Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 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. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 2:4 And they were all filled [that is, diffused throughout their being] with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues (different languages), as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out [clearly and appropriately]. |
Subject: what is the importance of tongues? |
Bible Note: Greetings Kalos! With all due respect to Dr. MacArthur, I differ with him on this point, and generally on this topic. He is part of a denomination that asks potential pastors if they have ever spoken in tongues. If the answer is yes, one will not be a pastor with them. So, he has a definite bias on this topic. I have read his books on this subject and he goes overboard in his attempts to make his case. For instance, he argues that the plural 'glossa' refers to the real gift, while the singular 'glossa' refers to a conterfeit gift which Paul is trying to correct. This is in spite of the fact that Scripture nowhere makes such a distinction, and that Paul himself give instructions of how to use the singular 'glossa' within a church service (1 Cor. 14:27). See post number 61619 for a more detailed examination of this issue. But, back to the issue at hand. This phrase is only used once in all of Scripture. How can anyone possibly say anything conclusive about it? ;-) Do we deny that 'tongues of men' are real because Paul is making a hypothetical statement? But, we turn around and say that 'tongues of angels' cannot be real. ;-) One of the quote implied that angels do not use any kind of language. Where does Scripture make this statement? Gill supports his view that angels do not have a language by referencing Is. 6:3: "And they were calling to one another: 'Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.'" Where does this say anything about angels having no language? Henry changes the comparison. He says that Paul is refering to speaking all of the languages of men and being able to speak like an angel. Barnes, Clarke, and JFB all allow that Paul could be speaking of an angelic language. Regardless, my point is simply this my friend, it is all speculation. No one can conclusively either way, though I would argue that the scale tips more toward there being an actual language simply because of the way the verse is constructed. Otherwise, Paul is combining a real thing with a non-existent thing - which would not make any sense. :-) Overall, one's outlook will depend upon one's position regarding tongues in general. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |