Initial evidence

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Just want to get your thoughts,

In Acts 2 we have were the men and women in the room where filled with the Holy Ghost, cloven tongues like as of fire, it filled the house where they were sitting.
Could there be a pause from the initial infilling to when they appeared to the multiple and began speaking in the languages of those standing by?

Could we have in just these scripture verses, the infilling of the believer, and then the gift of diverse tongues in operation?

I believe that you may have a valid point. Let’s analyze the passage.

2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

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

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

It does appear that there may be a period of time between whence they began speaking in tongues and when it was noised abroad. But I don’t think it really shows that it is a different occasion. I’m not sure we have enough information to say conclusively. I think that the logical conclusion is that the speaking in tongues is the prophesying in the language that everyone understood in their native tongue.

Feel free to post your thoughts to the contrary.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What do think the initial evidence is?

I’m trying to not have confirmation bias. Let’s just see where the exposition of scripture leads us. Speaking in tongues may be the initial evidence. Prophesying may be. It seems at the moment that prophesying is a bit more consistent than tongues. I’m trying to learn something.

[Tithesmeister]

Another pertinent question. Does speaking in tongues save you? I think surely everyone would agree that it doesn’t. Initial evidence is a sign, right?
1Cor.13

[1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

As opposed to:
Heb.2

[1] Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.
[2] For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward;
[3] How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
[4] God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

[Tithesmeister]

Are there examples of being filled with the Holy Ghost and no mention of tongues?

[14] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
[15] Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
[16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
[17] Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
[18] And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
[19] Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Here they received the Holy Ghost, but it doesn’t say that they spoke in tongues or prophesied.



Luke 1

[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
[67] And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

Here before Pentecost, no tongues are mentioned.

Acts 9
[17] And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
[18] And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
[19] And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.
[20] And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.

Here Paul received his sight and received the Holy Ghost. There is no mention of him speaking in tongues but he did preach which may be interpreted as prophesying.

[Tithesmeister]

Another example of receiving the Holy Ghost with no mention of tongues. But they spake the word of God with boldness (prophesied?).

Acts 4
[31] And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

[Esaias]

Let's begin with the prophecies of Joel:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit. And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
(Joel 2:28-32 KJV)

As quoted from the Greek LXX used by Peter:
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
(Acts 2:17-21 KJV)


What was going to happen? The key part is "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy."

There are 7 categories of recipients of the Spirit that are mentioned: all flesh, your sons, your daughters, your old men, your young men, the (my) servants, and the (my) handmaids. The Spirit would be poured out upon 'all flesh', meaning 'everyone'. The following six categories are subdvisions of the 'all flesh'. That means sons, daughters, old men, young men, servants, and handmaidens. Now, all the 'sons' would be all the males, of any age. And all the 'daughters' would be all the females, of any age. Old men and young men are two particular categories of the males, but pretty much covers all the males. Servants are all the males who serve God, and handmaidens are all the females who serve God. Notice, the "young me"n and the "old men" are included in the categories of "sons" and "servants". The "sons" comprise all the males, as does the "servants". They are both the same group - the males. The "daughters" and the "handmaids" likewise are the same group, since both groups are synomyous with 'all the females'.

Each of these categories were to experience something as a result of receiving the Spirit: the sons and daughters were to 'prophesy', the young men were to 'see visions', the old men were to 'dream dreams', and the servants and the handmaids were to 'prophesy'. So we see that all the males ("sons" and "servants") were to "prophesy", and all the females ("daughters" and "handmaids") likewise were to "prophesy". (The old men and the young men are included in the groups of servants and sons.) So there was to be a universal outpouring of the Spirit, and every possible category of person who would receive the Spirit would experience the same thing: they would 'prophesy'. Thus, according to Joel, there was to be a universal 'evidence' or 'sign' of the Spirit being received: each person who received the Spirit was to 'prophesy'.

What does 'prophesy' mean? Why, it means to 'speak the words that God gives you to speak.' It generally means 'ecstatic utterance', it most definitely means speaking forth whatever the Spirit of God leads you to speak. So, the initial evidence, if you will, according to Joel was that people - ALL people - who receive the Spirit would 'prophesy', or speak whatever God gave them to speak.

Now, what actually happened when this came to pass?

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
(Acts 2:1-4 KJV)

There was a sound like a strong wind, and there were visions of cloven tongues of fire coming down and sitting upon the disciples, but these things happened BEFORE anyone received the Spirit. When they were 'all filled with the Holy Ghost', they 'began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'. Each person received the Spirit, and each person began to speak in tongues.

But wait. Joel said they would 'prophesy', yet we see them 'speaking with tongues'. How do we resolve this dilemma, this discrepancy? Notice what Peter said: 'This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.' This is that.

What is what? This means the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues. That means the outpouring of God's Spirit upon all his male and female servants and them prophesying. The outpouring of the Spirit is fulfilled in the disciples being filled with the Holy Ghost. And the 'prophesying' is fulfilled in the 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance'.

This means that the universal sign clearly stated by Joel is fulfilled by 'speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance'. This means that there is a prophesied, old testament expectation of a universal sign or evidence of receiving the Spirit, and the new testament clearly and unambiguously identifies that evidence as 'speaking with tongues.' In other words, the 'initial evidence doctrine' is found in both the old testament and the new testament.

Now, what exactly was going on in that upper room?

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
(Acts 2:5-6 KJV)

The multitude that gathered showed up after the tongue speaking had commenced. So we can rule out that specious and silly notion that the disciples were speaking in tongues in order to preach to foreignors. But notice carefully what is said: "...because that every man heard them speak in his own language."

Read that again: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language. I'll repeat that for emphasis: EVERY man heard THEM speak in HIS OWN language

The common idea is that some disciples were speaking one language, some another, and so forth. But that is not what the text says. It says that each person in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE. Let me repeat that for emphasis: EACH PERSON in the crowd who gathered to see what was going on, heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in HIS OWN NATIVE LANGUAGE.

So the guy from Libya heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking in Libyan. But the guy from Rome heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Latin. And the guy from Greece heard EVERY DISCIPLE speaking Greek. And so forth.

Think on that for a moment. Picture it in your mind. Try to imagine Peter speaking Latin, Greek, Libyan, Phrygian, and however many other languages were represented there - ALL AT THE SAME TIME. And imagine each of the other disciples there doing the exact same thing.

IMPOSSIBLE you say? Yes, it is biologically impossible for a person to simultaneously speak multiple languages AT THE SAME TIME. When a word comes out of your mouth, it will be in one or another language, but not both, or three, or ten.

The disciples were speaking in tongues before anyone showed up to ooh and ahh. So there they are, speaking in tongues. The whole lot of them, all at the same time. A crowd showed up to see what was going on, and lo and behold EACH PERSON in the crowd hears ALL THE DISCIPLES speaking in his own native language. And the crowd is 'confounded'. Indeed, so would you be 'confounded' in such a situation.

IF one disciple was speaking one language, and another disciple speaking another language, and so forth, would you be confounded? No, you might be amused but not confounded. Confounded means 'utterly clueless as to how something can be happening'. Stunned. Blown away. Astonished. Astonied (as the KJV puts it).

BUT WAIT, there's more. Some folks showed up and were NOT confounded at all. They knew exactly what was going on. 'These guys are DRUNK.' They are mad, they are on crack.

And isn't that what Paul said would happen if the UNBELIEVING came in to the midst of a meeting where everyone is 'speaking with tongues'?

If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
(1 Corinthians 14:23 KJV)

So how did all those 'devout men' hear every single disciple speaking HIS OWN language, when these disciples were simply 'speaking in tongues'? Apparently God caused them to hear in their own language. Is this too much? Well, was it too much for a sound like a rushing mighty wind, or cloven tongues of fire? Was it too much for the three lepers whose footsteps God amplified into the sound of an approaching army that none but the Syrians could hear in 2 Kings chapter 7?

So then, not only is speaking with tongues the Biblically documented universal, initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost, it is also not about speaking in languages known to the hearers.

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
(1 Corinthians 14:2 KJV)

No man understandeth him... unless God gives a supernatural understanding of what is being said... unless God causes you to hear it in a way that makes sense to you...

[Esaias]

Now, in the new testament a distinction is made between prophesying and speaking with tongues, where also speaking with tongues joined with interpretation of tongues equals prophesying. Which shows us that both are ecstatic utterances by the Spirit, prophesying being an ecstatic utterance in a language the speaker and the hearers understand, and tongues being an ecstatic utterance where the speaker and the hearers do not understand (thus requiring the interpretative gift).

