Writing a book on such a controversial subject as speaking in tongues is certainly not the best way to make friends. On the contrary, it is the surest method of losing some of them. In defending the truth, the apostle Paul took the risk of offending others. He said in Gal.1:10, "Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ". Nevertheless, may God keep us from cultivating the art of offending others. As Alexandre Vinet, the Swiss theologian once said, one must be charitable towards people but not towards ideas. The way that some people think, however, it seems that the truth itself upsets them. When Ralph Shallis wrote his book in French, The Gift of Speaking in Tongues, he did it with such love that he took no less than five pages to apologise for the truth he was going to discuss. No one has been as careful as he was to put on kid gloves, but even so, some have seen them as boxing gloves. Isn’t there a popular adage that says that only the truth hurts? The Bible says, however, that "the wounds of a friend can be trusted" (Prov.27:6). It would be naive to believe that even the most brotherly attitude could prevent certain breaches of fellowship. My previous talks on the subject have gained me some solid and lasting enemies. Paul said in Gal.4:16 that he made enemies by telling the truth, and this, amongst his closest acquaintances, those he had brought to salvation, those who were his spiritual children.

The range of positions on this question is such that it would take several books, not just one, to cover all the nuances of the subject. Amongst those who are convinced supporters of the cause, one finds, in diminishing order of importance, those for whom speaking in tongues is:

1. the condition sine qua non of salvation,
2. the required or obvious sign of baptism by the Spirit,
3. a spiritual gift that they practise only in private,
4. a minor gift,
5. a practice that they sometimes judge to be excessive and counterfeit,
6. a gift they do not seek for themselves, though allowing its practice in the church.

On the opposite side, we find, also in decreasing importance, those for whom speaking in tongues is:a gross imitation that they denounce,

1. a practice that they condemn with more prejudice than biblical knowledge,
2. a topic of spiritual interest but limited to a historical period like the nativity or the crucifixion,
3. a "possibility" of completely secondary significance of which they are wary.

These two lists may appear incomplete, but they reveal a wide range of feelings and sensitivities. Classifying the protagonists in only two camps, one for, the other against, may seem simplistic, but we must do so for the reader’s sake, to help his/her comprehension of the situation.

In order to give more weight to this study, I have given priority to the writings of present-day Pentecostal authors, and to the testimonies of others who, for doctrinal reasons, have left the movement. However, the main basis of this work is my own personal experience and that of my dear wife, to whom I dedicate this book. References to books and their authors will be found in the text. Therefore, I did not think it necessary to include a bibliography.

I have used the expression Pentecostalism, an expression to which I attach no deprecatory meaning at all, in order to indicate those who, to different degrees, subscribe to speaking in tongues. In the first twelve chapters of this book I make a distinction between them and the Catholic charismatics. Several conservative Pentecostals might, in effect, be shocked to be confused with these charismatics from whom they distance themselves so determinedly. Some will ask, "Why write such a book?" To them we would answer that many people have wanted a work of reference, detailed but not too scholarly, with a sense of direction, in which subjects are neatly compartmentalised, allowing one to find one’s bearings easily, so that they may know "how to give an answer to anyone", according to the exhortation of Col.4:6.

Others may ask, "Why an English translation of a French work? It is more common to find the opposite. Besides, haven’t we reached a saturation point of books on this subject?"

We felt it would be useful to make this book known for three reasons. Firstly, it would be helpful for the Christians on this side of the Channel or the Atlantic to know that their French-speaking evangelical brethren face the same problems, the same struggles, and that they use the same spiritual weapons as their English counterpart. Secondly, the way of thinking, the mentality based on the French culture, and the, perhaps, unexpected side of the answers brought to this question, can be an enrichening enlightenment for the British/American reader. Thirdly, many missionaries working in France, when they had knowledge of this work, warmly recommended it, some feeling that it was the best book yet written on this subject. This explains why, outside of France, it has been published in German, Dutch, Roumanian, Hungarian, Croatian, Spanish and Arab; and why it is now in English on the Internet. My prayer to God for my readers is that they will have the same attitude as the Jews in the Greek town of Berea, "the Bereans were of more noble character... and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true"(Acts 17:11).

Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church is the title of a booklet written in French by D. Cormier and published in Canada at the end of the 70’s. It deals with the position of classic Pentecostalism at that time. We shall now summarise it, being careful not to distort the author’s intention.

If, in places, the strong language used offends someone, I hasten to point out that it comes from the original that we print in italics. My only contribution is the linking of the paragraphs. This book describes the distress of some sincere Catholics faced with the aridity of their church, their thirst for an authentic spiritual life, and their genuine search for the life of the Spirit, through meetings with several Pentecostal ministers and by reading David Wilkerson’s book, The Cross and the Switchblade, as well as another Pentecostal book, They Speak in Other Tongues by J. L. Sherrill.

The author then further develops each of the above assumptions, bringing out the position still held today in Europe by some within historical Pentecostalism.

1. This movement is still in its infancy; the Catholics who are part of it will change later.

He notes that, contrary to popular expectations, the sign of tongues, the chief characteristic of the charismatic movement, brought back to Catholicism those who had fallen away, reviving their idolatrous practices. Some typical comments from Catholic charismatics illustrate this:

Quoting Father O’Connor, he gives us a profession of charismatic faith that would make any Pentecostalist, evangelical or reformed Christian quake: "The first effects were a greater devotion to the Eucharist. The most striking result for one Benedictine, after his baptism in the Spirit, was to sing the mass. The veneration of Mary was reinforced by the pentecostal movement all over the country. In short, the effect of the Pentecostal movement was to recruit people for the church, for the priesthood and for religious life."

Given that the expected change did not occur, this first hypothesis can not be sustained as viable.

2. This movement is of the Spirit, but the Catholic hierarchy has been able to channel it to its own benefit.

The explanation given for this point is not quite as precise. Names are cited: Fathers Regimbald and O’Connor, as well as Cardinal Suenens, who all had a part in introducing the charismatic movement to the laity. The return to traditional devotions is not due to pressure from the leaders, but is the direct result of the charismatic experience.

Father McDonnel is quoted as saying: "The Catholic Pentecostals are committed to recovering and cultivating the forms of contact with God that they had abandoned. This does not come from a conservative theology, but rather from the transforming effect of their experience". (emphasis ours).

Whether or not the Roman Catholic leadership has something to do with the return to this paganism veneered with Christianity, the major cause (we are merely quoting) is the Pentecostal experience.

And so the second hypothesis falls through.

3. This movement is the fulfillment of the prophecy: "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh", and demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is above our religious preconceptions and can save anyone, whatever their doctrine may be.

The answer to the question that follows has grave consequences. Is the spirit that is active in the Roman Church, the Holy Spirit? In speaking of Him, Jesus said, "He will guide you into all truth". This is the particular characteristic of the Holy Spirit. It is characteristic of an evil spirit to lead one into only part of the truth. Now, one of the most marked effects of the charismatic movement is to lead its followers into part-truth, part-error as, for example: spontaneous prayer AND the rosary; the adoration of Christ AND the Holy Sacrament; reading the Bible AND the veneration of Mary.

The brochure then presents several testimonies from people who had been baptised by the Holy Spirit, one whilst reciting his rosary, another whilst singing a hymn at mass, and yet another whilst on her knees praying to the Holy Virgin. These testimonies are quite sufficient to prove that the spirit who baptised these people is in contradiction with the Scriptures and cannot, in any way, be the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists, not of doubting His work, but of attributing such error and such dreadful idolatry to His divine person.

Concurring with orthodox Pentecostalism, the author draws the following conclusion that we shall come back to later on, We live in a decidedly relativistic world... where one no longer believes in an absolute truth but in relative truths dependent upon human experience. More emphasis is thus placed on experience than on doctrine. Speaking in tongues, feeling a certain inner peace...or a love for God, Mary and the saints is more important than knowing sound doctrine. To quote Charles Foster, "When the experience of the Holy Spirit is put before doctrine and salvation, seduction is certain..." (emphasis added).

The third hypothesis cannot be retained.

4. This movement is simply an act to attract Protestants into the trap of ecumenism.

Acknowledging that without the contribution of Pentecostalism the charismatic movement could never have taken root in the Catholic Church, D. Cormier admits the danger of ecumenism and adds, It is sad to note that several evangelical Christians, as well as numerous Protestants, have not seen the trap. There is abundant proof that the charismatic movement serves the interest of Rome and ecumenism, but we must discard the hypothesis that it would be simply an act to attract Protestants into the snare of profligate ecumenism. The healings, prophecies and miracles seen in the charismatic movement rule out the possibility that it is only a human manoeuvre... If the Holy Spirit cannot be behind this movement, it is certainly a real and active spirit…and it is the supernatural phenomena that have caused this movement to develop with such rapidity and vigour. (emphasis added).

So, if the movement is not the direct result of human calculation, but the product of an alien spirit, then the fourth hypothesis cannot be retained either. This leaves only the fifth, which we now consider.

5. This movement is a counterfeit tactic of the devil, preparing the way for the Antichrist.

One cannot reproduce the text in full, but the following resume presents the main ideas.

D. Cormier responds by writing that the Bible warns us to be on guard against counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders (II Thess 2:9-12).

So, having discarded the first four hypotheses, we are led to admit that this final supposition is accurate. The condemnation of the charismatic revival is clear-cut and irrevocable. It is, the author says, the cross-breeding of protestant Pentecostalism and Catholic idolatry. Remember that I have contributed nothing to this analysis. It is for this reason that I have taken care to put the original text in italics.

Are these conclusions also my own? Allow me to reserve my reply for later because, blunt though it may appear, the fifth conclusion is still held by some European Pentecostals. If we have condensed this explosive article on the charismatics, it is because one finds with them, as with Pentecostals, the threefold idea of tongues, signs and baptism of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, as this analysis clearly brings out, the (still) classic Pentecostals deny that these signs all have the same origin. If they are so sure of that, why are they so upset to be the initiators of this error, which they qualify as diabolic. We quote again, "Ray Bullard, deacon of a Pentecostal church, possessing a wide experience of spiritual gifts... and several Pentecostal ministers..." They are the ones who taught, prayed and laid on hands in order that these Catholics might receive the Holy Spirit. Could an unclean spirit possibly have been passed on to these people from the hands of Pentecostals of sound doctrine?! This idea is profoundly disturbing, especially when they are obliged to acknowledge that "IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR RAY BULLARD, THE PENTECOSTAL DEACON... THIS MOVEMENT WOULD NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY" (page 15, emphasis ours).

