The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues (pt. 7)

One more question before we go on to see what else Luke tells us in Acts: Here in chapter 19, why would Luke specifically mention tongues if it isn’t the marker of the Holy Spirit? First off, remember that in more than twenty places in Acts the infilling of the Holy Spirit is not shown to come upon believers and yet we know it happened (1 Corinthians 6:19; 12:13). Second, as I showed previously, this isn’t the “private prayer language” tongues – it is foreign languages. Third, the new believers spoke in tongues and prophesied. I will show later that if we focus on the signs this, the prophecy, is what we should focus on. But as a direct answer to the question – think of all the “gifts” of the Spirit that were recognized by the first century church. What are the ones that are easiest to see? Tongues was not reported in Acts as a marker for all times and all people, it was simply the quickest way to show that the new believer had indeed received the Holy Spirit.
Tune in next blog as we look at the Holy Spirit and gentile believers in Acts 10.

The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues (pt. 6)

Does this incident in Acts 19 show us that laying on of hands is the standard for receiving the Holy Spirit? When we look at what Acts shows us, we see that two of the four infillings of the Spirit reported after the Day of Pentecost were done by laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17 and Acts 19:6). The other two infillings the Holy Spirit accomplished without human agency. So how do you know if laying on of hands is necessary? From this context in Acts 18-19, the laying on of hands for the infilling of the Holy Spirit was used immediately after faith came. Apollos had believed for quite some time and he showed the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit already in his life, therefore he was neither “rebaptized” into Jesus nor did they lay hands on him to receive the Holy Spirit, but the newly baptized believers did have hands laid on them and they recieved the Spirit. However, this passage does not say that the specific reason Paul laid hands on them was so that they would receive the Holy Spirit. In fact, of the eleven times “laying on hands” is spoken of in Acts and the epistles, only in these two places in Acts is it done in conjunction with receiving the Holy Spirit. (In fact, in Acts 6:5-6, the apostles lay hands on Stephen who was already filled with the Holy Spirit.) That is not enough evidence to build a point of doctrine on. We will look at that more in-depth when we explore the infilling of the Holy Spirit reported in Acts 8.

The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues (pt. 5)

So, I explored the story of Apollos and the twelve men, and said they are about faith and the heart. Lest you think maybe I’m reading too much into these two stories, let’s look at the story that follows in 19:8-20 – the seven sons of Sceva. These men had no faith at all yet they tried to use the Name of Jesus. They complete the story of Apollos who had great faith but needed a little more understanding and the twelve men who believed but didn’t know the one whom they claimed to believe in. Apollos is guided by fellow believers Priscilla and Aquila; the twelve are introduced into the true faith by Paul; the seven are sent running from the house, naked and ashamed when they are attacked by the demon because they tried to use what they didn't believe in.
When we look at it in context, we see that the story of the twelve in Acts 19 is part of a range of “believers.” The story is not intended to point to a separate “baptism of the Holy Spirit.” Instead it shows us that by this time, the Church knows that the Spirit will be indwelling true believers from the moment of their conversion. If the Holy Spirit was not in the disciple, he needed to be guided into faith, baptized into Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit, but someone who already showed the fruit of faith didn't need to be "baptized" into anything else.
Next blog, I will consider the question: Is the laying on of hands supposed to be the standard for receiving the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues (pt. 4)

