What new Tongues is Marck 16 14-18 speaking about?

James 5:13-16 is still in the Book. So who needs sign gifts?

 

I don't think there is scriptural support for saying that the gift of healing is no longer in existence today. I am aware of the verses that are used to state this position, but I think this is a a reaction to the gross abuses of healing by the shysters out there who are clearly not from God.

As for tongues, I think the same is true. If God were to want to use this sign again, I see no scripture to say he can't. Here again, I don't think what we see going on in charismatic churches is the real McCoy. But, to say God cannot give an individual the gift of speaking a language they never learned in the presence of unbelievers is unfounded.

I have heard "speaking in tongues" and know people that advocate it, but I do not see it edifying the body nor being a sign from God to unbelievers regarding the Gospel. But, just because I have never seen it doesn't mean God can't do it.

If an individual is "performing" tongues in what I think is misguided, I don't see the value in saying that they can't do that because it is no longer available today. I would encourage them to consider the clear teaching about what gifts are for and tongues in particular and let them sort it out themselves. Also, I would not tolerate it if it were being misused in a gathering of believers in an innapropriate way: to edify themselves or as a prayer language.

 

The question should not be whether or not God can do it. He is omnipotent, so obviously He can do anything he wants to, anything that is His will. The question should be, is He doing it? Is it His will? I don't believe it is, both from the Word of God and my experiences with the movement.

I must admit plainly that over the years I have become prejudiced against the modern tongues movement by my experience. In addition to other encounters over the years, three times, including once this year, tongues speakers have interfered in churches I was planting, confusing and even drawing away believers. In the early days especially of the Charismatic movement (in the '60's), they were especially known for going into established churches and introducing tongues. That is just plain wrong.

If the modern tongues movement were a true, Holy Spirit led revival, the emphasis would be just where it is in Acts 2: people being saved and the church of Jesus Christ being built up instead of weakened (as have my churches through tongues). Instead we have "health and wealth," "healing meetings," rich TV evangelists (instead of the money being funneled out here to the mission fields of the world--I know there are many Pentecostal missionaries who could use the funds), the "manifest sons of God" theology, etc. etc.

 

My experience is similar to yours. I am still sorting out how best to deal with this issue. I am seeing that this deception is very widespread and is creeping ever so quickly into what are considered orthodox churches. We need to have answers for believers that are swayed by this experience based Christianity. But our answers need to be more than OUR experience.

I share your assesment of this movement. We shouldn't be surprised because we are warned that this will happen. Keep up the good fight of faith. I know Japan is a difficult mission field. God bless you in the year ahead.

I Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

I am late in answering this.
1. Paul is considered an apostle and is consistently addressed as one. Thus in all three accounts in the Book of Acts, and with the testimony of the apostle Paul we see that tongues was primarily given to the Apostles. The only epistle that touches on tongues is 1Corinthians, and there Paul deals with the abuse of tongues. Some of them were even speaking in "pagan tongues" not realizing that they were calling Christ accursed (1Cor.12:1-4).

2. If any Charismatic were to follow all the restrictions placed on speaking in tongues given in 1Cor.14, no Pentecostal or Charismatic church would be speaking in tongues today.

3. The primary purpose was to authenticate the Apostles and the Apostle's message. The reason for that was because of the unbelieving Jews. Even as the gift was given to some others, it was still as a sign for the unbelieving Jews. This is the second most important reason for the gift. Both of these reasons ceased to exist at the end of first century. It was the first century Jews who crucified our Lord and did not believe but rejected Christ as their Messiah that tongues was a sign for. And it was to authenticate the Apostles and their message.

To authenticate the Apostles--see 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4

To be a sign for the unbelieving Jews--see 1Cor.14:21,22

The reasons are Scriptural. "Tongues are for a sign"
When the purpose has been completed the sign is removed. When a bridge collapses a "sign" is put out: "Bridge Out." When the bridge is repaired, the sign is removed. Tongues ceased by the end of the first century when its purpose had been fulfilled, and so did the other sign gifts.

 

My only point was more than the Apostles spoke in tongues.

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Do you think this was only happening in Corinth?

 

The above verse was not a compliment, but a rebuke and must be taken in the context of the rest of the chapter. So, yes it probably was happening only in Corinth.

1 Corinthians 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

1 Corinthians 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

The Corinthians were so puffed up or proud that they were thinking that the revelation of God originated with them. That is what verse 36 is pointing out.

Verse 26 tells us what was happening, that should not have been happening. God is a God of order, not of confusion. The Corinthians were bringing chaos and confusion into a service where there should have been order. Some wanted to stand up and recite a psalm; others expound on a doctrine; some speak in another language; still others give a new revelation; and of course there would have to be someone available to interpret the language being spoken. Everybody standing up doing there own thing at once--complete chaos. What did Paul say about such a scenario?