Now, behind the elders who placed their hands on Timothy, there was nothing other than what this young man received: the gift of God (II Tim.1:6). And behind the hands Ananias placed upon Saul of Tarsus, there was none other than the Holy Spirit. And when this same Saul of Tarsus, who became the apostle Paul, laid his hands upon the disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus, they received no other spirit than that which inhabited Paul, that is, the true Spirit. If then it was a diabolical spirit that these sincere Catholics received from the hands of these experienced specialists (Ray Bullard and his associated Pentecostal ministers), it means that behind their hands and their prayers, there was something that they subsequently deplored; that is, something very different from the Holy Spirit. Jesus said it in a way that is impossible to misunderstand, "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" (Matt.7:18). If the fruit, by their own admission, is declared bad, isn’t it because the tree is bad? It seems that our Pentecostal friends fail to understand this line of thought. When one points out to them the peculiarities with which their movement is afflicted, that it is something completely different from the Holy Spirit that produces this uncontrollable gibberish and the eccentric behaviour such as screaming, wailing, falling backwards, etc., their standard reply is to quote Jesus, "Which of you fathers, if your son asks for bread will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (Luke 11:11 - 13).

But isn’t that a boomerang-argument? Because in coming to Ray Bullard and the Pentecostal ministers, these Catholics did not ask for a stone, or a snake, or a scorpion; nevertheless that is what they would have received. Now, these friends bitterly regret having prayed for and laid hands on these Catholics who have, according to Pentecostal testimony, received an alien spirit as a result. What they should be worrying about, above all, is not what these Catholics have received, but rather what was transmitted to them. Would it not be the height of folly to hear a husband complain, or become indignant, about the AIDS that his wife contracted from himself. His analysis of his partner’s illness would perhaps be correct, but accusing her of contracting the wrong AIDS, whilst asserting that his is the correct one, should make us think seriously about the comparison that can be made. I am entirely of the conservative Pentecostals’ opinion when they say the virus caught by the charismatics is bad because it is unbiblical, but when one knows, according to their own confession, where the Catholics caught it, and from whom they caught it, the Pentecostals should be the first to ask themselves the following questions, "What if ours were the same ‘baptism of the Spirit’? What if we had the same ‘speaking in tongues’?"

All through this study, we shall keep in mind the excellent principle developed by D. Cormier in chapter 1, "The spirit that is in contradiction with the Scriptures cannot be the Holy Spirit". This has allowed conservative Pentecostalism to flush out the serious errors of their fellow charismatics and to conclude, "Supernatural manifestations (among the charismatics) are a sign telling them that they have nothing to fear, that they are on the right road when, in fact, they are walking in error... These manifestations themselves are more or less reproductions of those we find in the New Testament. That is why one can rightly speak of counterfeit". (Analysis of the Charismatic Renewal, page 14). One can only applaud this biblical perspicacity, provided that one does not limit its application to others. For, if our Pentecostal friends were to scrutinise their own doctrine with even half the rigour that they use towards the charismatics, they would see, as they so well say, that "believing that one is on the right road because of signs, miracles and speaking in tongues" is also the essence of their own belief, their own strength and their own sense of security. For example, when the rapid growth of the movement they condemn is attributed to spiritual manifestations, are these not precisely the same spiritual manifestations that they themselves boast of or use as their authority to explain and justify the fact that they are growing more quickly than other evangelicals? "But WE are biblical!" we hear them say, "OUR practices conform to the scriptural model!" This is what we shall begin to examine in this second chapter.

What do we read in the Bible concerning the true exercise of speaking in tongues? "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God" (I Cor.14:2). This is what Paul, the greatest teacher of the church, moreover, led by the Spirit, clearly taught the Corinthians, "... he does not speak to men..." This verse alone is enough to destabilise all that is specific to the Pentecostal movement and shake it right down to its foundations. The Holy Spirit Himself, Whom we cannot resist without suffering the consequences, states that it was not to men that the words spoken in tongues were addressed but to God. The Bereans (Acts 17:11) examined the Scriptures daily in order to see if what they were being told was correct. For us today, nothing would be easier than to examine these same Scriptures to find out if what the Pentecostal movement says on this subject is correct. After more than thirty years of close contact with these churches, and after having accepted some of their ideas, I have been forced to admit that there is a glaring discordance with the Word of God on this point.

I, first of all, capitulated before the authority of the Scriptures; I then proceeded to verify for myself what was being taught and practised. On several occasions, talking to people who were deeply anchored in their convictions, I asked the question, "When tongues are interpreted in your assembly, what is the content of the message?" I did not enquire because I did not know the answer, but I wanted to hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, so leaving no place for ambiguity. Without exception, the replies always confirmed what I had already observed. It was a word of encouragement, or prophecy, or exhortation, or even of evangelisation. Quite clearly, these were addressed to those present, that is, to men and was therefore in complete contradiction with the Holy Spirit who said just the opposite, "...he does not speak to men". This is just as antibiblical as speaking to Mary. In short, the exercise of a gift that does not conform to Scripture cannot come from the Holy Spirit but rather, as they rightly say about their fellow charismatics, from an alien spirit. After having heard the replies that I have just mentioned, I showed these people what the Bible said. Some of them were devastated by the crystal-clear words that they had never seen before, or that had always been kept from them. The most perceptive amongst them realised in an instant the scale of the doctrinal disaster that had overtaken them: a true Waterloo.

In many other cases, on the contrary, I noted what seemed to be a complete inability to comprehend the meaning of the Scriptures that is nevertheless clear, "...anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men". It is as though a veil had come down over their intelligence. They said, "But of course, that’s it!" whilst being unable to see that their "that" was not at all "it", but quite the contrary. To start with, there was no attempt to evade the issue, but an inability to see. They read "he does not speak to men" but they appear to understand the opposite, some going so far as to say, "How else would God speak TO US?"

One of my friends, an enthusiastic pastor, invited me for a Gospel campaign in his church. He told me about a lady who, in a private talk with him, had spoken in tongues. "In what she said", he explained, "I discerned a message for myself". The opportunity was ideal. I simply asked him, "How do you reconcile the idea of a message addressed to you personally with the biblical statement that ‘...for anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God’? You are not God!" It was like hitting him over the head. He was totally speechless. He had just discovered a text that he had never seen before, or that he had not taken the time to examine. He looked so pitiful that I felt sorry for him. I did not tell him that these tongues addressed to men smacked of heresy. I did not tell him either that it was a trick or a hoax. No, I let him work it out for himself to discover that he was up against an obvious spiritual fallacy.

My most recent discussion on the subject clearly illustrates this blindness. I realised that quoting the text verbally was not enough. The person I was speaking to was following his own train of thought and was impervious to the Word of God. I sat down beside him with my Bible open, and had him read the text out loud. No reaction. I repeated the exercise at least five times. Suddenly the penny dropped. He understood what the passage said. It was then that his real problem started. He began to measure the full impact of this truth that had just smashed his beliefs like the iceberg in the side of the Titanic, sending her to the bottom of the ocean. Poor fellow, he had a head-on collision with a Bible teaching that was the opposite of what he thought he knew so well. In order to get out of this awkward situation, he had nothing to offer me but the quicksand of his experiences.

In my first book on speaking in tongues, I reported the confrontation that took place between a brother of the Brethren Assemblies and my neighbour, a Pentecostal minister. The latter was not up to the task. Forced to recognise that his adversary was right, he closed his Bible, pushed it to one side and said, "Biblically you are right but I cannot deny an experience!" This gesture and his words said it all: the Bible put to one side and experience put to the fore. Thirty years later, nothing seems to have changed. The last interview previously mentioned, finished in the same way as the first. After having once more pointed out that the speaking in tongues in his church, as corroborated by his personal experience and observations, was obviously addressed to men, and that it was contrary to what the Bible says, I asked him, "What will you put aside, the Word of God or your experiences; you must make a choice between the two; which will it be?" Without hesitation and twice in succession, his reply was, "I choose experience!" Understandable but wretched obstinacy that is explained by the terrible confession of a pastor who said to me on this particular point of doctrine, "When this word of Paul began to circulate in our assemblies, it had the effect of a bomb. We could not allow it to continue, because we would have had to admit that EVERYTHING DONE UP UNTIL THEN WAS FALSE!"

Of course it is false, but one tries to ensure that no one knows. And how is this achieved? In one of four ways:

1. By placing an inordinate value on experiences. For example:

-- a prophecy about me, spoken in tongues, came true,

-- an exhortation given in tongues corresponds to the state of the church,

-- once when the translator didn’t show up, a preacher continued in the local language that he did not know (a very well-worn but always unverifiable anecdote),

-- a recovery announced in tongues came true,- a pressing need was revealed in tongues and a suitable solution was provided, etc.

The source of such stories is inexhaustible. Told with great assurance, they condition the hearers, particularly new converts, to the point where they are fore-armed against all possible later discovery of the truth. We shall develop the subject of experiences in greater detail in chapter 12.

2. The second method is to edit the text, as this pastor said, throwing away ideas that are too disturbing. That is what the rabbis do with the 53^rd chapter of Isaiah during the systematic reading of the Law and the prophets in the synagogues. When they come to the end of Isaiah 52, they jump to Isaiah 54! I can testify that in more than thirty years of contacts, interviews, debates, friendly discussions and collaboration with those concerned, this text has always been carefully avoided. In the book Twenty-one Reasons for Speaking in Tongue", Gordon Lindsay gives as his eleventh reason that it is to speak to God, and simply evades the embarrassing "he does not speak to men". This "silence" strengthens the impression that one is the equivalent of the other.

3. The third method is to shrug one’s shoulders and to treat the matter as being of little consequence, with a broad-minded attitude that transforms the Holy Spirit into a weathercock. "Of course the Bible says that, but who can fathom the purposes of God? Is He not sovereign? Can He not make use of His gifts as He desires?" One can see where this would lead: to all the heresies in the world, to give the floor to the Deceiver and in particular, to his first suggestion in Genesis, "Did God really say that?" All the ills of humanity started there. I am suspicious of an excessively broad-minded view of the sovereignty of God that takes away all sovereignty from His Word. Because, if the unfathomable riches of His love and wisdom could produce tongues that speak to men, they could also have given us a Queen of Heaven, a co-redeemer, a heaven to be earned and a string of saints to call upon.

4. The fourth method is to find an answer at any cost; to dive into the Bible in search of a word or a reference that puts the Holy Spirit in conflict with Himself, in order to breathe more easily. Everyone knows that with this game, one can make the Bible say anything one wishes. In fact, nearly all heresies have found their origin in the Bible. At the risk of exposing ourselves to ruin by distorting the meaning of the Scriptures, as it says in II Peter 3:16, which text shall we seize upon to make the Word say the opposite of what it says? Some people believe they have found one in I Cor.14:21, "Through men of strange tongues... I will speak to this people". If God uses tongues to speak to this people, then it follows that he uses them to speak to men. Note firstly that if that is the right meaning to give to these words, then the contradiction between the two verses would be total.

Let us clarify. It is evident that all signs, whatever they might be, speak to men. Coming from God, they cannot be a sign to God. It is, according to Heb.1:1, one of the "various ways" used by God to speak to us. This he did in John 17 where we find what has been rightly called the high-priestly prayer. In the first place, Jesus is addressing His Father only. But at a second level, without specifically addressing us, it is indeed to us that He is speaking. This prayer to His Father speaks to us of His petitions, of His intimate feelings, of His personal character, of His intercession for us and, above all, of Himself as our great High Priest. And so it was for these foreign tongues. By allowing them to be addressed to Him miraculously, it was God’s way of telling THIS PEOPLE of Israel that foreigners, and the languages they speak, had henceforth the same access as they did to the God of Israel. This is what the sign communicated to them without, however, actually addressing them verbally. This is what Peter explains so masterfully in his memorable sermon on the day of Pentecost. To their question, "What does this speaking in foreign tongues mean?" he gives God’s reply, "I will pour out my Spirit on ALL PEOPLE", that is, on all languages, all peoples, all tribes and all nations.

