Acts 2:4

‘And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

This verse is very often the one emphasised when looking at Pentecost, and for the wrong reason. For the emphasis is then placed on ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit', (simply because it is the only place where the Holy Spirit is actually mentioned), as though it was the major event. But it should not be so. For this filling (pimplemi) of the Spirit spoken of here is not descriptive of a permanent all embracing enduement like that in Acts 2:3, nor is it central to the idea of the giving of the Spirit. It is rather describing the resultant action of the Spirit whereby He, having entered the disciples permanently in the breath and fire of God, gave an extra powerful but temporary filling so as to produce the sign that would follow, the speaking in other tongues. (They will need to be filled again in Acts 4:31 so that they can speak with boldness). This is evidenced by its use elsewhere.

The only cases where being ‘filled' (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit is a permanent experience, and not a temporary one immediately followed by a description of the resulting activity, is in the cases of John the Baptiser and Paul (Luke 1:25; Acts 9:17). For others it is always a real, but temporary, source of inspiration which results in inspired words as elsewhere in Acts (Acts 4:8; Acts 4:31; Acts 13:9; compare Luke 1:40; Luke 1:67). Here in Acts 2 it is mentioned as the source of the speaking with other tongues. The permanent enduement had already been denoted through the sound of the wind and the manifestation of the fire, which must not be seen as just symbols, but as manifesting the presence of God Himself, personally and powerfully. The prime emphasis of Acts 2:4 is not on being filled with the Spirit but on the Spirit filling them so as to produce the ‘other tongues' which are thereby seen to have been God produced, and so to be manifestations of the presence of the same Spirit as is present in wind and fire.

We can compare how in Luke's Gospel the phrase being “filled with the Holy Spirit” occurs at the beginning of Luke's Gospel explaining the prophesying of Elizabeth (Luke 1:40) and Zacharias (Luke 1:67), and the continuing power behind John the Baptiser's ministry (Luke 1:15), (where it is likened to the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17)). In all cases it resulted in inspired words. Another and very different phrase “full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit” is referred to the ministry of Jesus (Luke 4:1). He did not require special fillings for He was always full of the Spirit. ‘Filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit' also occurs elsewhere in Acts where it causes Peter to speak inspired words (Acts 4:8), and where it causes the same disciples of Jesus to “speak the word of God boldly” (Acts 4:31). In Acts 13:9 Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks wonder working words which render Elymas blind. It is used therefore in the main to explain particular, but temporary, supernatural phenomena.

It is true that in Acts 9:17 it is used, as with John the Baptiser, for the preparation of Paul for his unique teaching and preaching ministry, but then it is not followed by any phenomenon that needed explanation. Being ‘filled (pleroo) with the Spirit', and therefore full (pleres) of the Spirit is what we usually think if as being filled with the Spirit and is an experience that Christians should enjoy continually (Acts 13:52; Ephesians 5:18; Acts 6:3; Acts 6:5; Acts 7:55; Acts 11:24) as they walk in fellowship with Him (Galatians 5:16; Galatians 5:25).

So in the case of John the Baptiser and Paul (Acts 9:17) the experience (with pimplemi) was permanent and explained their powerful and continual preaching and teaching ministry, while with Elizabeth and Zacharias and in all other cases, including here, it was a temporary phenomenon, explaining their prophesying and powerful words. This compares with the phrase “the Spirit of the Lord came upon ---” in the Old Testament where it was often for a specific task, but permanent for Saul, while he was obedient, and for David. Here in Acts 2 then it would seem to suggest that this filling is the cause of the temporary experience of speaking in other tongues. Thus here speaking in other tongues is not to be seen as a sign of being filled with the Spirit, but results from such a filling. The other tongues are the consequence of the Spirit's temporary filling, the reason why the Spirit filled them. The more permanent experience of the indwelling of the Spirit is revealed in the divine breath and the tongues of fire.

For the sake of completeness and in order to demonstrate this let us see all the verses which speak of being ‘filled (pimplemi) with the Holy Spirit' side by side:

· And he (John) will be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, and many of the children of Israel will he turn to the Lord their God (Luke 1:15).

· And Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit,  and she lifted up her voice with a loud cry, and she said ---  (Luke 1:41).