1 Corinthians 14:23 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?

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

One thing to remember about the end of Mark 16 is that Jesus is speaking to the apostles about their (un)belief:

11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

The signs of Mark 16:17-18 are particular to the apostles.
Compare:

II Cor. 12:12
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Hebrews 2:3-4
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

 

Personally, yes, I think it was only happening in Corinth. Other than the usage of the word "tongue" in Acts (which I think is clearly always languages) and in 1 Cor. 12 & 13, every single other use of the Greek word glossa in the NT means clearly either language or the human tongue. None of the other epistles--I repeat none--uses the word in a way that there is any way possible to interpret it as the unknown tongues of the modern tongues movement.

Plus, the word occurs only five times in the Gospels, including three times in Mark. The only place where some other meaning than the human tongue can be inferred is in Mark 16:17, where there is no evidence in the context to take it as meaning anything other than languages.

 

My answer is based primarily on extensive Bible study of the issue, plus reading lots of books on both sides of the issue--to which I add my experience.

I've translated almost all of the Greek NT into Japanese (hoping to publish John in 2008). I've been struck by the use of semeion in the NT, translated occasionally as "miracle" in the KJV, but usually as "sign," which is what it normally means. Now, there were other words used for "miracle" in first century Greek, but God chose to use "sign" for most of the NT miracles. Why? Because they were exactly that, signs to prove God was with Jesus and the apostles. We don't need such signs nowadays. I don't have to prove my authority to the Japanese, the Word of God does it for me.

You have a wonderful 2008, too, serving our Savior. :wavey:

 

JOJ

I am not a greek scholar, or any scholar for that matter, and I thought the same thing when I was forced to sort out this issue.

 

Good for you!

I think the Bible is clear that, though "signs and wonders" were common in the apostolic church, it is really not mature to seek them. Jesus prodded the nobleman on seeking signs (John 4:48), rebuked the Pharisees and said that an evil and adulterous generation would seek signs but would only get the sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:39-40; His death and resurrection), and pointed out that false prophets can do great signs (Matt. 24:24; where is the Charismatic who is ready to distinguish the false from the true?).

 

I don't see a good case for this in other references to tongues. Look at Acts 2. Jews are talking to Jews. In I Corinthians 14, Paul quotes Isaiah to show that tongues are a sign to UNBELIEVERS. That is the point he makes, not a sign to the Jews. If it does serve as a sign to the Jews, that is not the point Paul makes.

Tongues is also for the _church_ like the other gifts. It is given to profit the body of Christ, no matter what its function is as a sign.

First of all, if I edify myself, and you edify yourself, with our gifts, that does 'profit withal.' Each individual edifying himself does edify the whole, but it is inferior to each individual edifying the whole.

The context of I Corinthians 14 does not back up your conclusion. Look at the arguments Paul makes in context. The issue here is that praying in tongues and edifying yourself is good, but edifying others is _better._ It is a good versus better issue. It is also an issue of what is appropriate for a church meeting, edifying oneself, or edifying the whole church.

Take a look at the arguments. After saying he that speaks in tongues edifies himself, and he that prophesies edifies the church, Paul says, I would that you all spake with tongues, but rather that you prophesied.

So if Paul wanted all to speak with tongues, it must be good to speak in tongues. It must be good, therefore, to edify yourself.

Then Paul teaches that the one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues-- unless he interpret. So the issue here is that tongues is good. Paul wishes all of them would speak in tongues. But he wishes even more that they would prophesy.

This theme is consistent throughout. Consider the one who blesses with the Spirit. Instead of praying in a language everyone understand, he prays in tongues. He 'giveth thanks well, but the other is not edified.' It is good to give thanks well. But it is so much better to edify others in the process that Paul would rather speak 5 words with his understanding that he may instruct others, than 10 thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Paul's statement that he would pray with the spirit and with the understanding show a positive attitude toward both prayer in tongues and prayer with the understanding.

Your argument contradicts Paul's message in this chapter. Clearly Paul is arguing that it is good to edify yourself, but far superior to edify others. In church, everything must be done unto edifying. Gifts must be used to the edifying of the church. Therefore, tongues must be interpreted.

Consider verse 28

27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

If speaking in tongues to edify yourself were bad, why would Paul have allowed for the tongues speaker to do his thing without an intepreter outside of the church? If self-edification (building oneself up) were bad, then why would Paul permit it?

Also, if edifying yourself is bad, then you should refrain from any individual Bible study. You may have to cut out much of your prayer life as well. You may also have to judge David who, when he faced a difficult time, encouraged himself in the Lord.

Clearly, it is good to build ourselves up in the most holy faith, even if we do it individually. Speaking in tongues to edify oneself is good, but it is far superior to edify the body. That is why tongues spoken in church must be interpreted. It is also why prophecy is such an important gift, because it edifies others.