It would not be superfluous to recall first of all that, contrary to what certain people might think, the great crowd of people assembled that day was not made up of pagans, strangers or internationals (Gentiles or Goyim as one refers to them elsewhere), but of JEWS who had come to Jerusalem from fifteen different foreign countries. Do you have your Bible open before you?

Turn to Acts 2 and read verse 5, "Now there were staying in Jerusalem who?... pagans?!... no, JEWS, God-fearing men, from every nation under heaven."

Go on to verse 14, Then Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd, "Fellow foreigners?!... no, fellow JEWS".

Look at verse 22. Peter continuing to speak to the crowd, adds this precision, "Men of ISRAEL..."

A little further on, in verse 29, he uses the term, "brothers", an appellation that leaves no doubt as to their identity.

And finally, in verse 37, the people making up the crowd who heard him returned the compliment to the JEWISH apostles in these words, "BROTHERS, what shall we do?"

Besides the fact that the Word of God is very clear and that this is repeated five times, it follows quite logically that only those God-fearing Jews, coming from great distances and at their own expense, would journey to the Jews’ great annual feast day of Pentecost at Jerusalem. It would only have been of interest to them and to the proselytes converted to Judaism. One does not see great crowds of Frenchmen travelling to England for the 5^th of November every year to set off firecrackers on Guy Fawks Day. Neither do the English travel to Paris for the fete nationale on July 14^th, not any more that we see Europeans crossing the Atlantic just to celebrate Independence Day in the United States. In the same way Pentecost was at that time a feast day solely Jewish and reserved for Jews. Thus the crowd in Jerusalem that day was made up of Jews who spoke Aramaic, and who all understood what Peter preached to them in this language (his as well as theirs), without the necessity to speak the fifteen other languages.

The only thing left now is for us to verify what the Scriptures say about each occasion where speaking in tongues is reported. We shall call upon the best Pentecostal writers, quoting their writings, to prove that in no case was there ever a single word addressed to men, even though the sign was intended for them. Donald Gee writes, "Our information concerning the manifestation shown to believers when they are baptised in the Spirit, is strictly limited to the cases recounted in Acts" (Glossolalia, page 101). This means that he does not wish to take into account any experience other than those contained in the Word of God.

I. In Acts 2, it is said that the people heard them "speak of the wonders of God" in many real and contemporary languages. Many have wrongly believed that what was referred to here was the salvation of three thousand souls due to the preaching of the Gospel in tongues. Even a rapid survey of this chapter shows that the tongues used on that day simply caused people to ask questions. It was Peter’s preaching, which was not in tongues, that brought the crowd to salvation. Donald Gee was unquestionably a leading thinker among the Pentecostals. He tried to put some order into the ideas of the movement and to establish for it the least bit of a coherent doctrine. For the moderates, he was the most listened-to of his generation. In his book Spiritual Gifts, this is what he says about the tongues spoken at Pentecost, "On the day of Pentecost, they all spoke in tongues before the crowd assembled. The crowd ran to see what all the noise was about. They found the disciples speaking of the wonders of God in their own dialects. It is clear that this crowd heard words THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED TO THEM (emphasis added). When it was time to preach, it was Peter, and Peter alone, who spoke to the crowd whilst the eleven remained with him. He used a language common to all so that everyone would understand him... Thus the erroneous and time-honoured assertion that the gift was for the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles is refuted."

Dennis Bennett is renowned for his writings in Pentecostal circles. Here is what he says on the same subject, "It is surprising to note how many Christians, even those who are well-grounded, think that the languages spoken at Pentecost were given to proclaim the Gospel in the languages of the people who were listening, because they came ‘from every nation under heaven’. In fact this passage states, ‘Now there were staying in Jerusalem JEWS from all nations...’ It was simply Jews who lived in other countries and who had travelled up to Jerusalem for the feast. There was no need for foreign languages. What they heard was not a proclamation of the Gospel but the first Christians PRAISING AND GLORIFYING God for the wonders He had done" (v.11).

Coming from men so well-thought-of, these testimonies on this specific point are decisive and we record our agreement with them: what was spoken in tongues was not addressed to men but to God.

II. The second account appeared at the conversion of the centurion Cornelius and all his household. (Acts 10). The nature of this glossolalia is identical to the first because Peter refers to it when he told the apostles at Jerusalem, "... the Holy Spirit came on them just as He had come on us at the beginning", and he adds this detail, "God gave them the same gift as He gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ". (Acts 11:15-17). There is nothing addressed to men here either; on the contrary, they heard them "... praising God".

III. The third and last mention of tongues in Acts 19:6 (the conversion of the twelve disciples of John the Baptist) does not tell us anything more.

IV. The fourth proof is found in the verses that serve as a basis for this study - chapter 14 of First Corinthians. How does Paul see the matter? He sees nothing but praying, singing and giving thanks in tongues (verses 15 and 16). Nothing but prayer and praise appears in his teaching on tongues. Unquestionably, prayers and praises can only be addressed to God, and one can, therefore, never expect to find in them a message addressed to men.

V. The fifth proof is in the key verse of this chapter. It carries with it its own conclusion, "For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God" (I Cor.14:2). On such an important point, the Pentecostal practice is already completely out of line with the truth. It is at least as false as the glossolalia of their charismatic twins. We have read it, "...an experience, the’ baptism of the Holy Spirit’ that lures souls to practise the contrary of what the Scriptures say, is not of the Holy Spirit." If the keystone of a vault is loosened, the whole structure breaks down ipso-facto. In the same way, this first error on the subject of tongues brings down the entire system (*1) at a single stroke. "Like a high wall, cracked and bulging, that collapses suddenly in an instant, it will break in pieces like pottery, shattered so mercilessly that among its pieces not a fragment will be found for taking coals from a hearth or scooping water out of a cistern" (Isaiah 30:13-14).

It is not superfluous to recall the remark quoted above, "When Paul’s word (…not to men) began to circulate in our assemblies, it had the effect of a bomb. The conclusion was not followed up because we would have had to admit that EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN DONE UP TO THEN WAS FALSE!"

If, for our conservative Pentecostal friends, the gift that they have passed on to others smacks of heresy, we also come to the incontrovertible evidence that their own glossolalia is also unscriptural and of the same kind as that which they have passed on to the Catholic charismatics by the laying on of their hands.

Before moving on to the next error, one cannot but say a word about some Pentecostal churches that have done an about-face on this point. In their meetings, the practice of tongues continues but, on demand, the interpretation is limited to praise or prayer. What must we think of that? Does it mean a courageous return to the truth? At this early stage of our study, the answer would be incomplete to the point of appearing biased. The following chapters will show us other aspects of this subject, which they voluntarily ignore, that will allow us to give a definitive opinion. However, we are already obliged to notice that where things have seemingly been put right, it is only the interpretation that has been changed. Speaking in tongues itself remains the same as it was before. These are the same people, the same peculiar utterances, the same intonation, and above all, something we shall come back to, the same unacceptable difference between the length of the statement in tongues and the length of its interpretation. In fact, it is like a faulty production line for motor cars where, without rectifying the faults, one has decided to change the final coat of paint. Varnished in this way, this "new" generation of tongues appears somewhat more biblical at the end of the production line but remains underneath as far removed from the Bible and as faulty as the other. The spirit that inspires it is the same. Its final interpretation (discussed in chapter 6) subjected like the previous one to the apostolic teaching or to simple impartial and objective observation, will adequately demonstrate in which category it must be classified.

In 1990 in one of those churches I was the guest speaker for an evangelistic campaign. A few years prior to this they had broken away from the Assemblies of God on grounds of prevailing worldliness and excesses of all sorts in the realm of spiritual gifts. They had understood that, according to I Cor.14:2, a gift of interpretation that conveyed a message to men (and it was nearly always the case) was not of the Holy Spirit. So, that type of interpretation was abandoned, even condemned, and compulsorily replaced by words of prayer or praise to God. They had become very friendly towards non-charismatics and somewhat quieter in their gatherings. Yet, that Sunday morning when I was there, during the worship service, a woman suddenly burst out in tongues, at first on a plaintive mode, then picking up speed it ended up in a high-pitched out-pouring. She kept repeating "Ding-a-ding-a-doo", 20, 30 times or more. This was followed by an interpretation that was a comparatively bland exhortation about the communion service. After the meeting, outside the sanctuary, my wife and I looked at each other and burst out laughing (actually we should have wept) as, spontaneously, at the very same moment, we both exclaimed, "Les Cloches de Corneville!" (*2) A few minutes later, the pastor joined us, in obvious consternation, not because of the odd speaking in tongues, which he did not seem to question, but because of the complementary miracle of interpretation that had turned out to be a message to men instead of being a word directed to God as the Holy Spirit teaches. He said to us, "We must excuse this brother, he’s left the Assemblies of God recently and he hasn’t worked things out properly yet". Was it not rather the so-called "Spirit" who inspired these two people who was not working things out properly? My pointing this out to him added even more to his dismay. Where was the true Holy Spirit in all this? That evening we parted, apparently on good terms, but he never invited me again to his church.

(*1) Our reference to the "system" in this context applies only to our Pentecostal brothers' teaching concerning the gift of tongues. No jugement is intended against their fundamentalist position which, in any case, we share. We do not contest their often faithful preaching of the Gospel, nor the sincerity of a number of them, nor their zeal, nor their distinction as children of God.

(*2)"The Bells of Corneville", a well-known French operetta where the chorus repeats at length the famous "Ding, ding, dong".

We saw in the previous chapter that if the sign of speaking in tongues attracted the attention of men, the actual verbal content was not addressed to men, but to God alone. The gift was therefore limited to praise or prayer.

We will now tackle another practical aspect of the question, found extensively in Pentecostalism, which we will confront with the Scriptures. My long experience of nearly the whole range of Pentecostalism enables me to speak with knowledge of the facts.

We must never lose sight of the fact that speaking in tongues WAS A SIGN. When one asks, "For whom is the sign destined today?", invariably, the first response is always, "It is the indisputable or evident sign of the baptism of the Spirit; it is the proof that the believer has entered into a second experience in the Christian life that will give him access to the gifts of the Spirit, by beginning with the least of them, speaking in tongues". This sign will therefore confirm to him, the believer, as well as to his congregation composed of believers, that he has a "plus" in his spiritual life. Seen from this angle, it is a sign for believers. But this is not all, for this sign will prove useful to him on other occasions.

Example 1. A man who was still a young convert had this second spiritual experience. Under pressure caused by a very difficult family situation, his first love for the Lord grew cold and he lost all contact with his assembly. He was haunted in his heart by the fear of being rejected by God. From time to time he tried to speak in tongues and since it worked, this caused him much comfort. (Already we can see that for him, speaking in tongues was taking the place of faith which is "being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" - Heb.1:1) According to him, this gift saved him from committing suicide. It showed him that he, the believer, was still in the faith. In fact he was using the gift to give himself a sign. It was thus a sign for a believer such as he was.

Example 2. Then there was a Christian who was experiencing many difficulties: poor health, misfortunes and spiritual attacks in his family. His faith was enormously shaken. What kept him going, according to him, was his daily praying in tongues. How can we fail to see that, here too, it is the sign that replaces faith, whereas John’s epistle says, "this is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith" (I Jn.5:4). Once again the sign was addressed to a believer.

Example 3. Sin had settled in the life of yet another man. He was conscious of it but happy to live with it. He used his gift of tongues to assess himself and after successfully speaking in tongues heaved a sigh of relief, "If the Spirit continues to express Himself through me, that means that He does not disapprove of me, at least not enough to remove His words from my mouth". What is striking here, is that self-judgement in the light of the Word of God (I Cor.11: 28, 31) is replaced by a sign which, for this believer, lends credibility to something that the Bible clearly condemns.

These three examples are only samples that demonstrate that the whole teaching and practice of the Pentecostals on this point revolves around a sign that God has supposedly given for believers and their private use. What does Scripture say about this? It teaches precisely the opposite, "TONGUES ARE NOT A SIGN FOR BELIEVERS BUT FOR NON-BELIEVERS" (I Cor.14:22). The contradiction is total and it is this doctrine that once more is at fault. How many times have believers rejoiced with other believers over receiving this sign. How many times have I been told and re-told (and nothing else on this point was ever said to me) that speaking in tongues was the first sign for the believer, evidence of his baptism in the Spirit. But the Holy Spirit Himself categorically dismisses such a thing when He tells us that it was "A SIGN FOR NON-BELIEVERS".

A fourth example will serve to complete the first three. A certain brother practises tongues in private, a subject that we will discuss in detail in chapter 7. The good he claims this does him can in no way cancel out the obligation, imposed by the Holy Spirit, to use the gift for its rightful purpose, namely, to serve as a sign for non-believers. But where are the unbelievers when he only practises the sign for himself before God? In the same way, if an evangelist, who also has a charisma meant for another category of unbelievers, practised his gift in private, with only himself as an audience, at the time of the invitation to salvation he would only be giving a sign to himself as a believer and thus, be missing the goal. In the same way, in the case of the charisma of speaking in tongues, the Holy Spirit could not speak more clearly. The goal is to reach not believers but unbelievers. Allow us to make our position clear; we do not doubt the scriptural baptism of the Holy Spirit or the historical reality of speaking in tongues. We simply ask a double question: 1) What spirit inspires those who attribute a role to tongues that is categorically refuted by the true Holy Spirit? 2) What spirit could they have been baptised in, those who hide the shining truth of I Cor.14:22 under a bushel? And why do they feel extremely awkward as soon as you make the remark to them? And count yourself happy if you do not come across an extremist who is offended because you believe what the true Holy Spirit has said, and who accuses you of sinning against Him. Let us conclude with an illustration: if a bridge were supported by ten pillars, how unsafe it would be if even two of them were missing! We have just witnessed the collapse of two pillars of Pentecostal doctrine: a) words in tongues addressed to men and b) a sign for believers.

Having discovered that, contrary to the quasi-universal belief and to the practice of many, the sign of tongues was not addressed to believers but to unbelievers, we have yet to find out the exact identity of these "unbelievers". Let us see in what situations the sign was practised in order to discover who they were.

I. Whom do we meet at Pentecost in Jerusalem, in Acts 2? A crowd of God-fearing Jews "from every nation under heaven". These people cannot be called atheists; their piety and religious fervour had driven them to make the long, difficult and expensive journey that brought them out of their respective countries up to Jerusalem for the great religious festival. If they were incredulous, it was certainly not along the lines of atheism, or scepticism, or indifference. It is not in this area that we will find their unbelief.

II. In Acts 8, in the narrative of the conversion of the Samaritans, some people think that, although there is no mention of it, tongues are implied here. We would be hard-pressed to find any atheists or agnostics here, since these people also believed in the Lord Jesus. There must be an underlying incredulity somewhere that would justify the appearance of the sign.

III. In Acts 10, the first Gentiles are converted in Cornelius’ house. The sign appears here as well, but where are the unbelievers? The apostle Peter, who witnesses the phenomenon, is a believer, unless he has kept hidden in his heart a little corner of unbelief. What kind of unbelief? A latent incredulity can often be found hidden away in the heart of a believer, without having to classify him with the lost. It was Thomas the believer that the Lord accused of a particular type of unbelief (Jn.20:27). Was it not a whole nation of believers who did not enter the Promised Land due to a certain form of unbelief? (Heb.3:19). In Mark 9:19, Jesus again has to say to His disciples: "O unbelieving generation, how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?" And more than once in our lives, have we not all prayed the words of the father whose child could not be cured by the disciples, "I do believe, Lord, help me overcome my unbelief" (v.24)?

IV. In Acts 11, Peter informs the apostles in Jerusalem that tongues were spoken in the house of Cornelius. Clearly, the apostles are not unbelievers, unless they are also harbouring some latent streak of unbelief that remains to be identified.

V. In Acts 19, some Jewish disciples of John are converted to Christ and the sign, once again, appears. Here we find no more trace than elsewhere of any visible unbelief, in any case, not as we understand the term today. Yet, in all these instances, a sizeable element of unbelief is present since the Holy Spirit counteracts it with the relevant sign. We do not need to look very far to flush it out. I Cor.14:21 gives us the answer,"... I will speak TO THIS PEOPLE". It is worth noting that wherever the sign appears, it is always in the presence of JEWS, and where we do not find Jews, as in Athens or in Malta, neither do we find the sign.

We just have to discover the specific unbelief that was common to them all. No need to call on Sherlock Holmes or Colombo. As long as we know what kind of mentality inspired the Jews (converted or unconverted), we have the vital thread that will take us straight to the solution. IT IS IN THE VERY NATURE OF THE SIGN THAT WE FIND THE NATURE OF THEIR UNBELIEF. The sign consisted of foreign languages; thus it concerned languages that were foreign to Aramaic; in other words, the sign pointed to people who were foreigners to the Jews. The sign denounced or corrected their lack of faith concerning the salvation of those who spoke languages that were foreign to their own, that is, the Gentiles. The sign of tongues was appropriate at the extraordinary event of Pentecost: the entering of people of foreign languages into the Church that was born that day. Speaking in tongues was the proclamation of that great and novel truth in the form of a sign. On that day, God inaugurated a new people, a new body composed of people who spoke Hebrew as well as people who spoke languages other than Hebrew. Jews and pagans were to be given a new spiritual identity: the Church, the body of Christ, in which there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian or Scythian (Col.3:11). But this was precisely what the Jews did not want to believe. On the contrary, they were "... hostile to all men, in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved" (I Thess.2:16). C.I. Scofield writes in his Bible notes on Eph.3:6, "The divine intention was to make a new entity out of the non-Jews: the Church constituting the body of Christ formed by the baptism of the Holy Spirit that destroys any distinction between Jews and non-Jews..." The idea of now being made one with foreigners was more than the first-century Jews could stand. The thought alone was enough to fire up their Hebrew atavism. Yet that was the first thing they had to understand and finally admit. So God gave them the best sign possible to make them understand what they could not or would not believe; He miraculously made Jews speak in the languages of foreigners. In so doing, God put Jewish adoration into these pagan tongues.

If, having reached this point, the demonstration seems biblically unsubstantial to some, we need simply to add to it what Calvin called "the analogy of faith", in other words, a global view of the Word of God. It is dangerous to know a doctrine merely in snatches, or by hearsay, or through experiences that supposedly back it up. I have noticed on more than one occasion that the meaning of some verses, and even whole paragraphs, plainly translated in our everyday language, can escape us. A simple but attentive reading of the Bible reveals the scenario of fierce Jewish opposition towards everything that was not specifically Jewish.

We see Jonah who hates the men of Nineveh to the point of disobeying God. He runs away to Tarshish rather than to announce salvation to them. He struggles against God and openly wishes the destruction of the huge Assyrian metropolis. For him, Yahveh was the God of Israel and no one else, at least not of this foreign-speaking nation. In his frustration he goes as far as asking for his own death. If Nineveh lives, may Jonah die! He reproaches God for that which is His glory: to be the Saviour of men of all languages, tribes, peoples and nations. This spirit of opposition and unbelief will only be reinforced over the centuries. The Jews belong to Yahveh and Yahveh to them, in a closed circle of bigotry; everyone else is cursed. All attempts at fraternisation or tolerance towards people of another language aroused in them hatred that reached frightening heights. Death to other languages and to the people who speak them! Daring to suggest that people with a tongue different from their own could benefit from the goodness of God, was to risk one’s life. They led Jesus to the top of a hill to throw Him off because He had just said, "There were many widows in Israel at the time of Elijah... he was not sent to any of them but to a widow of Sarepta in Sidon". Jesus added to their immense rage, "There were many lepers in Israel at the time of Elisha... none of them was healed except Naaman the Syrian". This was, in their eyes, more than enough to deserve death.

The Samaritans, even though related to the Jews, did not escape from their racist opposition, to the extent that one day, because they had not been welcomed in a Samaritan village, Jesus’ own disciples asked Him, "Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?" Jesus had to answer them, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" (Luke 9:55 KJV). One of the worst insults that you could hurl at a Jew, was to call him a Samaritan; having called him that, there was nothing left to do but to spit on the floor. Little did those disciples realise that later on, they would return to those same Samaritans, and would no longer ask for a baptism of fire for them, but for a baptism of the Spirit to seal their oneness with them. This ferocious antipathy for the Gentiles had its roots in the far-distant past. It was the literal accomplishment of the prophecy made almost 1500 years earlier, "I will arouse your jealousy by that which is not a nation, I will provoke your anger by a nation without intelligence" (Deut.32:21). The elect, the chosen people of God, they certainly were but they had perverted the meaning God had intended by that title. Their vocation was to be a witnessing people, set apart and separated from other peoples. But separation from the evil, abominations and idolatry of these other peoples did not imply hatred, disdain, pride and a superiority complex. They had become more elitist than the elite, going so far as to exclude all those who did not belong to their group and imprisoning their Yahveh instead of revealing Him to others. So, when God reveals Himself to the Gentiles, the prophecy is accomplished to the letter, and their jealousy simply explodes. In Thessalonica, "the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the market-place, formed a mob and started a riot in the city" (Acts 17:5). In Antioch, "when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and talked abusively against what Paul was saying" (Acts 13:45). When they heard Paul and Barnabas say, "I have made you a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth", they incited a persecution against Paul and Barnabas and chased them from their town (Acts 13:50).

Once Paul was back in Jerusalem, the opposition started all over again. What a narrative in Acts 22! The prisoner Paul stands on the steps of the fortress. He motions to the crowd with one hand and asks to speak. As he begins in Hebrew, silence falls upon the crowd. Everyone holds his breath to catch what he is saying. Paul relates his encounter with Christ on the Damascus road. They hang on to his every word and no one dares interrupt him. Without raising an eyebrow, they listen to him talk about his past, his personal titles, his activities, his zeal for the Jewish cause. He tells them about the apparition of Jesus and they do not blink an eye. He speaks of his baptism, and still there is no reaction. But at the very instant that he starts, "The Lord said to me, Go, I will send you far away to the Gentiles...", the sentence freezes in mid-air. They listened as far as that word Gentiles (or nations); then they raised their voices, they hurled their clothing around and threw dust into the air, shouting, "Rid the earth of him! He is not fit to live!" What made them explode like that? Simply the idea that God could also be the God of every man and every tongue. It is now easier to understand why speaking in tongues is the sign of this great truth and that for "this people" it was the means of access to it. This unbelief would drive some of them to bind themselves with a solemn oath on their own head that they would take no food until they had killed the apostle of the Gentiles, the man who had so successfully brought the Gospel to foreign languages (Acts 23:12). Jonah did the same thing. He sulkily sat on the east side of the city, waiting for it to be destroyed, and there, under his bush, he pouted and moaned because the punishment was delayed, so engrossed was he in his gruesome expectations, hoping for the death of a people that God wanted to save.

Jonah, who reproached God for sparing 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 Gentiles (Acts 11:1-3). Unbelievable! Spiritually speaking, they were hard of hearing, as was Peter himself. Although he had experienced the extraordinary events of Pentecost and had spoken in tongues on that day, he dreaded approaching people of other languages. In order to compel him to do so, God had to give him the vision of the sheet full of animals that he considered unclean. Three times the Lord had to tell him, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" before he made up his mind to go and, by doing so, to acknowledge that "God does not show favouritism but accepts men from every nation..." (Acts 10:9-16,34,35). In fact, it is only after this vision that he utters the famous "whosoever", in a key phrase in one of the greatest moments in history, "All the prophets testify about Him that whosoever believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name" (Acts 10:43).

This word "whosoever" allows us to discuss a very important aspect of John 3:16. The verse that millions of Christians have known by heart since their childhood, contains a doctrinal truth that many have missed. Jesus said to Nicodemus, "For God so loved... Who? THE WORLD". A Jew would never have said that; not Jonah, nor Peter, nor any of the others. They would all have said, "For God so loved ISRAEL"! Already, so early on in the Gospel, the Lord announces the extent of His love and His salvation: the whole world composed of nations, peoples, tribes and languages. On the cross, the death verdict was written in three languages: in Latin, the legal language; in Greek, the commercial language; in Hebrew, the religious language. Without realising it, the authors of this inscription were proclaiming the universal aspect of the Gospel. Their curt official statement carried the seed of the great commission that rang out a few days later, "Go and make disciples of all nations...". But for the apostles, this truth went straight in one ear and out the other.

Let us examine the teaching of the Epistles. When John wrote his first epistle, he inserted that phrase that seems so self-evident as to be superfluous, "... He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (I Jn.2:2). Of course! but this was not so obvious to the Jews. John worked chiefly among Jews (Gal.2:9). He had to constantly remind them that God’s forgiveness, acquired by the death of Christ on the cross, was not for them alone, but for everyone of every tongue in the whole world. All through his writings and right into the Book of Revelation, sixty years after Pentecost, John insists on this point. Again and again he speaks of a "new song" in contrast with the "song of Moses". What was the theme of Moses’ song? God’s relationship with the chosen and redeemed people and no hint of anything more. It is the song of the Old Covenant with Israel. What does the song of the New Covenant now say? "By your blood you have redeemed men of every tribe, every language, every people and every nation...". The song of Israel did not go as far as that. This worldwide dimension had not been grasped. In order to seize hold of it, they needed three things: the apostolic teaching, an inner illumination by the Holy Spirit and a corresponding outward sign, speaking in foreign tongues.

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul, the doctrinal teacher of the Church, explains that Gentiles and Jews form a single body and share in the same promises (Eph.3:6). For us today there is nothing mysterious about this, but Paul calls it a mystery. For the Jews, sharing the same promises with Gentiles was a hidden truth (Eph.3:9) that they could only begin to understand with the help of the sign of tongues, because the Jews demanded signs (I Cor.1:22). Just like Jonah, they certainly wanted men to be saved, but not all men and especially not foreigners, whilst God wants people of all nations to be saved (I Tim.2:4). Paul repeats this novel idea, (that is, novel for the Jews only) in another way in his letter to Titus. He reminds him to declare and to teach that the grace of God is a source of salvation for all men (Titus 2:11). This was not automatically assumed by the new Jonahs of the New Testament. It took an exceptional man of Paul’s stature and talents to swiftly grasp this truth and to have the tenacity to stand firm against everyone, even against Peter (Gal.2:5). Paul had to hammer it home to convince them. Between themselves and foreigners, they had built a kind of Berlin wall. Paul knocks down this shameful wall straddled with theological watchtowers, first by speaking by the Spirit in the tongues of those who were on the other side, and then by teaching them that Christ brings peace to those on both sides of the wall, making the two one. He destroyed the separating wall of hostility; and from the two He created a single new man in Himself, "by reconciling both of them in one body on the cross and by that cross putting to death their enmity; He came to proclaim peace to those who were far away (the Gentiles) and to those who were near (the Jews), for through Him both have access to the Father in one Spirit" (Eph.2:11-17).

Alleluia! Paul exclaims joyfully, "Although I am less than the least of God’s people, this grace was given to me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ..." (Eph.3:8). Unfortunately, not everyone shared Paul’s glorious conviction that he had been baptised by the Spirit to form one body with all men, Jews and Greeks (I Cor.12:13). Their unrelenting opposition would expose them to the terrible baptism of fire, "... they displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God (that they have wished on others) has come upon them at last" (I Thess.2:15,16). Yes, these foreign tongues, sign of a new and worldwide covenant were to become a fire to them, a fire of judgement. The wrath of God was to set them aflame like the chaff that is thrown into the fire (Matt.3:12).

It is Peter, the unbelieving believer, who gives us the irrefutable and decisive proof that this was indeed the type of unbelief at which the sign of tongues was aimed. God gave him another sign, identical to tongues and similarly adapted to his need. Although he had lived through Pentecost and had experienced the gift and had given by divine inspiration an explanation whose real meaning surpassed him, just like in Caiphas’ case when he uttered prophetic words about the redeeming death of Christ (Jn.11:51), Peter still shied away from the great truth that he had proclaimed without totally grasping it, "I will pour out my Spirit on all people", in other words, on Jews and non-Jews. The sad episode of Gal.2:11-14 where "he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles" is there once more to remind us, if need be, how biased was the Jewish mindset. In order to send him to the house of Cornelius, the foreign centurion, God had to break down the resistance of his unbelief, which on another occasion he expressed this way, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him" (Acts 10:28). We are reminded of this at length in chapters 10 and 11 of the book of Acts. What was the significance of that sheet that descended from heaven full of animals that were unclean according to the law of Moses, that Peter would never have touched? It represented everything that was not Jewish, that is, all the unclean peoples of foreign languages. So we cannot imagine for one second that this sign would convince anyone other than a Jew. They alone had to be convinced to abandon this particular unbelief and to consider no longer impure the people and the languages that God considered pure, languages pure enough to be spoken by His Holy Spirit. Thus, the gift of tongues had exactly the same meaning. Because of his Judaism, that empty way of life that had been handed down to him from his forefathers (I Pe.1:18), Peter had a strong natural tendency not to believe in the vocation of the Gentiles. That is why he still needed that vision-sign. In the same way the other Jews, (already saved or who were going to enter into this new covenant) also needed signs that said the same thing. This sign in foreign languages, like the triple vision of Peter, taught them that salvation was for "whosoever", for "all flesh", for "every tongue". Now, if we have been saying that Peter’s vision and speaking in tongues were the same thing, we must understand that whereas the goods are the same, the wrapping is different. Bearing that in mind, we discover that the two signs have a number of points in common, points that we do not come across in any other gift of the Spirit.

I. The vision was given to a believer, but it targeted Peter’s unbelief. Similarly, speaking in tongues was practised by believers and it concerned the same type of unbelief.

II. The vision was a sign for the apostles of Christ (amazing as that may seem) who did not believe in the salvation of those who spoke a tongue different from their own. Peter’s vision and the tongues in Cornelius’ house finally persuaded the apostles to believe that God had granted the same gift to foreigners as He had to them, and caused them to exclaim with astonishment, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life!" (Acts 11:18) See also Acts 10:45 where "the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles".

III. The vision was only repeated a limited number of times and then taken up into heaven, but we are reminded of its meaning every time we read Acts 10 and 11. In the same way, speaking in tongues was limited and the end of its practice was clearly announced by the Holy Spirit in I Cor.13:8, a subject which we shall deal with in chapter 8. Like Peter’s vision, its meaning is renewed every time we read the recorded episodes that mention it.

IV. The vision explained the universal and multi-lingual dimension of the new message to be preached. This was also the case with the gift of tongues; it demonstrated to the proponents of the "Israel only" doctrine that the Gospel extended also to "every tongue".

V. The vision only got its full explanation with the conversion of Cornelius. In the same way, speaking in tongues is only fully understood in the light of the conversion of peoples of "foreign and barbaric" languages, that is, the non-Jews.

VI. Peter’s vision would be out of place in an assembly of believers already convinced of the universality of the offer of salvation. The same goes for tongues; it is not a sign for such believers and would be out of place, should it be practised in their midst.

VII. Peter was personally edified by his vision, but only in the sense of what it taught him, and that is all. No other meaning than that can be extracted or added. So it was with those who spoke in tongues; they were edified within the limits of what the sign meant and nothing more. It was a brand new idea to them; it taught them that the Spirit of God was also poured out "on all flesh, every tongue, all people" and that they should not call anyone impure whom God had made clean and whose tongue He accepted. No other meaning than that can either be extracted from it or added to it.

VIII. The vision was repeated three times for Peter. Once its message had been understood it was inconceivable that he should continue to pursue the same vision for the rest of his ministry. In the same way, speaking in tongues is reported three times in Acts 2, 10, 19 and lasted until the still Judaeo-Christian church of the apostles had properly understood what it meant, and not beyond. For if nowadays we should still be pursuing tongues and all that it signifies, the same principle would apply to the vision of Acts 10. We should be seeking both. But WHO in today’s Church composed of peoples, tribes, nations and languages, WHO still needs to be convinced by a repeated sign that the Spirit of God is poured out on all peoples, nations, tribes and languages?! And thus, the vision of unclean animals made clean and the sign of tongues communicated exactly the same thing to THIS PEOPLE, the Jewish nation in a state of unbelief concerning this truth, that access to the God of Israel and to the oneness of the body of Christ was open to foreigners and barbarians whose tongues were miraculously spoken by the Holy Spirit.