· And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit  and prophesied saying ---  (Luke 1:67).

· And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and  began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance  (Acts 2:4).

· Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit  said to them, --- (Acts 4:8).

· And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and  they spoke the word of God with boldness  (Acts 4:31).

· And Ananias --- putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared to you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17).

· Then Saul, (who also is called Paul) filled with the Holy Spirit,  fastened his eyes on him, and said -- - (Acts 13:9).

It will be seen at once that the references to John the Baptiser and Paul in Acts 9:7 are distinctive in that nothing is said of words following. In all the other cases the words that result are clearly stated. Thus in those two cases the filling with the Holy Spirit is said to be absolute. These were men who for the remainder of their lives would have specially empowered ministries of the word. In all the other cases the phrase explains a phenomenon connected with ‘inspired' speaking at a particular time.

This can be contrasted with the use of ‘filled (pleroo) with the Holy Spirit' and ‘full (pleres) of the Holy Spirit'.

· And Jesus being full of the Holy Spirit returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Luke 4:1).

· Look you out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Acts 6:3).

· And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit --- (Acts 6:5).

· But he (Stephen), being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God (Acts 7:55).

· For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith, and much people were added to the Lord (Acts 11:24).

· And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:52).

· And do not be drunk with wine, in which is excess; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs, and making melody with your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for all things (Ephesians 5:18).

It will be noticed immediately that no examples in this list result in inspired words and in most cases they refer to a continuous experience which explains some particular attribute enjoyed by those filled, such as wisdom, faith, and joy (although loseable for a time when we are filled with doubts or fears or anxieties). The one that refers to Jesus is clearly unique and refers to the whole of His life although having specific reference to the commencement of His wonder working ministry in Luke 4. The reference to Stephen in Acts 7:55 explains why he saw heavenly things which no other saw. The reference in Ephesians refers to a continual experience which results in singing and praise and is a practical way of saying ‘be filled with faith and joy in the Holy Spirit'. These last examples in fact describe what we usually think of when we think of ‘being filled with the Holy Spirit'.

But having said that, while in Acts 2:4 the phrase being ‘filled with the Holy Spirit' is the explanation for the phenomenon of speaking in tongues, and to that extent temporary, there can be no doubt that Acts 2:1 as a whole is describing the “drenching (baptizo) in the Holy Spirit” of Acts 1:5, with which Acts 2:4 connects. The coming of the Holy Spirit here is in this case more than just a “filling”. It is a permanent indwelling. It is the arrival of God by His Spirit in His permanent power and distinctive presence in His people, never to leave them. It is so huge an experience that it is almost impossible to put it into words. The temporary “filling” in order to enable the speaking in other tongues is only a small though significant part of it. We must therefore beware of applying Acts 2:1 to some sort of ‘special experience' available to all. Christians do, of course, experience this. ‘If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His' (Romans 8:9). And Christians can, of course, all enjoy what lies behind the experience here, experiencing the indwelling and life-giving power of the Spirit, receiving the enduement with power of the Spirit and taking part in the furthering of the work of the Spirit in this new age, but when we experience this it is the fruition of this event not a repeating of it. Many may also experience being “filled with the Holy Spirit” when God has a task for them to do. This is something that has happened through the ages, and will continue to happen. But it is interesting in this context that  no one is ever told to seek the Holy Spirit. We are told to seek God, and as we seek God He will come, as He did here.

We would therefore suggest that the threefold emphasis of these verses is that:

· There came the sound of a rushing mighty wind/breath, ever the symbol of power (compare Ezekiel 37:5; Ezekiel 37:9; Isaiah 11:15; Isaiah 17:13; Isaiah 41:16; Isaiah 59:19 RV RSV; Exodus 15:10; 2 Samuel 5:24). God was revealing that He had given life and power to and through His people.

· There came the cloven tongues of fire, ever the symbol of God's purity, and glory, and consuming power and the sign of His indwelling (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 24:17; Exodus 40:34; Deuteronomy 4:15; Deuteronomy 4:24; Isaiah 4:5; Ezekiel 1:27; Malachi 3:2). His people were now to be seen as, and would in fact be, God's new Temple, His new Dwellingplace on earth.

