“Tongues” Are A Sign, Part 3
Lesson 3: Comparing The Principle To The Experience – Acts 8
So far in this series we have done two things: established a basic principle for understanding tongues and then used that principle to analyze the first historical event when tongues were spoken.
- The principle is: tongues are for a sign to unbelievers not believers.
- Tongues were first spoken miraculously in Acts 2:1-13.
In Acts 2 the unbelievers were the Jews who refused to believe the Old Testament prophecies pointing to Christ. They also rejected the avalanche of evidence from Christ’s ministry, all of which shouted His Messiah credentials.
Because the term “unbeliever” is also associated with any person who is not a Christian, Acts 2 wasn’t as clear an example as other events when tongues were spoken. Those who heard tongues in that passage were believing in Christ as well as a ministry transition. But, the other examples bring more clarity to the discussion.
With these thoughts in mind we proceed to the next occasion on which tongues were spoken in judgment against unbelief, Acts 8:1-25. Read more
“Tongues” Are A Sign, Part 2
Lesson 2: Comparing The Principle To The Experience – (Acts 2)
The Bible contains both historical and technical information. Some books are more history than others (Acts) and some include more technical information (Romans), but all the books of the Bible represent some history and some technical information.
In order to understand any particular teaching in the Bible you must understand both: history and technicalities.
The history includes culture, language, circumstance, etc. and, let’s face it, they did things in Jesus day we would never do in ours – such as knocking a hole in the roof of a friends house to gain access to Jesus. Without the technical data, we might conclude that the best way to approach Jesus is through a hole in the roof.
Historical events without explanations are open to any meaning a person would like to impose on them.
Can you imagine how Abraham-sacrificing-Isaac would be interpreted if we didn’t have technical data to explain it? Fortunately, we weren’t left in the dark. No space to discuss it here but for a full read on that event go to this post.
For now, suffice it to say that bare history is not enough. We can’t understand the history without the passages that explain the history.
Paul used this history-plus-technical-information approach to explain tongues and a lot of his information came from the Old Testament not the New.
That makes since. “Tongues” was a Old Testament mechanism (sign) used to rebuke Israel in both the Old and in the New Testaments. The circumstances were different but the principle was the same. “Tongues” (foreign languages) were used in both instances to convince obstinate, unbelieving Israel that they were working against rather than with God.
In the Old Testament the sign was manifested when Israel was taken captive by Assyria. In the New Testament the sign was manifested when the followers of Jesus, the Man they threatened and eventually killed, spoke in foreign languages on the Day of Pentecost. They were shocked on both occasions. In each case God had their full attention.
Hebrews understood the purpose of signs but Gentiles did not. They had no background or knowledge that could help them know how to respond to this type of phenomena.
It is, therefore, no surprise that Paul’s explanations were directed at Gentile not Jewish believers. He was speaking to people who had little, if any, knowledge of the Old Testament.
And to help bridge the knowledge gap and simplify the issue, Paul condensed his explanation to one short statement which we must use to interpret the “tongues” experience. That principle is found in I Cor. 14:22 and briefly stated is:
Tongues are a sign to unbelievers not to believers.
We discussed the principle thoroughly in part one. Now we must apply the principle to the first historical occasion when tongues were spoken in the New Testament, Acts 2:1-13. Read more
“Tongues” Are A Sign, Part 1
Lesson 1: The Principle and Purpose of Tongues
There is nothing wrong with being a child but there are certain characteristics and tendencies of children that should not be permanent. People who don’t grow beyond childhood are considered dwarfed or stunted. They are pitied not respected.
The Bible encourages us to be childlike in expressing faith or in the knowledge of evil or in malice but we are to grow and mature in every other spiritual way.
Paul actually associated immaturity with carnality. To the Corinthians he said, “I could not speak to you as spiritual, but as carnal, even as babes in Christ.” (I Cor. 3:1). Youth is a place to start not to stay.
One childhood tendency which should never characterize Christians is the tendency to mimic the people we admire. In the case of children that would be parents. All children have the natural desire to be “like” their parents and imitating them is not only cute it helps encourage their growth.
But it’s just the opposite for adults. When adults imitate one another it stunts their growth, suppresses their individuality. Sad.
Young Christians are referred to as “babes in Christ” and have the same tendencies as human children. And, like human children, they want to identify with those they look up to. In the early stages they do this by imitating those they admire.
This, of course, is not acceptable in the long run. We are to understand what we are doing and why we are doing it. “Understanding” is one area in which we are definitely told to be adult-like.
We can’t know everything but we should know everything we can.
This is exactly the argument Paul used In 1 Corinthians 14 in reference to tongues. Instead of experiencing or trying to imitate tongues, Paul suggested we should understand this phenomenon and he made this point very clearly:
“brethren, be not children in understanding…in understanding be men – adults” (v. 20).
He was attempting to clarify the confusion and correct an error not endorse a practice. Read more
Where Do Dispossessed Demons Go
The following links access the most competitive prices. Using them helps defray expenses for this site.
The devil has possessed no one.