Our foundation being the immovable rock of Scripture, we will conclude with the infallible words that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write, "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to THIS PEOPLE". And who was THIS PEOPLE to whom the sign of speaking in tongues was destined? To ask the question is to give the answer. In the New Testament, the expression THIS PEOPLE appears twelve times. Without exception it refers to Israel and only to Israel.

At the risk of being repetitive, we say once more that the PURPOSE of speaking in tongues is clearly explained in the episode of Pentecost, and more precisely in this decisive text, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and whosoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved". "All flesh...whosoever" underlines the purpose: to tell these unbending Jews from everywhere that the Gospel was also for people from everywhere. This will lead Paul to conclude that tongues are a sign, not for believers, but for the unbelieving. Directed by the Holy Spirit, Paul reveals the exact identity of these unbelieving people and he names them, the Jews, "through the lips of foreigners I will speak to THIS PEOPLE".

Some people ask, "if the sign was only for the Jews, why did the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house also speak in tongues?" In pioneer America, when it was not yet compulsory to wear a police uniform, the representative of the law would wear a distinctive badge pinned on his chest, the famous star-shaped sheriff’s badge. This proved to the population, and especially to the hoodlums on the corner of the street, that the authority which he assumed had not been usurped but was perfectly legal. In the same way, Cornelius had the sign of tongues "pinned" on him as a kind of divine badge that gave him credibility in the eyes of a still unbelieving Israel, Gentile though he was, he had every right to have access to the Church, on the same footing as the converted Jew. If Cornelius spoke in tongues, it was so that Peter could recount it to the Jewish apostles, who had not yet acknowledged that the Gentiles had this right. When they heard that "... the Holy Spirit came on them as He had come on us at the beginning, ... they had no further objection" (Acts 11:15,18). This last sentence demonstrates to what extent the preaching of grace to other nations had aroused their disapproval. So Cornelius was the sign-bearer, but the sign was for "this people". To them it was the appropriate demonstration that their God accepted the Gentiles on the same level as the pure children of Israel.

The episode in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7), where twelve men suddenly speak in tongues, is along the same lines. These Jews, disciples of John the Baptist and baptised by him with the baptism of repentance that was for "this people", were in Ephesus in Asia Minor or what is known as Turkey today. They lived in communities or mini-colonies, guarding their Jewish cultural identity jealously in the midst of the pagan population. However, the Gospel had started to penetrate these pagan masses and churches were already being formed among them. Faced with their natural refusal to believe that they could become ONE with these surrounding peoples, the Holy Spirit seized hold of their lips and made them praise, in the pagans’ tongues, the God of Israel who was now becoming, in their Jewish eyes, the God of the nations. These twelve men, part of THIS PEOPLE, needed the sign of tongues in order to be taught about the worldwide dimension that their Yahveh was now giving to His salvation.

On more than one occasion, I have noticed just how darkened the spiritual intelligence of some Christians can be when it comes to understanding this point of doctrine. I recently carried out the following experiment. I read Peter’s vision twice over, slowly, to three friends who are newly saved and have a fairly limited education. I did the same thing with three children, one eight-year-old and two nine-year-olds. I then asked them what they had understood. With a few excusable hesitations, they gave me the correct answer, which I can sum up as follows, "Peter understood that he could go and talk about salvation to foreigners". We must emphasize that the give-away expression "foreign languages" is not found in this episode of Acts 10, and yet the message was received with no difficulty by unsophisticated minds.

But in the expressions "foreign languages" or "strange tongues" found in I Cor.14, the idea of foreigners and their tongues is clearly expressed. Yet, some people, sometimes academics, who boast of being more enlightened by the Spirit than others, are seemingly prevented from seeing that the sign that they claim most to be their own was, in fact, telling the Jews that they could, like Peter, also take the message of salvation to every foreigner, to every creature, to every tongue, in a word, "to all people". It can be read without a magnifying glass, and can be understood without any explanation. Thus, unconverted children and newly born-again adults with a limited education have understood what the vision said to the Israelite Peter, but the "baptised in the Spirit" are incapable of seizing hold of the straightforward meaning of the sign they talk about the most

The words of our Lord seem relevant here, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: you will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them" (Matt.13:14,15).

Now what shall help us better understand the true PURPOSE of the gift of tongues is the example of Jesus our Lord who, by His very person, is the explanation of His doctrine. But here we have to argue from silence. Let us explain. In the New Testament it is Jesus who first announces this sign, "Here are the signs... they will speak in new tongues" (Mark 16:17). But the troubling fact is that He Himself never spoke in tongues! This simple remark disturbs those who, claiming the example of a Master who is the same yesterday, today and forever, are obliged to admit that the silence is total. How are they going to get out of this dilemma?

Here are two unsuccessful explanations, diametrically opposed to one another, and which show just how impossible it is to read the Bible calmly, when one has put one’s finger into the mesh of error. The first comes from a Pentecostal minister who says this, "If Jesus never spoke in tongues, it is because He was perfect and therefore did not need to edify Himself". The apostle Peter would classify the author of this remark in the category of "ignorant people who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction" (II Pe.3:16). To invoke the absence of a gift in the name of spirituality is a sad demonstration of insincerity at its worst. To this pure evasion of the issue we reply with a very simple question, "Why did our Lord require that John the Baptist administer to Him the baptism of repentance, since He had no need of repentance?" However He did it. And since He did it, it was, as He says, in order to accomplish what was just and useful for us to know. If, therefore, the divine Son of God never spoke in tongues, it is because He knew that, contrary to repentance, practically all His church would never have need of doing so. History confirms this.

The second explanation is as bad as the first and contrary to it. Defying the silence of Scripture, certain people dare say and write the opposite, "We cannot imagine for a single moment that Jesus never spoke in tongues. Certainly He did, for not all that Jesus said and did is in the Bible (Jn.21:25). Were we there to hear Him speak in tongues when He was praying all alone, a whole night, on the mountains? Were we there when, in agony, He was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane? Were we there when He made His prayers and requests with loud cries and tears to God, who could save Him from death?" (Heb.5:7). Incredible! Poor friends, reduced to justifying their error by adopting new errors, which contain the seed of most heresies: going beyond the Word of God. These are dangerous thoughts. It suffices to continue, "Were we there when He taught His disciples the co-redemption of Mary? Were we there when He taught them about purgatory? Were we there when He spoke on indulgences?" To what raving can one go and to what judgement will be exposed those who add their own flight of fancy to the clear record of Scripture? Rev. 22:18 gives the answer: to be struck by the plagues of God.

We add a third consideration. The most often-employed tactic is to attract attention to other texts in order to leave unnoticed those which are embarrassing, a bit like a magician who fixes the attention of his audience on one of his hands while the other juggles the object quickly away in the shadow. The public sees only the animation and applauds. Here is what one can read on page 20 of Reports on Speaking in Tongues by Thomas Brès, "Among the objections most often made in Christian circles, we hear, ‘The Lord, our divine model, never spoke in tongues and never taught anything on this subject’."

We find here almost all the logic of his book. The objection he quotes consists of two propositions: 1) Jesus never spoke in tongues; 2) Jesus never taught anything on the subject. Each one of us learnt at Primary School that we can only add units of the same kind. A horse plus an egg equals only an egg and a horse! We cannot expound our ideas on the two as if they were one. However this is what Thomas Brès does. He expounds the second proposition in the name of the first. He focuses attention on the second and says nothing of the one that states: Jesus never spoke in tongues. He places one under the microscope while he puts the other away in his pocket. But there is something more serious. The second proposition comes out of his own imagination. He invented it simply to give himself the opportunity of shooting it down. Never, no never, has an evangelical Christian stated that Jesus did not say anything about speaking in tongues. They all know that Jesus was the first to prophesy the speaking in new tongues according to Mark 16:17. None amongst them has ever contested this. T.Brès invented this proposition in order to turn the attention from the first that is true. This allows him, in the eyes of a superficial reader, to avoid the formidable objection raised not by the non-Pentecostals, but by the Spirit-inspired Word of God: Jesus never spoke in tongues!

Let us analyse the situation objectively and without passion. Jesus was permanently filled with the Holy Spirit and He had all His gifts. But He did not have this one, and didn’t seem to miss it.. He did not speak of it; He did not look for it; He did not exercise it. If speaking in tongues was all we are told it was, He would certainly have needed it. He who was sometimes tired to the point of exhaustion, why didn’t He use the tongues-restorative virtues, which Thomas Roberts (*1) made use of so often? If this gift was to be exercised in private, or among friends, why didn’t He ever use it in the company of His disciples? Since He sang before climbing the Mount of Olives, why didn’t He sing in tongues on such an appropriate occasion? Why didn’t He ever join the angels in their heavenly language, when He saw them ascending and descending upon Him? (Jn.1:51). Why didn’t He try to add this sign to the others for the good of His ministry? Those who needed to see the other signs, did they not need to see this one? In I Cor.12 we find a list of the nine gifts of the Spirit which are: WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, FAITH, HEALING, MIRACULOUS POWERS (working of miracles), PROPHECY, DISCERNING OF SPIRITS, DIFFERENT KINDS OF TONGUES, INTERPRETATION OF TONGUES. Our Lord had, and used, all these gifts except that of speaking in tongues and (of course) its natural associate, interpretation. Donald Gee confirms this by saying, "These gifts were not manifested during the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus" (*2). Therefore if Jesus did not have this gift, it is because it was not necessary that He have it, but WHY?

It is actually the absence of this gift in Jesus’ ministry that will confirm to us the general teaching of the Bible on this subject. We know that Jesus rarely left the confines of Palestine. As He told His disciples, His Gospel did not go beyond the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Mat.10:6). He even forbade them to go to any Gentile territory or any Samaritan towns, that is, to any foreign languages. The worldwide aspect of His teaching was still hidden. There was not yet any question of "peoples, tribes, nations and tongues". Nothing, or almost nothing, gave the slightest inkling about the international scope of His work in the future. Up to this point there was nothing to make the Jews jealous of the grace given to the Gentiles, for they had not yet been brought into the picture. The gift of tongues, sign of their integration into God’s plan, had therefore no reason for existing as yet. So Jesus mentioned speaking in tongues only once in Mark 16:17 at the very end of His ministry to Israel. It is highly significant to see WHEN He speaks of it. His prophecy flows naturally from the preceding sentence, "Go into ALL THE WORLD". It is the famous "to every creature", that is, to every tongue, tribe etc.., that launches the sign-gift of speaking in tongues. The narrow limits of Jewish nationalism were going to break open. But Jesus knew that "THIS PEOPLE" would do everything possible to keep the Good News from being announced to people of other tongues. Therefore He was going to give to "THIS PEOPLE", by His disciples, the appropriate sign, the only one of all the signs that He had not needed to use. This "silence" in Jesus’ life teaches us more than many words could. It confirms that the PURPOSE of the gift of tongues complies with what Peter and Paul later said of it. It was the sign for this "unbelieving people" that God, according to Joel 2:28, was pouring out His Spirit from that time onwards, not only on Israel, but on "all people".

(*1) See chapter 14.

(*2) D. Gee, "Les dons spirituels" pp. 77.

