South African Bible Believers

To obtain your personal copy of this book, please contact:
Believers Bookshelf
Box 261, Sunbury, PA 17801 USA
Phone: (717) 672-2134
Email: believer@mail.csrlink.net
or order online at:
http://www.usbusiness.com/bbs/

Also available at:
Edition de Beree
CH-1349 JURIENS
Switzerland 

    Most of those who have preceded G.-F. Rendal in dealing with this doctrine of speaking in tongues have often dealt with it in a presumptuous spirit common to the doctrine's opponents. Their process of reasoning, drawing conclusions, and application of these to the problem at hand are all too frequently suffocating, incomplete, and prejudiced. Thus, they remain unconvincing or at least not convincing enough.

    G.-F. Rendal approaches this doctrinal problem and deals with it from the inside out. He, as it were, takes a step back and looks at it both objectively and subjectively. He shows it to be an outdated, erroneous or fraudulent teaching.

    Under his pen, the whole body of Scripture is convincingly shown to be harmonious.

    It is highly desirable that pastors, those responsible in local churches, assemblies and bookstores, as well as editors of Christian periodicals, and teachers in Bible Institutes and Seminaries recommend this book so as to give it the publicity it deserves.

Back to Top

    My wife and I had the joyous privilege of serving our Lord Jesus Christ for over 32 years on the Island of Martinique in the French West Indies. During the latter months of our missionary church-planting ministry there we learned of G.-F. RENDAL's book I Speak in Tongues More Than You All. After a careful reading of this unusual book we felt that we should do all we could to acquaint everyone possible with his treatment of every scripture text having to do with this question of speaking in tongues.

    The modern-day teachings and practices erroneously based on these texts have sown untold confusion worldwide.

    It is certainly no understatement to say that his treatment of this modern doctrinal aberration (his quotations of Augustine are refreshing) is the most complete, competent and convincing of any writing we had seen on the subject. Mr. RENDAL's fair, lucid and thorough examination of the subject, based on a background of personal knowledge and experience, deserves a wide reading.

    As missionary church planters looking forward to further Gospel ministry in France, we delight to add our personal recommendation of this significant work, encouraging everyone who has any interest whatsoever in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, to examine this book with great care.

    May God's rich blessing multiply its usefulness to untold numbers of people.

Back to Top

    How surprised I was when, the day after my conversion from the world to Jesus Christ, I found that supposedly stable, spiritual and dedicated people-people being used by the Holy Spirit for the salvation of souls-bristled at the mention of the gifts of the Spirit, especially that of speaking in tongues. I sadly listened to them run down the work that God was doing through those whom they ironically called "holy rollers". With the delicacy of a bulldozer plowing into a mountain they silenced any objections, like "the gift of tongues no longer exists" or "that was only for the apostolic period" with sweeping declarations which I considered to be dogmatic and hollow. I was more impressed with their conviction than by their arguments. For, to tell the truth, they did not defend their beliefs biblically. In their churches the subject of tongues was as taboo as sex or healing; they just did not talk about it, and that was that! It was as if they said with an air of superiority, "I know all that by heart..." (An ironic song known by the French which makes fun of the school "inspector" who wants to teach a lesson to those who know more than he does.)

    I didn't dare discuss the subject with them because I was young, inexperienced and had little Bible knowledge. But as elementary as my knowledge of the Word was, I wondered how these people could miss the many texts in the New Testament which refer to speaking in tongues.

    As for myself, even if I wanted to ignore them (which was not the case), I could not do so. I wondered how a small part of the evangelical world was able to play hide-and-seek with these passages. They might be ignored in preaching, but it was impossible in the reading and personal study of the Scriptures. To me they seemed to be everywhere in the New Testament.

    To ignore them seemed as serious as ignoring the Apostle Peter in the Gospels. Had not Jesus said, "And these signs will accompany those who have believed in My name: they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents; and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17-18)? Certainly all those who have believed unto salvation do not have to prove their faith by each one casting out demons or by all drinking a poisonous beverage or by all eating poisonous mushrooms without harm or by all speaking in tongues or by each one healing some sick person. But do we have the right to take away such a piece from the marvelous puzzle of the whole Bible picture? One day someone told me in all seriousness that it was satanic. Wow! I have learned that he has since modified his opinion. How can we ignore that so many Christians have had the experience of speaking in tongues and that they testify of having received great blessing? Can we pass over in silence, or try to hush the fact that in the world it is the Pentecostal Churches that are growing the fastest (except for Islam and perhaps Jehovah's Witnesses)? The work done among the gypsies of Europe is due to their activity, and it is remarkable. Did not the Apostle Paul, who has been called the greatest since the Great One, say, "I speak in tongues more than you all (I Cor 14:18)? This citation of the great apostle to the nations has been chosen as the title of this book.

Back to Top

    I once came upon an interesting pamphlet. What a surprise to read from the pen of someone who wanted to be taken seriously......."the gift of tongues is no longer needed because we can learn languages in school!" (But what about the apostle Paul? Had he not been to the finest schools of his day?) Paul received this miraculous gift more than anyone else so that he could be understood by the many Gentiles of diverse tongues. For me, Paul's example immediately pointed out the weakness of this argument. During this time I had already delved into my Bible and had begun to know it a little better. How was it that Paul used the gift of tongues to teach when he himself taught that, "anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men..." (I Cor 14:2)? If speaking in tongues is limited to speaking to God and not to men, Paul would have been in flagrant contradiction with the Holy Spirit who had inspired him to write this conclusive text, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God" (I Cor 14:2).

    This explanation seemed to me to be very weak, coupled as it was with insincerity, in the light of such clear truths. This explanation which explained nothing, made me suspicious of those who opposed speaking in tongues. Now I cannot speak to God except by praise or prayer; I cannot teach God; I cannot evangelize God. No one can exhort God and no one can prophesy to God.

There Is No Alternative

    Speaking in tongues is never a question of God speaking to men but of men speaking to God. The Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself. Taking a good look at the day of Pentecost, there was no preaching in tongues, but "the proclaiming of the wonders of God" (Acts 2: 11). This praise to Jehovah borrowed the tongues of pagan nations, and Jewish ears, accustomed to the languages of these countries from which they came, understood. Certainly this must have been a shock for all those Jews who had come to Israel, who believed that their Jewish tongue, the tongue of God's chosen people, was the only one that the "Good Lord" could understand. You see, their God was theirs alone, not everybody's God! Share Him with pagans? No way! But lo and behold, their Jehovah understood not only Arabic, Greek and thirteen other languages besides Hebrew, but, to top it all off, His Holy Spirit also spoke these tongues through the apostles and the disciples. In other words, praise coming from heaven returned there again after a dip in the sea of pagan tongues. Did this mean that the pagans with their barbaric languages were accepted by Jehovah on the same level as the Jews? And the gift of tongues, could it be a sign of this?