 

Do you think the apostles were immature in Acts 4 when, after being persecuted, they asked God to do signs and wonders for the sake of the Lord Jesus?

No, clearly there is a difference between someone seeing the works of the Son, and still demanding a sign before he will believe, and someone who believes in the Son asking God to do a sign out of a holy motivation.

Also, let us consider the issue of logic. If a wicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, it does not follow, logically, that everyone who seeks a sign is wicked and adulterous. If teenage witches seek to get good grades on their math tests, it does not follow that teens who seek good grades on their math tests are witches.

 

- The 120 spoke in tongues without the laying on of hands of the apostles, most likely.
- Cornelius and those with him spoke in tongues without the laying on of hands of the apostles.
- Paul was filled with the Spirit and did miracles, apparently without the laying on of hands of the apostles, whom he did not meet for years after his conversion.
- Timothy received a gift through prophecy, with the laying on of hands of the presbytry.
- I Corinthians 14:13 encourages the one who speaks in tongues to pray that he may interpret. Interpretation is a gift of the Spirit, and Paul says to pray for it.

-Zecharias, John the Baptist's father, prophesied without the laying on of hands of the apostles, as did the prophets of the Old Testament.

 

I am responding to posts from Sgt. Fury and John of Japan that echo the same idea.

You are arguing from a non-Biblical paradigm. The idea that once signs have confirmed the word, there is no more need for signs is not in scripture, and actually runs against what scripture teaches.

Jesus sent the apostles to teach all things He had commanded them. But Jesus' teachings had already been confirmed with signs and wonders, and with the sign of the resurrection of the dead.

If there could be no more signs after the word was confirmed, signs should have stopped after the resurrection. The apostles did signs in Jerusalem as they preached the Gospel.

If there could be no more signs after the word was confirmed, the signs should have stopped after the apostles did signs in Jerusalem. But they did not. Philip did signs and wonders in Samaria. He could have said, "The message I am preaching has been confirmed by signs and wonders done by Jesus and the apostles in Judea and Galilee. If you want to hear about them, I or they can tell you about them. We can write them down and let you read about them."

The Samaritans paid close atention to Philip when they saw the signs he did. You tell me, does reading about a miracle, even in scripture, have the exact same effect as seeing one before your very eyes? Do you think if Philip had recited the oral Gospels that the apostles were teaching, that were later written down, would it have had the exact same effect, at least at getting attention, as the miracles he did? Probably not.

Paul and Barnabas did miracles, even after the miracles of the 12 had 'confirmed the word' in Jerusalem and other places they traveled to. Paul did signs and wonders from Jerusalem round about unto Illyricum as he preached the Gospel of Christ. The word was confirmed with signs and wonders in one place, and then another, and then another.

Let me start out by saying this.

There is a passage that says if the rich man's brothers would not believe Moses, they would not believe if one rose from the dead. Jesus still rose from the dead, though. God does not owe anyone miracles or signs. In His mercy, He sometimes grants them. God not doing signs does not lessen the obligation of people to believe His word.

Now to comment on what you said, do you really think that your telling the Japanese the word of God is going to have the same effect as what Philip did with the Samaritans-- telling the Samaritans the word of God and then doing the signs and wonders of casting out demons and healing the sick?

Btw, do you believe that Christians are now powerless to cast out demons? Jesus called that a sign/miracle.

 

Tongues is only mentioned in a few places. We have a rather lengthy passage of the gift as it functioned in a local church. Your assertion holds no water. We need to go by what the Bible actually says. Paul teaches that the gifts of the Spirit, are given to profit the whole body. That's Bible doctrine.

You state your speculation as if it were fact. Paul does not say anything about pagan tongues. He does mention the possibility of someone calling Christ accursed and stated that no one would say that by the Spirit of God. That does not mean that anyone in the Corinthian church had actually done this. Paul may be using hyperbole here. I would imagine you would argue that Paul was using hyperbole when mentioned tongues of men and of angels when he said, 'though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels.' Some people would say that his talking about having all faith to be able to move mountians and understanding all mysteries and all knowledge are hyperbole as well. So if Paul mentions the extreme case of someone saying Christ is accursed, that is not proof that it was going on in the Corinthian church.

Arguing that people were cursing our Lord in tongues is just plain wild speculation. The immediate context does not mention tongues. Paul goes on to list several gifts a few verses later, with tongues at the bottom of the list with interpretation, the furthest gift away from this statement about saying Jesus is Lord or cursing Christ. Prophecy is closer in the list to this statement.

It makes a lot more sense, if you want to engage in such speculation, to speculate that someone had 'prophesied' against Christ. If someone had cursed Christ in tongues, no one would have known about it since they could not understand the tongue (without interpretation.) Paul doesn't say anything about cursing Christ in tongues in the passage.