Let us briefly recapitulate what we have already discovered in the Word of God. Contrary to the modern-day doctrine and practice of tongues:

1. What was uttered in tongues was never addressed to men, nor was it ever a tool for evangelisation, as Donald Gee and Dennis Bennett, the outstanding Pentecostal teachers themselves admit.

2. It was not a sign for believers but for unbelievers.

3. These unbelievers were exclusively Jews who were loath to admit to their unity with people speaking foreign languages, the Holy Spirit confirming in both Testaments that the sign was for "this people" of Israel (Isaiah 28:11, I Cor.14:22).

That is already a lot of errors, far too many, and it is nowhere near finished. What is always unpleasantly surprising when one goes to a meeting where tongues are spoken, is the incomprehensibility of what is said. The sounds emitted are often bizarre and they do not bear any resemblance to a real language. Some people, basing their ideas on I Cor.13:1, claim that it is "the language of angels". The fact is that every time angels spoke in the Bible, it was always in languages that were contemporary and understandable on that occasion... Moreover, it is strikingly clear that in this chapter the Spirit leads Paul to use the hyperbolic "even if"... Paul did not have the knowledge of every mystery, since he adds several verses further on that he only knows in part. He had not given his body to be burnt. As he owned nothing or very little, never had he the chance to give all his worldly goods to the poor. Nor did he speak every language of men and angels. 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" (I Cor.12:4). It was the conditional "if" that he used. A child could understand that.

In order to convince me, young fellow that I was at that time, specialists in the matter explained that we exceed our own capacities when we speak in tongues; from English (*1) we pass to the sublime level to join with the angels in their heavenly language. When we find ourselves short of words to say to God, the Spirit comes to our aid to lift us up one or two notches to realms that are inaccessible to the rich language of Shakespeare (*2).

At first I professed my reservation, pointing out that, quite on the contrary, I had observed strange noises, inarticulate sounds and constantly repeated syllables that had nothing angelic about them at all. Then these same friends, who had explained things to me with reference to angels, were all of a sudden explaining with reference to savages. It could be a dialect from the Indian tribes of South America, from Matto Grosso, from the natives of Borneo, or Central Africa! This seemed pure nonsense to me. Our language is one of the richest and most complex in the world; how could a rudimentary language with a hundred times less vocabulary sublimate what English couldn’t? When the Lord made Balaam’s ass talk, He did not make it express itself in confused sounds; it did not grunt just anything. Balaam understood very well what the ass said, in fact, they had a little talk together. Would the God who created man in His own image, and who by new birth also renewed man’s understanding, then lower him to be less articulate than a donkey? To find this out we need only look at what happened at Pentecost, where we find the norm of speaking in tongues. Each one of those Jews coming from many nations under the sun, "heard them speaking in his own language" (Acts 2:6), and they said, "How is it that each of us hears them in his own native language?" (v.8) A third time in v.11, after having listed fifteen different dialects, they ask the same question again, "We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!... what does this mean?" These were definitely real, spoken and contemporary human languages.

How then has another glossa, one in which we do not understand anything, been able to slip into people’s minds and take root so forcibly? We pick out that apparent contradiction in I Cor.14:2, where unlike in Acts 2, it is written, "for anyone who speaks in a tongue... no one understands him". So it is suggested that there were two sorts of tongues, one in Acts that was understood, and one later on that was no longer comprehensible. It is quite obvious that if the tongues in the epistle had been different from those at Pentecost, that should also come across in the term used to describe them. But there is nothing of the sort. The author of the book of Acts, Luke uses the same words as Paul does in his letter to the Corinthians. If the two tongues were not the same, Luke would have indicated it, if only by the use of different words. We know that Acts was written much later than the epistle to the Corinthians and that the latter was circulating in the churches. It goes without saying that Luke was well aware of the content of the letter as he was Paul’s biographer and travelling companion. No one better than he knew all about the Pauline thinking on this subject. If what he reports in his letter was different from what Paul said in his, he would have been sure to point it out so as to avoid any confusion. But he did not, he spoke of it as Paul spoke of it, and he used the same word to talk about one and the same thing. It is the same glossa in one case as in the other. The Greek texts are clear. Paul’s languages are as well-known as those Luke talks about, since he says, "all sorts of languages in the world" (I Cor.14:10) (*3). In Paul’s mind, the issue definitely concerns human languages. If they were in the world (or of the world), why were they not understood by the Corinthians just as they had been only a few years earlier in Jerusalem?

Let us see exactly what took place in Jerusalem. When the Holy Spirit came, separate tongues of fire (or like fire) descended on the disciples, who spoke separately and distinctly in the dialects of the people present. Fifteen countries and peoples are cited; each person understanding the language of the country he came from. There was nothing miraculous in the hearing; the emission was supernatural but the reception was natural, since it was their own particular language that they were hearing. As for the fourteen other languages, unless they knew them, they would not have been able to understand them, any more than the Corinthians could understand languages that they did not know.

Bearing in mind that an illustration is worth more than a long speech, let us picture the scene.

Let us suppose that there were Corinthians present at Pentecost, armed with fifteen tape recorders, and that they separately taped what was said and understood there. Imagine that back in their assembly in Corinth they played the fifteen different cassettes to their Christian brethren who only spoke one language, possibly two. The inevitable conclusion would be the same as that of Paul, "no one understands"! Of course, because being in Greece, no one could understand anything apart from Greek! Let us take things one step further. If these cassettes were transported through the centuries and listened to today in churches in Paris, London, New York, Berlin, and Melbourne, the result would be the same. These fifteen languages that were so well understood would be no more understandable nowadays than they were in Corinth in the first century. Conversely, imagine that, with the help of the Time Machine, we transported the whole church of Corinth to Jerusalem; they would have understood the words uttered miraculously in their tongue, Greek, but they would have grasped nothing of the fourteen other tongues. And if Greek had not been on the Holy Spirit’s programme that day, they would have understood nothing at all! That is exactly what happened in their meetings in Corinth; languages other than Greek were being spoken by the Spirit. No one understood anything, not because it was another kind of tongue, an ecstatic or angelic language, but quite simply because it was not Greek. What was being said, although in languages as contemporary as at Pentecost, was as inaccessible to them as phoning in Arabic to someone who speaks only English!

For the same reasons, we note that, at Pentecost some people, as in Corinth, did not understand what was being said. It is clear, according to Acts 2, that there were two groups of Jews present at the religious festival: 1) Those who were visiting Jerusalem from fifteen different countries (v.5) and who, besides Aramaic, spoke one of these fifteen languages. 2) The local Jews, who obviously could not speak or understand any of these fifteen dialects. They were "the others" (v.13), who mocked, saying, "They have had too much wine". These native Jews, who spoke only Aramaic (as the Corinthians only spoke Greek), did not understand any better than the Corinthians would have what was spoken on that day. Instead of finding out from those who did understand, they preferred to make it a subject of derision, saying that the disciples were under the influence of alcohol. It is fitting to note that they could have said exactly what Paul wrote about twenty-five years later to the Corinthians, "No one understands". And if no one understands, Paul challenges them with the stinging remark, "... won’t people say you are mad?" To sum up, what does this prove? That the tongues in question in Corinth were not unintelligible ecstatic verbiage or an inaccessible angelic language, but real tongues as national and contemporary as those in Acts 2. And if, as Paul says, no one grasps them, it is quite simply because they did not have in their church, unlike the crowd in Jerusalem, the fifteen ears to understand them!

In conclusion, the "no one understands" has been turned into a very convenient shield to hide this fourth error, which can thus be kept from any possibility of being checked. Fortunately, the Holy Spirit has foreseen a means of verification that will throw more light on the error we have just mentioned. It will open the way to study a fifth one which is extremely serious. This will be the topic of the next chapter.

(*1) French, in the original.

(*2) Voltaire, in the original.

(*3) "and none of indistinguishable sound" (J.N.Darby)

We are now going to consider the gift of interpretation. To the charisma of tongues, the Holy Spirit had affiliated that of the interpretation of these tongues.

When the apostle Paul spoke in tongues (and he did so more often and better than anyone else), he did not allow himself to exercise this gift in the church, that is, in a group composed mainly of believers. As this sign was for unbelieving Jews, he says that, in the church he prefers to say only five intelligible words rather than ten thousand in tongues (I Cor.14:19). He is therefore two thousand times more favourable towards using everyday language than towards speaking in tongues, or in other words, he is two thousand times more against speaking in tongues than against not doing so. When Paul spoke in tongues, it was not like a man beating the air, nor like a clanging cymbal, nor like a trumpet giving an indistinct sound. No, he is efficient. He exercises this gift in the right setting, that is, in the presence of the super-patriotic, holier-than-thou Israelites who disdainfully rejected those foreigners, the Gentiles, the Goyim. If we follow him on his numerous journeys, we find him always and everywhere in conflict with the Jews, and even with converted Jewish brethren who disagreed with him on this essential point. When he came back from his first missionary journey to the church in Antioch, from which he had set out, "he reported all that God had done through them and how He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles" (Acts 14:27). On such occasions, and they were many, he would exercise the gift of praising the God of Israel in the language of pagans. He would so confirm, to those who were reluctant to admit it, both the vocation of the Gentiles and his apostleship to them (Gal.2:7,9).

There was no risk of Paul going off on the wrong track, but he was not the only one who spoke in tongues. Others who had that charisma did not put it to the same use. Forgetting for whom the sign was meant to be a sign, they got personal satisfaction from making others listen to them even in church meetings, and in the absence of opposing Jews, where there was no reason for tongues, except occasionally, one time in two thousand for example (I Cor.14:19). Since it was at that time a genuine gift of the Spirit, Paul did not want to forbid its use. For some people it had become like Samson’s Herculean strength, which was also a gift from God. Like latter-day Samsons, they were using and abusing their gift without intelligence. This is what Paul reminds them: to also use their intelligence. It was not gifts that the Corinthians lacked but the intelligence to use them properly. Paul has to reproach them for remaining at the childhood stage. Being still fed only on milk, spiritually speaking (I Cor.3:2), they were all into their own little linguistic demonstrations. Being mere babes as far as understanding went, they were all proud of showing off that they had at least "that". Let me paraphrase in an everyday style what Paul has to tell them in verses 16 and 17 of chapter 14, "It’s all very well to say lovely prayers and give thanks in Egyptian, or Persian, or Latin, but there is not a single extremist Jew with you this week from Alexandria, or from Persepolis, or from Rome. We’d love to believe that your Latin conforms to the highest classical standard, and that it really makes you happy, and maybe even does you some good. But what on earth is the use of it, if no one here understands a single word? How do you want us to say ‘Amen’, if we don’t know what you said?"

Four things stand out concerning the Corinthian practice of interpretation:

1. Linked to the speaking in tongues, the interpretation ought to complete it and attain the first and permanent objective that was to serve as a sign for "this people" and their unbelief, a subject that has already been developed in depth.

2. It was absolutely necessary for a translation to accompany every case of speaking in tongues. Why? So that, as Paul wrote, what had been said could be understood, and the thus-edified hearers could add their personal amens, and intelligently join in the prayer they eventually understood. To translate tongues in the church, the Spirit of God gave the one who spoke, or someone else present, the no less extraordinary gift of interpretation.