The First Tongues Movement

    Before going further I must tell you an anecdote in which my Bible knowledge was put to the test. I was with some devoted Christian brethren who were experienced in the faith. Each one knew his Bible well and our discussions often came around to theological subjects. The oldest asked a question, "Where do we find speaking in tongues for the first time?" The answers came spontaneously and in unison, "At Pentecost." We were so sure of ourselves! But no! It was at the Tower of Babel (Gen 11:7). I was a bit perturbed. Why hadn't I thought of that? Now I was really listening. I will never forget the explanation that followed. The diversity of languages at the Tower of Babel was a judgment. Now, in the Bible there is a principle of hermeneutics called " First Mention". That is to say, a truth mentioned for the first time in the Bible will keep that same meaning to the end. Along the way, this truth can take on more meaning, can be developed and become richer, but its first emphasis will not be lost. Was it possible that speaking in tongues carried with it an idea of judgment? This is, in any case, what the text confirms. The principal passage on speaking in tongues, treated by Paul in I Corinthians 14: 21, is found in Isaiah 28:11,13. Paul, led by the Holy Spirit, quotes freely the prophet Isaiah, "Indeed, He will speak to this people through stammering lips and a foreign tongue....that they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared, and taken captive." I then remembered that at the Day of Pentecost tongues of fire (Acts 2:3) came down on those who were present. Tongues of fire... and without a doubt, in the Scriptures, fire is a symbol of judgment. Even if fire has the effect of purifying, there is always an aspect of judgment associated with it. For an instant I held on to the idea that fire did not necessarily have to mean judgment because we often sing the beautiful hymn, "Clothe us with Thy power, and baptize us with fire ... !",quoting the exact words of John the Baptist, "He Himself will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt 3: 10).

First Verification

    In order to have a clear conscience I looked more carefully at the texts of the Bible related to this hymn. Going through one after another I found that our hymnology is not always good theology. The Bible showed me that the baptism of fire is in opposition to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that it is synonymous with condemnation. It is true that the four Gospels record what John the Baptist said. All four Gospels speak of the baptism of the Holy Spirit but only two of them mention the baptism of fire. As I carefully read the context, I discovered that there is a reference to the baptism of fire only in Matthew and Luke precisely because John the Baptist's opponents, or the Pharisees, were present. Fire is mentioned because of them. The Pharisees were absent in Mark's account and in John's account, so the baptism of fire and the judgment are absent as well. The explanation very naturally comes in the verse that follows, "He will gather His wheat into the barn (the baptism of the Holy Spirit), but He will bum up the chaff with unquenchable fire (the baptism of fire)" (Matt 3:12).

    The first baptism, that of the Holy Spirit, is linked with the heavenly storehouse; the other, that of fire, is tied in with the idea of inextinguishable fire. A few years later the Apostle Paul, moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote the same truth in different words saying that the Gospel is "to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life" (II Cor 2:16). 1 must admit that this revelation did nothing but create more confusion. Then a new question came up. If speaking in tongues also carried the idea of judgment, then...

Back to Top

    I did not have an answer to this question, and it bothered me for a long time. Up until then the explanations that I had heard for speaking in tongues had to do with exhortation, praise, power, evangelisation and especially with the sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But associating speaking in tongues with judgment had never dawned on me. The problem began to clear up when, after reading in Proverbs 16:4 that God had made everything for His own purpose, I asked myself, "What was God's purpose in the giving of the gift of speaking in tongues?"

    It was certainly a great sign, but why this particular one? Why not, for example, the capacity to become invisible? Or the gift of being everywhere at once; or a permanent halo over one's head? In answer I thought to myself, that wouldn't make sense. And if there were no reason for speaking in tongues, that would be senseless too. But what could the reason be? It must have meant something to someone, but what and to whom?

    After considerable thought, I had to admit that speaking in tongues was neither the refining of human vocabulary nor a more elevated form of expression. I had been told that when one speaks in tongues one outdoes oneself. One goes beyond oneself into a sublime state until he joins the angels with their celestial language. I thought that was marvellous. When my human words were no longer sufficient to praise God, the Holy Spirit would transport me to unattainable heights and give me speech that would put Shakespeare (Voltaire in the original), to shame! I was troubled, however, to think that my own speaking in tongues could be just the same as that heard around me.

Uneasiness

    Except for the ecstasy, there was nothing all that extraordinary about such a gift. The thing that often bothered me about what I had heard spoken in tongues was that it was always incomprehensible and that it did not really resemble a spoken language. Having studied several languages personally, I found that the sounds uttered were rather strange. I spoke about that to a qualified pastor who told me that it might be a dialect of some Indian tribes of South America, of the Matto Grasso, or of Central Africa. How did he know? I do not mean to sound irreverent but I wondered where in the world the Holy Spirit was taking us. It seemed just like too much to swallow. English (French in the original) is one of the richest, most wide-spread and most complete languages in the world. How could a rudimentary tongue with a vocabulary a hundred times more limited presume to express such exalted sentiments when English (French in the original) had proven insufficient? This obvious anomaly did not seem to bother my friend in the least. Ah! the simplicity of "just accepting by faith"! But I am not like that. I have to study things through for myself. Is that wrong, or could it be, in this case, God-given?

    At any rate, I could not deny the supernatural side of speaking in tongues. We have been told that some people were able to express themselves perfectly in Pakistani without knowing a single word of that tongue. Or that others spoke in ancient Greek with such fluency and purity that even a college professor would be impressed. I had to admit that speaking in tongues was a supernatural phenomenon, but I still had not grasped its meaning or its import.

First Questions First

    I went to one or two retreats that were not Pentecostal, with the hope of finding an answer to my quest for the true reason for this gift, and also to find out why the others did not speak in tongues, why they refused this particular gift of the Holy Spirit. Once again I found no satisfactory answer to my questions. Everyone was woefully ignorant of the subject. When I asked about the purpose of speaking in tongues, I encountered the same lack of biblical teaching as I had met among those who do speak in tongues. The first group spoke in tongues without really knowing why, and the second group was not quite sure why they did not. No one was really able to help me in my search. Oh, everyone was brotherly and courteous with me, but my questions really irritated them like a buzzing fly on a muggy summer evening.