However, 'prophesy' in the old testament appears to be somewhat broader in meaning. 1 Chronicles 25:1 indicates prophesying can be equivalent to 'making music in praise of God on instruments'. Jeremiah 14:14 indicates that prophesying can take the form of vision and 'divination' (casting a lot). The important thing to note is that Joel said all those who received the promised outpouring of the Spirit would prophesy. And, the interpretative problem you mention is created by the apostle Peter himself: under divine inspiration he identified the speaking in tongues that was occurring as the thing that Joel had said would occur. Or in other words, the apostle himself understood 'they shall prophesy' as being fulfilled by 'and they all began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.'

The old testament indicates there was to be a universally occurring, immediate effect of receiving the Spirit: 'they shall prophesy'. When this came to pass, the recipients 'spake with other tongues'. And furthermore, Peter said 'this is that': 'they began to speak with other tongues' is 'they shall prophesy' as meant by Joel.

We all agree that 'the new testament interprets and explains the old testament'. In this case, in regard to receiving the promised outpouring of the Spirit, the new testament interprets 'shall prophesy' as 'speak with other tongues'. And therefore the conclusion is established: the old testament teaches a universal initial evidence of receiving the Spirit, it identifies this evidence as 'they shall prophesy', and the new testament explains this as being fulfilled by speaking in other tongues when a person receives the Spirit.

Every time receiving the Spirit is mentioned, with one exception, we see the recipients speaking in tongues. There is a reason for that from a theological pov (Luke's intention in recording these events). And in the one exception (Paul's) it likewise doesn't actually say he DID receive the Spirit (though we assume he did and for good reasons) and furthermore we know he spoke in tongues a lot according to his own admissions found elsewhere. So then, the fact the book of Acts does not mention tongues in some particular instances cannot be taken to mean that tongues did not occur, unless we are going to be consistent and say receiving the Spirit did not occur, either.

*The 3000 were among those who heard the disciples speaking in tongues, and who were wondering what was going on. And the apostle identified for them the fact that what was going on (all these people speaking in tongues) was the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy regarding the outpouring of the Spirit. He then proclaimed the resurrected Jesus as Lord and Christ, and they asked what they should do about that. They were told to repent and be baptised in the name of this resurrected and exalted Jesus Christ, and were told if they did that they too, would receive of the poured-out Spirit. They had already been told that the exalted Jesus 'hath poured out this which you both see and hear'. The fact they accepted the apostle's message and were baptised indicates they were anticipating and expecting to experience the same thing they had seen and heard happening with the disciples in the upper room. Why? Because they saw and heard them all speaking with tongues, were told this is the promised Spirit outpouring, that Jesus was causing it to happen, and they too could have this if they would repent and be baptised in the name of this same Jesus.

Now, where else in all of modern Christendom will you find anything even remotely similar to that?

[Esaias]

And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle. And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp. And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
(Numbers 11:24-29 KJV)

After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines: and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy: And the Spirit of the LORD will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man.
(1 Samuel 10:5-6 KJV)

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?
(1 Samuel 10:10-11 KJV)

[Tithesmeister]

Tongues are for a sign . . .

1Corinthians 14
[21] In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
[22] Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
[23] If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

The circumcised did not believe that salvation was for the Gentiles. But they heard them speak with tongues. Which they (who didn’t believe) conceded that salvation was for the Gentiles as well.

Acts 10
[45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

It is interesting to say the least, that the Bible never mentions that speaking in other tongues is the initial evidence. The Bible says it is a sign, as opposed to THE sign.

Maybe it was one sign and prophesying was another sign? Were the cloven tongues like as of fire another sign? I think so. What about the sound from heaven? Another sign?

Hebrews 2 speaks of signs and wonders.

[3] How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
[4] God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Are there examples of being filled with the Holy Ghost and no mention of tongues?

[14] Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
[15] Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
[16] (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
[17] Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
[18] And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
[19] Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

Here they received the Holy Ghost, but it doesn’t say that they spoke in tongues or prophesied.

1. *Something* happened that was observable to both the recipients AND the onlookers.

2. There is nothing to suggest that *something* was not the same thing that happened every other time in Acts.

3. Peter told Simon "you have no part in this matter" and the word used is "logos" which means "word" and strongly implies speech.

4. Therefore, there is no reason to think something *else* served as the sign or evidence but that which served as such in all the other occasions.

Luke 1

This is before Jesus was even born so falls under the OT examples, like the ones I already mentioned and discussed.

Acts 9

Already discussed.