3. It was obligatory that what was said in tongues be accompanied by interpretation. In no way could tongues be exercised without its explanatory complement (v.28). What is more, it was imperative to make sure that there was an interpreter in the assembly before starting to speak in tongues and not after; "... if there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet". In the light of these precise instructions, we glean the impression that the Corinthians themselves were far from the divine model. Today more than ever, these texts have been put aside in the most offhand manner.

4. Another practice, which was also antibiblical, was to pray or sing together in tongues. Interpretation, even if envisaged, would become impossible in the hubbub that followed. There again, God disapproved of the way things were done, labelling it with the strong term of "disorder". The Holy Spirit could not endorse the opposite of what He had commanded. And what did He command? Here is the answer, "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret" (v.27).

Having reached this point in our study, if we add up the distortions made to the divine teaching, we can already see that the conservative Pentecostals have missed the target just as much as the charismatics whom they hold in contempt. In athletic terms we would say that both have left the track.

These deviations are already very serious. But what comes next is even more alarming. In all the cases of interpretation that I have checked personally with the greatest care and with an open mind, I have discovered nothing other than human fabrication and deliberate trickery. What surprised me was the unacceptable difference between the brevity of the tongues and the disproportionate length of the interpretation; for example, some slow syllables of a short song were transformed into a veritable marathon in the translation. By dint of questioning those in high places, and by cross-checking, I finally obtained a confession that:

Having taken offence at such deceit, I was candidly told that the interpretation was not a real translation but a heart-felt translation!! So it was just any odd thing left to the fantasy of a pseudo-interpreter. This is neither what the Bible says, nor what was taught by Donald Gee, the master of Pentecostal thinking, who affirms that interpretation is truly a translation. (*1) Someone else, to try to get himself out of this embarrassing situation, told me that the interpretation was not the translation of what was said in tongues, but the response from heaven to what had just been said! Here we are completely rambling. Scripture is deliberately trampled underfoot, that very Word that points out (v.16) that giving thanks in tongues must be interpreted so that we may understand "WHAT IS SAID", so the congregation can show their agreement and join in the thanksgiving by saying, "so be it, Amen"!

Another Pentecostal leader dared even to tell me that the same case of speaking in tongues could very well have several interpretations! ! So, if I understand rightly, it is like sowing wheat which at harvest time, might turn out to be corn, oats, rye or barley without any surprise on the farmer’s part. Do you expect that a cat can give birth at the same time to kittens, puppies and chicks? But no one gets upset when, in the spiritual realm, we are asked to believe that ONE kind of speaking in tongues brings forth several kinds of interpretation? Does Pentecostal Darwinism exist? Are we witnessing a sort of mutation of the species? Am I just supposed to accept all this passively without pointing out the fraud?

To verify that the word concerned is TRANSLATION, let us look at the Greek term hermeneia here used by Paul. It is also found elsewhere in the New Testament. Here is what comes out in some examples, (using the KJV):

-- Mk.5:41 - "He took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi, which is, being interpreted (hermeneia), Damsel, I say unto thee, arise".

-- Jn.1:38 - "Rabbi, which is to say, being interpreted (hermeneia), Master".

-- Jn.1:41 - "We have found the Messiah, which is, being interpreted (hermeneia), the Christ".

-- Jn.1:42 - "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation (hermeneia), Peter".

-- Jn.9:7 - "Wash in the pool of Siloam, which is by interpretation (hermemeia), Sent".

-- Acts 9:36 - "A disciple named Tabitha which, by interpretation (hermeneia) is called Dorcas."

Now we only have to follow these with:

-- I Cor.12:10 - "... and to another the interpretation (hermeneia) of tongues".

-- I Cor.14:26 - "... everyone has... an interpretation (hermeneia)".

We thus arrive, with Donald Gee, at the indisputable evidence that interpretation (hermeneia), the term chosen by the Holy Spirit, could not be anything other than TRANSLATION.

A retired Salvation Army colonel once told me of his utter consternation at what happened during a worship service he attended. He had given thanks in Lingala, the vernacular language of West Africa, his mission field. In the assembly, a patented "interpreter", believing it was tongues because he had not understood anything, gave an "interpretation" which had nothing to do, by any stretch of the imagination, with what had been said.

I personally noted that this counterfeiting was a known thing in the circles concerned. I was present in a meeting when a Christian from the Cape Verde Islands had just prayed in his own language, a Portuguese dialect. Scarcely had he said "Amen", that an elder who was wiser than the others interrupted the word of interpretation by saying, "Our brother has just given thanks in his native tongue". This means that without this intervention, there would have been the "miracle" of an interpretation, evangelical in terms of the vocabulary used, but in the spirit as false as the words of the young fortune teller of Acts 16:17, who, by the same spirit of confusion was able to say, "These men are the servants of the Most High God who are telling you the way to be saved".

One can imagine how attentively I listened to one incident of speaking in tongues that was as jerky, staccato and incomprehensible as all the others, in the middle of which suddenly stood out a thrice-repeated "spiriti santi" in Italian. Having grasped this triple repetition, I watched for its reappearance in the interpretation. I waited for it in vain. The Holy Spirit who supposedly inspired this repetition in the tongues, would He have forgotten it in the interpretation? Or was it that the Spirit of God was not responsible for either? But then, what "spirit" replaced Him?

A Spanish friend, in a French Pentecostal community, prayed the "The Lord’s Prayer" in his native language. An interpretation followed that was anything but the "Pater Noster". For him also, this was one more proof that the person interpreting, not only did not understand any more than the others, but he was also deceiving everyone! beneath a veneer of evangelical phraseology! Profoundly saddened by this newly discovered dishonesty, I made up my mind to move on to a more advanced verification. I asked a Scottish brother who had the typical broad accent of his country, to put the "The Lord’s Prayer" twice in a row onto cassette. Armed with this recording and that of two other "genuine" tongues followed by their interpretations taped "on location", I went to see some very moderate Pentecostal friends, for whom exaggerations and digressions were only found amongst others. No one in the community doubted their conversion, or their sincerity, or the reality of their "charisma". After praying together, I asked them to interpret the pseudo and "real" tongues. This was done without objection or reticence. Alas, and alas again, the "The Lord’s Prayer" in English transformed itself into a message of encouragement in French! As to the rest, it was as different from the first as the Rhone is different from the Rhine and flows in the opposite direction. This episode reported back to my Scottish friend left him speechless. He could only mutter, "Oh dear! Oh dear!..."

Indeed can we still call ourselves Christians when we team up so closely with him who disguises himself as an angel of light? In order to get out of this sticky situation, many people claim, without really believing it, that one does not submit a gift of the Spirit to an electronic test. But it must be pointed out that it is not the test that created the trickery, it only confirmed it and it demonstrated moreover that these so-called gifts are not among those good and perfect gifts that come down from above (James 1:17)!

What follows now has nothing to do with electronics, but I ask you to consider it nonetheless. Several people have discovered that what is said in tongues can be oriented in opposite directions according to the interpreter’s feelings of sympathy or antipathy for the object of the supposed message. I have personally been the target of two exhortations in tongues, concerning the same situation; the "divine" words of interpretation were all consolation in one case and all condemnation in the other! Could this be serious? Could the Holy Spirit be Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde according to the mood of the moment? A certain Pentecostal pastor betrayed his own misgivings. Because he had personal problems he found himself in some assemblies becoming the target of speaking in tongues that were too detailed and too oriented not to have been premeditated. Aware of this, his conclusion was the following, "I only accept what is said about me in tongues where they do not know me"!! He thus admitted there was trickery. But in his eyes it was purely one-sided. He accepted the exhortations as valid where he was not known, for there no barbs were thrown at him. But everyone knows that if a coin is counterfeit on one side, it is also on the other, heads and tails, and even around the edge! In addition, what more than sufficiently demonstrates that everything is purely human and subjective in today’s gift of tongues and that the Holy Spirit has nothing whatsoever to do with it, is that the interpretation is always the reflection of particular tendencies and feelings:

-- The R.C. charismatics show their allegiance to the doctrines of their church.

-- The spiritualists find occult revelations.

-- The Pentecostals, being evangelicals, adopt an evangelical language, as well as phraseology and convictions specific to their group.

-- The day when Muslims speak in tongues, the prophet Mohammed will perforce have pride of place in their "inspired" vocabulary. Will that confer on Islam a label of divine authenticity? All this means that once the incomprehensible gift is confronted with its interpretation, the mask falls off and its real face is revealed.

I have also noticed that those with whom I speak or correspond were never more irritated than when I confronted them with the verification of these two gifts. It made them really furious, some going so far as to hurl curses at me. So, is it only tongues that should not undergo the test of truth? On the contrary, the Bible commands us to test the spirits (I Jn.4:1-3).

The gift of the evangelist and the spirit that inspires him are to be put to the test according to I Cor.15:1-4: "The Gospel (the true one)I preached to you, ...otherwise you have believed in vain;" or according to Gal.1:8: "a gospel other than the one we preached to you... (is) condemned."

The sign of authenticity of the faith and of the gift of healing of the one who lays his hand on the sick was, according to Mark 16:17,18, that the sick person should be made whole.

The gift of prophecy had to be tested according to I Cor.14.:29, "... two or three prophets should speak and the others should weigh carefully what is said"; or, according to v.32, "the spirit of the prophets are subject to the control of prophets", which means that the gift of prophecy cannot contradict the general prophecy which thus puts it to the test. And above all, prophecies had to come true (Deut.18:21).

As for Paul’s gift (among others) of being an apostle, (Eph.4:7 - 11), he can say, "The things that mark (prove) an apostle - signs, wonders and miracles - were done among you with great perseverance" (II Cor.12:12).

Why should two of these charismas alone be given a kind of diplomatic immunity or be placed above the laws of testing? To those who balked at submitting their gift to the decisive tape recorder test, objecting that such an atmosphere would not be conducive to the action of the Spirit, I reminded them:

a) that David Wilkerson whom they admire, claims (along with many others) to be able to speak in tongues at will, anytime and anywhere;

b) that recently the French television showed a programme where three Pentecostals sat in front of the cameras and held a conversation in tongues. The setting of the recording studio lent itself just as well as a church gathering to this spiritual manifestation, and that, even in the same atmosphere of camera shots and spotlights, they recorded an interpretation;

c) that one of their top leaders, Gordon Lindsay says in The Gift of the Spirit, page 147, that "ONE tongue can have SEVERAL DESIRED INTERPRETATIONS" (emphasis added).

With these three Pentecostal premises that my opponents could not reject, I challenged them as follows: Prepare a meeting where one of you will speak in tongues and three others will make a recorded interpretation in isolation. The interpretations that ought to say more or less the same thing will then be compared.

Here in writing, I stand by this yet unanswered proposition as a challenge to any charismatic, tongues-speaking community. Why has there not yet been, and will there never be, an answer to this offer, which is, nevertheless, an honest one?

Here is the combined advice from two Christians, who, having been burnt, have backed off from a doctrinal position and moral attitude they now disapprove of: