The matter of 'tongues' Part 2 - Is it a necessary experience?

By Stephen-Claude Hyatt, Contributor

FROM THE inception of Christianity it has been established that glossolalia is the initial evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit. This concept has been left unchallenged for so long, it has become an accepted norm. Anyone who has never spoken in an unknown tongue has not received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For most individuals, this is based entirely on the Lukian perspective of Pentecost in Acts 2:1-4. The first thing that the apostles experienced at the coming of the Holy Spirit, was the experience of tongues which "sat upon them all."

Some hold steadfast to the view that the Spirit-filled realm and life is extremely important for the Christian. As a result of this importance, God has arranged it so that the Christian can know very definitely whether or not s/he has entered into this experience. The way in which God has arranged it is by giving a physical and an audible proof of one having received the baptism in the Holy Spirit. This physical proof, many hold, is the evidence of tongues. Speaking in tongues therefore, became the sign and evidence that the Holy Spirit had descended upon New Testament Christians, and also the sign for us today.

Arguments against this tradition

The best place to begin a case against this traditional viewpoint is in the Bible itself. The navel of the traditional view is the experience of the Apostles at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). However, theologians have been analysing what could be termed the Johnian interpretation of Pentecost (John 20:21-22). In this episode, we read of Jesus commissioning His disciples "As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."(NIV) With this, Jesus "breathed on them and said, 'receive the Holy Spirit, if you forgive anyone his [her] sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Many argue that this text in John shows the disciples being prepared for Pentecost; therefore, this was not a second interpretation of but a preparation for Pentecost. Jesus was prophesying about Pentecost, and not necessarily giving the Holy Spirit to them. However, this line of reason is quite shaky, and thus needs clarification, which has not been given. We need to recognise that the books of St. John and Acts are independent of each other. Different authors, writing from different perspectives on the same happenings, wrote them. Therefore, the events in Acts are not related to the events in John in terms of continuation. In addition, there is nowhere in the text which suggests the Holy Spirit was not given in John 20:22. On the other hand, Jesus' words in verse 23 suggest they (the apostles) were given the Holy Spirit. They now had power to forgive sins, and again the sign of breathing on, which is Biblically and theologically sound. Let us say yes, these two texts are related, John was in preparation for Acts. The only palatable explanation would be, the twelve received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22, and the others received it in Acts 2. However, the disciples never spoke in tongues or operated in the Spirit until Acts 2, with the others, as Jesus had not yet ascended. This of course is only 'food for thought.'

Another Biblical documentation which suggests that glossolalia is not necessarily the initial evidence of being baptised in the Holy Spirit, is John 1:29-34. In this scenario it is suggested strongly that Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit, at His baptism by John. It is said the Spirit fell upon Him in the bodily form of a dove. The question therefore is, did Jesus really receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit during His water baptism? According to a Theologian named Riggs, at River Jordan, Jesus was baptised in the Holy Spirit. He received the anointing from God (Holy Spirit) which was the starting point of His ministry. A.J. Gordon suggests, Jesus did not enter into public ministry until He had received the Holy Spirit, which He did after the dove experience. Therefore, it is safe to say yes, Jesus had the Holy Spirit with Him from birth. However, it was at His water baptism that He was also baptised with the Holy Spirit. He received the power of the Holy Spirit then, thus empowered for service.

If the above statement is true, why then did Jesus not speak in tongues during His empowerment? If speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit at all times, are we saying that Jesus was not empowered with the Holy Spirit during His baptism at Jordan by John? I would like to suggest that Jesus did receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit then. However, the initial evidence was not in what was heard in terms of utterance from the candidate; rather, what was happening around. The dove sat upon Jesus from above, and the voice of the Father proclaimed "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." There was proclamation, the importance of which we will explain later. Jesus never spoke in tongues then, even though He did later in the narratives. However, one evidence that was seen, is that of the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of same, being operational in Jesus' life.

Join next week as we continue the debate.

Rev. Stephen-Claude Hyatt can be contacted at yahgnosis@hotmail.com.

Back to Commentary