· There came ‘speaking with other tongues', resulting from the Spirit filling them for the purpose, which expressed the fact that God was seeking men and women out in His love and speaking personally to those whose individual tongues they were (Isaiah 28:11), because He knows and is aware of the tongues of all men.

‘And began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.' These are the words that are central to the verse, and are clearly important for the significance of Pentecost. Having clarified their importance we must now consider what they tell us.

The first aspect of tongues or languages as stressed in Scripture is that they are the method by which God speaks, whether men hear or not (Isaiah 28:11). God speaks to men through languages, through words. If people are to hear God they must understand the tongue with which He speaks and listen to it. When His people gathered before the Mount they were made conscious of His wind, they saw His fire and they heard His words from the midst of the fire. This is especially brought out in Deuteronomy 4 where a great emphasis is placed by Moses on the fact that they saw His fire, and that from it they heard His voice speaking His words to them (Deuteronomy 4:10; Deuteronomy 4:33; Deuteronomy 4:36). From the fire of God came the words of God. Here at Pentecost we have the same picture, the ‘tongues' of fire sat on each of them, and then the other ‘tongues' came as a result of the fire, so that the watchers could see the fire and hear His words. God was speaking from the fire of His presence as He had at Sinai.

In this way those who heard the other tongues were made conscious, except in the case of the scoffers, that this was God present among them to speak to them His words in their own native languages. While all spoke either Aramaic or Greek, or both, most of them would be familiar with their own native languages, the languages of the region in which they were born, which were treasured as evidence of their ancestry and of their forebears, and of their own distinctive culture. But they would not expect to hear them so far from home. Yet here now they were made aware that God had sought them out through these Galileans and was speaking to them in the language of home. So those who were receptive, when they heard those native languages on the mouths of the Galileans, recognised that this was a place and an atmosphere in which God was speaking to them in the most personal and loving way. They were made to recognise that the God of Pentecost knew who they were. That God loved them for what they were. And by this their hearts were being opened and prepared for the Spirit inspired words of Peter. Nothing stirs a man like hearing the language of the country of his birth. No wonder that so many then responded. No other sign could quite have opened their hearts to the voice of God in the way that this one did. God had by it demonstrated to them His personal interest in them. This was the first significance of the ‘other tongues'.

The second significance of these ‘other tongues' was that they were clearly miraculous and declared the wonderful works of God. The Jews believed that the days of prophecy had ceased and would not be renewed until the day of consummation when God again began to work powerfully on behalf of His people. But now here it was apparent that a new day of prophecy had come. This therefore identified these Galileans directly with the outpouring of the Spirit as promised by Joel. This is why Peter will be able to say, ‘This is that' (Acts 2:16) and be believed. The new day of prophecy has dawned! And God is prophesying to His people through these men, and to each in his own tongue.

And thirdly a further aspect of this speaking in ‘other tongues' is that it was also a declaration that the judgment of the world resulting from the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 was now over. At Babel had begun the process that led to men being divided through their different languages because they did not want to listen to the voice of God, here was beginning the process of unifying men, of bringing men of different languages together as one, so that they could hear the voice of God together.

So these manifestations of the Spirit's activity had a crucial part to play in an understanding of what was now happening. They declared that God was speaking to them personally, that the new day of the Spirit and of prophecy had come, and that God was now seeking to unite a world divided at Babel.

In Acts 10:44 the same sign would bring home to Peter that Gentiles as well as Jews could enjoy the full privileges of the coming of the Holy Spirit, and be united with the Jews in one whole (compare Ephesians 2:11), because the time of separation was over. No longer, Peter informed his critics, could they be justified in not accepting Gentiles on the same basis as Jews, for they too had spoken in the other tongues that indicated the Spirit speaking through them. Whether the tongues were understood there we are not specifically told, but we are told that they were aware that they were ‘magnifying God' which does suggest that they were understood, and as a Roman centurion Cornelius' household would be multinational so that they could speak in each other's tongues. Both this example and Acts 2 can be compared with the Spirit coming on the seventy elders so that they ‘prophesied', and from then on knew that they possessed the Spirit (Numbers 11:25). There could be no ‘other tongues' in Numbers because they were all of one tongue, so they prophesied in that tongue. But the significance was similar. God was giving them understanding and a mouth with which to speak.