Not yet anyway. If he had he would have been dispossessed a long time ago and out of the picture now.
You see, all dispossessed spirits are confined to the prison of hell until the day of judgment and while confined they no longer have access to humans or their environment (Jude 1:6).
So the devil has possessed no one yet. He’s still “going to and fro in the earth, and…walking up and down in it.” He leaves the “possession” of humans to his demonic minions.
But more importantly – and this is a huge observation – because dispossession puts demons out of commission permanently, I seriously doubt possession is a key part of Satan’s strategy these days.
Since all “confined” demons pose no threat, each dispossession represents a loss in man power. Since he lost a large number of demons during the ministries of Christ and the Apostles he has probably rethought that approach. “Possession” is probably not his method of choice these days.
And demons can be dispossessed or neutralized in more than one way: Read more
The Devil Can’t Do That
Well, actually he can – he really does have that kind of power – but there are very good reasons to think he can’t use all that power at will.
The actions of “demons” are attributed to the “devil” in this post since demons follow his lead – making him master – and always act under his authority. Because demons only represent the devil’s agenda it isn’t wrong to say the devil is responsible for their actions.
The Devil’s Names
Unfortunately, while the Devil is not a mythological character – he is a very real person – there are many mythological ideas floating around about him. His many names contribute to the confusion:
- Serpent – stemming from the devil’s embodiment of a snake in the Garden of Eden. The word is associated with stealth and deceitfulness for obvious reasons.
- Beelzebub – literal meaning: “Lord of the flies” but was originally the name of the deity worshiped by the Philistines. In the NT the Pharisees used the name as a clear reference to the devil when they illogically accused Christ of using Beelzebub’s power to cast out demons. Christ’s response ratified their meaning while exposing their bad logic.
- Devil – from the Greek “diabolos” meaning slanderer or acccuser. As the devil, he is completely cynical. He views everyone the way he sees himself – only bad. Psychologically, slandering and accusing others makes him feel better about himself but it has no judicial value even when the accusations are true. He cannot condemn anyone.
- Satan – this name speaks of his adversarial nature. He obstructs and opposes those who faithfully serve God’s purposes. There are several instances of this in the Bible.
- Murderer – a moniker given by Jesus in John 8:44 indicating his malicious intent from the beginning. However, while murder is clearly his intent and he definitely has the power to murder anyone at will he is not allowed to do so.
- Liar and father of lies – another name given by Christ and the characterization is reflected in his many interactions with God and humanity starting with Adam and Eve in the Garden.
- Belial – meaning worthless. There are no direct references clearly identifying the devil as Belial. This term is used to refer to people who by their own choices have adopted the mindset of the devil and by that choice become the children or sons of Belial. But since the people so referenced are the worst kind – idolators, rapists, murderers – it isn’t a stretch to suggest Belial is in fact the devil.
Note: Every person is born with a sinful nature and therefore vulnerable to his influence but not every person who commits a terrible sin like murder becomes his child. Those who do commit such sins and regret it CAN still become God’s child. Those who, by personal choice, commit to murderous intent are the ones who become officially the devil’s child.
- Prince of this world – Jesus called him this three times in John (12:31, 14:30 & 16:11). Similarly Paul referred to him as the “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that works in the children of disobedience” (Ephesians 2:2) and as the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
- Dragon – while “serpent” depicts the more quiet, subtle, apparently harmless expressions of Satan’s destructive nature “dragon” symbolizes the more fearful, powerful expressions of his ill will. This name is used only once (Revelations 12) and is associated more with his response to end time events than his everyday activities. As time runs out he becomes desperate and expresses himself in more violent ways.
- Apollyon – the Greek form of the Hebrew word “Abaddon” which literally means “place of destruction” otherwise known as “the abyss” or “bottomless pit.” As king of this pit Satan was awarded the name Apollyon (Revelation 9:1-11) thus associating the place and a person with destruction.
- Lucifer – of all the names this one is the most misunderstood. The Latin meaning, “light bearer,” and English rendering, “morning star,” speak of beauty and glory. The original meaning of the name characterized the state in which Satan was first created but with his reversal of character has taken on a sinister feel.
His original created state, described in Isaiah 14:12-14 and Ezekiel 28:12-18, depicts artistic ability (light, color and music), wisdom and strength. Although these passages are referring directly to the King of Babylon (Isaiah) and the King of Tyre (Ezekiel) there are clear indications that another personality is being defined.
Isaiah’s king fell from “heaven” and Ezekiel’s was in the Garden of Eden. Either the devil is being referenced or these human kings have supernatural powers. And since both these kings were quite evil – and were destroyed because of it – and the devil does have political influence it isn’t difficult to see him as the personality behind the personalities.
But, there is a lot of overlap in the characterizations of these names. They don’t each represent
uniquely different qualities and taken together they describe him mostly as the ugly person he is.
They aren’t all about supernatural power.
Yes, some of the names suggest powers that are well beyond the scope of human ability but taken in context those powers operate with limitations. No where is he ascribed the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to whomever he wants. Read more
Tim Pepper - Beautiful Frustration