Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CONFUSED BY ECSTASY
David A. Swincer
ISBN: 978-0-9808703-1-2
Web: www.integritypublications.biz
Email: publications.integrity@gmail.com
The contemporary background of ecstasy in the Mystery Religions of the first century
and beyond, is very significant in appreciating the nature of the biblical gift.
Of particular personal interest to me, was his careful tracing of the historic roots of
tongue-speaking in the various denominations. This alone deserves wide publicity, as it
is often very poorly understood, and usually quite prejudicial.
There are many historic traces of teachings and developments that show remarkable
research and high academic excellence.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PERSPECTIVES
There is no shortage of material available on the glossolalic phenomenon and the
Pentecostal/charismatic movement. In the midst of the discussion, some very significant
issues have tended to become reduced to mere objects of "political" discussion, or
curiosities. Biblical gifts of God are abused at one extreme or totally denied at the
other. In between are a variety of emotionally guarded positions.
The chief concern in this study is the understanding of the true glossolalic
phenomenon, in distinction from the confusing element of ecstasy.
The starting point is the assumption that there is an authentic gift of glossolalia
that presumably is potentially valid today, although under what conditions and why is a
different question. Gifts of teaching, preaching, and pastoring are self-evidently valid or
able to be independently validated, but what is the validation of speaking in "tongues"?
Indeed, what is "speaking in tongues"? Considering the difficulties of defining the term,
and the apparent difficulties in ascertaining and authenticating the gift, one feels
compelled to agree with Robinson (Meyer 1975, 142) that the phenomenon has stolen a
position out of all proportion to its biblical importance and ecclesiastical value.
Robinson, a glossolalist and former Pentecostal preacher states:
There are sixty-six books in the Bible, and only three of them mention tongues. There are 1,189 chapters in the
Bible, and only seven refer to tongues. There are 31,162 verses, and only twenty-two mention tongues. Sheer
quantity is not, of course, a proper criterion for evaluating scriptural teachings. By the same token, however, a
practice which is mentioned so seldom, hardly deserves the attention that some give tongues, and the benefits
do not seem to be commensurate with the cleavages that are created.
Similarly, Bergsma (1965, 13) reflecting on the repetitious and almost daily
"unsignificant (sic) revelations" of modern glossolalists, believes that they are
"misguided or ... presumptuous. It is like the Himalayan Mountain in obstetrical labour
and producing a mouse!". The preoccupation and emphasis is out of all proportion to the
minimal benefits derived, and indeed the mischief it generates.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Dogmatic assertions and practices of various groups call glossolalia into a
position of contention that is really dependent upon appropriate definition of what
glossolalia precisely is and a determination of what other phenomena might be
associated with it. It is the author’s contention that ecstasy is a confusing element in
contemporary glossolalic practice, and that much of this confusion arises from an
incorrect interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14, which is used to validate an incorrect
practice.
The focus of this study is upon ecstasy as the confusing antecedent of Corinthian
glossolalia. Most commentators accept ecstasy as the most significant characteristic of
the Corinthian Christian glossolalic phenomenon. This assumption is questioned in this
research, because it needs to be clarified. It is contended that ecstasy is the confusing
element because it was characteristic of the contemporary Corinthian mystery religious
practice and that that background was carried into the Corinthian church thus colouring
Paul’s treatment of the subject. It is not to be seen as an essential element of glossolalia.
Most commentators agree that the glossolalic phenomenon in the Acts is different
from that at Corinth. What then is a valid charismatic glossolalia? It is contended that
the Acts draws attention to the only authentic cases (and they are three) of glossolalia in
the Bible. The book of First Corinthians gives a corrective to an abuse, with no clear
authentication of a gift. Paul gives guidelines necessitated by the background of
religious ecstasy. Hence, instead of proposing ground rules for a valid spiritual
expression, it becomes apparent that First Corinthians is giving a restrained corrective
against an abuse of contemporary culture that masqueraded as an authentic Christian
experience. It is ecstasy that is the confusing element to this picture.
Manifestation of this phenomenon of ecstasy through the years has often been a
confusing element. Ecstasy is a point of debate about authentic prophetic gifts in the Old
Testament. It is a point of debate about valid revival movements from the second century
A.D. forward. It is a significant point of debate in contemporary society and the
Pentecostal/ charismatic movement of the twentieth century.
Ecstasy is the focus of this debate, which shows the polarization of views on the
same phenomenon, some declaring it to be of God, others as strongly affirming that it is
of the devil. Some see it is a neutral phenomenon, or a psychological phenomenon.
The issue is further confused by the manifestation of ecstasy and associated
phenomena in a variety of cultures that in many cases approximate to the phenomenon of
claimed spiritual gifts and their expression. It will be necessary to examine these
phenomena to help to ascertain the nature and source of the phenomena, and to
distinguish them from authentic biblical phenomena.
By focusing on ecstasy and Corinthian glossolalia, it will be established that there
is a key to understanding the relationship between ecstasy (enthusiasm) and the
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
expression of a variety of manifestations, religious or secular. Proponents of glossolalia
refer to First Corinthians as the test case for a spectrum of glossolalic expressions –
usually accompanied by much enthusiasm – which differ in content and concept. They
are unable to adopt a single agreed position.
A careful study of the significance of ecstasy is pursued to help to establish the
nature of the test case at Corinth. However, since Corinth is a case of abuse, it is
necessary to trace back to Acts (which makes reference to authentic cases of glossolalia
in the Bible) to ascertain the nature of glossolalia there. In turn, this pursuit will force
the study back to the Old Testament, because all the expressions in the Acts are related
to the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel. The prophecy of Joel in turn bears on the nature
of prophecy generally, and its supposed association with ecstasy.
This retrospective study of prophecy makes it possible to clarify the principle of
the relationship, if any, between ecstasy and gifts in general, and glossolalia in
particular. It also bears on the special case of 1 Corinthians 14:21, referring to
glossolalia in a prophetic setting. Having set that foundation, it is then possible to move
forward to apply those principles to the twentieth century to clarify authentic spiritual
manifestations, and in particular to address the issue of authentic charismata.
The overall significance of the study is to provide a basis for authenticating a
valid glossolalic expression, and all this comes from the foundation of the test case in
Corinth, which in turn is dependent upon an understanding of ecstasy in the antecedent
Mystery Religions of Corinthian contemporary society.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
A majority of scholars, writing on glossolalia in the comparative contexts of the
Book of Acts and 1 Corinthians, state that there is a practical difference in the terms
used for glossolalia in each context. Their stated position is that ecstasy is the element
that distinguishes 1 Corinthians from the passages in Acts. Commonly Acts is deemed to
present intelligible language, whilst 1 Corinthians is held to show a phenomenon of
ecstatic utterance. Since this is the assumed position, it is necessary to look at the issue
of ecstasy to discover its very nature and the variety of contemporary secular
manifestations, in order to delineate its relevance to the phenomenon of 1 Corinthians.
This will be achieved, in part, by a look at a specific case study that will show
parallels, not only in the factor of ecstasy, but in associated phenomena that are common
to Corinthian Mystery Religions as well as enthusiastic religious practice (including
Pentecostal and charismatic practice – to varying degrees) as well as secular
manifestations.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
A range of ecstatic experiences will be examined to help delineate the
relationship between ecstatic behaviour and dissociated experiences that approximate
to religious euphoria.
As an extension of this comparative contemporary consideration of ecstasy, there
will be discussion of the Old Testament prophetic antecedents. Many writers suggest
that ecstasy was an essential element of the prophetic schools and prophetic procedure.
Whether or not that is so, will bear upon the New Testament expectancy from the Old
Testament prediction. The prophet Joel anticipated a day when the Spirit of God would
be poured out, and "Your sons and daughters will prophesy ..." (Acts 2:17b) "... even on
my servants ... I will pour out my Spirit ... and they will prophesy" (Acts 2:18). Is the
fulfilment on the day of Pentecost an ecstatic prophetic expression in the line of some
antecedent ecstatic prophetic expression in the Old Testament? These parameters will
be delineated, because they could be determinative for both the New Testament
expectancy and exegetical interpretation. Also, in Acts 19:6 glossolalia is linked to
prophetic utterance, and may be an extension of this antecedent correlation. Further, 1
Corinthians 14 shows a number of correlations between glossolalia and prophecy,
perhaps indicating a similarity of phenomena, apart from a comparison of purpose.
In addition, the reference to the Old Testament antecedent of God's rebuke to
Judah for its stubborn refusal to hear and obey His word: "Through men of strange
tongues ... I will speak to this people ..." (1 Corinthians 14:21), demands an examination
of the Corinthian position with this antecedent (as well as its correlation to any ecstatic
prophetic phenomenon). This latter will be part of the second volume.
Consequently, the conclusions drawn from the Old Testament prophetic
phenomenon via the Book of Acts will then be brought to bear on subsequent
enthusiastic religious practice.
The second major area is that of glossolalia. An examination of both biblical as
well as extra-biblical references will help in pursuing the nature of glossolalia and its
possible association with or dependence upon ecstatic experience. Certainly in 1
Corinthians there is the possible association of glossolalia and ecstatic experience (as
well as prophecy as perhaps an ecstatic expression of glossolalia).
Alongside this pragmatic study, a study of the purposes for which glossolalia
might be used, the conditions under which it might occur, as well as the sources of its
manifestation, will be pursued. Is "glossolalia" used consistently in the biblical
references?
From this second major area of study, which has many cultural aspects, it will
then be possible to address the relevance of glossolalia to the contemporary scene.
Indeed, it will also be necessary to ascertain if it is even valid beyond the New
Testament era. If glossolalia is shown to be valid today, when, where, and under what
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
circumstances should it occur? Are there guidelines to be observed?
These questions, and more, will open the way to take the study into the Pauline
area of corrective teaching in 1 Corinthians, as opposed to the historical accounting of
Acts. Based on the assumption that the Scriptures are authoritative and definitive on the
issues that they address, careful exegetical study can then be made of selected areas of 1
Corinthians 12-14. This subsequent study will draw together the cultural, historical, and
biblical backgrounds previously addressed, and will help to lead to a final delineation
of characteristics to be expected of authentic glossolalia.
In this second volume the criteria delineated will show that Corinthian Christian
glossolalia must be intelligible language, that it is not related to ecstasy, that it is a
concession to immaturity, that it may be appropriately exercised against protracted
disobedience, that normally it has no relevance (per se) in communication (it is a
vehicle only), that it is normally a sign gift, that it needs interpretation, and should not
be normally exercised by women.
From these criteria, it will be seen that there is a valid glossolalic gift, but that it
has rarely ever occurred in practice. However, it must be allowed under the sovereignty
of God, to be able to operate as and when He chooses.
By comparison, it will be shown that the common unintelligible utterance of most
modern (and indeed historical) glossolalists is not biblical glossolalia but is a
counterfeit of the true gift. It will be noted by way of clarification, that there are
glossolalic phenomena of a different nature to Corinthian glossolalia, and whilst they
have no biblical precedent or authentication, that does not prohibit their apparently
valid operation - but they are not to be confused with the authentic gift for the church.
In all this, ecstasy is the primary confusing element in relation to the true gift of
tongues (languauges).
NOTE: Due to the wide currency of the term “speaking in tongues” or
“glossolalia”, although not validated or authenticated, it will be used throughout the
book without distinction from a true speaking in tongues, or a true biblical glossolalia.
*****
A. KNOWN LANGUAGES
The phrase “tongues of men” (1 Cor. 13:1) simply means “human languages”.
There is no alternative (Robinson 1972b, 9). Reference to speaking in other languages
(Acts 2:4) can only mean speaking in languages other than one's own. And this is indeed
confirmed by the context: “... each of us hears them in his own native language” (Acts
2:8).
Γλωσσα, when not referring to the tongue as a physical organ, generally means
language or dialect (Robinson 1972b, 9), or further, the reference can be to "local
peculiarities of speech" (Moulton and Milligan 1930, 128). Behm (1964, 720) refers to
“An expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure and needs
explanation”. However, there is nothing to convey a sense of unintelligibility
irrespective of how the speech is intoned or the context in which it is uttered.
Sometimes a distinction is made between glossolalia – as a reference to some
ecstatic form of utterance (or incoherent speech, or angelic language, etc.) as opposed to
xenoglossia – and foreign languages unknown to the speaker (for example, Carson 1988,
79; Williams 1975, 16). This distinction, whilst not uncommon, seems to involve an
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
unwarranted assumption based on a common misconception about the nature of
glossolalia, namely that it is an ecstatic, un-intelligible utterance. This study seeks to
accurately define the term glossolalia and to correct common misconceptions. The more
technical term, xenoglossia, is a response to a misconception, and must not be allowed
to ipso facto displace the true meaning from glossolalia. Otherwise the term glossolalia,
as the actual biblical term, is defined to mean “speaking in verbal patterns that cannot
be identified with any human language” (Carson, 1988, 79) or “unintelligible, non-
cognitive utterance” (Williams 1975, 16), over against xenoglossia, a term foreign to the
bible, but whose meaning is essential to the biblical term, glossolalia. Hence Williams
(1975, 21) on the basis of this erroneous distinction, and his own definition of
glossolalia as an “unintelligible non-cognitive utterance”, concludes that, “my
contention is that at Jerusalem [Pentecost, Acts] as at Corinth, the phenomenon with
which we are concerned is glossolalia” and then extrapolates that this phenomenon “is
in fact basically similar to modern manifestations in Pentecostal and … neo-Pentecostal
circles”.
Glossolalia is too easily dismissed as not foreign languages on the basis of a
technical definition. This needs clarification.
C. LANGUAGES IN CORINTH
By contrast to Acts, 1 Corinthians speaks of a phenomenon that involves a
language spoken that is unintelligible to the speaker and the hearer, and which requires
interpretation (translation). Further, Paul notes that there are gifts of God to address this
phenomenon: the gift of speaking in languages, and the gift of interpretation of
languages. TWO steps are required.
As a phenomenon, the 1 Corinthians’ experience is quite different from the Acts’.
Acts identifies three historic occasions (“one-off” as far as can be ascertained) that
have no reference to interpreters, indeed Acts 2 and 10 specifically indicate
understanding by the hearers without interpretation. 1 Corinthians identifies a gift to the
church with a number of characteristics that distinguish it from the historic occasions of
Acts. This is the subject of this study, relating the gift for the church to its fuller
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
identification in the context of the Corinthian church and culture (and church history) and
especially for the church of the latter twentieth century, and beyond. On the evidence,
one cannot deduce the Corinthian glossolalic experience from Acts. The only valid
conclusion from Acts, is a foreign language unknown to the speaker that is used under
God's direction and enabling. Such an experience is no doubt quite valid in its own
right, as indeed other linguistic phenomena may also be valid, but that cannot be
established by reference to the Corinthian phenomenon, neither does it need to be.
2.2 MYSTICISM
On the basis of the following definitions, there are defined similarities between
mysticism and ecstatic phenomena that are worth noting for this study. Against the
Mystery Religious experiences of Corinth, where devotees of the gods became channels
for the gods to communicate directly to them, and then to speak through them in some
form of ecstatic utterance, the devotees are considered to be in direct contact with the
god – a mystical experience; and in a state of euphoria – an ecstatic experience. Hence
mysticism and ecstasy (and also trance) have several overlapping factors. Ellwood
(1980, xi) differentiates between the two terms mysticism and ecstasy, in that both relate
to intense experiences, but mysticism is used of religious experiences and ecstasy is
used generically of both religious and secular experiences.
Worcestor's (1897, 948) Dictionary defines “mysticism” as follows:
The tenets of the Mystics; a view of, or tendency in, religion, which implies a direct communication between
man and God through the inward perception of the mind; quietism; enthusiasm.
It is this claim to “direct communication between man and God” that is
2.3 ECSTASY
Since many commentators refer to glossolalia as “ecstatic utterance”, it is
essential to address the issue of ecstasy. In fact, Gundry (1966, 299) speaks of “the
N.E.B. translation and the agreement of practically all modern [1966] commentators on
the ecstatic interpretation”. Holm (1978, 141) says, “Speaking in tongues and ecstasy
have frequently been equated with each other”. Is it a valid concept as related to
glossolalia? Is it an integral part of glossolalia? An examination of several definitions
will demonstrate the relevance of this term.
C. PRECURSOR TO CORINTH
It is the assumed parallel between secular experience and the first century
Christian context of Corinth that causes problems in understanding true glossolalia. For
example, Thomson (1927, 284) claims that the Holy Spirit is a good example of
"exalted expression" and that Paul (in 1 Corinthians 12-14) describes "inarticulate
ejaculations, moanings, and mutterings". The Christian Church is thus conditioned to
thinking of glossolalia as essentially associated with ecstasy. Thomson (1927, 284)
further comments that it is in the resultant states of frenzy and trance (developed from
ecstasy) that Pauline glossolalia is experienced. Likewise, the New English Bible
(1961, 284) translates tongues as "ecstatic utterance" (1 Corinthians 12:10, 28),
"tongues of ecstasy" (1 Corinthians 12:31; 13:8), "the language of ecstasy" (1
Corinthians 14:2,4), "ecstatic speech" (1 Corinthians 14:4), or "ecstatic language" (1
Corinthians 14:6). This reflects “an almost universal view that at least in 1 Corinthians
(if not in Acts) speaking in tongues or glossolalia means ‘the broken speech of persons
E. EXTENSION TO TRANCE
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
It has been noted above, that trance is usually a development from ecstasy.
a. Subconscious States
In this somewhat passive state, there is a loss of awareness of the immediate
circumstances. Cutten (1927, 157) speaks of the ecstatic being "more or less oblivious
of the external world". Martin (1960, 99) says that devotees tend to be oblivious to the
tangible world, and Mowinckel (1934, 214) says that the prophets so concentrated on a
single idea that all other external influence fades or disappears, and all inhibition is
removed.
Alternatively, instead of simply being oblivious to the immediate circumstances,
there is the view expressed by Delitzsch (cited in Alden 1966, 153) that the ecstatic is
"taken out beyond the limits of the region of his temporal life, and comes in contact with
a remote world".
For others, ecstasy is the activity of the soul, while the body is at sleep
(Tertullian, cited in Alden 1966, 149). Angus (1925, 101) explains this further as an
experience of an "abnormal consciousness of an exhilarating condition" whereby the
soul was no longer hindered by the body, whereas Cutten (1927, 86) explains that trance
(or ecstasy) is the resultant condition of exalted mental powers, especially memory and
expression. Tertullian (cited in Clemen 1898, 346) also states that a tongue (or vision,
or prayer) is a prayer "spoken in ecstasy, that is, unconsciousness" (emphasis mine).
Supposedly this was the same experience that Adam had in Genesis 2:21 (Tertullian,
cited in Alden 1966, 149). Currie (1965, 288) concurs with this interpretation of
Adam's sleep, and then adds other experiences, like Abraham's "trance" (Genesis
15:12), and Peter's (Acts 10:10) and Paul's (Acts 22:17) visions.
The result of all these subconscious states, is some form of expression or
utterance, whether through prophet or secular devotee. This factor becomes particularly
confusing when characteristics of the Mystery Religions of Corinth are examined against
the Corinthian Christian experience of glossolalia. Angus (1925, 101) describes the
condition physically as "anaesthesia", in which there is an unconsciousness to pain and
the surroundings. He refers to the Bacchae, and the priests of Cybele (102) as being
"insensate to pain". But he extends this anaesthetic experience as a religious
phenomenon of all ages, especially during great revivals. It also applies to the
experiences of the Indian Yogi and the Christian martyr.
A particular case of this unconscious (subconscious) state, is that of the
Convulsionnaires (successors of the Jansenists) who exhibited glossolalia whilst in
their unconscious state, and remembered nothing when they resumed normalcy (Butler
1975, 31). Likewise, the Camisards in France spoke in tongues whilst the speaker was
in a trance (Butler 1975, 32).
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Historically, and especially in the relevant situation of the Mystery Religions,
there is frequently a glossolalic-type phenomenon associated with ecstasy/trance. This
is the confusing element to true glossolalia.
b. Associated Phenomena
Although this state of trance/ecstasy is tantamount to a subconscious state in which
the body ceases to impose limitations on the soul, nevertheless the mind is also
somehow dissociated from normal thinking. Burdick (1969, 84) explains that the
glossolalic experience is abnormal, in which there is a form of "dissociation within the
mentality of the person". Martin (1960, 99) speaks of losing the power of rational
thought and self-control. Tertullian refers to the condition as insanity (cited in Alden
1966, 149) which is a more colourful state than neutral subconsciousness. The
Dionysian seer was given the name mantis, which comes from a Greek root meaning "to
be mad, insane" (Clemen 1931, 191). Zaehner (1957, 25) refers to this orgiastic frenzy
as madness.
The contemporary precursors to Corinthian glossolalia consistently introduce a
confusing ecstatic/trance state that seems to be automatically associated with true
glossolalia.
a. Religious Precursors
Dunn (1975, 304) points out that "inspired utterance" was well known in religious
experience outside of Christianity. As far back as the Old Testament, the biblical
prophets were often regarded as prophesying as the result of ecstasy (e.g. Hengstenberg
cited in Alden 1966, 153). Eichrodt (1961, 312) states that the prophets were endowed
with "higher powers" in a state of ecstasy, and became men "in whom the word of
Yahweh is". Philo (cited in Dunn 1975, 304) says that the prophet has no utterance of his
own, but is "the vocal instrument of God".
Likewise, in the Egyptian worship of Amon, about 1100 B.C., a young man
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
became "possessed by a god and spoke in an ecstatic language" (Gromacki 1972, 6).
Coming down to the Graeco-Roman times, young people exhibited ecstatic
phenomena in which they were united with the deity, who spoke from them, and they
"uttered unknown, unintelligible speech" (Bergsma 1965, 8). The Mystery Religions of
Greece widely exhibited "inspired speech" in a state of ecstasy (Dunn 1975, 304). Dunn
(305) especially draws attention to the utterances of the Pythia at Delphi, always being
given in the first person, as evidence of the god actually speaking immediately through
her. Similarly, the devotees of Dionysus became filled with or possessed by the god, so
that their resultant action and words were attributed to the god (Dunn 1975, 305;
Clemen 1931, 191).
b. Alternative Sources
As distinct from the god speaking, Cutten (1927, 82) notes examples of an
alternative source for speaking in tongues. In 1566, in an orphanage in Amsterdam
seventy children were seized with "demoniacal possession", and in that condition they
could speak in foreign languages which they had never learned. Cutten (1927, 85) also
gives an example of a "neutral" source of xenoglossia, referring to an example from
W.A. Hammond. Hammond illustrates by detailing the experience of a girl who in a
state of ecstasy immediately prior to cataleptic seizure, would recite poetry and make
fluent speeches in French, yet she knew virtually no French at all. This may also be
attributed to "exalted memory" (see later).
Callan (1985, 126) taking a quote from Bourguignon, sees ecstasy as a trance-like
state that results in "substitution of automatic for voluntary activity". Any verbal
expression is seen as automatic, rather than necessarily being attributed to a god. Dunn
(1975, 84) more specifically explains ecstasy as resulting in experiences of "automatic
speech, as in some forms of glossolalia". What the resource for this language is is not
clear.
c. Christian Experience
Starting at the foundational experience at Corinth, Behm (1964a, 722) states
categorically, "In Corinth ... glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance". It is the
postulate of this study, that that is an erroneous presupposition from a faulty connection
with cultural precursors. Nevertheless, the position is common.
In the early church, Tertullian, according to Clemen (1898, 346), understands
"tongue" as a prayer spoken in ecstasy. This is a departure from previous
understandings, namely the evidence of possession, although it subsequently becomes
more significant, perhaps most emphatically in du Plessis. David du Plessis (1963, 82)
2.3.7 CORRECTIVE
Although the thought expressed in this section on ecstasy, implies a wide-spread
view of ecstatic experience resulting in possession by the god, who climactically
speaks through the devotee, this is not universally accepted.
Looking at the Old Testament prophets, Mowinckel (1935, 264) noted that the
discovery of an ecstatic element was later corrected by a return to the rational element
(265). Quite specifically, amongst the reforming prophets are men like Elijah and Elisha
who are not of the "excitable ecstatics" (Mowinckel 1935, 267). In another article,
Mowinckel (1934, 199) concludes that the reforming prophets never express an
awareness that their prophetic powers are due to possession by God. Rather, they are
conscious that their message is "the word of Yahweh".
Currie (1965, 289) cautions that there is a case to show that Peter's trance in Acts
10, or Paul's experience in Acts 22, both give a quite rational account of their
experiences, and they were in full command of their faculties. Subsequent events of the
second century church led to a deep mistrust of ecstatic messages (Currie 1965, 289). In
fact the Didache recorded, "not everyone speaking in ecstasy is a prophet except he has
the ways of the Lord about him" (cited in Campolo 1991, 120). A corrective in ethical
terms thus developed. John Dresher, in his book Spirit Fruit, states:
Spiritually we are not assured that the Holy Spirit is present simply because there is shouting, speaking, singing,
or jumping. We look for other evidence. The Scripture says this evidence is the fruit of the Spirit. When the
fruit of love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, humility, and self-control are apparent to
all who look, we know the Holy Spirit is in the life of a person and He is at work in them.
