Notes on "Glossa" Being "languages" Not "Earthly languages"
This a Very Important Point to Realize, as Today Tongues-Speaking Is Criticized by Cessationists Because Sometimes It Is Not an Earthly language; But, Rather, a Heavenly language--a Prayer language.
It must be mentioned that the Greek word,
"glossa," which is translated as "tongues" in the KJV, does not mean
"earthly languages." It simply means, "languages."
The KJV often adds the word "unknown" to the text when
discussimg tongues, but the word "unknown" is not in the actual Greek
Cessationists like to make the following statement:
Greek word, 'glossa,' in the Holy Bible, is always refering to earthly
languages; therefore, the occurances of 'glossa' in the book of 1 Cor.
should also be acknowledged as refering to earthly languages.[Instead
of a prayer languge]"
But this argument is no less than absurd.
Although, it is true that the tongues-speaking of the Acts 2 Pentecost
comprised of earthly languages (otherwise the gift of interpretation
would have needed to be employed); to say that the occurances of
"glossa" in 1 Cor. always means "earthly" languages is pure guesswork.
Of course the Holy Bible usually speaks of languages as earthly
languages; that is because writers of the Holy Bible were usually
writing of peoples of this planet! There was never a time when the
apostles were commissioned to go to into heaven and speak in the
heavenly tongues. If they did that, and wrote about it, they would say:
"We spoke in the heavenly language ('glossa')." The word 'glossa' would
then refer to heavenly languages also(just as "robes" refers to earthly
robes; but in the book of Rev. the word "robes" refers to heavenly
There is no case study in the Holy Bible to see if
a writer would use the word "glossa" to describe an other-than-earthly
language--but there is! In 1 Cor. 13: 1 Paul is mentioning "glossa"
when he writes:
"Though I speak with the tongues [glossa] of men and of angels, and have not charity." 1 Cor. 13: 1
that Paul uses the word "and" to emphasize that his prayer/praise
language is in addition to "earthly" languages (which is why he refers
to it as "tongues of angels").
Cessationists need to be asked
a question; that is, "How come, if our verbal heart prayer is from
"self and to God" it has to be an earthly language that someone may
understand--especially if no one else needs no know what is prayed; as
it is no one else's business?
If tongues are always earthly
languages, then there is no reason for anyone to pray/speak in tongues
alone, or with others of same nationality. But it has already been seen
that Paul (he does speak in tongues outside of church), the Ephesians
of Acts 19, and those at Cornelius' house (of Acts 10), all spoke in
tongues or prayed in tongues without foriegners around to hear in a
Cessationists, of course, do not agree; in
fact, they show their disposition with a qiuck end-all statement that
they speak (below):
"The tongues of Acts 2 Pentecost were
foriegn languages, and since Peter describes the Acts 10 'Pentecost' in
similar terms it must mean that the Acts 10 'Pentecost' was also
foriegn langages, which means that all tongues-speaking was foriegn
languages, which means that the tongues-speaking exhibited in churches
today as ecstatic speech, rather than foriegn languages, is different
from Biblical tongues and must be rejected."
Glossolalia On Feast of Pentecost
It is true that
the manifestations of Acts 2, and Acts 10 are similar, but they are not
exactly alike. The Acts 2 occurance happened on an actual "Pentecost;"
on the actual Pentecost, that was the fulfillment of the Old Covenent
Jewish feast of Pentecost. It was not necessary for the fulfillment of
the feast of Pentecost to be renewed every year with foriegn languages
Just as the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread
were fulfilled only once--at the cross and not needed to be fulfilled
again; so the Acts 2 Pentecost was a one-time-only manifestation, and
only at Jerusalem.
There were many Jews gathered there (at
Jerusalem) who understood different dialects, and would be impressed
and pay special attention as they heard messages spoken in their own
native languages. However, at Cornelius' house (Acts 10), there were no
foriegners there to hear the messages in their native dialects. Also,
the Pentecost of Acts 2 included a "sound from heaven, as of a rushing
mighty wind," and "There appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire,
and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2: 2-3) When Peter said that the
Gentiles at Cornelius' house "receieved the Holy Spirit just as we" he
did not have to mean that they received the Holy Spirit in the exact
same manifestations (of earthly languages, wind, and fire), but that
they did indeed receive the Holy Spirit with tongues and prophecies as
Peter did not have to understand the tongues-messages
as actual foriegn languages to know that the Gentiles received the Holy
Spirit baptism and were praising God. Also, if cessationists are
correct that "glossa" always refers to earthly languages, then that
word is off-limits to a mother who hears her 1 yr old child babbling
(mimicking speech) and wants to say that her daughter is speaking her
baby language; because cessationists insist that "glossa" only refers
to known foriegn languages.
The cessationist insistence that
"glossa" always means known earthly languages, is ridiculous. Their
rendition of 1 Cor. 13:1 is written below:
"Though I speak with
the tongues of men and of angels, with the tongues of men being known
earthly languages and the tongues of angels again meaning known earthly
languages, but have not charity"
There was a uniqueness to the
Acts 2 Pentecostal experience that makes it sound like the speakers
were speaking in earthly foriegn languages. Because within the Acts 2
description of tongues-speaking, the Greek word "dialektoc" is used
twice. The word, "dialektoc;" is the word that always, 100% of the time
means, "dialect," and hence, an earthly language:
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues ["glossa'], as the Spirit gave them utterance... Now when this
was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded,
because that every man heard them speak in his own language
["dialektoc"] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to
another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear
we every man in our own tongue ["dialektoc"] wherein we were born... we
do hear them speak in our tongues ["glossa"] the wonderful works of
God." Acts 2:4-11
The lack of the word "dialektoc" in the book
of 1 Cor. is evidence that none of the tongues-speaking that Paul spoke
to the Corinthians of were earthly foreign languages. He must have been
speaking to the Corinthians of tongues as ecstatic speech (tongues as a
heavenly prayer/praise language).
120 Spoke in Tongues
below, are reasons why some people believe that all 120 persons (rather
than just the apostles) were embelished with tongues of fire and spoke
Acts 1:15 "And in those days Peter stood up in the
midst of the disciples [not just apostles] (altogether the number of
names was about 120)"
Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost
had fully come, they were all  with one accord in one place. And
suddenly there came a sound from heaven."
Acts 11:17 speaking
of the Acts 2 Pentecost: "If then God gave them the same gift as He
gave us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could
withstand God?" Notice; not just apostles who recieved the gift but the
120 "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ."
believe that all 120 did not speak in tongues, but that more people
than just the apostles did. They say that Mary and other women were
staying in the house with the apostles when "They were all with one
accord in one place... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and
began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2: 1-4). The verses below show
that Mary and other women were staying with the apostles at that time:
went into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John,
and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son
of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These
all continued with one accord inprayer and supplication, with the
women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And inthose
days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the
number of names together were about an hundred and twenty)" Acts 1:
Also, Luke records that a man named Cleopas and another
man, were walking and saw the resurrected Lord Jesus, and "they rose up
the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered
together, and them that were staying with them" (Lk. 24: 33).
Cleopas and the other were speaking to them ,Jesus appeared in their
midst, saying to them: "behold, I send the promise of my Father upon
you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with
power from on high" (Lk. 24: 49).
It seems unlikely that Cleopas and the other would be excluded from the promise Jesus was offering.
Who prays in tongues; is it our spirit or God's Spirit? Listed below are some verses from 1 Cor. to consider:
14:32 "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."
14:14 "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful."
"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray
with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will
sing with the understanding also."
14:16 "Else when thou shalt
bless with ___ spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the
unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not
what thou sayeth?"
14:2 "For he that speaketh in an unknown
tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God: for no man understandeth
him; howbeit in ___ spirit he speaketh mysteries."
In 14:2 and
14:16 above, the word "the" is not in the Greek, but it may be supplied
as often the word "the" is not in the Greek but is added by
translators; but the word "your" should not be added to 14:16, and the
word "his" should not be added to verse 14:2 because that would expect
the word "spirit" to be in the genitive case in both instances--which
it is not. Therefore the KJV adds the word, "the" to both verses.