My last blog ended with the question: Why does the Holy Spirit go underground in the last part of Acts? As I promised, that question takes us back to the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
In the first part of Acts, Luke firmly established that the Holy Spirit is the one who moves the Gospel as he indwells believers. Now he no longer needs to remind his readers of this fact as often.
This is proven in Acts 19 in Ephesus when Paul asks his wary question of those who called themselves disciples: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" To which they responded: "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit" (v. 2). Paul discovered these disciples didn’t know the true Gospel story; they had only been baptized into John’s baptism for repentance. Paul gives them the Gospel story, baptizes them into Jesus when they receive the story, then lays hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit.
When we try to understand this story on its own, we get tied up with the laying on of hands and the tongues. The context puts a different focus on the story which is actually about the faith of believers, not about “the baptism of the Holy Spirit.” In this case, the believers’ faith is based on an incomplete Gospel. It is simply based on the baptism of John for repentance without the true Messiah playing any part. The problem is not in the baptism of John – which does not demand a “rebaptism” into Jesus. The problem is that the baptism for repentance was not followed by faith in the Messiah. If it had been, there would have been no need for the twelve men to be baptized again after the baptism of John. How can I say that with certainty?
Look up at Acts 18:24-28 and you will see the beginning of this story. Also in Ephesus, Apollos is a man who, like the other twelve men, was only baptized into the baptism of John. But this man “had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately” (v. 25). When he comes to the attention of the Christian missionaries, he is not rebaptized, nor does he need to receive the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands as his misguided Ephesian brothers need. Instead “When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately” (v. 26, emphasis added). Apollos is already a true believer, already filled with the Holy Spirit. He just needs a little better understanding of how to properly understand the scriptures he already knew. (Doe he sound like someone you might know?)
But this isn't all we see in this passage in Acts. Come back to examine the rest of the story with me.

The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues (pt. 3)

Before we can understand the so-called “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as it occurs in Acts, we must first lay groundwork of understanding about the book itself. In Acts, Luke completed a chiasm he began in his gospel. A chiasm was a typical literary device in the bible where parallel points move from the beginning and from the end toward a central idea. In Luke Jesus moved toward Jerusalem then in Acts the Holy Spirit moved out from Jerusalem. (Luke ends with the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, Acts begins with it.) In this chiasm we see: The decree of the Caesar Augustus, the Roman ruler, that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem where the Messiah was to be born (Luke 2:1-7; Micah 5:2); Paul’s appeal to Caesar which takes him to Rome in fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that “repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations” (Acts 25:11-12, 26:32; Luke 24:47; see also Acts 1:8). We also see that Jesus fulfills the requirements of the Jewish law (Luke 2:21-40) and Paul fulfills the requirements of the Jewish law (Acts 21:20-26).
Interestingly, these points of the chiasm show God moving through human agency – in Luke the Son of God is in his infancy and therefore moved by the actions of his human parents; in Acts, God the Holy Spirit is not specifically shown as moving toward Rome, but we know he is because in Acts 19, we were clearly reminded that he moved in and through Paul. The Spirit was indwelling the apostle Paul so as Paul continues on his journey toward Rome, the Spirit moves with him. (Of course he’s not limited by Paul’s movements, but that’s a theological discussion for another time.)
When we read the bible, one of the things we always need to remember is that each author had a theological (truth about God) point to prove. They chose the stories they used to emphasize that point. It was necessary to pick and choose because there are so many things that could be said about God that if they said them all, it would be hard to prove any single point. (See John 20:30-31; 21:25.) When we carefully study what a biblical writer said, how he put his stories together, shifts in style or form, repetitions, etc., we pick up clues to what’s important to the writer. We need to look beyond what we think is important and find what the author intended to be important.
In the first part of Acts (chapters 1-12), Luke writes about the Spirit or the Holy Spirit forty times. Half of them show the Spirit at work in the narration, the rest of are in dialogues that refer to the Spirit. In the rest of Acts (13-28), the Spirit is only spoken of seventeen times, eight of which show his actions. Three of those are in chapter 13 where Saul becomes Paul who becomes the main actor in Luke’s story of the spread of the Gospel. Paul’s stated mission was to take the Gospel to the Gentiles – all nations (Acts 9:15; 22:21; 26:17; Romans 1:5; 11:13; 15:16; Galatians 1:16; 2:2, 7). This is why he became the primary player of the drama in Acts. But why does the Holy Spirit go underground? The answer to that is rather detailed and takes us back to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, I’ll have pick up on it in my next blog.

The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues (pt. 2)

In Acts 2 when Luke speaks of the apostles receiving tongues, it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak in other languages: “each one heard them speaking in his own language” (v. 6); “We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues” (v. 11). This is not “private prayer language” tongues.
The next time Luke talks about tongues (glōssa in the original Greek) is in Acts 10, when Peter is in Caesarea. Luke reports that “they heard them [the Gentiles in Cornelius’ household] speaking in tongues and praising God” (v. 46). Peter’s response was: “They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (v. 47, emphasis added). What the Jewish believers had received from the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was the ability to speak in other languages of men. Since Luke clearly stated that in Acts 2 and does not describe anything different here in Caesarea, we must assume his intent was for his readers to understand that this was the same glōssa that had been received on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. Any other interpretation is reading something in to the text that is not there – a very dangerous undertaking in biblical interpretation.
We see the same use of tongues in Acts 19, in Ephesus when Paul found men who had been baptized into “John’s baptism” and had not received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19, they were baptized into “the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 5) then “Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (v. 6). Again, Luke does not report that this is something different from the glōssa he spoke of in Acts 2. Proper contextual interpretation insists that we must understand this “tongues” as “languages of men,” just like in Acts 2.
The only other books of the New Testament that use glōssa as anything other than the tongue or words that come off our tongue in our known languages, are 1 Corinthians and Revelation. I’ll explore 1 Corinthians in more depth later, but it is important to note that glōssa, which contemporary Christians usually use as “a private prayer language” is not used that way most of the time in the New Testament. In Revelation, just like in Acts, it is always used to refer to the languages of men: “...and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (v. 5:9); “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb.” (7:9). (See also 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15.)
So we see that in the first century church, glōssa was commonly understood as “foreign languages.” The only place in the New Testament where it was referred to as a private prayer language was in 1 Corinthians. We will explore what Paul says about glōssa, but before that, let’s carefully consider the four cases of what we call “the baptism of the Holy Spirit” in Acts – in my next blog.

The Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues

Recently I was speaking to a group of women about the Holy Spirit. My message was about the person of the Holy Spirit not about the gifts or fruits of the Holy Spirit. It isn't that I don't believe the gifts and fruits are important, but because I believe we are too quick to jump to them without bothering to get to know the Holy Spirit himself. In the Q&A period after the message, I was challenged about the gift of tongues. The argument I was presented was that I needed to tell the women present that they had to get the gift of tongues. The woman who challenged me was insistent; I could provide her with no proof that tongues is not necessary for our connection to the Holy Spirit.
This bothered me on a number of levels, so I'm going to explore tongues and the Holy Spirit here in my blog.
My first argument is that tongues is overrated as evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It isn't nearly as prevalent in the New Testament as some believe.
The only three times in the entire New Testament when tongues is given as an evidence of the infilling of the Holy Spirit is in three of the five places in Acts when Luke specifically reported that believers showed the infilling of the Holy Spirit: Acts 2:1-4 (the day of Pentecost); 4:32 (during a praise service after Peter and John were released from prison-tongues not reported); 8:14-17 (to Samarian believers by the laying on of hands-tongues not reported); 10:44-48 (to gentile believers in Cesarea); 19:1-6 (to twelve men in Ephesus). There were at least twenty other places where Luke reports believers were added to the fold and the Holy Spirit is not specifically mentioned. (Acts 2:41-47; 4:4, 31; 6:7; 8:25, 38-39; 9:17-22, 31; 11:15-17; 11:21, 24; 13:48-52; 14:1, 27, 21; 16:15, 32-34; 17:4, 12; 18: 8; 18:24-19:7)
This shows us a number of things. First, Luke's original readers assumed the infilling of the Holy Spirit happened at the moment of conversion. Second, since that infilling is only mentioned four times out of more than two dozen reports of belief, there must be something special about those four times, otherwise Luke would not have so dramatically pointed to them. Check out my next post for what I believe the evidence says about those four times.