In Acts 19:6 the sign was in order to indicate to the influential followers of John the Baptiser that they also needed to participate in the new age of the Spirit, and be united with the followers of Christ. If they wished to continue to speak for God they must yield to Christ and be indwelt by the Holy Spirit. As a result when they were baptised in the name of the Lord, of Jesus, they too spoke in tongues or prophesied in order to indicate that God was now speaking through them as well. They were now incorporated into what had happened at Pentecost. From now on God's voice to the world would come forth from them also by His Spirit. It made them recognise that all must therefore become one in Christ and cease to be separated by response to Jesus Christ. In this case there is no indication as to whether the tongues were understood. It was not important here. What mattered was that they too had become genuine ‘God-speakers'. These are the only cases in Acts where men are said to have spoken with tongues so that we have no reason to see it as a common sign required of all. It occurred because of two unusual situations, the first the official inaugural welcome of uncircumcised Gentiles as full Christians, and the second, the welcoming in and embracing of a unique ‘sect' which had resulted from the Spirit at work through John, which had necessarily to be incorporated into the Christian church..

But here in Acts 2 it is specifically the understanding of the other tongues that is emphasised. It was precisely  because they were understood  that they were effective. All men from ‘all over the world' heard the Christians speaking in their own languages ‘the mighty works of God'. It was not preaching. The preaching was done by Peter, probably in Aramaic which all would understand (they were all Jews), or possibly in Greek. It was rather a manifestation of the fact that this little band of disciples of Christ had a message for the whole world which came directly from God, and resulted from the pouring out of the Spirit promised by Joel. It was to make them recognise that in this incident and atmosphere it was the very voice of God that was speaking, and speaking directly and personally to each of them. To see it as simply a grounds for arguing about the gift of tongues is to miss the whole point.

Furthermore as we have already suggested, we must surely connect these ‘tongues' with the ‘tongues' of fire in Acts 2:3. The tongues produced tongues. They were manifestations of the fire of God's presence which had entered them, and were demonstrating that the indwelling was available for all the hearers, and indeed for all men who would respond to Him through Christ. The listeners therefore had both a visible and aural evidence that God was here speaking to them, in exactly the same way as the people of Israel had had at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:33). They saw the Fire, they heard the Voice.

What happened here at Pentecost is the manifestation of Christ as King over the Kingly Rule of God (Acts 2:33; Acts 2:36), a Kingly Rule which was to spread worldwide, manifested by the indwelling of God and the sending down of His own Representative to act through those whom He had appointed to his service. It was also the outward revelation of the new age of the Spirit, in which men can respond to His new covenant, and will then be indwelt by God through His Spirit, and will enjoy at various levels the power of His Spirit, and will be able to speak as from God. They will be, and will be able to see themselves as, the Tabernacle and Temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16). They will thus as a result enjoying all the blessings that the Spirit brings as described elsewhere, sonship (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:4), sealing (Ephesians 1:13; Ephesians 4:30), and setting apart for God (1 Corinthians 1:2 with Acts 6:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13). They are then to allow the Spirit to fill (pleroo) them on a continual basis (Ephesians 5:18, which while sampled here was not said to be permanently experienced here in Acts 2), an experience different from being “filled (pimplemi) with the Spirit” for a particular inspirational task. This will then result in their rejoicing and being filled with worship and praise, the result of continually seeking God and being obedient to Him. Thus will they enjoy the full benefits of the age of the Spirit.

Some, however, see the reference to ‘other tongues' here as meaning ‘other than the language normally used in Temple worship', that is, other than the sacred Hebrew language, the other tongues being therefore mainly Greek and Aramaic. The surprise is then seen as occasioned to the listeners by the fact that while they were wedded to the fact that all worship in the Temple should be in Hebrew, here worship was taking place other than in Hebrew. But this does not explain why Luke then lists such a diversity of peoples, or how it could be such a clear sign to Jewish Christians of God's acceptance of the Gentiles as in Acts 10:44; Acts 11:15. Nor can it be seriously be thought that no one had ever prayed in the Temple area in a foreign tongue before. (It might be different if it had taken place in the more inner areas of the Temple).