If cursing Christ in tongues were something Paul's readers needed to be concerned about, you would think the book might say something about it. it does not. Nowhere does the Bible raise any concerns about demonic tongues, fake tongues, or any such thing. The Bible does show us that we can trust God to give good gifts, particularly the Holy Ghost (in the Luke version), to His children.

Many Pentecostal churches in the AOG, for example, insist that if a message in tongues is given in church it should be interpreted. I've seen someone rebuked from the pulpit. Actually, he wasn't really hammered hard, but the head of the chapel said, 'I believe that was for private edification and not to be spoken out in the meeting' or something along those lines. Sometimes they just wait and don't call the person who spoke in tongues out in public to save embarrassment. Not all Pentecostals and Charismatics believe in saying, "And now let's all speak in tongues"-- though I did see that in Charismatic circles in Indonesia and had some conversations with church leaders over it, and even taught a little on it.

I see a lot of opinion, but a lack of scripture to back up your opinion. Paul lists tongues among gifts given to edify the church. The scripture does not say whether edifying the church or serving as a sign was the 'primary' or 'secondary' purpose of tongues.

Paul makes the point that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. He does not say that they are a sign to the Jews. He quotes a passage that had a fulfillment when foreigners with their foreign languages took Israel and Judah captive. Notice that in the first fulfillment, in Judah' case, much of their listening to foreign languages continued on for quite a long time AFTER the temple was destroyed. The temple being destroyed didn't stop them from hearing foreign languages. Many of them actually adopted Aramaic and had to hear the word of God explained in Aramaic in the time of Ezra so they could understand it.


Both of these reasons ceased to exist at the end of first century. It was the first century Jews who crucified our Lord and did not believe but rejected Christ as their Messiah that tongues was a sign for. And it was to authenticate the Apostles and their message.

The Bible talks about signs. We usually see signs when the Gospel is being preached to unbelievers or 'pre-believers.' The Bible also talks about gifts. Gifts are for the building up of the body of Christ. Your theory falls apart because tongues, miracles, and healing are not only signs, they are also gifts. The gifts are given to the body to edify the body.

Plus, your theory falls because the Bible doesn't teach it. It does not teach that signs cease in this age. We see prophecy and miracles at the end of the age with the two witnesses. If signs ceased because the apostles were authenticated, then how is the fire going to come out of the mouths of the two witnesses and devour their enemies? Where are they going to get the 'juice' to do that stuff if it was all to authenticate the apostles and disappeared after the apostles were gone.

I suppose you could mealy mouth around and try to argue that the signs will be reneeded and that the word will need to be reconfirmed after the rapture, but that doesn't make sense.

Back in the old days, they used saws to cut asbestos. We don't use asbestos anymore, so therefore, no saws exist anymore either. Is there a problem with my logic? It's the same problem with yours. You try to argue that if signs aren't needed, the gifts aren't needed either. Gifts serve to edify the body. And it doesn't make sense that signs aren't needed anymore.

 

Verse 26 does not rebuke the Corinthins for everyone of them sharing these things. Rather, it gives instructions on how to do them. "Let all things be done unto edifying." Paul continues to give specific instructions on how to speak in tongues and interpret and how to prophesy in an orderly manner. Particularly on the instructions for prophecy, which say, 'ye may all prophesy one by one', Paul gives support for the 'every one of you' method the Corinthians were following.

Hebrews 10:24-25, that one passage used to tell people not to forsake assembling also tells us how to meet. It says, 'Exhort one another' and not 'Sit down, shut up, and let the preacher exhort you.' Various passages of scripture command believers to use their gifts to edify the church (E.g. Romans 12, I Peter 4.) The primary place to use these gifts is in the church meeting.

You are speculating here. There is nothing in the passage that says that the Corinthians were all standing up and speaking at once. Even with the issue of speaking in tongues, it is not clear whether they were taking turns to give uninterpreted tongues before Paul wrote them, or if many people were speaking in tongues all at once. Paul never says they are talking at the same time.

In the case of prophets, perhaps when one prophet got the floor, he may have not wanted to give it up. Paul told the prophet that if another sitting by received a revelation, let the first hold his peace. He said for the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (The prophet is not controlled by his gift and is able to yield the floor.) If any prophet didn't like it, that's too bad. A true prophet should recognize that Paul's teachings were the Lord's commands. Paul's admonition to prophets here does not lend credence to the idea that they were all prophesying at once before Paul wrote to them.

You may imagine them all speaking in tongues at once, but the verse does not tell us that. 'All speak with tongues' could have been done in turn, but without interpretation, and an unbeliever could still say 'ye are mad.' All at once does probably look a bit crazier though. But if the Bible doesn't tell us one way or another, it does not make sense to draw a firm conclusion on the matter and treat speculation as doctrine.

 

I'm glad you brought up Acts 4. They were filled with the Spirit there and did not speak with tongues. That's all I have time for now.