The Strand Study Bible

ACTS ACTS 3. Pentecost occurred in order to remind us of our ingredients (leaven; sinfulness - Lev 23:17, Acts 20:28 and Rom 5:6-8), and thus our inability to make it to Heaven on our own ( I Pet 4:18 ) 2:2 The word ( wind ) comes from the Greek word SQHXPD ( pneuma ), from which we derive our English word “pneumatic.” Pneuma is the same word used for SPIRIT , and symbolizes the presence of God ( Psa 133:2 – point #3). 2:3 a This word ( tongues ) is the Greek word JOZσσDL ( glossai ). Glossolalia is used 50 times in the New Testament. In every case the use of this word “ tongues ” is either speaking of: (1) the physical tongue (Mk 7:33,35 & Lk 1:64 & 16:24 & Acts 2:3,26 & Rom 3:13 & 14:11 & I Cor 14:9 & Phil 2:11 & Jms 1:26 & 3:5,6,6,8 & I Pet 3:10 & I Jn 3:18 & Rev 16:10); or (2) a known, established, earthly language (Rev 5:9 & 7:9 & 10:11 & 11:9 & 13:7 & 14:6 & 17:15, I Cor 12:10,10,28-30 & 13:1,8 & 14:2,4,5,5,6,13,14,18,19,22,23,26 ,27,39 and Acts 10:46 & 19:6) used for the purpose of witnessing (Mk 16:17-20 & Acts 2:4-11). Donald W. Burdick in Tongues: To Speak or Not to Speak notes: 1781

Present-day glossolalia is deceptive. It often is a psychological attempt to recreate the supernatural gift of the first century. Because of the complexity of human nature, when the proper conditions are present, man is able to work himself into an experience which he thinks to be the same as New Testament glossolalia. Careful examination, however, has shown us how different such experience seem to be from the phenomenon clearly described in Acts 2. This is not to impugn the sincerity of our tongues-speaking brethren. It is simply to insist that in their sincerity they have often allowed themselves to be deceived by a counterfeit experience which does not measure up to the biblical standard. 3

And what is the biblical standard for glossolalia (speaking in tongues)? Mk 16:17a -20 and Acts 1:4 -8 & 2:1-8 is the biblical standard; speaking in tongues was for reaching the lost ( I Cor 14:21a,b - 22 ), not reaching within for an experience with God! Robert R. Gustafson in Authors of Confusion notes:

The major value then of tongues as seen by the Charismatics appears to be centered upon an empirical or emotional experience by which they are able to free themselves from the problems and burdens of life and draw closer to God through praise and adoration. The gift of tongues as proclaimed by the Charismatics has a diversity of values but all of which appear to be for self-edification and emotional release. Yet none of these values are scriptural in that glossolalia according to Scripture had only one true value or purpose. This was to proclaim the mighty works of God or more simply the truth of the gospel in the many different languages of the world. This evangelical purpose of glossolalia was clearly the one ordained by the Holy Spirit, and nowhere in Scripture is there evidence that glossolalia had any other purpose or value. Therefore, the uniquely evangelical value of glossolalia in the Apostolic Church once again adds further proof to the fact the tongues spoken today are not true glossolalia, for the main value and purpose of tongues today are clearly seen as a source of self-edification and as means by which one might gain an emotional release from problems and tensions. This then along with the fact that the tongues proclaimed today are neither spoken in languages nor used to proclaim the gospel adds further proof to the fact that this modern day gift is not of the Holy Spirit. 4

To deny then the evangelical purpose of glossolalia would be to deny both the scriptures as well as church history ( I Cor 13:8 ). Both proclaim the evangelical purpose of glossolalia as well as the reality of the withdrawal of this gift by the Holy Spirit once it had fulfilled its purpose. We must therefore conclude that the gift of tongues provided by the Holy Spirit was permanently withdrawn as the need for its existence was terminated by the fulfillment of its purpose. NOTE – There are seven reasons why the sign gift “ tongues” here in Acts 2:1-11 (which is in fulfillment of Mark 16:17-20) is different from the speaking gift “ tongues ” of Acts 10:44-46 & 19:6 : 1. In Acts 10:46 & 19:6, no sound of a rushing mighty wind was ever used (like it was here in Acts 2:2) 2. In Acts 10:46 & 19:6, no cloven tongues of fire were ever present (like they were here in Acts 2:3) 3. In Acts 10:46 & 19:6, the word “other” is missing before the word “tongues” (unlike Acts 2:4 and I Cor 14:21) 4. In Acts 10:46 & 19:6, there are no unbelieving Jews (like here in Acts 2:5-11) According to Mark 16:20 and I Corinthians 14:21-22, the “sign gift” tongues was used for the sole purpose of confirming the word to unbelieving Jews. There are unbelieving Jews here in Acts 2, but not in Acts 10:46 & 19:6. Robert R. Gustafson in Authors of Confusion notes: Glossolalia, or the gift of languages, was thus given upon the indwelling and filling of these believers so that they could effectively evangelize those gathered there. 4 5. In Acts 10:46 & 19:6, Gentiles are speaking in tongues, not Jews According to Exodus 4:1-9, Matthew 10:5-8 and Mark 16:17-20, only the Jews were allowed to perform the “sign gifts,” not Gentiles. Therefore, the tongues mentioned in Acts 10:46 & 19:6 (which the Gentiles spoke) had to be referring to the Gentiles own native languages. 6. According to Ephesians 5:18, the visible evidence of the Spirit’s filling is “praising and magnifying” God, not speaking in tongues ( Acts 10:44-46 ). Robert R. Gustafson in Authors of Confusion notes:

The view which appears to be accepted by many Charismatics today is that the lack of such a gift does not mean that a person is not indwelt by the Spirit, but simply that they have not received what is often called the “second blessing” or the “filling of the Spirit.” This second blessing is reserved for the more mature Christian who seeks the filling of the Holy Spirit and is thus enabled by the Spirit to speak in tongues. The purpose then of tongues as understood by the advocates of this view is seen as a sign of real spiritual maturity. Therefore, one who does not possess this gift is a spiritually immature Christian. This is indeed interesting in the light of the fact that Paul himself never looked upon the real gift of tongues in this