Excursus on the Speaking With Other Tongues.

It almost seems like a coming down from the mountain to divert from the significance of these other tongues at this huge moment in the birth of the church in order to look at the wider subject of the connection of this with the speaking in tongues (glossolalia) described elsewhere in 1 Corinthians 12-14. I say almost because the subject is clearly of great importance, and it is without question that the gift of tongues itself continued elsewhere, to a lesser extent to stress, the unity of all believers in the Spirit and the fact that God's truth was for the whole world (even though like all gifts it could be wrongly used and spoken about in order to bring about the opposite). For while the wording is the same the emphasis is totally different.

Here in Acts 2:4 they are described as ‘speaking with other tongues' (lalein heterais glowssais) and it is stressed that the hearers each heard them speaking ‘his own language' (te idia dialekto lalountown- Acts 2:6; Acts 2:8). Indeed they declared that they heard them ‘speaking in our own tongues' (lalountown -- tais hemeterais glowssais) the wonderful works of God (Acts 2:11). This may similarly be understood in Acts 10:44, for ‘they heard them speak with tongues (lalountown glowssais) and magnify God', the latter words ‘and magnify God' probably signifying that the tongues were understood. It is noteworthy otherwise that nowhere else are such things (that they spoke tongues which were understood) said about ‘tongues', even though it be granted that the tongues in Acts 19:6 had the same purpose. Thus Acts 2:4; Acts 10:44 have the appearance of being unique phenomena intended for a unique purpose, to bring home that the message of Good News is now for people of all tongues, and that God is now speaking to such through His Apostles. This specific idea is not obvious in other references to tongues.

However, in Acts 10:44 and Acts 19:6 (where some spoke with tongues (elaloun te glowsais), while others prophesied) the tongues were seen as a sign of the presence of the same Holy Spirit as at Pentecost, and confirmed that these believers had been accepted into God's Temple on the same terms as the original believers. They were thus of considerable importance in these cases as evidencing the acceptability of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church on equal terms, and the need for the then current disciples of John the Baptiser to become Christians in order to enjoy full blessing.

There are two other places where tongues are mentioned. The reference in Mark 16:17 is important. Being on the lips of the resurrected Jesus it is presented as  the first ever reference to ‘tongues' that we are informed of in the New Testament. Here, with no background given, we are told concerning His future disciples that ‘they will speak with “new tongues”' (glowssais lalesousin kainais). Given the context of going into all the world and proclaiming the Gospel, and no parallel elsewhere to the expression ‘new tongues' (languages), we may well see it as an indication of the widespread nature of their future witness. They will go among foreign peoples outside the range of Greek and Aramaic where they will have to speak with ‘new tongues'.

It is, of course, true that this is seemingly cited in the midst of examples of the miraculous. It is paralleled with the casting out of devils, the safe taking up of poisonous snakes and the laying on of hands on the sick that they might be healed. Even here, however, we should note that the casting out of evil spirits was not so much a miracle as a sign of God's supreme authority over the powers of evil, and that the refraining from biting of the snakes was rather an indication that God was in control of creation and that His disciples had in some way entered into the new age which was coming (see Isaiah 11:8). Examples of both will be cited in Acts (Acts 8:7; Acts 16:18; Acts 19:12; Acts 28:3). Nor then necessarily were the ‘new tongues' miraculous.

What the signs in Mark taught men was:

· That God was all powerful over the spiritual world, revealed in the fact that evil spirits were cast out.

· That God would enable His people to speak to all the world in all tongues, that is, in ‘new' languages.

· That God was in control of all natural forces that could hurt them, even of the creature that had first been the cause of all men's problems, because snakes were controlled.

· That God could heal all and could keep His people whole as they went out in His service, and could heal men so as to demonstrate that the Kingly Rule of God was here..

