of book. This book is a blending of all of these things together with more recent insights and fresh topical study. I have read others' work dealing with the same subject and have incorporated some of the knowledge gained from their work. However, all of text is my own work; where I present something which I originally learned in someone else's writing, it is something which I have verified through my own study.

Before I launch into my exegesis about glossolalia, it is important that we start by defining the term itself. If you look up »glossolalia« in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, you will find the term defined this way:

"glossolalia [Mod. L., from Gr. glôsso- (from glôssa, tongue), and lalia, a speaking, from lalein, to speak, of echoic origin.] an ecstatic or apparently ecstatic utterance of unintelligible speechlike sounds, viewed by some as a manifestation of deep religious experience." [WDUD]

This is the secular definition of glossolalia. Accordingly, it bears evidence of the natural man's reasoning on the subject. Note that the definition given implies incredulity by describing it as an "utterance of unintelligible SPEECHLIKE SOUNDS". In other words, the lexicographers of Webster's Dictionary would have us believe that glossolalia is nothing more than incoherent babbling. This view of glossolalia is consistent with the teachings of some fundamentalist groups and was (in a way) expected by the apostle Paul, for he wrote: »If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?« (1C 14:23).

The Random House Dictionary's definition is considerably more accurate to Scripture:

"speaking in tongues a prayer characterized chiefly by incomprehensible speech, originating in primitive Christianity and now practiced by Pentecostal groups in ecstatic forms of worship. Also called gift of tongues, glossolalia." [RHD]

Webster's basic etymology of »glossolalia«, however, is essentially correct. What Webster omits is that the term was coined from the Greek phrase glôssais lalein, the idiomatic phrase used by the apostle Paul and Luke (in the First Epistle to the Corinthians and the Book of Acts, respectively) to mention and denote "speaking in tongues". In every place where glossolalia is specifically mentioned in the New Testament (translated as "to speak in (a) tongue(s)"), glôssais lalein is used. Apparently, someone thought to combine the nominative case form of glôssais, glôssa, with the noun derived from lalein, lalia, to form glossolalia. To be precise, glossolalia is not a Scripture word. It is a Christian and theological word composed of the Greek words glôssa (meaning 'tongue, language, utterance' [UBSGNT]) and lalia (meaning 'what is said, accent, manner of speech' [UBSGNT]).

On account of the fact that glossolalia is not a Scripture word, I cannot present its definition in the way I normally would. Instead, I will present definitions and etymologies of its source words glôssa and lalein.

In spite of all this lexical information, I think glossolalia is still best defined from the Scriptures:

»they shall speak with new tongues« translates »glôssais lalêsousin kainais«. kainais is the dative plural form of kainos which means "new; of new quality; unused; unknown, unheard of" [UBSGNT]. Any of these shades of meaning can be applied to the subject of glossolalia; we could say that they will speak with new languages, languages of new quality, unused languages, unknown languages, languages unheard of. In any case, Jesus is saying that they will speak languages previously unknown to them. Apparently, the King James translators believed that this was what Paul was describing when they supplied the word »unknown« in 1. Corinthians 14. NOTE: kainos stems from Protoindoeuropean *ken- which means "fresh, new, young" [AHDofIER], which suggests to me the possibility that God might simply create previously non-existent languages on the fly as he baptizes his people with the Holy Spirit.

Here glossolalia is presented as "speaking in a different language while filled with the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of God himself governing the utterance or pronunciation".

Not only does Luke tell us that they spoke in other languages than their own, but he presents the evidence of that fact. Contrary to the belief of some who would say that the real miracle was that these people heard them speaking in their own languages only, that is, that the speakers were not truly speaking in other languages, Luke is not saying any such thing - he is simply supporting what he wrote in Acts 2:4 where he uses the term »other tongues« or »other languages« (which is the literal translation of heterais glôssais). It would be inconsistent for Luke to say on the one hand that they spoke in other languages and that they only heard them in other languages on the other. While it is certainly within God's ability to produce such a phenomenon, this is not what Luke is describing. The fact that they spoke »the wonderful works of God« expresses praise of God as an activity done through glossolalia.

This is probably the most direct definition of glossolalia in Scripture. It seems self-evident (at least to me) from this and the other verses in the fourteenth chapter of 1.Corinthians that the King James translators believed that Paul was not simply discussing the usage of foreign languages, but rather, the delivery of the word of God in languages not known to man (at least not known to the Corinthians). In any case, Paul is describing glossolalia here as prayer, for prayer is speaking unto God. A perhaps more literal rendering of this verse would be: »For the speaking one (male) (with reference to) language speaks not to people but God, for no one hears, but (with reference to) spirit speaks secrets.« The word translated as »mysteries« or »secrets« is the Greek word musterion...

In every place in the New Testament where the translation »mystery« appears, the source word is musterion. It is a religious word and specifically refers the Mystery religions of Classical times as well as secrets of any kind. In the New Testament, it speaks of secrets pertaining to God and man, into the knowledge or perception of which one must be initiated by the Holy Spirit if that one is to truly comprehend the mentioned secret. In 1.Corinthians 14:2, the word is used to reference a secret which is, in fact, concealed by the language in which the glossolaliant is speaking. Similarly, it references the hidden content of the prayer of the glossolaliant's spirit (1C 14:14), which spirit is created in the image of his Creator (Ep 4:23-24).

I suppose then that we should define glossolalia this way: "the speaking of one's spirit in a different, foreign, or unknown language (of men or of angels, see 1C 13:1) while (being) filled with the Holy Spirit with the Spirit of God himself governing the utterance (pronunciation), either for prayer or for praise, expressing secrets".

There are many passages throughout the Old and New Testaments which discuss and illustrate God manifesting his power, healing, imparting knowledge and wisdom, and otherwise governing events and creatures through speaking. Indeed, the effects of glossolalia on the speakers and those who hear them testify of his supernatural working in the lives of his people. Besides this, the Scriptures are full of examples of prayer, preaching, prophecy, singing, praise and worship being vehicles for the expression of Yahweh's power and person. Much has been written over the centuries and millenia about these things and no doubt will more be written still as people continue to come into union with the Lord and become co-laborers with him. But, by comparison, not much seems to have been written about God's power to control speech itself. It is worthwhile that we understand and recognize Yahweh's ability to control the tongue, for this understanding is integral to a proper understanding of both prophecy and glossolalia. There are several verses and passages in the Scriptures which bear this out and reveal that Yahweh can control human speech. Before we enter into any discussion about glossolalia, it is important that we first verify that Yahweh can indeed govern over speech, for knowledge of the fact of this control is integral and essential to a proper biblical understanding of tongue-speaking.