The Grass Snake

    One day I was flubbergasted when a veteran preacher, well-known in charismatic circles, told me that with his age and battle fatigue from so much preaching, all he needed was a few minutes speaking in tongues to restore him physically. He felt completely renewed in his body. He even spoke about it from the pulpit. Many swooned with emotion listening to him, without even wondering if the Bible allowed such an explanation of his experience. Worst of all, I too, for a moment, like a sheep easily led (following others blindly), was ecstatic along with my fellow-hearers who nodded in agreement upon hearing this error which was given out under the guise of being from the Gospel. But I quickly got hold of myself "There it is," I said after some thought, "speaking in tongues is now put among the array of pick-me-ups and other tonics used in treating the problems of old age!" A verse of the Bible came to mind, "and they will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths" (II Tim 4:4).

The Crusades

    I felt sad for these people of God; so fervent, but who were like sheep without a shepherd. I thought of the Crusades and the poor Crusaders-sick, dying and discouraged on their way to the Holy Land. Their leaders used to try to encourage them with all sorts of incredible tales. At one time, one of their monks pretended to have found the point of the spear that had supposedly, several centuries before, pierced the Savior's side. And there they go again, renewed for a few days in their quest ... like the poor flock that mistakes the voice of a stranger for that of their Good Shepherd. That day, what was said in the book of Acts became precious to me, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11).

    If the preaching of the great Apostle Paul was to be controlled by the Holy Scriptures, how much more are we responsible to try the spirits by comparing what is said with what the Scriptures teach.

Back to Top

    There was an important point that often bothered me. It was the interpretation that followed the speaking in tongues, for in the first century every time someone spoke in tongues there was to be an interpretation. The text is clear, "If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet..." (I Cor 14:28). In this matter I noticed a definite disobedience, more or less generalized, to the command written by the one who spoke in tongues more and better than anyone. His teaching was rarely applied. Would you believe that there were times when I would have almost preferred that the interpretation not be given? I was actually ashamed of the interpretation. At least what was not interpreted and not yet understood could pass as being inspired. But once the speaking in tongues was interpreted, it was what I understood that bothered me. Most of the time the interpretation was so poorly done that even a dunce would have blushed with embarrassment. The interpretation was almost always commonplace. I thought that that which was said in tongues could just as well have been said in English. In fact, the pastor or another Christian brother exhorted better in English than in tongues. If interpretation were really a gift of the Spirit, where was the promised elevation, the sublime thought, the transcendental truth? Here, on the other hand, were commonplace, run-of-the-mill, pat ideas that everyone had heard a thousand times. When Paul was caught up into the third heaven he heard inexpressible words, words that man is not permitted to utter (II Cor 12:4). I did not understand. I thought to myself, "It's like taking a glass of water and, before drinking it, separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. Then after this laborious process, you put them back together to make the water you would finally drink. Wouldn't it be simpler just to drink the water directly from the fountain?" Sometimes I thought that I must have been really ignorant to ask so many questions. After all, Paul did say, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues..." (I Cor 14:5). What more did I need?

Tongues or Celibacy

    All of a sudden I remembered that the apostle who said, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues ... (I Cor 14:5), also said, "Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am" (I Cor 7:7). That is to say, unmarried. (In the Greek the two expressions are identical.) It was at this point that I began to get worried. The same one who gave me the green light to speak in tongues, also gave me the green light to remain single! I wanted to follow the one but reject the other. It wasn't logical and I knew it. This may make you smile, but there is a definite theological implication behind Paul's two expressions and there was no way around it. Both commandments were given by Paul to the Corinthians in the very same letter. To those whom he says, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues..." he also says, "Yet I wish that all men were as I myself am..."-unmarried. (I realized how carelessly we overlook passages that bother us and cling to those that seem to teach our own beliefs.) We do mental gymnastics trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Thus, it is a paradox that those who affirm that all should speak in tongues, nevertheless, by the same token, affirm that all should not remain single! By what principle of scriptural interpretation do people arrive at such unsound conclusions? Isn't it more honest to admit that all the Corinthians were not called to remain single and that neither were all called to speak in tongues. Paul accepts both of these ideas. On the one hand, all do not have the gift of celibacy (I Cor 7:7), and on the other hand, all do not have the gift of tongues. He answers his own questions when he writes-All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? ... All do not speak in tongues, do they? (I Cor 12:29, 30) To ask the question is to give the answer.

The Language of the Angels

    It was at this time that I asked a pastor how he explained the incomprehensible aspect of speaking in tongues. He answered that it might be an angelic message. "Poor angels," I thought. "Can't they speak any better than that? Is that all there is to the heavenly tongues of angels?" I was disappointed. I expected something better. I even went so far (God forgive me) as to think that if angels didn't speak any better than that, then I spoke better than they did! And what's more, I thought that if Shakespeare (Voltaire in the original) were in heaven (God rest his soul) the angels would have a hard time carrying on a conversation with him. He would probably send them back to school! No, frankly the pastor's explanation did not satisfy me at all. His answer seemed to be a dishonest way of avoiding a relevant question. But since the Bible does speak about the tongues of angels, I consented that it might be true. By faith I had to accept it, admitting that I could be wrong and asking God to forgive me for questioning the form of expression that He chose to give His angels. Who is to judge God's choice (Rom 11:34, 35)? Since this pastor quoted the Bible, I decided to see for myself what the Scriptures had to say on the subject. I hoped ever so slightly that what he said was true. But all I found was a new disappointment to add to the others. I discovered that, without exception, every time the angels spoke it was in comprehensible, contemporary human language, never a heavenly tongue. The only reference I found to the tongues of angels was in I Corinthians 13:12, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels..." It made me sick. I felt that I had been duped by this distorted usage of the Scriptures. It is evident that in this passage Paul is using "though" or "if" as a hyperbole. Paul never had the knowledge of all mysteries since several verses later he states that he only knows in part (I Cor 13:12). Paul never gave his body to be burned. He never bestowed all his goods to feed the poor. Nor did he speak all the tongues of angels and of men. Paul makes it all the more evident that he could not speak the tongues of angels by referring to them as "words which man is not permitted to speak" (II Cor 12:4). He also uses the conditional mood with this hyperbolic "if". Even a child would understand this grammatical structure. How could a mature man, the shepherd of a flock, promote such an unfounded argument? I was stupefied. It was an isolated case, true, but this man was not just anyone, and I fear that many may have adopted his reasoning for their own, though in so doing, they would only be undermining their own position.

