8) Various tongues and interpretation of tongues
I have group these two together because of the obvious relationship they have
with one another. Some tend to think this gift is different then the tongues
that Christian receives at the time of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. Others
think that they are the same gift. Many also think that speaking in tongues is
required in order to actually be baptized in the spirit. These are not new
arguments but they have plagued the church and Christians for a century. We must
understand what the scriptures teach and do not teach in order to resolve these
questions.
A) Is tongues the only evidence of Spirit anointing?
The validity of the baptism in the Spirit has already been dealt with as
being one of the two parts of being baptized into Christ. We not only saw Jesus
baptized in water but also in the Holy Spirit. Any good follower (if that is
what we claim to be) would realize they must follow Jesus' example. It is at
this point that things start to get vague. If Jesus is our greatest example of
how we should live, why doesn't the scriptures report that at the time of His
Spirit baptism He spoke in tongues? Many may overlook this fact when dealing
with tongues as the only evidence of the Spirit's baptism but it is to their own
mistake that they do. We don't see any evidence that Jesus was anointed with
power until at least forty three days after his Spirit anointing. The very first
sign performed by Jesus was turning water into wine (John 2:1-11). The second
sign as some believe was the words of knowledge that Jesus had when speaking
with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:5-26).
There are three sections in the book of Acts that mention Spiritual Baptism
and the affects it had on those being baptized. The very first is when the
disciples were gathered together in the upper room waiting for the Holy Spirit
to come upon them. There could have been as many as one hundred and twenty
people in the upper room. ACT 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost had come,
they were all together in one
place. 2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a
noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they
were sitting. 2:3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing
themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 2:4 And they were all filled
with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was
giving them utterance. We see three things that took place at this time: 1)
noise of a rushing wind, 2) tongues of fire resting on each person, and 3)
speaking in unknown tongues as the Spirit willed. Only one of these is remotely
similar to Jesus' experience and that is the tongues of fire that rested on
them. While Jesus did not have tongues of fire resting on Him, He did have the
Spirit in the form of a dove rest upon Him (Luke 3:22). So what accounts for the
difference? First of all John prophesied that Jesus would not only baptize in
the Spirit but also in fire (Matt 3:11) and God told John that he would be able
to identify the Christ when he saw the Spirit descend upon Him and remain (John
1:32-33). So in Jesus' case it was so that John could identify Him as the one
who Baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fire, and in the disciples case it was to
fulfill the prophesy of John.. So the noise of wind and the speaking in tongues
have no common ground with Jesus' experience.
In the second instance we see gentiles receiving the Holy Spirit. ACT
10:44 ¶ While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon
all those who were listening to the message. 10:45 And all the circumcised
believers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy
Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. 10:46 For they were hearing
them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 10:47
"Surely no one can refuse 
the water for these to be baptized who have
received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" In this passage we
see two occurrences: 1) the people spoke in tongues 2) the people exalted God.
The speaking in tongues is the identifying feature that Peter recognized as the
same experience as the disciples had on the day of Pentecost. If we are familiar
with this story we know that Peter was hesitant to go and meet with gentiles for
it made him unclean as a Jew. God would not allow Peter to just preach to the
gentiles but by having them receive the Holy Spirit in the like manner as the
Jews, Peter had to follow God's lead and declare the gentiles heirs of the same
grace and recipients of the same Spirit. Was this the evidence (speaking with
tongues) that all should experience? No, not according to this scripture. What
about the baptism with fire that John said that they also would be baptized in?
Not only does this scripture say they were speaking in tongues but also exalting
God. Is this an evidence? If it is, it isn't mentioned in the other examples we
looked at.
The third and final experience that is spoken about in scripture states:
ACT 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on
them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 19:7 And there were
in all about twelve men. This is the third time that we see that tongues
are mentioned as a evidence that a group of people have
received the Holy
Spirit. In none of the instances does it state that all spoke in tongues. We
neither see Jesus speaking with tongues or prophesying for that matter.
According to this scripture either of these experiences, speaking in tongues and
prophesy would indicate that the Spirit was received. Yet in the case of Jesus
we see no evidence of Spirit baptism until he changes water into wine. Now no
"religious" person would stand for someone turning water into wine as
the evidence of the Spirit anointing, but wasn't it in Jesus' case? It was His
first supernatural feat.
It would seem that we are trying to make something a standard which God never
intended to be the standard. Would it matter if a person prophesied or cast out
a demon or spoke in a tongue or had a word of knowledge as their first sign of
the Holy Spirit baptism? It shouldn't matter to us what a person displays or how
long it takes for it to come forth. It may be that because we are bent on seeing
this one sign (speaking in tongues), that the members of the body feel they are
being oppressed and afraid to move in the very gifting that God wants to
manifest as the evidence. The individual may even be moving in a gift that so
unnerves church leadership that persecution has suppressed and stunted the
moving of God in the person. We need to release the body to move as God desires,
not push them into a mold that is just limiting and unhealthy. We who are
spiritual know that any one can speak in tongues as well as prophesy and on
occasion move in any of the spiritual gift that are available, so why must we
force the point to those who are immature?