With regard to not seeing ‘new tongues' as necessarily a miraculous gift, we should note that among the gifts described in 1 Corinthians 12:28 are gifts like ‘administration' and ‘helps' which are mentioned alongside ‘miracles' and ‘prophecy'. Thus the gifts of the Holy Spirit were there clearly seen as equally evidenced in the sphere of what might be seen as ‘ordinary' activities. Furthermore while today we might see learning ‘new tongues' as nothing unusual, it was certainly unusual for the types of people Jesus was talking about, and would include more exotic languages not known in their world. They would have been filled with trepidation at the thought of having to do so. It would therefore be a huge relief to them to know that God would give them enablement in the process. There would seem in view of this no reason for doubting that this promise in Mark refers to God's powerful enabling in giving His disciples the ability quickly to absorb and preach in new languages, in ‘new tongues' which would be necessary because of the places to which they would have to go.

It is, of course, always possible that this could be seen as a preparation for Pentecost itself where the ‘other tongues' will be spoken, for it should be noted that all these references up to now have been in the context of Judaism where as far as we know speaking in tongues was not a normal experience either before or after Pentecost. These tongues would not at this stage be compared with such phenomena as evidenced in the more extravagant Gentile religions. Taken in this way it would have helped Peter to recognise in the ‘other tongues' at Pentecost a fulfilment of the promise that Jesus had made concerning ‘new tongues'. But why then the different wording in describing the activity?

(It is interesting how those who argue that Acts and 1 Corinthians refer to the same thing because they use the same phraseology, then argue that the lack of the same phraseology does not matter here).

There may also be included in the idea in Mark, especially after Pentecost had made it plain, that their ability to praise God in new tongues in the same way as at Pentecost would soften up men's hearts so that even the barbarians would recognise that they came with a message from God. But if this be so we are never given any examples of it, although it must be admitted that we do not know much about the later witness to such Barbarians nor of the activities of most of the Apostles so that this is not conclusive. But the new tongues in the context of a going out into all the world does suggest rather that they would have to speak in these new tongues (or languages) because they were going to new places. The promise is then that God will give them enablement in doing so, being Spirit-enabled without being miraculous (if such a distinction is possible). We are wise then to leave the reference in Mark out when looking at the phenomenon of ‘tongues'.

The only other place where the question of ‘tongues' arises is in 1 Corinthians 12-14. But significantly these are never described as ‘new tongues', and apart from in an Old Testament quotation are not even referred to as ‘other tongues'. Regardless, however, of the nomenclature we are certainly not in this case dealing with quite the same phenomenon as at Pentecost, for Paul clearly states that these tongues will not be understood and that outsiders will come in and hear them speaking in tongues (lalowsin glowssais) and will consider them mad (1 Corinthians 14:23). It is not so much a question of different terminology between Acts and Corinthians (as it is with Mark 16), for in 1 Corinthians there is a general similarity to Acts, but what stands out is that in addressing the Corinthians Paul nowhere seems to consider even the possibility of the tongues being recognised. It seems reasonably fair to conclude that had the speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians been seen by Paul as exactly the same as here in Acts 2 he would have assumed that they were in recognisable languages. They would not therefore have produced the reaction that they did, and Paul would then have been open to the charge that he was misrepresenting the case. He would have had to answer the claim that some present did actually understand them, as they did at Pentecost. But on the face of it he was never required to answer such a claim. It would seem that both parties recognised that at Corinth the tongues were unrecognisable, and the difference therefore lay in the question as to how they should be used.

Paul is quite clear on this. He specifically states that the tongues being manifested in Corinth should not be spoken aloud, except privately in private prayer, unless they were translated (1 Corinthians 14:27), and then never more than three times in a public meeting which probably lasted for some hours. His decision was based on his view that no gifts should be used publicly in church unless they benefited all (Acts 2:26). However that was not to denigrate the gift, only to control its use, for Paul does seem to have valued the gift greatly in his own private prayer life. What he opposed was an excessive and/or untranslated use in public.

It is difficult therefore to argue that these tongues were being used in the same way as at Pentecost. Had they been so surely the Holy Spirit would have ensured that they were understandable to at least some of those present, as He did at Pentecost. The fact that He did not do so demonstrates that we are dealing in 1 Corinthians with a different, if parallel, phenomenon which was intended mainly for personal blessing, and that like all the gifts it was only granted to some.

For further detail with regard to this we would refer to our commentary on 1 Corinthians 14.

End of Excursus.