I have selected several passages which illustrate God's ability to control the tongue and speech in various ways and present them below with some of my notes and comments.

The third thing which God is recorded as doing in the Book of Genesis is SPEAKING. When he created humanity »in his image«, this included the ability to speak. Thus, the first instance of God controlling speech is in his giving man the ability to speak. The »breath of life« which Yahweh breathed into Adam was intrinsic to this ability, for it is impossible for man to utter a sound without the flow of air from the lungs generated by the act of breathing. Likewise, the breath of God, the Holy Ghost, is the source of glossolalia.

Apart from the obvious JUDGMENTAL aspect of the events at Babel, this passage reveals several linguistic truths:

In a very real sense, we could say that God made them "speak with other tongues" at Babel in that he made them speak differently than they had previously with the confounding of their one language becoming the emergent source all known human languages. The difference between Babel and Pentecost is one of contrasting purposes. At Babel, it was meant to divide them and halt their plans. At Pentecost, it was meant to unite the believers in the Spirit. At Babel, they did not receive the Holy Ghost. At Pentecost, they did. At Babel, it was an expression of God's displeasure with them. At Pentecost, it was the blessing of God.

The most amazing thing to me in this passage is not that the ass spoke, but that Balaam failed to recognize this as weird. Nevertheless, the passage demonstrates God's supernatural ability to control speech, even in nonhuman creatures.

The definitive words here are »turn« and »pure« in verse 9:

The verb haphak here suggests the notion of Yahweh reversing the processes he set in motion when he »confounded« their language at Babel in Genesis 11.

pure = bârar = "to clarify (i.e. brighten), examine, select" [#1305H]

bârar denotes here "clarified" or "brightened" speech, a word that flashes like lightning. However, it also suggests the processes used in smelting silver in Psalm 12:6 where the Psalmist says: »The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in as furnace of earth, purified seven times.«. The word translated as »pure« in this psalmverse is similar in meaning to bârar: tâhôwr means "pure (in a phys., chem., cerem., or moral sense)" [#2889H] and comes from tâhêr which means "to be bright; i.e. (by impl.) to be pure (phys. sound, clear, unadulterated; Levit. uncontaminated; mor. innocent or holy)" [#2891H]. Silver is clarified from its ore or purified by heating, skimming off the dross, and repeating this process until the refiner can see his own face in it without distortion. Unlike haphak (which speaks of reversion), bârar denotes then the decontamination of human speech in this context and that by an act of God. NOTE: The English word 'pure' derives (via loan from Latin purus) from the Protoindoeuropean stem *peue- which means "to purify, cleanse" [AHDofIER] and may in fact come from the ultimate source as bârar.

Although some may see Zephaniah 3:9 as a reference to glossolalia, it speaks of clarified, refined, and purified speech in general. Verse 13 seems to explain what Yahweh meant by »pure language«: »The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth«.

Zephaniah 3:9 also suggests the reason why Yahweh chose to confound humanity's language at Babel: they were seeking to have unity with one another in exalting themselves by making themsleves a name through the construction of the Tower of Babel whereas Yahweh's intention was that people should be in unity serving him, »to serve him with one consent«. This combination of speech, purity, and unity of purpose forms the basis for the continuance of the so-called five-fold ministry of Ephesians 4:11-16: »And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.« That glossolalia contributes to this is implied in Paul's statement that »...as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit« (1C12:12-13). Paul says this after listing several gifts of the Spirit and then through 1.Corinthians 12-14 explains how the various gifts of the Spirit, governed by love (agapê), are meant to be used in serving God and edifying the body of Christ.

The idea of CLARIFICATION in Zephaniah 3:9 is implied in Isaiah 32:4 where he prophesies: »The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly«.

Since the act of glossolalia involves or represents a unity of the speaker's spirit with the Spirit of God in the utterance, glossolalia is consistent with Yahweh's intention in turning to the people a pure language. Taken together with the concept of clarification, we can say that Zephaniah 3:9 elaborates on God's purpose in glossolalia while not specifically being a direct reference to speaking in tongues.

In reference to Yahweh's authority over man's speech, the passage expresses his ability to cleanse our speech from lies and deception, whether intentional or unintentional (for one can speak falsehood while believing that the falsehood is true).

Ezekiel 3:27 can be understood as being prophetic and should be cross-referenced with those passages in the Gospels where Jesus makes the dumb speak. What is expressed is the actual absolute power of God over the prophet's speech organs, both to prevent him from speaking and to cause him to speak. This should be balanced with Paul's statement »the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets« (1C 14:22). I say this only because some may claim that they could not help outbursting in a tongue or in prophecy, i.e. that they had no control over themselves. While this can occur, Paul understood that believers had the power to wait to speak.

In each of these passages, Jesus is recorded encouraging his disciples that the Holy Ghost will govern over the testimony of Jesus Christ delivered through them. The basic principles in these passages (as they touch on speaking by the Spirit of God) also apply to speaking in tongues. In Matthew and Luke, »take no thought« translates the Greek verb merimnaô which means "to be anxious about" [#3309G]. merimnaô comes from the noun merimna "through the idea of distraction" which means "solicitude" [#3308G]. merimna in turn comes from the verb merizô which means "to part, i.e. apportion, bestow, share, or (fig.) to disunite, differ" [#3307G] and ultimately comes from the noun meros which means "a division or share" [#3313G]. In Mark, »take no thought beforehand« translates the verb promerimnaô which means "to care (anxiously) in advance" [#4305G]. He says this not only because the Holy Ghost will provide what we say, but also because such worrying is contrary to God's purpose that we be in unity with the flowing of the living waters from within (Jn 7:37-39) or the moving of the Holy Spirit (Note that rêma, "word, utterance" [#4487G, called the »sword of the Spirit« in Ep 6:17], comes from a verb meaning "to flow" [#4482G]). »premeditate« translates melataô which means "to take care of, i.e. (by impl.) revolve in the mind" [#3191G]. According to Strong, melataô comes from "a presumed derivative of melô" which means "to be of interest to, i.e. to concern (only third pers. pres. indic. used in impers. it matters)" [#3199G]. In other words, there is no reason for us to worry about or plan what we are going to say when we are given the opportunity to testify, but simply understand that the Spirit will speak in us. Similarly, there is no reason for us to be concerned about how or what we speak in an unknown tongue. Yahweh is not looking for his people to concern themselves with such or with the manner in which they shall speak. Instead, Jesus wants us to simply believe him that God will exercise his power over our tongues and cause us to speak the word which the Spirit is breathing into us in that moment. By extension of this principle, it is nowhere more acutely expressed as it is in glossolalia, especially as it occurred on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2). There they expressed »the great works of God« to the gathering crowd via glossolalia and the church was born. We could also connect this principle with Isaiah 32:4 in sense of the "stammering" of speaking in a tongue being our preparation instead of taking thought or premeditating, for Peter, after he and the others had been speaking in tongues, was indeed ready to stand up and »speak plainly«, presenting Joel's prophecy as the Old Testament precedent for glossolalia.

Here Yahweh's power to govern speech is manifested in the most profound way - by enabling his people to speak in languages they never learned. While some attempt to discredit this by either contending the crowd only heard them speaking foreign languages or that glossolalia was nothing more than "ecstatic utterances", Luke specifically tells the reader that all did in fact speak »with other tongues«, in other languages.

In the previously cited passages, we have seen that God indeed has the power control speech in the following ways:

Certainly, if the Lord can do all these things, he can enable us to speak foreign languages without learning (and, for that matter, without understanding) them. There is therefore no reason to harbor any doubts on this point, for he is indeed our God of Language. There is therefore also no reason to entertain the various objections and criticisms which people have made in the past and present concerning glossolalia. Most of these criticisms are based on the assumption that God is not truly real or who the Bible presents him to be. The notions that glossolalia be demonic, evidential of psychological disturbance, a product of the collective unconscious, incoherent utterances produced by some achieved emotional ecstasy, etc., are all unbiblical interpretations of this manifestation and enabling of the Spirit of God. It is sad that so many approach the miraculous with such atheism and unbelief. The glossolalia which appears in the New Testament and which Jesus himself said would follow those who believe is always generated by the Holy Ghost and is never presented as in Scripture as being counterfeit or of demonic origin. To say that God might allow one of his children to become demon-possessed in receiving "tongues" is an insult to the righteous character of God and contradictory to Jesus' own description of God's manner of giving to his people (see Lu 11:9-13). It specifically says that they spoke »as the Spirit gave them utterance«. I must be fundamentalist on this point: What the Bible says it is, is what it is!

Since I have already presented a detailed discussion of the events at Babel in Genesis 11 (see Yahweh, the God of Language), I will simply quote the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, from his work Antiquities of the Jews, 1.4.3:

»...When God saw that they acted so madly he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not growing wiser by the destruction of former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them divers languages: and causing that, through the multitude of languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein the built the tower is now called Babylon; because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, Confusion. The Sibyl also makes mention of this tower, and of the confusion of the language, when she says thus: - "When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven; but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave everyone his peculiar language; and for this it was that the city was called Babylon."« [Whiston, p. 35]

Josephus' description sounds even more like glossolalia than does Genesis and, while being essentially a restatement of Genesis 11, demonstrates how Josephus related to the passage. His quote of the Sibyl indicates that Yahweh's action at Babel, although reinterpreted in a polytheistic context, was apparently remembered by non-Israelite people.

On the day of Pentacost, this text became Peter's explanation for the wonder which we call glossolalia. As I have already pointed out, glossolalia is in fact a form prophetic speech. In the second chapter of the Book of Acts, Peter's usage of Joel's prophecy to explain glossolalia confirms that this is so.

Strong's definition of nâbâ' fits with Paul's usage of the phrase »sing with the spirit« in 1.Corinthians 14:15. Due to its phonological and semantic similarity, the Hebrew word nephesh [#5315H] should be considered as a possible related word to nâbâ'. I say this because it is quite common for 'f', 'v', 'b', and 'p' sounds to be interchanged with one another in certain phonological environments. For example, in English, we say 'leaf' in the singular, but 'leaves' in the plural. In Finnish, they say 'kipu' (pain, ache) in the nominative singular, but 'kivun' in the genetive singular. In German, they say 'ich gebe' ('I give') in the first person singular, 'gib!' ('give!', pronounced 'gip') in the imperative. Thus, it is not illogical to conjecture that nâbâ' and nephesh are in fact variants of the same original stem.

The word »inspiration« literally means "to breathe into". Thus, prophecy in any form is the direct result of Yahweh BREATHING into someone. The »rushing mighty wind« of Acts 2:2 is representative of this flow of God's breath, for both the Hebrew rûwach [#7307H] and the Greek pneuma [#4151G] mean both "breath" and "spirit". This concept of Yahweh breathing into people is found in several places in Scripture and is the source of Paul's statement to Timothy »All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness« (2Ti 3:16). The Greek word translated as »inspiration of God« in this verse is theopneustos, which Strong defines as "divinely breathed in" [#2315G]. This 'theopneusm' is precisely what the Lord does with his people when they are praying in tongues or prophesying, for this is how the Spirit gives the utterance.

The Hebrew word translated »living« here is khay, which means "alive; hence raw (flesh); fresh (plant, water, year), strong; also (as noun espec. in the fem. sing. and masc. plur.) life (or living thing), whether lit. or fig." [#2416H]. The word translated »soul« is nephesh (see definition above). If we are going to possess a »living soul«, Yahweh must breathe into us. With regard to glossolalia, it is important that we understand that God's breath is flowing through us into verbal expression whenever we speak in a tongue, for one cannot speak without breathing. (I am not speaking about natural physical breathing here, but using the natural to assist presentation of the spiritual.) One of the effects, then, of this spiritual 'breathing' in glossolalia, is that God vivifies our soul or psychê. We should also consider the following examples from Ezekiel and John:

Yahweh breathed into Ezekiel as he spoke to him and this made the prophet STAND and HEAR from God. Thus, it follows, since we are speaking WITH the Holy Spirit when we speak in tongues, that two of the effects of glossolalia are that we stand and hear from God better (see Ep 6:10-18 and Ju 20-25, where glossolalia, "prayer in the spirit" is connected with STANDING in God). Subsequently, Yahweh gave Ezekiel a vivid picture of this vivifying effect of the Yahweh's breathing connected with standing:

All I am really trying to say here is that the BREATH which made Adam a living soul and which raised up the slain is the same breath of life which is moving in us when we speak in tongues. This passage illustrates Yahweh's desire for his people to be vivified, stand up, and LIVE. It also shows very well Jesus' intent in John :

Jesus' work here parallels that of Ezekiel and he still does the same today.

The Hebrew translated »stammering« here is lâ'êg = "from 3952 (lâ'ag); a buffoon; also a foreigner" [#3934H]. Its source, lâ'ag, means "to deride; by impl. (as if imitating a foreigner) to speak unintelligibly" [#3932H]. lâ'ag is the same word which is translated as »have in derision« in Psalm 2:4:

Given Strong's definition of lâ'ag, this verse could be rendered »He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall speak unintelligibly to them«, which would then make Psalm 2:2 a direct threefold reference to Jesus speaking in tongues, believers speaking in tongues ("sitting in the heavens", Ep 1:3; 2:6), and Jesus speaking in parables (see Mt 13:13-16). lâ'ag is the likewise same word which is translated as »laugh to scorn« in Psalm 22:7:

»My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?« is presented as the translation or interpretation of »El(o)i, El(o)i, lama sabachthani?« in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. This is interesting as it partains to glossolalia, for the contexts in Matthew and Mark, when compared with Paul's description of glossolalia in 1.Corinthians 14:2, suggest that Jesus was speaking in tongues on the cross and the word lâ'ag, the definition of which suggests glossolalia, appears in same Psalm from which Jesus was apparently quoting! (Actually, Jesus wasn't quoting Psalm 22:1 at all, for the Psalm is actually a prophecy concerning him; it only appears that he was quoting this Psalm on account of the sequence of the books of the Bible.) This coincidence is interesting in its implication - I would suggest, given God's ability to engineer coincidences and orchestrate events, that Yahweh left this hint (as it might pertain to this or similar discussion) in the Psalm as a means of connecting Jesus' crucifixion with glossolalia and hinting that he did in fact speak in tongues on the cross.

It should be obvious that verses 1 and 2 here refer to Jesus, our King of Kings and our Refuge. As he pointed out to the woman at Jacob's well, he is the one who dispenses the living water which quenches the thirst (Jn 4). Verses 3 and 4 express the effects of that dispensation: eyes fade not, ears hearken, hearts understand, and tongues speak. One could take the secong half of verse 4 to mean that God will cure stuttering (which is entirely possible), but, really, it expresses the essential relationship of glossolalia to other speakings., such as prophecy, interpretation of tongues, and bearing witness. Verses 3 and 4 are of the same structural pattern as verses 1 and 2 and are meant to describe something entirely positive. I say this because I first understood verse 4 in accordance with the negative sense aspects of the English words »rash« and »stammerer«.

The Hebrew word translated as »rash« here is mâhar which means "to be liquid or flow easily...to hurry (in a good or bad sense)... adv. promptly" [#4116H]. This is very positive, for it is the exact opposite state of being to the »stony heart« about which Ezekiel prophesied (Ez 36:25-27). It is the "liquid-hearted" who shall understand knowledge. Two symbols for the Spirit of God are oil and water, both of which are usually liquids. Water and oil do not flow through stone. Our minds need to flow with the Holy Spirit wherever he goes. If anything, a "heart of liquid" is one which is, with regard to the Holy Spirit, infinitely flexible in its perceptions, as flexible as water. This is why the Lord cleanses away the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh (note that physical flesh is normally composed primarily of water and that it is also a source of oil in the form of fat). If the Spirit is going to lead us »into all truth« (Jn 16:13), our perceptions and opinions must be flexible, our hearts must be liquid.

The Hebrew word translated »stammerers« here is illêg which means "to stutter, stuttering" [#5926H]. There is no gainsaying the fact that glossolalia often sounds like stuttering. Although Strong gives no hint of this, illêg appears to derive from the same ultimate root as lâ'ag, with both incorporating the notion of "incomprehensible speech". Therefore, the »stutterer« or the »stammerer« is the glossolaliant, the one who speaks in tongues. The tongue-speaker is therefore the one who shall be »ready to speak plainly«.

The bold italic phrases in the four quotes above are all the same verse from Psalm 16 with the second one being from an edition of the Septuaginta and the last one being from an edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. I mention this here only because Peter quotes this Psalm in the course of his message on the day of Penetecost. »my tongue was glad« is a fairly literal translation of »êgalliasato hê glôssa mou« and, used as a direct reference to their praises of God in glossolalia on the day of Pentecost, does imply textual authority having been ascribed to the Septuaginta, for therefrom was Peter quoting. Thus, Psalm 16:9 must be understood as a direct reference to glossolalia, although the KJV rendering of the Hebrew of the same verse suggests otherwise.

This question is important, but also somewhat difficult to answer, for nowhere in Scripture does it specifically say that he did. Nevertheless, it is possible to show that he did (or at least that he most likely did). At the same time, we need to remember that Christians are intended to be fully conformed to the image of the Son of God, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Ro 8:29; Ph 3:20-21). Apparently, at least for them at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, those in Cornelius' house, and the believers at Ephesus, that conformity included glossolalia. It would be consistent then, to make the assumption that Jesus did speak in tongues. Another point to consider here is that Jesus was tried in ALL points as we are, which would therefore include speaking in tongues. If anything, we do know that Jesus prophesied that the believers would speak in tongues:

In the New Testament in Mark 16:17, the Greek verbal construct glôssais lalein appears for the first time, the same idiomatic phrase used by the apostle Paul and Luke to denote "speaking in tongues" (for the semantic and spiritual significance of glôssais lalein, see Etymology and Definition of »Glossolalia«). I do not know whether or not Jesus was the first to coin the phrase, but it is most certainly the idiom used throughout the New Testament to denote glossolalia. While some dispute the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 as being present in the original version of Mark's Gospel, the content of Mark 16:17 is entirely consistent with the historical information presented in the Book of Acts. In any case, Jesus is the first person recorded in Scripture to have used the phrase.

The next two passages suggest that Jesus spoke in a tongue on the cross on account of internal and comparative evidence:

The internal evidence is the fact that the authors transliterated »El(o)i, El(o)i, lama sabachthani« instead of simply translating the question. It is certain that Jesus spoke the local Semitic dialect Aramaic in the general course of his ministry. Why transliterate his prayerful question when its meaning in itself captures its full significance? The transliteration seems to be a device to illustrate Jesus speaking in an "unknown" tongue.

The comparative evidence becomes apparent when one compares these passages with Paul's description of glossolalia in 1.Corinthians 14:2:

Paul tells us two facts about speaking in a tongue which help interpret Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37:

It is self-evident in both passages that Jesus was addressing God. Even more significant is the fact that the bystanders, who spoke the same native language as Jesus, did not understand him - they thought he was calling unto Elijah the prophet. Given both of these observations and the fact that they correspond exactly to Paul's description of glossolalia in 1.Corinthians 14:2, I must conclude that Jesus spoke in tongues.

That Jesus spoke in tongues on the cross is not without profound symbolic and spiritual significance. Paul used the crucifixion symbolically to express many spiritual truths, all of which are essentially summed up in his statement: »I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me« (Ga 2:20). Connected with this is Paul's statement: »For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh« (Ro 8:3), which Jesus accomplished in being crucified as our sacrifice for sin. Think about it, here's Jesus condemning sin in the flesh on the cross speaking in tongues! It suggests that glossolalia is meant to be a part of our experiential recognition of being »crucified with Christ« and that glossolalia aids in the mortification of the flesh (Ro 8:13).

In Mark's Gospel, we also have two other instances of transliteration which suggest that Jesus spoke in tongues, Mark 5:41 and 7:34.

This example of Jesus practicing glossolalia is connected with resurrection, for the damsel died (Mk 5:35) and rose again at Jesus' command (Mk 5:42). Interestingly enough, glossolalia is considered to be a proof or evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ: »Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you« (Jn 16:7) and »Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know... For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved... This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear« (Ac 2:22, 25, 32-33).

This second example is likewise interesting for it illustrates Jesus using glossolalia in the context of healing a deaf-mute and loosing the man's tongue to speak. Symbolically, it speaks of Jesus opening our mouths to speak in tongues, to speak prophetically by the Spirit, to speak praises of God as well as opening our ears to hear from God (Pr 20:12).

In both of these, the imperatives Jesus used in healing these people are transliterated and then interpreted. Jesus healed hundreds of people in the course of his earthly ministry and I said above, he spoke Aramaic or at least a Semitic dialect), for he ministered primarily to Israelites whose native tongue was the same as his own. In other words, there would be no reason to represent him speaking Aramaic on account of its commonality, especially in light of the fact that the author only transliterates it twice, while rendering all other things Jesus says in Greek. Therefore, the author must have intended to communicate something relatively unique. I believe that the author of Mark used this literary device to emphasize glossolalia on Jesus' part. This is further strengthened by the fact the Gospel of Mark is the only one of the Gospels which records Jesus prophesying that believers would speak in tongues. Together, these things suggest that the author intended to illustrate glossolalia in Jesus. If you look up all of the transliterated words in Strong's Concordance and other biblical reference works, the contention presented is that these phrases were in Aramaic or Chaldean. Perhaps, they were not Aramaic at all but another Semitic langauage not intelligible to Jesus' contemporaries.

The central observation in all of these references is that these transliterations illustrate Jesus speaking in tongues, and, even if the authors did not remember exactly what they heard him say, the fact they include these in their writings and then translate the transliterations demonstrates that Jesus impressed them strongly enough that they felt the best way to express what they witnessed would be to simply represent these things in a language foreign with regard to the Greek which they employed in writing about Jesus.

I have included these references on account of fact that someone suggested that they demonstrate that Jesus spoke in tongues.

While it is incontestable that Jesus received the Holy Spirit in the apparition of a descending dove and that a voice from heaven, that of the Father, confirmed his anointing as the Son of God, there is nothing here which specifically says that Jesus spoke in a tongue. However, given the fact Jesus was seeking to »fulfill all righteousness«, it would be consistent with this principle to speak with another language upon receiving the Spirit.

Nevertheless, these passages bear similarity with those in Acts 2, 10, and 19 in that we see the Spirit DESCENDING (or »falling«) upon the Son of God and a voice CONFIRMING the event. Unlike the passages in Acts, the voice is not that of glossolalia, but of God the Father.

The excerpts are all examples of what Jesus described to his disciples after his resurrection: »And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence... But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.« (Ac 1:4-5,8, KJV).

There is one difference, however, as John said: »For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.« (Jo 3:34, KJV). According to Paul, things like prophecy, knowledge, and glossolalia are things »in part«: »For out of an instalment are we knowing, and out of an instalment are we prophesying« (1C 13:9, CLNT). An »instalment« is something measured. Thus, the anointing Jesus received in the descending dove was something superior to the Holy Ghost Baptism. However, this does not mean that Jesus did not speak in tongues (See NOTE - 1.Corinthians 13:10).

The Book of Acts is the only historical book of the Bible which provides examples of people receiving the Holy Spirit. It tells us how they received and what happened when they did. Careful textual analysis of the book and specifically those passages which relate the reception of Holy Spirit by various people reveals that glossolalia accompanies the reception of the Spirit. When one considers that these references are the only historical references we have that show what actually happens when people receive the Holy Ghost, what are we then to believe? There simply no other passages which show what happens when people receive the Spirit. And I am not ignoring those passages which show a state of being known as "being filled with the Spirit" (Ac 4:8, 13:19; Ep 5:18) or subsequent fillings after the initial reception of the Spirit (Ac 4:31; Ep 5:18).

One important observation I made while reviewing my notes for this section was that four persons are recorded to have layed hands on others for them to receive or be baptized with the Spirit: Peter, John, Paul, and Ananias. Ananias was a disciple, but not an apostle (Ac 9:10). Therefore, a believer does not need to be an apostle to impart the baptism with the Holy Ghost through the laying on of hands; it is not limited to those having ministerial authority. This contrasts sharply with Simon's attempt to purchase this kind of power from Peter.

The notes below are my own from the time when I first received the Spirit and began to speak in a tongue (with some expansion for this work). Others have made the same observations as I have here, so my comments may not seem like anything new to some folks.

ALL spoke with tongues. Yahweh declares the end from the beginning. Applied to this, it suggests that Yahweh will eventually have ALL of his people to speak with other tongues. This first incidence of glossolalia also expresses the fact that God desires this for all of his people. If the first time he gives a thing, he applies it to all involved, it implies very strongly that it is for EVERYONE, not just a few here and there. We could compare this to the initial giving of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. They were addressed to the whole nation, to every individual and thereafter understood to apply to every person in Israel without regard to rank, class, gender, age, or office. The fact that the languages were given on the Day of Pentecost during the same month as the Ten Commandments, carries this implication further, and elevates the outpouring and reception of the Holy Spirit to the same level of importance as the Decalogue.

In this passage, "Tongues" consists of actual languages; it is not simply incoherent babbling or so-called "ecstatic utterances", but actual speakable languages. While some have argued that miracle was in the 'hearing' of the languages, Acts 2:4 specifically says that they did speak with other languages. Thus, they heard because the believers were actually speaking.

It is possible for people to become "intoxicated" without drugs or alcohol while speaking in a tongue. This is due to being filled with the Holy Spirit and is consistent with Paul admonition to »be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit« (Ep 5:18). It's no wonder Jesus called the gift of the Holy Spirit »new wine« in the kingdom of God (Jn 2:1-11 with Mt 26:27-29).

Peter explains that this is the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. It is important to bear in mind here that Peter had just received the Holy Spirit himself and was full of the Spirit when he spoke. No doubt, the Spirit quickened Joel's prophecy to Peter's spirit to make this connection between glossolalia and prophesy, that is, that glossolalia is in fact a form of prophetic speech as well fulfillment of Old Covenant prophecy.

It is possible (and seems) that Peter interpreted the phrase of David »my tongue was glad« to be a reference to speaking in tongues.

Peter explains that this is the promise of the Holy Ghost shed forth. This verse also shows that this is both SEEN and HEARD, in context, when people are filled with the Holy Ghost.

Peter tells the people present to repent and be baptized, and that they also would receive the Holy Ghost. Given Peter's explanation and the event they had just witnessed, it would have been entirely logical and reasonable for the hearers of his message to expect to experience the SAME THINGS upon repenting and being baptized. It is important to note that Peter does not qualify his statements in any way which would diminish such an expectation.

Acts 8:5-21: At Samaria. Note the distinction here. The Samarians were baptized and had received the word of God (Ac 8:12-16). This shows without a doubt that they were born again (Jn 3:3-7; 1P 1:23), SAVED people (Ja 1:18-21; Mk 16:16).

Acts 8:14-17: However, they had not RECEIVED the Holy Ghost, although they had experienced the New Birth. Thus, there is a distinction between the New Birth and the Holy Ghost Baptism, between being born anew and receiving the Holy Spirit. Here they receive the Spirit through the laying on of hands by Peter and John. (I once did a study on this specific question of whether the New Birth and Holy Ghost Baptism were the same experience, or different, in which I looked up every verse which specifically mentioned either being born again or being filled (receiving, being baptized) with the Holy Spirit. I discovered that the two experiences are never equated with one another anywhere in Scripture.)

Acts 8:18-19: Simon the sorceror SEES something (Ac 2:33) that makes him offer Peter money for the power to impart the Holy Ghost unto others. ("Laying on of hands" is a simple practice which in and of itself would not have made much of an impression in the light of Simon's tricks (Ac 8:9-11). During the Exodus, Egyptian sorcerors were able to perform some truly amazing miracles, such turning their staves into real serpents. So, it is conceivable that Simon could have been experienced in producing similar manifestations. Remember that the receiving of the Holy Ghost was both SEEN and HEARD (Ac 2:33). What Simon saw impressed him more than his own sorceries had.

Acts 8:21: Peter's response is interesting - the word translated as »matter« here is the Greek word logos which literally means "something said" [#3056G]. Note that Simon had already seen the miracles and signs that Philip did, but that did not faze him. After one has seen a few miracles, a simple laying on of hands does not seem very impressive; something must have transpired that blew Simon's mind with amazement. While glossolalia is not specifically mentioned in Acts 8, the context and the use of logos suggest that the receivers of the Holy Ghost were speaking in tongues, for what else would the reader expect after the precedent that Luke establishes in Acts 2? The fact that he used the word logos to refer to the Spirit being given indicates that the »matter« had something to do with speaking and not simply the act of laying on of hands itself. We know that the believers at Ephesus spoke in tongues as Paul layed hands on them to receive the Spirit, so why wouldn't other apostles (Peter and John) have the same result when imparting the same thing?

Ananias lays hands upon Paul that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost. We know for a fact that Paul did speak in tongues (1C 14:18). Given the usage of the word »baptized« as a reference to both baptism in water and with the Holy Spirit, it would also be interesting to consider exactly what Luke meant when he wrote the Paul »arose, and was baptized«. The progression in Acts suggests that he perhaps intended a double meaning, meaning both baptized in water and baptized with the Holy Ghost. Indeed, when the Holy Spirit fell upon the house of Cornelius during Peter's preaching the Word unto them, we find both baptisms occurring in the same event.

When the Holy Ghost is poured out upon the house of Cornelius; EVERYONE spoke in tongues. Again, this speaks of Yahweh's desire that all speak in tongues, this time with regard to non-Jewish believers.

The fact that Peter says what he does here shows that his recognition that they had received the Holy Ghost was (at least in part) based on whether or not they spoke in tongues.

Acts 11:15-17: The fact that Peter says here »as on us at the beginning« demonstrates that they ALL spoke in tongues (Acts 2:4)

Acts 11:16: In Acts 2, it says that they were FILLED, but here Peter says »BAPTIZED with the Holy Ghost«. Thus, "FILLED with the Holy Ghost" is synonymous "BAPTIZED with the Holy Ghost". The verse is also evidential of the fact that there is more than one baptism (Hb 6:2; Mt 3:11).

Acts 19:1-7: In this passage, we again see a distinction being made between being born again and receiving the Holy Ghost (if we recognize water baptism as corresponding with the new birth).

Acts 19:5: The fact that they were baptized in the name of Jesus shows that they were saved.

Acts 19:6: Paul lays hands on them, and they likewise speak in tongues and prophesy. Considering that one person can only lay hands on only one person (or two at most) at a time, we can see that EVERYONE spoke in tongues and prophesied with no exceptions. It makes sense that a writer as careful as Luke would probably note it if one person upon whom Paul laid his hands didn't speak in tongues.

In almost any discussion of glossolalia, people will generally refer to either the Book of Acts or the First Epistle to the Corinthians for their quotes and for direct Scriptural information on the topic. Some have argued that the glossolalia discussed herein is something different from that described in the Book of Acts. There is nothing to suggest that the actual act of speaking in a tongue is different at all, but that the context is. The Book of Acts does not lay out any governing principle regarding glossolalia, nor does it give us any examples of the ministerial aspect of glossolalia (with the possible exception of its use as a sign). Instead, the Book of Acts presents the fact that people spoke in tongues when they received or were baptized with the Holy Spirit. The setting of chapters 12-14 in 1.Corinthians is that of believers gathering together to worship and serve the Lord; it is set in the context of church activity alone. Chapters 12-14 also introduce the concept of a prophetic message being delivered via glossolalia (also called a "message in tongues") and therefore being governed by the same principles as prophecy with interpretation of the unknown language bridging the gap between the tongue and the hearer. As in the Book of Acts, the glossolalia of 1.Corinthians is associated with prophecy and is a means of both prayer and praise unto God in the Spirit.

Some have said that this passage shows that not everyone can have the "gift of tongues". The essential problem with this kind of teaching is that »divers kinds of tongues« is not the exact same thing as the language given in the Holy Ghost Baptism. In Acts 2:4, each person there received ONE language. The Greek phrase translated as »divers kinds of tongues« is »genê glôssôn«, which can be rendered "families of languages". Both words are PLURAL, genê being the accusative plural of genos and glôssôn being the genetive plural of glôssa. According to the UBSGNT Greek-English Dictionary, genos means "family, race, nation, people; offspring, descendants; sort, kind" [UBSGNT]. Thus, it speaks not only of a believer being given a variety of languages, but whole language families such as Indoeuropean, Semitic, Bantu, Finno-Ugric, etc. Inherent in the possible translation of genos as "offspring" or "descendants" is the idea that the Spirit of God can give someone future languages which have yet to be spoken upon the earth. Rather than presenting any limitation as to how many, that is, whether some, none or all may speak in tongues, the passage presents an EXPANSION of the glossolalia introduced in Acts 2:4 as a specific manifestation of the Spirit. Combined with interpretation of tongues, it then becomes equivalent to prophecy in its effect (1C 14:5,27-31). »interpretation of tongues« here translates the phrase »hermêneia glôssôn«. »hermêneia« means "interpretation, translation" and comes from the same stem as Hermês, the messenger god, the Greek god of language. (As an aside, worshippers of Hermes would honor the deity after a meal by chopping the tongue of a sacrificed animal into bits and burning it. [Gemoll]) »hermêneia« is ultimately thought to stem from ereô [#2058G thru #2060G], thus being derived from the same root as rêma, the word which comes from a flowing. In any case, the glossolalia presented here is somewhat different from the glossolalia Luke records in the Book of Acts in that its purpose here is ministerial.

»diversities of tongues« is genê glôssôn, the same as in 1.Corinthians 12:10. When Paul poses the question »do all speak with tongues?« (along with its implied answer of "no"), he is referring to the gift of "families of languages", not to the individual language given in the Holy Ghost Baptism. This passage has likewise been used to attempt to prove that glossolalia is not for all believers and to minimize the importance of glossolalia in ministering the Gospel by the Spirit. Contrary to some opinions, Paul is not calling glossolalia "the least of the gifts" here, but placing it at the same level or in the same temporal sequence as »gifts of healings, helps, governments«. »the best gifts« here translates »ta kharismata ta meizona« with »ta meizona« being the source text for »the best«. »meizona« comes from meizon and means "in a greater degree". Paul is not implying that the Church should not desire to speak in tongues, but that they should simply be zealous for charismata of greater magnitude.

Paul himself says here that he speaks in tongues, so why in the world would he discourage the practice? In any case, he is pointing out the "more excellent way", the way of love, charity, the way of agapê. His statement also presents the fact that one can move in spiritual gifts without having any love in them. The more excellent way is the way of exercising the charismata in this manner, consistent with this nature: »Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.« (1C 13:4-7, KJV). Indeed, it is in fact better to have the disposition of God than to charismatize, if one must choose between the two. But there is no need to choose. Both are necessary and desirable and are meant to complement one another.

1.Corinthians 13:8: This verse has been used by some to demonstrate that speaking in tongues has already ceased. Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians would quickly dispute this assumption on the basis of their experience with the Spirit of God in Christ. Another (and perhaps more practical) interpretation of this verse could be that while a language or spiritual given by the Holy Ghost is temporary in its manifestation at best, the »charity« or agapê ('love') of God is continual and outlasts any spiritual gift, being eternal and superior to it. Thus, the love of God is meant to permeate all of our meetings and form a continuum with the gifts of the Spirit being highlights or "spikes" in that continuum (if we represented this as a time line divided by instances of the gifts' manifestations).

1.Corinthians 13:10: »that which is perfect« is to teleion which means "FINISHed...as a result of full growth or development" [CLNT], and derived from teleioô [#5048G] which means "to complete, i.e. (lit,) accomplish, or (fig.) consummate (in character)". Its hypothetical Protoindoeuropean stem is *kwel- which means "to revolve, move around, sojourn, dwell...Suffixed form *kwel-es- in Greek telos, "completion of a cycle", consummation, perfection, end, result (> teleos, perfect, complete)...Suffixed reduplicated form *kw(e)-kwl-o-, cycle. 1. Germanic *hwewlaz in Old English hweol, hweogol, wheel: wheel 2. Greek kuklos, circle, wheel: cycle..." [AHDofIER]. The very definition of teleion contradicts the theory and doctrine of some who claim that this phrase refers to the canonical books of the Bible and apply that theory to the notion that glossolalia supposedly died out as soon as the writers of the New Testament wrote their works and died. Books and letters are manufactured and can be expanded or abbreviated, but they do not grow. In spite of the great understanding, knowledge, and wisdom which God gave Paul, Paul did not think he had reached true maturity in Christ (1C 13:12). In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul presented the five-fold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers as gifts of God to the church which were meant to be in place and active »for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.« [Ep 4:12-15] This is the "perfection" of which Paul spoke in 1.Corinthians 13 and it has not yet been fulfilled in the Body of Christ; he never meant the completion of the written word. Thus, speaking in tongues is still current. Even so, the emphasis here is not so much on the gifts of the Spirit ending, but moreso on them being superceded by something similar in nature which is complete rather than partial. With regard to glossolalia, it would necessarily be the supernatural ability to speak any language in spirit with complete understanding of what we or someone else is saying. Consider the noises a baby makes as it matures. At first, all the child can do is make unintelligible sounds, cry, and perhaps giggle. When the baby pronounces its first actual word, the parents rejoice. After that, the child learns more and more words, grammatical relationships, syntax, and the semantics of intonation with regard to understanding mother and father and others. It masters pronunciation. Once the child has become and adult, it no longer speaks "baby-talk", but speaks as an adult human being. So also with glossolalia. When Paul speaks of tongues ceasing in this context (1C 13:8-10), he qualifies it by using the prepositional construction »in part«, thereby referring to the partial glossolalia which precedes the development of the full unlimited language ability. Perhaps this is what Yahweh was referring to in Zephaniah 3:9: »For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.«

1.Corinthians 14:2: Here Paul defines "prayer in the (Holy) Spirit". See 1.Corinthians 14:15-16 below.

1.Corinthians 14:4-5: The point of speaking in a tongue is self-edification. I have actually met one person who thought that this edifying was one in pride. However, this is not so, for Jude wrote that we are to "pray in the Holy Ghost" to build ourselves upon faith (Ju 20; See Glossolalia is the Will of God). So, Paul says he wishes that all of them spoke in tongues. When he says this, it implies that they weren't speaking in tongues enough and that part of the problem at hand was that not everyone in the Corinthian church did. Contrary to the opinion of some that Paul was using sarcasm to express the idea that they were merely babbling nonsense, his statement here expresses his genuine wish. In that he expresses a preference that they prophesy, he is not belittling glossolalia here, but emphasizing the importance of the church as a whole being edified when they assemble together to worship and minister unto the Lord.

Paul applies simple logic to illustrate the failure of glossolalia by itself to communicate the message of God. Again, his purpose here is to demonstrate the importance of edification of the church as a whole. The clause »for ye shall speak into the air« refers to the effect of glossolalia without interpretation with regard to the understanding of the hearer; he is not saying that all glossolalia is without effect or worth, only that it is better that the hearer hear something which can be understood.

1.Corinthians 14:12-17: When we assemble together, the purpose is for the church as a whole to be built up or edified. Thus, their is a need for the interpretation of a tongue when a prophetic word is delivered via glossolalia. Paul's instruction in verse 13 assumes that it is reasonable to expect the Spirit of God to give the interpretation of a "message in tongues" when the speaker requests it. In my limited experience, an interpretation of a message in tongues is not usually recognized specifically as such, but is generally recognizable as an outburst in an unknown tongue followed immediately or shortly thereafter by a prophetic word. It took me several years to make this connection and I wondered for a long time if anyone ever interpreted a tongue, although I had been observing exactly that during the whole time.

1.Corinthians 14:14: »my spirit prayeth« - This verse introduces the concept of one's spirit praying apart from the rational mind and so Paul makes a distinction between prayer, song and prayer »with the spirit« and »with the understanding« and says he will do both (1C 14:15-16). »but my understanding is unfruitful« expresses the circumvention of the natural mind (Ro 8:5-7; 1C 2:14) through the spirit. The problem with the mind, and consequently, the understanding, is that it must be renewed (Ro 12:1-2). When a believer is baptized in the Holy Ghost and prays in a tongue, God gives that individual a supernatural means of praying and praising God without the limitations of natural or carnal intellect or knowledge. It is true that no fruit is born in my mind when I pray in a tongue, but it is born in the spirit (Compare 1C 13:4-7, Ju 20, and Ga 5:22; See Glossolalia is the Will of God). Sometimes, my thoughts clear out when I pray in a tongue so that my (natural) mind becomes unfruitful. One Old Testament Scripture verse which seems appropriate to mention here is Proverbs 3:5: »Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding«. I mention this because glossolalia is not dependent upon one's intellect or knowledge. Sometimes, believers doubt the power and efficacy of glossolalia and perceive no real purpose in it, precisely because they do not understand the language they are speaking. If one trusts too much in their own perceptions and understanding, they will be inclined to decide and opine on that basis. When one speaks in a tongue, it is far better to trust in the Lord in spite of one's misgivings, for Yahweh has several purposes in glossolalia, one of them being that of edification (1C 14:4; Ju 20).

1.Corinthians 14:15-16: »pray with the spirit«, »sing with the spirit«, »bless with the spirit« are all terms synonymous with »praying in tongues«, »singing in tongues«, and »blessing in tongues«, respectively. The references to »praying in the spirit« in Ephesians 6:18 and in Jude 20 as well as the »spiritual songs« in Ephesians 5:19 should therefore be understood as direct references to glossolalia, for they are consistent with Paul's usage of the terms here.

Paul spoke in tongues a lot and was grateful for it. As in verse 5, this verse implies that they were not speaking in tongues enough and that that was one of the Corinthians' problems. It also suggests that the practice of glossolalia in private prepares the believer for participation in the church. Verse 19 expresses Paul's central message regarding glossolalia »in the church«: the church is a place of learning and for this reason, he would rather teach in the assembly of God's people than speak in a tongue.

Glossolalia is a sign to the unbeliever (and therefore not to be hidden). As in the preceding verses, Paul makes a distinction in purpose between glossolalia and prophecy. While glossolalia on the one hand serves as a sign to the unbeliever and to edify the believer, prophecy is meant to serve the believer to convince and judge the unbeliever or unlearned through the manifesting of the person's heart's secrets. Verse 25 presents the power of prophecy to produce worship in these people and should be compared with Romans 14:11 where it says »For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God« and Philippians 2:9-11 where it says »Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father«.

This verse shows that the Spirit of God was indeed manifesting himself among the Corinthian believers. »everyone of you« indictates that they were all coming to church with something to share. The biggest problem seems to have been that of failing to share these things unto everyone's edification in God.

The principle here is an extension of the principle: »...at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established« from the law of Moses (Dt 19:15; see also Dt 17:6, Mt 18:16, 2C 13:1). The idea is confirmation of the word of the Lord, whether that word by glossolalia with interpretation or by prophecy. It was also meant to lend order to the Corinthians' gatherings. As I said above, the passage is dealing with glossolalia as the vehicle of expression of the word of the Lord within the context of an assembly, not within the context of private prayer and w