Back to Top

    After all of the insufficient human explanations that I had heard, at last I had found a good scriptural one. I could accept the incomprehensible aspect of speaking in tongues because of Paul's statement, "for one who speaks in a tongue ... no one understands" (I Cor 14:2). Whew!

    Thank you brother Paul. No more need to split hairs! So if men speak so poorly, even in tongues, it is not the angels' fault. Thank you dear Apostle Paul for reminding us in your own way that revealed things are for us and our children, and that hidden things are for the Lord (Deut 29:29). This text came just in time to ease my mind and let me breathe more freely. Certainly the problem was not resolved, but at this point in my search for the truth, this inspired verse, written by the very one who spoke in tongues more than anyone else, was like an oasis in my spiritual pilgrimage under the unbearably hot rays of contradictory opinions. So if I could not understand, there was no need to worry. What a relief! It was as reassuring as a mass in Latin-and it had the same air of mystery which was not at all that unpleasant. I must admit that the adversaries of speaking in tongues were beginning to scare me. I may not have been 100% in agreement with the "charismatics" but I was at least 99% convinced that they were right. I hoped to regain the 1% that had been eaten away, not so much by those who were against speaking in tongues as by the blunders of those who were for it. This providential verse allowed me to join my Pentecostal brothers in believing that there were obviously two kinds of speaking in tongues-one, given on the day of Pentecost, which everyone understood (Acts 2:8), and the other, mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians which could not be understood (I Cor 14:2). I noticed: with a sigh of relief, that partisans of both sides were of about the same opinion on this point. The gift of tongues practiced by the Apostle Paul was not the same as the one experienced on the Day of Pentecost. Hallelujah! I was anxious to meet Paul in heaven, to shake his hand and thank him for writing those words. They allowed me to remain serene in my faith and firm in my position, for the vagueness in my understanding of this subject was in complete accordance with Bible teaching.

A Burned Child Fears the Fire

    This phrase from the Bible, "no one understands him", was a real windfall. So there were two kinds of tongues! But I had been so burned in the past that I could not simply accept things at face value. I decided to stick to my usual method. Since the Bible is our authority for Christian living and doctrine, I preferred to examine what the Holy Spirit had inspired. I wanted to verify whether there were really two kinds of tongues, or if the difference in these two texts was an apparent contradiction. It took me a while to begin this verification. I shuddered at the thought. There are a number of apparent contradictions in the Bible which cannot hold up under a serious, indepth study of the passages involved. Here is how I went about it. I took a concordance and lined up all the verses that have to do with speaking in tongues. I found about thirty. Then I went to the Greek text. There I found that:

    First of all, the French translations all conveyed the very idea expressed in the original text.

    And secondly, in all these texts there was only one word for "tongues" and "languages". It is the same in every case.

    So, it is evident that if the gift of tongues in the Epistles was a different "glossolia" than that at Pentecost, it should be seen in the Greek terms used. Such is not the case. Luke, the author of the Acts of the Apostles, used the same word in Chapter 2 as Paul uses in his letter to the Corinthians in Chapters 12, 13 and 14. If as I believed to be the case, the two speaking in tongues were different, Luke, who wrote the book of Acts after Paul had written this first letter to the Corinthians, would have at least shown it by using different words. There is no doubt that Luke was familiar with Paul's epistle, for it circulated widely among the churches. Moreover, Luke was one of Paul's traveling companions. If the speaking in tongues mentioned in his book was different from Paul's, he would certainly have pointed it out to eliminate confusion, but he doesn't say anything about it. No, he uses the same word because he is speaking about the same thing. It is "glossa" in one case and in the other. The Greek text is explicit. This discovery put me at a loss. There were only two ways of interpreting it:

1. The Bible contradicts itself. A hypothesis which a Christian who believes that the Scriptures are inspired by God cannot accept.
2. There is only one kind of tongues, which creates the problem of explaining why Paul seems to contradict what Luke says.

Pentecost Updated

    What exactly did happen at Jerusalem? All of those who were there understood these men speaking foreign languages which they had not learned. When the Holy Spirit was given, separate tongues of fire came down upon the the disciples (Acts 2:3). Each disciple, separately and distinctly, spoke one of the native languages of the different people present. Fifteen countries and peoples are mentioned, therefore fifteen languages are cited (Acts 2:9-11). They all understood, each one understanding the language from his own country. There was nothing complicated about it. There were fifteen peoples with fifteen different ears to understand. The speaking was supernatural but the reception was natural.

    Let's suppose that there were fifteen Corinthians present the day of Pentecost with fifteen tape recorders and that each one taped separately what was being said and understood. Now imagine that these fifteen Corinthians went back to the church in Corinth and played these fifteen cassettes for the Christians who understood one or two languages at the most. They would inevitably arrive at the same conclusion as Paul: "no one understands". Obviously, because there was no one at Corinth to understand (I Cor 14:2). And if these fifteen cassettes were passed down to our day and were played in a church in New York, Paris or Madrid, the result would be the same. These fifteen languages which were so easily understood at Jerusalem would no more be understood today than they were in Corinth in the first century. On the other hand, imagine that we had been able to transport the whole congregation of Corinth to Jerusalem for the day of Pentecost. Of all that was said on that day, they would have understood what had been said miraculously in their own language, that is to say, in Greek; but they would not have understood anything in the fourteen other languages. Of course, if the Holy Spirit had chosen not to include Greek on that day, they would have understood absolutely nothing! And that is just what happened in their church in Corinth! They were speaking in other languages than Greek. No one understood, not because it was ecstatic language, but simply because it wasn't Greek. It was as inaccessible to them as an Englishman receiving a telephone call in Japanese.

    Here I should point out that there is no question of an ecstatic language as some have suggested. This idea is as foreign to the Greek texts as it is to our modern versions. When Balaam's donkey supernaturally spoke by the Spirit it was not in an ecstatic, incomprehensible language to her master (Num 22:28). With intelligible words the "foolishness of God" (I Cor 1:25) made a mute donkey speak with a human voice in order to stop the prophet's folly (II Pet 2:15,16). Whether it be through His Word, His angels, His prophets, or even a donkey, God has always spoken in a comprehensible way. How could I go on believing that this God who made a donkey speak as well as a man could take hold of beings created in His image and move them to speak more poorly than a donkey?

What Does All This Prove?

    It proves that the speaking in tongues practiced by the Corinthians was not an ecstatic, unintelligible verbiage, nor an inaccessible angelic language, but languages as national and distinct as those heard in Jerusalem at Pentecost. And if, as Paul says, "no one understands," it is very simply because we do not have the fifteen ears to understand-no more than Paul or the Corinthians did. Looking at this a bit more closely I found that the Corinthians were not the only ones who did not understand the tongues spoken. On the day of Pentecost, without question, the tongues spoken miraculously by the power of the Holy Spirit, were the languages of the nations of that day. Many of the Jews present did not understand them either.

    It is clear from Acts 2 that there were two groups of Jews present at the Feast of Pentecost:

1. Those who were visiting at Jerusalem from the fifteen nations named, to whom the languages other than Aramaic spoken in Jerusalem and Judea were known.
2. Those who were natives of Jerusalem and Judea (Acts 2:1) and did not speak or understand those languages of the fifteen nations spoken by the disciples and by the other group of Jews from those nations. These were the "others" of Acts 2:1, "But others were mocking and saying, 'They are full of new wine!"'

    In summary, please note:

1. The Jews who were visiting at Jerusalem for the Jewish feast of Pentecost understood their own native tongues spoken by the disciples and were astonished, not knowing what to think (Acts 2:12), while those who understood only Aramaic cried, "Drunkards!".
2. After having addressed himself to God in a language other than his own, "speaking mysteries" (I Cor 14:2), Peter then spoke to all those assembled, not in a foreign tongue, but in their own Aramaic tongue, explaining what was happening and also preaching Christ to them (Acts 2:14-36).

1. "God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself" (Col 2:2), the subject of inexpressible adoration.
2. "The mystery of godliness" (I Tim 3:16). The mystery of God leaving His glory and returning thereto after manifesting Himself in flesh; things which angels desire to inquire into.
3. The mystery of the return of Christ (I Cor 15:51,52) with the redeemed to say, "Amen. Come Lord Jesus" (Rev 22:20).
4. And above all, the mystery most prominent in the speaking of tongues, the mystery that the Gentiles (those of languages other than Hebrew) are fellow-heirs and fellow-members of the promise of Christ Jesus through the Gospel (Eph 3:6).

    This mystery is such that the twenty-four elders in Revelation 5:8-10 go to their knees adoring and singing to the slain Lamb Who purchased by His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

    It is for this mystery that Peter and the others glorified God in foreign languages on the day of Pentecost which was the Inaugural Day of the salvation which God offered to people of all the earth. To those who did not grasp it, Peter gave, then and there, a clear explanation saying that the Lord would pour out His Spirit from that moment forward on all mankind (Acts 2:17).

    That was the mystery of the Gentiles becoming fellow heirs with the Jews.

    All this helped me to understand three things:

1. That speaking in tongues always has to do with living, spoken languages of the different nations of that time.
2. That if one is not careful, the phrase "no one understands" can easily become an umbrella for those who would have everyone believe that what is practiced in certain churches today is the same as what was practiced in the apostolic church since no one understands-neither then nor now. An abuse of this phrase "no one understands" eliminates any means of verification and leads straight to uncontrollable counterfeit.
3. That Paul, in spite of the authenticity of the use of the gift of tongues in his time, would not allow it to be exercised unless it was followed by an interpretation; that the assembly of believers was not the place to exercise the gift (I Cor 14:27); that it was better to remain silent or only speak to oneself than to speak in tongues under those conditions (I Cor 14:28). With the Holy Spirit's authority Paul establishes the rules for the use of this gift and condemns any misuse of it-right at the time in church history when the "charisma" (gift) was fulfilling its purpose. The reason he writes, "I speak in tongues more than you all" (I Cor 14:18) is evident. His call to be an apostle to the nations-peoples of many languages-was constantly questioned by his Jewish adversaries. Thus he showed them that foreign tongues could praise the Jehovah of Israel as well as theirs. And to prove it, this liberated ex-Pharisee, with Jewish lips, proclaimed the wonders of the God of the Jews among the Jews in a pagan tongue! Wonders for some (the converted Jews and pagans), and fiery judgment for others (the unbelieving Jews infuriated with jealousy).

Back to Top

    I must now go back and take up the question which had puzzled me for so long and to which I had not found an answer. Certainly speaking in tongues was a sign, but for whom? Before I could find out for whom this sign was given, I found out for whom it was not given. As I carefully read the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians again, I came across the declaration that it was:

A sign, not to those who believe (I Cor 14:22)

    I rubbed my eyes. Had I read this aright? Yes, I had. This sign was not for believers. For many years I had read this passage without really seeing it. Now I wondered how I could have missed it. No one had ever brought this teaching of the Holy Spirit to my attention. The Assemblies thought that it was a sign for believers; that they should seek this sign for themselves, and that above all it was the sign of having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At first this new-found passage intrigued me. Then it troubled me. So much so that I went to see several servants of God to ask them what this meant. Their embarrassed silence and muddled answers only showed me that they had never noticed this passage either, and that my questions left them without a reply. I was acutely aware of the risks involved. My confidence was shaken. And the battering ram which had shattered my beautiful building had not come from those who were against speaking in tongues, but from the Apostle Paul whom I so admired. A chain reaction set in. Other Bible verses, one after another, became clear. Naturally, if this sign had been for believers, Paul would have encouraged its use in the assembly of believers, but on the contrary, he discouraged its practice in the church (I Cor 14:19). It was outside the church that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else, but within the church he preferred five intelligible words to ten thousand words in tongues (I Cor 14:19). That is to say, he was two thousand times more against speaking in tongues that he was for it. No one had ever told me these things. At times I was furious with those who had hidden them from me, and angry with myself for straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matt 23:23). Could it be possible that the others were right? "Get thee behind me Satan!" I firmly resolved not to budge an inch. I felt that my opinions were shaken, and I decided to attack the issue head-on. I was finished with second-hand explanations (John 4:42). 1 realized the danger of knowing doctrine only by bits and pieces on hearsay, or by "experiences" which supposedly have something to do with the subject. I discovered once again that I was totally unaware of the truth in the passages written in black and white two thousand years ago.

Then for whom?

    What put me on the right track was not so much the beginning of the phrase, "a sign, not to those who believe...", but the end of it, "but to unbelievers," (I Cor 14:22). 1 was looking for noon at twelve o'clock, but the answer was the preceding verse where Paul asks us to be mature men in our thinking (I Cor 14:20), quoting Isaiah, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers will I speak to this people." (I Cor 14:21). About which people was he speaking? The Jews. So it was a sign for the Jews, especially for the unbelieving Jews. It was for those Jews who did not want to believe in the salvation of the pagans (people of other languages), and who opposed it with all their might. Paul wrote of them, "hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved" (I Thess 2:16). Everything about this point became clear in an instant. At last I had discovered the purpose of this great sign! The entire Bible glowed with life and truth before my very eyes. The film of the Jews' fierce opposition against those who were not of their own race was projected before me.

Jonah

    I could see Jonah who detested "the tongues" (the Ninevites) to the point of disobeying God. He fled to Tarshish rather than take the word of salvation to them. He argued with God. He preferred to see that immense metropolis perish rather than saved. For him, the LORD was the God of Israel, and no one else; at any rate not the God of these barbarian heathens! In his spite he went so far as to cry out for his own death. If Nineveh lived, Jonah wanted to die! He reproached God for the very thing that is His glory-that He is the Savior of men from every tribe and nation. This spirit of resistance and unbelief increased throughout the centuries. They belonged to Jehovah and Jehovah belonged to them. It was a closed circle and all outside of it were cursed. Any attempt for a spirit of brotherhood or even tolerance of people of other tongues caused them to bristle with uncontrollable hate. Death to heathen tongues and to those who speak them! Daring to suggest that people with a language other than their own could benefit from the goodness of God was to risk death (Luke 9:49; Acts 22:21,22). They led the Lord Jesus to the brow of a hill to cast Him down because He said, "But I say unto you in truth, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah ... and yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon..." (Luke 4:24-26). And provoking them to greater wrath Jesus added, "And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian" (Luke 4:27). In their eyes that was enough! He deserved to be put to death. Even the Samaritans, although they were closely related to the Jews, did not escape their racist hatred. One day when Jesus was refused entrance to a Samaritan village, His own disciples asked, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?" (Luke 9:54). Jesus had to reply, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:54 margin). Later, after having received the Holy Spirit, these believing Jews returned to those Samaritans asking not for heaven to baptize them with fire, but that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15).

Even the Apostles

    This old idea was so engrained in them that the Jewish Christians had a hard time believing other tongues were included. When Peter was sent by the Holy Spirit to the home of Cornelius, and when all who were there were converted, all of the apostles did not see the event in the same light. Peter was reprimanded because he had preached the Good News to the Gentiles. He had to explain what had happened, how he had heard them speak in foreign languages in just the same way as they themselves had in the beginning (Acts 11:15). What a shock! The sign was for them. Here they had thought that their God could only accept Hebrew, and now His Holy Spirit was proclaiming His praises through the pagan tongues and peoples they had detested. With their heads still spinning from this revelation, they said to themselves with astonishment, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life!" (Acts 11:18). They could not get over it. The God of Israel was also the God of the Gentiles! They needed this sign in order to begin to admit it. But they were so hardened that they relapsed into their former way of thinking. It was second nature to them. A few years later this unfortunate state of mind showed up in the great Apostle Peter. We find the account in Galatians 2:11-14. It called for the intervention of an exceptional man, a contender for the faith like the Apostle Paul, to size up the situation quickly and stand up to them all (Gal 2:5).

Peter too!

    Paul had to reprimand Peter severely because of his two-faced behavior. He was all the more reproachable because he, more than anyone else, had been made aware of the universality of the Gospel (Gal 2:11-14). If the new Jewish converts were not ready to believe that salvation extended beyond Israel, what could be expected of the fanatic unconverted Jews? The experience at Antioch illustrates this very well. When the Jews saw the crowd of Gentiles listening and receiving the Word of God, they were filled with jealousy and resisted Paul, contradicting and blaspheming him (Acts 13:45). Jonah's attitude had come a long way! When they heard Paul and Barnabas say, "I have placed you as a light for the Gentiles, that you should bring salvation to the end of the earth" (Acts 13:47-50), the Jewish leaders stirred up persecution against them and expelled them from their city. From Antioch Paul and Barnabas went to Iconium, where the opposition was worse. "'Paul and Barnabas, GO HOME!" (Acts 14:5,6).

Moses told them so

    This was the literal fulfillment of the prophecy given 1500 years earlier, "So I will make them jealous with those who are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation" (Deut 32:21; Rom 10:19). This violent aversion to the Gentiles came from a long way back. A chosen people they were, but they misconstrued the God-given meaning of their calling. Their entire history was that of a nation distinct and separated from other peoples, tribes, nations and tongues. But separation from the evil ways, the idolatry and the abominations of these nations did not mean that they should nurse hate, contempt, pride and superiority. They had become more Catholic than the Pope himself, going so far as to reject all that was not of, for, or by themselves, and to imprison their Jehovah instead of revealing Himself to others. So when God revealed Himself to the Gentiles, the prophecy was fulfilled to the letter, annoying the Jews greatly. This jealousy was seen in Thessalonica where the angry Jews took with them evil men to the populace who provoked gatherings and stirred up riots all over the city (Acts 17:5). All of that because non-Jews, people of another tongue, believed in the Jew's own personal God but in a different way. The whole situation went against their grain.

On the Fortress steps

    Things got worse when Paul returned to Jerusalem. What a thrilling account is given in the 22nd chapter of Acts! Paul the prisoner stood on the fortress steps, motioned to the crowd and asked to speak. As he speaks in Hebrew, silence falls upon the crowd. They all hold their breath waiting to hear what he has to say. Paul tells of his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road and of his conversion. The crowd hangs on his words. No one dares interrupt him. Motionlessly they listen to him speak of his past, of his titles, of his activities, of his zeal for the Jewish cause. He speaks to them about Jesus' appearance to him. He speaks to them about baptism, and still there is no reaction-not until he comes to this sentence: "And He said to me: I will send you far away to the Gentiles..." They listened until the word "Gentiles", but when Paul pronounced that word they raised their voices, threw off their cloaks and threw dust in the air saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he should not be allowed to live!" (Acts 22:22). What caused them to explode like that? The idea that God could be the God of all mankind and of all tongues. That makes it easy to understand why God chose speaking in tongues to be the sign of this great truth, and why the unobtrusive phrase, "for this people" is so essential to understanding the purpose of tongues. Their unwillingness to believe that salvation was also open to the Gentiles drove the Jews to make a binding oath, swearing against themselves, that they would not eat until they had killed the Apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 23:12)-the one who spoke in the Gentiles tongues more than anyone else.

A Replay of Jonah

    Jonah had done the same thing. He had refused to obey the LORD and went out to sit on the east side of the city and pouted, waiting for it to be destroyed. And there, under his vine, Jonah lamented because the punishment did not come. There he was, totally preoccupied with his own gruesome expectations, wishing for the death of a nation that God wanted to save. Jonah, who reproached God for saving Nineveh, was the spiritual father of the apostles-yes, you read it correctly-the unbelieving apostles who reproached Peter because he had announced the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3). Unbelievable! Spiritually speaking, they were all hard of hearing. Peter was too, even though he had experienced the extraordinary events that took place on the day of Pentecost. In spite of the fact that he had spoken in tongues that day, he needed the vision of the sheet descending from heaven full of all kinds of unclean animals before he was ready to go to people of other tongues. The Lord had to speak to him I three times before Peter could say, "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right, is welcome to Him" (Acts 10:34).

Everyone?

    Only after Peter received the vision did he pronounce the word everyone in a key phrase-one of the greatest of history. "Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him has received forgiveness of sins" (Acts 10:43). The words every one give me the opportunity to confess a 20-year old error. I had overlooked a very important aspect of John 3:16. This verse, known by millions of Christians the world over, hid a doctrinal truth that I had not suspected. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "For God so loved..." Who? ... the world. A Jew would never have said such a thing. Not Jonah, not Peter, nor anyone else. They all would have said, "For God so loved ISRAEL." Already at this early point in His earthly ministry the Lord announced the extent of His love-the entire world composed of tongues, peoples, tribes and nations. On Jesus' cross the reason for His condemnation was inscribed in three languages (John 19:20-Latin (the legal language), Greek (the commercial language) and Hebrew (the religious language). Without their knowing it, the authors of the title proclaimed the universality of the Gospel from then on. This title carried in it the seed of the Great Commission which rang out a few days later, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" (Matt 28:19), of all the tongues. The matter should have been closed. But I am a die-hard and I wanted to finish my investigations. It remained for me to learn...

Back to Top

    When John wrote his epistle he included this phrase which was so self-evident that, to me, it seemed superfluous, "....... and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world" (I John 2:2). Of course! But it was not all that evident to the Jews. John, the apostle to the circumcision, (that is to say to the Jews), had to remind them constantly that God's forgiveness, purchased by Christ's death on the cross, was not just for them but also for all the tongues of the entire world. In his writings all the way through to Revelation, written 60 years after Pentecost, John insisted again and again on this point. Many times he spoke of a New Song in contrast with the Song of Moses. And what is the main theme of the Song of Moses? The relationship between the LORD (Jehovah) and His chosen redeemed people. He scarcely leaves this ground. It is the Old Covenant. And what are the words of the New Song of the New Covenant? "Thou wast slain and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and nation" (Rev 5:9). The Song of Israel did not go that far. This worldwide concept eluded Israel. To understand it, they needed an interior enlightening of the Holy Spirit and an exterior sign: speaking in tongues.
 

A Mystery

    I went back to listen to Paul, the teacher of the Church. He explained in his letter to the Ephesians that Gentiles and Jews form one body and together share the same promise (Eph 3:6). For us in the twentieth century there is nothing mysterious in this, but sharing the same promises with the Gentiles was an entirely new and unexpected truth for the Jews. They could not fully understand it without the help of this sign, speaking in tongues, for the Jews seek miraculous signs (I Cor 1:22). The Jews, like Jonah, wanted men to be saved, but not all men and especially not the Gentiles; whereas, God wants all men to be saved (I Tim 2:4). Paul repeated this truth in different words in his letter to Titus, reminding him that God's grace is the source of salvation for all men (Titus 2:11). It wasn't at all evident for the new Jonahs of the New Testament so Paul had to repeat it over and over again to convince them. Between them and the Gentiles they had built a kind of Berlin wall. Paul demolished this shameful wall full of theological watchtowers: first of all by speaking by the Holy Spirit the tongues of those who were on the other side of that wall, and then by teaching them that Christ is peace for those on both sides of the wall. He told them that Christ made of the two one and that He destroyed the wall of separation and hostility. His purpose was to create in Himself one new man out of the two, making peace and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross by which He put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to those who were far away (the Gentiles), and peace to those who are near (the Jews), for through Him both of them have access to the Father by one Spirit (Eph 2:11-17). Hallelujah! With ecstasy Paul exclaims, "To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ" (Eph 3:8).

    Alas, not everyone shared the conviction of this man Paul who had been baptized by the Spirit to form one body with all men, Jews and Greeks (I Cor 12:13). Their unrelenting opposition exposed them to the terrible baptism of fire. Paul wrote of them, "Hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost." (I Thess 2:16). Yes, these foreign tongues, proclaimers of so great a Gospel, sign of a new and worldwide convenant, would become a fire for them, a fire of judgment. The wrath of God would set them aflame like the chaff that is thrown to the fire (Matt 3:12).

The Purpose

    To conclude this chapter, the purpose of speaking in tongues was very simply explained in a passage that I must have read fifty times more-the account of the day of Pentecost! It was all there. To the great question of these astonished people who wondered what in the world speaking in tongues meant, Peter answered simply with the Scriptures. He quoted the prophet Joel, "I will pour forth my Spirit upon all mankind" (verse 17), and "every one... who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (verse 21). Every one... all people... that is the answer! The purpose? To tell these stubborn Jews who come from all over the world that the Gospel was also for all people from all over the world. Thus Paul concluded, "So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers" (I Cor 14:22). Led by the Holy Spirit, Paul gave, with irrefutable exactitude, the identity of these unbelievers, specifically naming the Jews, "By men of strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people..." (I Cor 14:21). In all the New Testament we find the gift of tongues used only in the presence of Jews to whom it was destined. Even when Gentiles spoke in tongues, the sign was for this people. It was for Jews and Jews alone, without exception. At this point I imagine that someone is asking, "But if the sign was for the Jews, why did Cornelius and those of his household speak in tongues?" The answer lies in the following passage. It was so that Peter could go back and tell his Jewish brethren who did not yet accept the Gentiles' right to salvation that "the Holy Spirit fell on them just as He did upon us at the beginning" (Acts 11: 15). When they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God" (Acts 11: 18). This last sentence shows to what extent preaching grace to the nations had stirred up the unbelieving Jews. But speaking in tongues was for "this people" the irrefutable sign that their God accepted foreign peoples as well as the pure children of Israel. By this exclamation we see that they were forced to admit, first with amazement and then with wonder, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life" (Acts 11:18). Cornelius was the sign bearer, but the sign was for "this people".

    It seems there is a famous man in the Far West, a cowboy (a sort of western version of Robin Hood) played by Steve MacQueen. This Jos Rendal, up until then a suspect, was suddenly named sheriff in an emergency situation. But how could the county's citizens and especially the bandits, be brought to believe that his authority was not invalid, but, on the contrary, quite legal? The famous star, sign of his new calling and his good faith, was pinned on his chest.

    In the same way Cornelius, with an unquestionable sign divinely "pinned" to his language (Acts 10:46), proved to unbelieving Israel that, Gentile though he was, he too had received the call to the heavenly vocation. He became a child of God just as did the converted Jews, as it is written, "He came to His own (things, possession, dominion), and those who were His own (the Jews) did not receive Him. But as many as received Him (such as Cornelius did), to them He gave the right to become the children of God" (John 1:11,12a).

    The episode at Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7), where twelve disciples suddenly spoke in tongues, is not an exception. These were not disciples of Christ, but Jews, disciples of John the Baptist who were baptized with his baptism which was for Jewish people.

    So, believing in Christ, rebaptized in water in the name of Jesus, and baptized by the Spirit, they became one body (I Cor 12:13) with the converted Gentiles to such an extent that the tongues of these Gentiles miraculously took over their own tongues to praise the God of Israel Who became, in their eyes, the God of the nations. They needed the sign of speaking in tongues to teach them the worldwide dimension that their Jehovah was now giving to His divine salvation.

Back to Top

    What surprised me the most was the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ, our Divine Example, never spoke in tongues. He had the Holy Spirit without measure, and all the gifts, though apparently not this one. He didn't seem to miss it at all. He didn't speak about it, nor did He seem to pursue it. But if speaking in tongues is all that it is made out to be, and if it is as useful as I had heard, Jesus certainly would have needed it-He who prayed so much with weeping, who often fasted, and who preached salvation to the crowds, who wearied Himself healing the sick. This indisputable evidence of the total absence of speaking in tongues in the life of Jesus disappoints certain defenders of this doctrine to the point that, in order to save face, they are obliged to expose themselves to the twisting of the Scriptures to their own destruction (II Pet 3:16).

    Here is what one says in an attempted answer to non-charismatics, "If Jesus Christ has never spoken in tongues it is because He was perfect, and being perfect, He had no need to edify Himself!"

    To this skillful maneuver we answer by one simple question, "Why did the Lord, who was perfect, require that John the Baptist administer to Him the baptism of repentance since He had no need of repentance?"

    He did it for us because we needed to know what was needful.

    If, therefore, the divine Son of God never spoke in tongues it was because he knew that practically all of His Church would never have need of doing so.

    If speaking in tongues had the renewing and restorative power that some believe it to have, Christ would have, more than anyone, needed it. He was often physically exhausted. So, why didn't Christ ever edify Himself by, speaking in tongues, I wondered? If speaking in tongues should be exercised in private, or among friends, why didn't He ever use it? Why didn't He pray in tongues when there were so many people coming to Him to be healed? Why didn't He link speaking in tongues to the casting out of demons if that were the best way to do it? Why didn't He sing in tongues when He climbed the Mount of Olives (Mark 14:26)? Why didn't He blend His voice with those of the angels when He saw them ascending and descending upon Him (John 1:51)? Why, I wondered, didn't He possess this gift? Why didn't He try to add this sign to the others for the good of His ministry?

    For those who, inspite of much evidence to the contrary, insist that no one should try to stifle the right to speak in tongues, I reply by citing another comparison. Speaking in tongues should be considered as one does the Gospel. It isn't enough to teach or to preach whatever seems applicable for it to have value. The Holy Spirit teaches us, using the pen of Paul, that the true Gospel, the only one that saves, is clearly explained. In I Corinthians 15:1-4, this explanation is remarkably precise: "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."     The Gospel is the bridge of salvation crossing the river of sin and resting on five pillars. If any one of these five pillars are removed, salvation is not possible because the Holy Spirit tells us that this is the minimum, otherwise our faith is in vain. The true Gospel must therefore contain:

1. The death of Christ for our sins (verse 3)
2. The resurrection of Christ for our justification (verse 4)
3. The announcement of the Good News (verse 1)
4. The reception of this Good News (verse 1)
5. The living of the Good News with perserverance (verse 1)

    Only a bridge firmly resting on these five pillars will lead to an assurance of salvation (verse 2). This is why the Holy Spirit adds ".... if you keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." In other words, the other bank (or the "shore of salvation") can only be reached if these five pillars are in place. If one is missing, the bridge cannot be crossed.

	If one believes that Christ died but not that he was resurrected from the dead (I Cor 15:12) your faith is in vain writes Paul-and the bridge cannot be crossed.
	If one believes these first two essential points, but does not proclaim them (or if the proclaiming is done in private with the idea of only edifying the speaker) no one would be saved because God says "... and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom 10: 14)
	If the first three conditions are met but those who hear the offer of salvation do not receive it by faith, they cannot become children of God (John 1:12). One of the pillars is missing and the bridge cannot be used.
	And finally, if all four conditions are met but this good news is not inscribed permanently in the daily life through perseverance, the Bible says that you have believed in vain. The Gospel reduced to only 4/5 of it's whole is as useless as the renown "Pont d'Avignon" whose span ends midway across the Rhone. This gospel can be used by no one to reach the shore of salvation: it is no longer the Gospel but instead a false gospel.

    It is the same with speaking in tongues. It can be likened unto a bridge with seven pillars which could be called the great Bridge of Pentecost at Jerusalem. At least these seven pillars are needed to have a true speaking in tongues. And at the same time remembering that an act 2/7 or 4/7 or even 6/7 authentic means that it is actually false.

1. It must be an actual language. (I Cor 14:10, Acts 2:8)
2. It must not be addressed to men. (I Cor 14:2)
3. It must be addressed only to God. (I Cor 14:2)
4. It must not be a sign for believers. (I Cor 14:22)
5. It is to be a sign to the unbelieving Jews that the Gospel is for all peoples. (I Cor 14:21)
6. It is to be a sign of judgment for the unbelieving Jews. (Is 28:11-13, I Cor 14:21)
7. It is not to be practiced in private but publically in the presence of unbelieving Jews for whom it is destined. (Acts 2:5, I Cor 14:22)