(Cited in Meyer 1975, 149)
2.3.8 SUMMARY
Glossolalia is a spiritual gift. Consistent with the other spiritual gifts there is no
experiential prerequisite. Preaching is not prefaced by trance. Teaching does not have
an ecstatic precursor. Evangelism does not require a mystical context.
Whatever might be the association of spiritual gifts with natural ability, careful
training and practice, there is no experiential pre-requisite. And yet, in most of the
literature glossolalia (as one of the gifts) is consistently associated with ecstatic
phenomena that replicates the secular experience of many religious groups. In fact,
glossolalia is generally perceived as only occurring as a result of first achieving a form
of ecstasy. An exalted experience has become the precursor for a spiritual gift.
In origin, it is the contention of this study, that the Corinthian Mystery Religions
are the background phenomena that strongly coloured the Corinthian Christian
experience of glossolalia. Paul's treatment of glossolalia is thus only understandable in
this proper context.
It has been a general failure to fully appreciate this contemporary background that
has led to a treatment of glossolalia in an ecstatic context making ecstasy the
prerequisite experience for a purportedly genuine spiritual gift.
Ecstasy is the confusing element.
No spiritual gift should be premised on experience, ecstatic or otherwise.
And if there is any apparent similarity of a spiritual gift with secular phenomena,
then there is a burden of responsibility on the exponent of the true, to differentiate his
true gift from any counterfeit gift or confusing element. Generally, this has not been done
– and ecstasy is that confusing element.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
2.4 TRANCE
2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
A close correlation between mysticism and ecstasy has been noted. Now there is
the need for clarification from another experience – trance. Worcester (1897, 463)
defines trance as “ecstatic, temporary view of the spiritual world” (italics mine).
Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971, 358) using the reverse of Worcester, defines ecstasy as a
"State of trance in which the soul is conceived of as departing from the body and
becoming united with the deity" (italics mine). This latter point – union with the deity –
was part of the definition of mysticism and also the experience of ecstasy, considered
above. Hence mysticism, ecstasy and trance are closely correlated, and hence their
correlated experiences historically and culturally need to be delineated, as they are
usually associated with some form of linguistic experience that is deemed to
approximate to glossolalia. Thomson (1927, 284) speaks of religious exaltation that
"passes on through ecstasy and frenzy to a state of complete trance". He maintains that
the speakers are in a trance state in the Corinthian church, when there are "inarticulate
ejaculations, moanings, and mutterings described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 12, 13,
14". So interrelated are the terms trance and ecstasy, that Callan (1985, 126) notes that
anthropologists usually use the term "trance" to refer to "ecstasy".
It is important to note that “trance” is often treated in a very restricted way,
especially in the context of hypnosis (Bourguignon 1968, 6). Further, trance behaviour
may also be interpreted as spirit-possession (Bourguignon 1968, 9). This possession
trance may vary from the chaotic expression in Kentucky revivals, to the orderly
behaviour of Balinese child trance dancers – both with dramatic behaviour – or to the
verbal impersonation of the shaman of the Nuba (Bourguignon 1968, 11). The verbal
expression of the trance state points to the confusing element in comparison with
glossolalia in a condition of “possession” by the Holy Spirit.
2.4.2 DEFINITION
Philo (1993, 297) suggests a comprehensive definition of trance:
Now there is one [1] kind of trance, which is sort of frantic delirium, causing infirmity of mind, either through
old age, or melancholy, or some other similar cause. There is another [2] kind which is excessive consternation,
arising usually from things which happen suddenly and unexpectedly. Another [3] kind is mere tranquillity of
the mind, arising when it is inclined by nature to be quiet: but that which is the best description of all [4] is a
divinely inspired and more vehement sort of enthusiasm, which the race of prophets is subject to.
This "best description" (the last of Philo's definitions) suggests an active concept
of trance, supposedly used by the prophets. From the perspective of the state in which
the prophet receives communication from the divine world, the anthropologist
concludes that there are two ways to receive direct communication. Wilson (1979, 325)
2.4.7 SUMMARY.
Like mysticism and ecstasy, trance is a concept that is mutually interchangeable
with them, and is used in much of the literature to imply a prerequisite experience that
climaxes in an association with a god or spirit (or demon) with the accompanying
manifestation of verbal expression that is construed as approximating to speaking in
tongues. It is this cultural correlation that clouds the understanding of true glossolalia,
by presupposing a highly emotional experience as a prerequisite. Much modern
glossolalic expression is therefore advocated and practiced in an emotional
environment that does not correlate with biblical guidelines.
2.5 PROPHECY
Already some correlation of prophecy with glossolalia has been noted, because
both have a close identity in 1 Corinthians 14 (and Acts 19). Consequently there is often
confusion between the two that requires both definition and clarification.
Clearly Philo saw the prophet as a person possessed and in a state of being "out
of his mind", and this he equates with ecstasy. This was a significant view held in the
first century.
Similarly, Dunn (1975, 304) speaking of rabbinic Judaism, says, "there was no
lack of Jewish charismatics claiming prophetic inspiration within the Jewish mission",
and further, that "Greek religion was no stranger to ecstasy and inspired speech" (304).
Dunn mentions the prophetic madness of Apollo, the ritual madness of Dionysus, poetic
madness of the Muses, erotic madness of Aphrodite and Eros, and the mantic prophecy
of the Pythia at Delphi.
Corinthian glossolalia therefore arose in the context of cultural assumptions of
ecstatic prophetic utterances and oracles of the Greek Mystery Religions. A failure to
appreciate this background, is a failure to extricate true glossolalia from its confusing
antecedents, and thus to attribute a simplistic ipso facto approval to an unauthenticated
phenomenon that may not even be remotely related to true glossolalia.
C. CORRECTIVE
Paul, author of 1 Corinthians 12-14, does not see prophecy as something that
involves trance (ecstasy) (Callan 1985, 136). Both speaking in tongues and prophecy
were terms for inspired speech (Callan 136), but prophecy, for Paul, is not ecstatic
(139), although Callan allows that glossolalia is "a trance phenomenon" (137). Dunn
(1975, 228) argues that Paul "goes out of his way to distinguish and distance prophecy
from ecstatic inspiration".
Prophecy and glossolalia are therefore variously related depending on views of
prophecy, as ecstatic or rational, and glossolalia, as ecstatic or rational.
2.6 OTHERS
The five terms explained above, are pivotal to this study. Additionally, several
other terms that are tangential to, but essential for the main topic, need to receive some
brief clarification and definition.
2.6.1 PENTECOSTALISM
A. ORIGINS
It is widely acknowledged that the Pentecostal movement arose in America in
1900 as the result of a request by Agnes Osman to Charles Parham, at Bethel College in
Kansas, in which she spoke in a strange language (Both Sides 1973, 35; Bruner 1970,
119-120; Valdez 1980, 13). Charles Parham conducted a number of revivals (1901-
1905) in Kansas (Quebedeaux 1988, 966), and one of Parham's students from Houston,
Texas, W.J. Seymour, carried Parham's beliefs to Azusa Street in Los Angeles
(Bradfield 1979, 3). From here, in 1906, this "wholly ... twentieth century phenomenon"
(Both Sides 1973, 3) was to reverberate to all parts of the world (Valdez 1980, 13).
B. PRECURSORS
The main precursor to Pentecostalism was Methodism through American
revivalism (especially Charles Finney) and the Holiness movement through into
Pentecostalism (Bruner 1970, 42; Synan 1971, 76).
More specifically, sociological analyses of Pentecostalism have assumed a "sect-
church" theory (Bradfield 1979, 6). This theory states that "sectarian groups or
movements begin as a protest against some organised group or groups" (Bradfield 1979,
6). The Pentecostal groups were regarded as sectarian, but they soon developed their
own church-like organization with greater "institutions and ecclesiastical machinery"
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
(Synan 1971, 223). Further, it is believed that new groups recruit mainly from socially
and economically deprived people. Bradfield (1979, 2) believes that socio-economic
deprivation factors are important in the (early) Holiness and Pentecostal movements. He
noted that classic Pentecostals held the view that wealth tended to separate Christians
from the things of God (20-21).
C. CHARACTERISTICS
At a general council of Pentecostal churches in 1914, there was agreement in
three basic beliefs:
1. speaking in tongues is evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit,
2. tongues speaking is the only essential experience to obtain the full Christian life,
3. those who speak in tongues enter a "charismatic life".
(Kelsey 1968, 78-79).
As a result of the last belief, a person is open to receive all the gifts of the
Holy Spirit (sic) (Bradfield 1979, 3).
Foundational to Pentecostal pneumatology is the crisis experience of
reception of the Holy Spirit (Bruner 1970, 57), namely the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as
they interpret the occasion of Pentecost (Wacker 1988, 933).
The evidence of this baptism ("initial evidence") was a "universal,
involuntary manifestation" of glossolalia, which was to be distinguished from a
"continuing, non-ecstatic, controllable gift that not all have" (Packer 1984, 206). Hence,
there were two kinds of glossolalia – a gift and a sign (Wacker 1988, 933).
This universal, obligatory (for salvation) experience of the Holy Spirit
constitutes the pivotal characteristic of Pentecostalism, resulting in sectarian/elitist
phenomena and creating what Pfitzner (1976, 11, 14) calls a "new-legalism".
For this study, the distinction of two types of glossolalia is of interest, but
not pivotal to the discussion.
2.6.2 NEO-PENTECOSTALISM
A. ORIGINS
A "new constellation" of Pentecostals appeared in the middle of the twentieth
century (Bruner 1970, 52). These people shared many of the characteristics of
traditional Pentecostalism, with the essential difference that they came from and stayed
within the Protestant and later Roman Catholic denominations (Both Sides 1973, 4).
Hocken (1988, 130) puts the roots at the late 1940's with the ministry of healing
evangelists Branham, Roberts, Lindsay and Osborn. Although Pentecostal in doctrine,
B. PRECURSORS
Protestant churches themselves (and also Roman Catholics since the Second
Vatican Council) have criticised their own "irrelevance, institutionalism, and spiritual
deadness" (Bruner 1970, 54). This climate of self-assessment precipitated an
acknowledged dissatisfaction within these churches – but not a sufficient dissatisfaction
to leave them (Bradfield 1979, 19). Many held formal membership in traditional
churches but acknowledged that there was a denial of power, or a "form of godliness
without power" (Bradfield 16). They were also becoming disillusioned with the clergy,
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
seeing them as "unacquainted with Jesus as Lord in their lives" (16). This was
particularly so in denominations “fartherest” removed from Pentecostalism, as noted
above.
Neo-Pentecostalism promised a source of revival (Bruner 1970, 54) without
having to leave their denomination.
A second consideration, is deprivation factors. Unlike Pentecostalism, neo-
Pentecostalism does not reflect the socio-economic deprivation of Pentecostalism
(Bradfield 1979, 1). It is a middle class movement in which the people are more
affluent, not deriving from the poorer classes that comprised the Pentecostal groups
(Bradfield 1979, 20-21).
However, Glock (1973a, 210-212) raises a number of deprivation types that
Bradfield tests in the neo-Pentecostal context (1979, 20-57). Bradfield concludes that
neo-Pentecostals are a deviant case of the sect-Church theory but do not reflect the
socio-economic deprivation of classic Pentecostals (55), although they appear to be
deprived relative to their own expectations as distinct from outside standards (57).
Their experience of deprivation occurs at the ethical level (37-42, 55) where they
perceive discrepancies between theory and practice in society and the churches; at the
psychic level (42-51, 55) they see a need for an integrating wholeness of life – every
aspect of life is related to their religion; and to some degree, at an organismic level (51-
54, 56). Organismic deprivation relates to the need for remedying the disadvantage of
having physical or mental deformities, ill health or any "stigmatizing or disabling traits"
(Glock 1973a, 211). Bradfield concludes that organismic deprivation was more part of
the ideology of neo-Pentecostalism, than a reason for becoming involved (1979, 56).
Quite clearly, there are different deprivation precursors for neo-Pentecostalism,
but there are nevertheless, clear needs, perhaps summed up in a need for personal
recognition and involvement in a depersonalised society; the need for community in an
increasingly individual world (Bradfield 1979, v); and the need for affectionate
interaction (vi). In turn, these needs are summarized in a sense of emotional deprivation.
Many participants spoke of "released ... emotions", "first time they had cried since
childhood"(18), and that many middle class church adherents are "emotionally starved"
(19).
For this reason, neo-Pentecostals tended to keep primary religious affiliation with
a mainline denomination (Bradfield 1979, 18). This helps to explain subsequent
behaviour and characteristics of neo-Pentecostals.
C. CHARACTERISTICS
Because of their move to remain within the main-line denominations, whilst
retaining their Pentecostal sympathies, neo-Pentecostalism produced a divided loyalty
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
with divisive ramifications. Inevitably this produced a proselytising effect, as they tried
to influence others to follow their doctrinal emphases (Bradfield 1979, 17). Although
their rationale for staying in the mainline denominations was to avoid schism (17), in
fact their sectarian behaviour with emphasis on glossolalia, was definitely at variance
to their denominational membership (14), and was potentially divisive. However, it is
to be noted that there was no central organization for distinctively neo-Pentecostal
activity (4) although groups like the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship
International, became a de facto unifying group (4).
Secondly, public manifestation of tongues is not required as proof of baptism in
the Holy Spirit (Bradfield 1979, 4), although tongues ought to accompany the baptism
(Barnett 1973, 3).
Thirdly, baptism in the Holy Spirit is a gift "subsequent to and separate from his
conversion" (Barnett 1973, 3). This baptism is identified with a fullness of the Spirit to
enable the believer to be a powerful Christian. It is distinct from the Holy Spirit's
activity in conversion experience (Barnett 1973, 3). The baptism is a conscious
experience and is to be consciously sought, and should be accompanied by speaking in
tongues (Barnett 1973, 4), and it is for the purpose of power in witnessing.
This characteristic is most distinctive, and consequently most divisive (cf. Both
Sides 1973, 6).
Fourthly, the neo-Pentecostals are experience-centred in their approach to the
Bible (Both Sides 1973, 6-7). Their experience modifies their biblical understanding
and subsequent interpretation (Both Sides 1973, 6) as well as resulting in a literalistic
application of historical commands, promises and events from biblical times (cf. Both
Sides 1973, 7). This experience-centred approach, especially as manifest in the baptism
of the Spirit and speaking in tongues, becomes the basis of fellowship.
D. CONCLUSION
The neo-Pentecostals are particularly significant for the present study, because
their ethos is largely the influence that is promoting the whole charismatic emphasis
today.
2.6.5 CONCLUSION.
Hummel (1993, 218) notes that the concept of “waves” represents a picture of
“surging power”, which he feels is appropriate, but usually one wave follows another to
the shore and disappears. In the case of the Pentecostal continuum, each wave continues
to move and grow. All three waves “now constitute 21 percent of organized global
Christianity”, and yet Barrett observes that there is an underlying unity – “one single
cohesive movement” (Hummel 1993, 218).
As an overall movement, the emphasis on subjective experience and gifts, has
contributed almost exclusively to the confusion of ecstasy and glossolalia (amongst
other phenomena) in Christian experience. In the absence of correctives, the combined
movement spawns a yearning for the more exotic and unsubstantiated phenomena of
Christian experience.
*****
*****
ECSTASY AS A PHENOMENON
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Ecstasy is an evident accompaniment of many exotic expressions in a variety of
cultures.
Many commentators and translators assume an ecstatic accompaniment or source
for glossolalic expression (in particular) for Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14. The King
James version translates "speaking in tongues" as "speaking in an unknown tongue". The
addition of “unknown” seems to have allowed licence to assume something ecstatic,
perhaps angelic (but not necessarily), or a language simply unknown to the speaker (and
the hearer). The Good News for Modern Man bible, translates the same phrases as
"secret truths", that convey an exotic connotation that is unwarranted by the text. Most
misleading is The New English Bible which blatantly translates (sic) as "ecstatic
language", "ecstatic utterance", "tongues of ecstasy" and "language of ecstasy". This
translation inscripturates a most unfortunate bias and presupposition.
The same presupposition often occurs in commentaries, and this will be noted
more particularly in subsequent study on exegetical considerations from 1 Corinthians
12-14. However, most commentators allow that the expressions of glossolalia in the
book of Acts are in ordinary language, and at least known to the hearer.
Hence, ecstasy is a confusing element. Is the glossolalia of Acts the same type of
expression, indeed gift, of 1 Corinthians, or do we have a different phenomenon based
on ecstasy?
Is the expression of Acts, although normal language, accompanied by, or an
expression of an ecstatic state?
Behind this, and significantly, is the fact that the Acts phenomenon is a fulfilment
of an Old Testament prophecy (Joel 2:28-32), therefore it is assumed to follow an
ecstatic expression in the same way as some commentators believe that Old Testament
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
prophecy itself was an ecstatic expression.
In this chapter, the detailed discussion of ecstasy in Chapter 2 is reduced to a
summary definition to sharpen the focus of the discussion.
Ecstasy is then viewed from the secular perspective, in order to show how easily
secular phenomena can be easily associated with similar religious and biblical
phenomena, but should rather be carefully identified and distinguished from truly
biblical phenomena. This will help to identify some general characteristics of ecstasy,
so that comparisons can be made with Old Testament antecedents to examine if there is
any valid ecstatic precursor that may have bearing on the Acts glossolalic expression.
Then ecstasy is examined in the Mystery Religious background to the Corinthian
expression, to examine what influence this might have, if any, on the Corinthian
utterance.
This in turn may help to clarify the common opinion of many critics, that the
glossolalic utterances of Acts and 1 Corinthians are essentially different in kind.
Since glossolalia is one of the spiritual gifts spoken of in the New Testament, any
conclusions about the precursors of 1 Corinthians will also be significant to other gifts
and indeed, to the concept of ecstasy in the New Testament as a whole, but particularly
in the cases of Jesus and Paul.
The fact that a connection is admitted between ecstasy and some glossolalic
expression, demands that a comparison be made with other cultural expressions (of both
ecstasy and glossolalia) to see if there is a unique biblical expression at best, or if there
is some means of differentiating the biblical expression from other cultural expressions.
Further, if there is a connection between ecstasy and some glossolalic expression,
then this must be examined in the context of contemporary secular manifestations (as
distinct from cultural manifestations) like drug usage, and trances.
Finally, is ecstasy able to be replicated in some way? Is there a presupposition of
ecstasy in the biblical material that leads to attempts to counterfeit it on the one hand,
and on the other, efforts to validate it in order to attempt to authenticate religious
experience that is based on ecstatic experience? And consequently, does this have any
bearing on Pentecostal and charismatic experience either as a phenomenon to be
delineated, and respected as authentic, or to be avoided and warned against as
spurious?
4.2.8 CORRECTIVE
It is far from established as biblical fact that glossolalia is ecstatic, or that any
Old Testament prophetic precursor is necessarily ecstatic, if at all. On the contrary, the
nature of glossolalia, according to the correctives of 1 Corinthians 14, is of a controlled
position that operates with rational parameters, and that indeed both prophetic Old
Testament (especially) and New Testament experiences (including Peter's trance in Acts
10) are quite rational as well.
The confusing element in the whole position, is an ecstatic element in secular
prophets (from the Old Testament background) that approximates to some similar
behaviour of the biblical prophets, and also the immediate ecstatic element of the Greek
Mystery Religions of the first century.
Over against this behavioural corrective, is a biblical and experiential corrective
that comes from the Pentecostal expectancy of normal language as the glossolalic
expression for missionary service (see later) and the observation, that at times during
the rise of neo-Pentecostal experience, glossolalia was experienced free of emotional,
and even less of ecstatic experience.
4.3.2 DRUGS
The danger of failing to differentiate between Christian experience and secular (in
this case drug-induced) experience, is highlighted by Zaehner (1957, xii-xiii):
... not only can "mystical experience be obtained artificially by the taking of drugs, it is also naturally present in
the manic. It must then follow that the vision of God of the mystical saint is "one and the same" as the
hallucination of the lunatic.
What had once been normally identified as the corollary of religious experience
increasingly became acknowledged as the goal of common secular experience. "Then
came other explorations in search of ecstasy. LSD, mescaline, pot, hash, sex, ... the
quest for ecstasy in life, ecstasy and a cause (protest movements)" (Bach 1969, 99).
Ecstasy became a "universal link in the chain of spiritual understanding" (Bach 1969,
116), and it could be achieved in a variety of ways: LSD for the multitudes, peyote for
the Native American Church, soma in Indian rituals, magic mushrooms in Aztec
festivals, or hemp in animistic religions (Bach 1969, 158). Sargant (1975, 95) records
the research and experience of Aleister Crowley using a variety of drugs including
ether, anhalonium lewinii, hashish and cocaine, to enhance trance and mystical
experiences.
A. MESCALINE
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Mescal is a cactaceous plant found in Mexico and South-West U.S.A. that
produces hallucinations and other psychedelic effects (Morris 1969, 822). It is also
called "peyote". It is used in some Mexican tribal ceremonies to give participants the
assurance that a god has possessed them (Sargant 1959, 112).
In particular, mescaline is used (as also is lysergic acid – see below) to produce
mystical experience (or ecstatic states) as was the notorious case with Aldous Huxley
(Zaehner 1957, 1). Likewise, Christopher Mayhew, under the influence of mescaline,
was convinced that God exists (Sargant 1975, 106).
Aldous Huxley was most surprised to discover the similarity between Christian
and Indian religious mysticism (Sargant 1959, 112). Laski believes that mescaline can
give people "genuine religious overbeliefs", including Huxley’s claim to have attained
the Beatific Vision (Sargant 1975, 107).
Some claim that they receive the "Baptism" (of the Holy Spirit) by way of
mescaline (or LSD) (Bach 1969, 151). For Bach, glossolalia was "proof” of his
Baptism (151). However, he had to admit that there was not proof in terms of Christian
discipleship: "increased compassion, greater selflessness, a heightened moral integrity,
transcendence" (Bach 1969, 183). Hence the mescaline did not in fact have "spiritual
overtones" (184). For him it was simply fantasyland, he had achieved the ecstasy
without necessarily Christian faith (184).
In reality, the object of the experience is to achieve ecstasy, which is the gateway
to whatever is desired, whether to "Buddha-hood" or to Christ or to a "mile-high sex
drive" (Bach 1969, 158-9). In religion, there is always the desire for the "Upper Room"
experience which Bach (1969, 158) describes as the eucharistic life of man. Different
drugs can achieve this, but LSD and mescaline have been particular vehicles.
So significant is the use of mescaline in some groups, that the Native American
Church in North America, consisting of some 225,000 Indians (and some whites) use
peyote to commune with the spirit of God (Pfitzner 1976, 23). In fact, it has been
suggested that drug-induced reality may become the basis of future world-religion
(Pfitzner 1976, 23). Peyote is also the trigger for a form of claimed glossolalia (Tippett
1976, 159).
Clearly, the confusion between fantasy experience and true Christian experience,
between secular phenomena and true Christian phenomena, by the use of mescaline,
makes it imperative to have clear criteria for testing the true from the counterfeit in
order to retain (and/or regain) biblical integrity.
C. SUMMARY
As with mescaline and LSD, there are other drugs like hemp (or hashish) that are
used in a similar way, but they are not so significant. Hemp is occasionally used to
enhance sexual euphoria (see below) with the result that together they may constitute a
religious experience (Sargant 1975, 90). Nitrous oxide is used to stimulate mystical
consciousness, and “in the nitrous oxide trance we have a genuine metaphysical
revelation” (James 1961, 284).
Zaehner (1957, 25-27) summarizes the situation concerning drugs particularly
well, and although his study especially relates to mescaline, the following thoughts give
an excellent perspective on the nature of the drug-induced ecstatic experience. They are
particularly pertinent because they put the findings in the context of the Mystery
Religious background to the Corinthian experience of supposed ecstasy and glossolalia.
If religion is seen as primarily an escape from the ego, then alcohol and mescaline can
achieve that admirably, "... they must be of the same nature as religion: therefore they
are good" (25).
However, Paul took a different view, as Zaehner interpolates:
In your Bacchic orgies you thought that, by devouring the quivering flesh of beasts, you were entering into
direct contact with the divine. This you did in a state of frenzy, even madness. You may have thought that this
was what I offered you in the sacrificial meal we call the agape. If you did, you were wrong: for whereas
your own sacrificial meals may well have prefigured the Christian sacrament, they were essentially different in
kind ... Strong drink, you found, contributed to the attainment of ecstasy, and for that reason you used it in your
ceremonies. This is not, however, what I preach. I preach to you redemption through Christ. When you come
to take part in the sacrificial meal, I would prefer that you came without having taken any stimulants. Christ
came to make you whole: he did not come to make you ecstatics ... In your ancient mysteries you sought to
4.3.3 HYPNOSIS
A. INTRODUCTION
Beyond drugs, hypnosis is another experience that can be seen to replicate
ecstatic forms of behaviour (in this case, including trance) that cautions against
assuming that any experience is ipso facto derived from the Holy Spirit and is
automatically self-authenticating.
Hypnosis is variously explained as a form of trance (or vice versa) (Alland 1962,
209; Mikhaiel 1972, 23) or as an explanation for the cause of glossolalia (Burdick
1969, 69). On both counts some reference must be made to hypnosis in the context of
glossolalia.
Concerning the former, trance behaviour has relied on hypnosis for explanation
(Amoss 1978, 136) and concerning the latter, one of the characteristics of hypnosis is
the ability to speak a foreign language, that is not normal to the speaker otherwise
(Amoss 1978, 137).
Mills (1985a, 90) notes that it is common in psychological circles to explain
glossolalia as an expression of ecstasy in which “verbal automatisms are expressed
from the unconscious”, but he also notes that there is a correlation of glossolalia with
the hypnotic state. In both cases (ecstasy and hypnotism) there is a removal of the
voluntary operation of the will. Mosiman notes parallels between glossolalia and
hypnotism: “fixation of attention, uniformity of perception, limitation of the power of the
will, and suppression of ideas” (related in Mills 1985a, 90-91).
B. PRESUMPTIONS
Kildahl says that "hypnotisability constitutes the sine qua non of the glossolalia
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
experience" (quoted in Smith 1973, 107). This is especially true in the relationship
between the subject and the authority figure (Kildahl continues). There is a fundamental
vulnerability or openness to the experiences of both hypnotism and glossolalia. Hall and
Grant in SUPERPSYCH (cited in Mikhaiel 1972, 44) point out that this predisposition
is seen in national characteristics:
The Latin people, the Spanish and the Italians in particular, are usually thought to make better subjects than the
less emotional and more suspicious Anglo-Saxons; and near the bottom of any list would be the Teutonic
Germans ... Women seem more susceptible ... Exhibitionists make excellent subjects ...
Over against this personality disposition, is the suggestion that hypnosis belongs
to the occult (Mikhaiel 1972, 72), and that this "work of the devil" has manifest itself in
the Church "under the guise of the Holy Spirit" (Mikhaiel 1972, 72). These assertions
from Kildahl and Mikhaiel are particularly disturbing, if substantiated. Glossolalia is
necessarily prefaced by hypnosis on the one hand, or on the other hand, by extension
from that precursor, it is a work of the devil, insofar that hypnosis is occultic.
The personality predisposition and inherent vulnerability might be recognized and
even widely acknowledged, but that does not establish that either hypnosis or Satan is
the prerequisite for glossolalia. Zodhiates (1974, 28) notes that even glossolalia in
heathen religions is not necessarily Satanic, but originates from the human psychic state.
Nevertheless, the very fact that Kildahl and Mikhaiel (amongst others) make such
assertions, is surely a stern warning to glossolalists to check the nature and source of
their claimed gift, in a way that frees them from such associations and accusations that
question their assumption of the Holy Spirit source.
Sargant (1975, 36) states that, "In hypnoidal states people can remember
languages which they have consciously long forgotten, or they can construct new
languages". In this way, glossolalia is explained in terms of "heightened memory" aided
by hypnosis, and therefore not a spiritual gift necessarily at all. Pursuant to this idea,
Sargant also asserts that there has never been satisfactory proof that anyone has spoken
in a foreign language with which they had no previous acquaintance (37). The
experience of Acts 2:6, 11 would militate against this.
These presumptions, even if not proven, are a challenge to any claim to
glossolalic experience, and demand an honest attempt to define the gift more accurately.
C. PRECURSORS
It has been noted that hypnosis is closely related to trance experientially. It is
therefore not surprising to find that a precondition for trance and hypnosis is "Loud,
rhythmic music with a simple repetitious beat. This type of sensory stimulus tends to
create ideal hypnotic conditions" (Alland 1962, 212. Emphasis his).
In a similar way, Sargant (1959, 92-3) speaks of rhythmic drumming being used to
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
produce physical and emotional collapse leading to mystical trance and possession by a
deity resulting in the deity speaking.
In this context it is worth noting the conclusions of Goodman, who makes a clear
distinction between hypnosis and trance, stating that glossolalia is not derived from a
state of hypnosis, but rather derives from “neurophysical changes, collectively and
popularly called trance …” (cited in Hasel 1991, 30).
Sensory experience is shown to be a precursor to hypnosis (and trance, and
consequently to glossolalia) as well as a vulnerability and disposition of personality.
Another significant precursor is auto-suggestion, enhanced through the group
situation, or with a mentor.
Kildahl (1986, 356) points out that a precondition for both speaking in tongues,
and hypnosis, is the ability to submit oneself to a mentor. This involves trust in another
person for one's "momentary destiny". In this situation, the subject can exhibit child-like
openness and suggestibility. Once having achieved the experience, auto-suggestion
makes subsequent experiences increasingly easy. Both Kildahl (356) and Alland (1962,
208) describe this as a regression experience to a "transference-dependency"
relationship with the mentor.
As a variation of initial dependency on a mentor to achieve hypnosis (and
glossolalia), Bloesch (1966, 372) speaks of auto-hypnosis. Here, initiation of the
experience is fostered by the subject but is normally achieved within and assisted by the
group. In fact, he notes that the expectations of the group and the suggestion involved,
can be so powerful that group members can easily be caught up against their wills. This
was the experience demonstrated in the Kentucky revivals. It was the experience
reported by Kildahl (1986, 359):
An Oxford University professor of English literature once told the story of having been hypnotized by
Adolf Hitler during a mass meeting in Nazi Germany during the 1930s. This professor was a British citizen on
a visit to Berlin, when he decided to observe at first hand a Nazi rally. Before the meeting was over he found
himself standing on his seat (along with thousands of others), cheering wildly for Hitler, waving his arms,
stamping his feet and shouting Nazi slogans.
Hours later in his hotel room he wondered what had possessed him to act in this way so totally out of
character. He thought not only that he was an undemonstrative man temperamentally, but that he had also been
and continued to be opposed to the Hitler movement. In fact, a year later he was no longer allowed to enter
Germany because of his opposition to Nazism. But that night, he said, during Hitler's speech he had felt a
wonderful kind of wholeness and enthusiasm. He later said that he felt completely convinced about the
rightness of what he was doing, and would have sworn that he was fully in possession of all his faculties, and
was psychologically "together". He said later that during the Nazi rally perhaps nothing could have convinced
him that he was not doing the right thing. For the moment, he became convinced intellectually, he was
emotionally supported by thousands of others at the rally, and he was caught up in the subjective sense of
euphoria.
Sargant (1975, 39) is more emphatic, citing Podmore's belief that experimentally
D. CHARACTERISTICS
If hypnosis (and trance) are precursors to glossolalia, then Amoss (1978, 137)
notes the following characteristics:
(1) total or partial anaesthesia,
(2) total amnesia,
(3) enhancement of usual abilities,
(4) positive hallucinations.
Consequently, glossolalia as an expression of the hypnotic state, will by-pass the
will of the subject, the experience (and words spoken) will not be remembered, and
there may be accompanying sensory experiences (visions, smells, feelings) that may
deceive the subject into unwittingly believing that he has achieved some spiritual
superiority, demonstrated apart from objective assessment.
Further, Amoss (138) believes that this precursor is "pan-human", reflecting a
universal capacity to assume altered states of consciousness. The resultant ability to
speak in tongues is also universal - not necessarily a gift of God at all. Samarin (cited in
Fasold 1972, 26) likewise makes this claim, "Anyone can produce glossolalia if he is
uninhibited and if he discovers what the ‘trick’ is". Fasold also states (as a professor of
linguistics) that "from a linguistic viewpoint glossolalia is very easy to produce" (1972,
26).
The danger of failing to have some form of objective assessment is highlighted by
an example of a witchdoctor in Western India. Supposedly in an hypnotic trance induced
by rhythmic drums and chanting, and associated by jumping and dancing, the
witchdoctor made a speech for several hours, but then with pallid face he continued the
jumping and dancing. At the sight of a tourist the witchdoctor abruptly stopped,
momentarily posed for a photo, and then continued as before. Whatever voluntary
response may have been involved was belied by the expected exhaustion of the skinny
witchdoctor over many hours. Demonic help seemed to be the obvious explanation for
the hypnotic trance, it was too exhausting for role-play (Couture 1986).
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
E. SUMMARY
The presumption in all of this material, is that glossolalia depends on a
personality disposition (typified by rational traits, femininity and exhibitionism),
suggestibility, and group activation; that it replicates the same precursors as hypnotism
and may indeed be occultic/Satanic in origin.
The indictment on contemporary glossolalists is that they precisely practice
hypnotic procedures (swaying bodies, rhythmic clapping, repetitious singing) produce
unintelligible gibberish like any heathen religion, and fail to produce any objective
criteria at all. The propensity for their tongues speaking is usually in emotional settings
of a trance-like nature, often predominated by women, exhibitionists and emotional
extroverts.
An authentic glossolalia should be distinct from hypnotic and personality
dispositions and should not result from group pressure or auto-suggestion. A gift from
God should reflect back to God, be balanced and reasonable, and not be dependent on
age, sex, or circumstances. It should be capable of independent assessment and
authentication, to obviate charlatans and role-players. Only thus can a true glossolalia
be protected from abuse and debasement.
4.3.4 TRANCE
A. INTRODUCTION
Like hypnosis and ecstasy, trance has many similar precursors and characteristics.
Frequently there is a culmination in some type of utterance. The alarming observation is
the similarity in manifestations both secular and religious. More alarming, is the failure
of contemporary religious practitioners to delineate the source and authority of their
particular practice, and their failure to differentiate their professed Christian practice
from psychologically induced secular phenomena (at best) or demonically inspired
phenomena (at worst).
Some form of trance-like state is most common to all the phenomena that are
associated with verbal manifestations that approximate to speaking in tongues, hence
some clarification is needed.
Goodman states unequivocally that “glossolalia is an artefact of a dissociative
state termed trance” (1969, 227), that it is not a linguistic phenomenon, but rather “an
artefact of an altered state of consciousness usually termed trance” (1971, 77), or it is
“an act of vocalization in trance” (1973, 185).
B. DEFINITION
In summarizing Chapter 2.4, trance was seen as the climax of ecstasy through
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
frenzy resulting in "a state of complete trance". Whilst trance may have a passive
serenity, it frequently has an active element like Plato's "frantic delirium" (1993, 297). It
is in this active state of trance, beyond mere ecstasy, that a variety of secular and
religious manifestations occur.
C. CHARACTERISTICS
Trance is usually produced by auto-suggestion and contrived circumstances to
which the subject has voluntarily consented. In the "Jumpers" sect in Wales, John Evans
reported that the preacher alluded to subjects that included David dancing before the
ark, the baby leaping in Elizabeth's womb, the man in Acts leaping after being healed of
lameness, and the inference that Christians should show similar expressions of joy. This
resulted in some violent agitation, groaning, then jumping with a frantic fury, the speaker
also joining them for about three hours of this activity (cited in Mackie 1921, 46-7).
Davenport (1905, 158) refers to this characteristic as "morbid imitation".
Additionally, there is usually some form of artificial stimulation or "buzz" words
that trigger a response. The “trigger” for the Shakers was the rhythmic ringing of bells
(Amoss 1978, 136). The Methodist Chapels in the eighteenth century, beginning at
Redruth, spawned an experience of "excruciating bodily pain" and it "was only by the
words which had been mentioned that it was excited" (cited in Mackie 1921, 47-9). It
was reported that it only seized "people of the lowest education" who would stay two to
three nights together, agitated by these convulsive attacks whilst taking no rest or
nourishment.
At times there has been evidence of involuntary involvement. Richard McNemar
reports on the Kentucky revival of last century, noting that a range of experiences
(including falling, shouting, singing, crying out) "exhibited such new and striking
evidences of a supernatural power, that few, if any, could escape without being
affected" (cited in Mackie 1921, 49-50). Some who tried to avoid involvement, were
overwhelmed as they left or were compelled to return. Peter Cartwright, in referring to
the phenomenon of "jerks" in the revival, noted that irrespective of who the persons
were ("saints or sinners") they would be "seized with a convulsive jerking all over,
which they could not by any possibility avoid, and the more they resisted the more they
jerked" (cited in Mackie 1921, 52).
More dramatically, John White (1988, 94) refers to this involuntary involvement.
Some had a consenting disposition in that they were intending to attend a charismatic
meeting, but nevertheless "fell on their way to the meetings". Others, quite innocently
and independently, and indeed unwittingly, were reported to "fall from their seats in
buses that were passing by the meetings".
The phenomena usually occur in a group situation of specific expectancies,
D. VARIETY OF MANIFESTATIONS
The experiences in trance that Davenport alludes to, include the following
excesses:
The picture of the agonies and contortions of body of many little children, the loud breathing of men and
women half strangled and gasping for life, the outcries, the bitter anguish, the faces turning red and then almost
black, the sinking in silence, the convulsions, the awful morbid contagion that swept over the stifled crowd, the
numbers carried into the parsonage house, where they struggled or lay as dead, the breaking of pews and
benches, the dropping in a heap on the road home, the trance, the demonic shrieks, the emergence of the
second personality, the uncontrollable laughter, the child seven years old and her visions, the woman rolling on
the ground and tearing up the hard-trodden grass with her hands ...
(Davenport 1905, 172.)
E. SUMMARY
Throughout the reports of the variety of trance-associated phenomena, there is
little or no attempt at objective critique. In spite of the most violent and grotesque
experiences that have no evident value per se and that seem to be totally out of character
with the control of the Holy Spirit and the injunction to do things "decently and in
order", the phenomena are seemingly accepted as self-authenticating, partly assumed to
be valid because they have occurred before in history. Even the most bizarre
experiences, like the rolling exercises, jerks and barks, are tolerated (in spite of their
patently negative quality) as a work of the Spirit and their total detraction from anything
remotely resembling edification.
The above case of a seminary student shaking, was apparently the result of his
seeking "more power". The result was two hours of shaking until he asked God to stop,
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
and subsequently praying for people who would then fall down (White 1988, 96). All
this seems so banal and inconsequential. But it is all part of the phenomena associated
with trance and speaking in tongues. There is little attempt to authenticate the source of
the experience, little attempt to validate the purpose or achievement of the experience,
but an assumption that because their experiences in fact occurred, and presumably
because they occurred in some Christian context for the most part, that they are self-
validating. Samarin (1973, 85 and elsewhere) is one of the few voices clearly rejecting
trance as causative of glossolalic experience, and he does this on the basis of his own
definition of glossolalia and his linguistic research.
In the modern context at least, these events are reported and described in much
detail as if they are authentic revival experiences in spite of a lack of accurate biblical
basis, lack of ethical and moral impact, and lack of ongoing spiritual benefit.
This all cries out against the indifferent acceptance of ecstatic experience. In
particular, speaking in tongues is part of a range of manifestations that must be carefully
examined in order to remove serious questioning of an authentic glossolalic experience.
B. RELATION TO ECSTASY
In both the fundamental experience and the mystical experience of orgasm, there
are the characteristics of ecstasy.
Sargant (1975, 86) explains:
lovers in orgasm behave as if they were possessed, trembling, writhing, groaning, crying out, as blind and deaf
to everything around them as if they were no longer on any earthly plane. Complete orgasm also often ends in
a collapse phase, as in ... ecstatic dancing ... the sense of mingled identity which lovers briefly achieve ... has
caused mystics to speak of the soul's union with and possession by God in sexual terms.
Bach (1969, 156) relates the aim and experience of taking the drug LSD in order
to achieve "incredible ecstasy or ... confusion" in the three-fold experience of making
love to God, yourself, or a woman. The experience is orchestrated by the drug, plus
dimmed lights, and the sensory experiences of colour, religious imagery, phallic signs,
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
“blinding whites” and other exotic imagery projected onto a screen (157). The result of
this sensory bombardment is "primordial ecstasy" and a "mile-high sex drive" (159).
Ludwig (1968, 73) refers to a similar experience as a trance-like state that is
experienced after prolonged masturbation, or orgiastic trance, like that experienced by
the Bacchanalians of the Greek Mystery Religious groups.
C. STIMULATION OF SEX
Ecstasy (or exaltation) involves elements of "highly pleasurable excitement" that
betrays a state of mind that is associated with a pathological condition found in
alcoholic intoxication, epilepsy, and also a state of mind related to the sexual instinct
(Mackie 1921, 263). Because of this correlation, there is the tendency to allow, if not to
promote, the environment for sexual stimulation because of its association with the same
state of mind in glossolalia. In fact, "the effort to repress the sexual nature and entirely
to eliminate it is, for the tongues people, a physiological and psychological absurdity"
(Mackie 1921, 263).
The physiological mechanism responsible for the connection between sex and
concepts of the divine and possession, is discussed by Sargant (1975, 87). Orgasm can
produce a state of temporary nervous collapse that allows for heightened suggestibility
and possession. Sargant alludes to religious sects that have used sexual stimulation to
heighten suggestibility and religious faith (1975, 88). He reports that some crude
American revivalism deliberately encouraged worshippers to "come through" to Jesus
sexually, with orgasm as the evidence of the Holy Spirit's entering the person's life.
Such evidence was therefore sought with repeatedly induced orgasmic collapse
resulting in deep hysterical trance (Sargant 1975, 88).
In a similar way, tantric cults in India used sexual intercourse to strengthen
religious group feeling and to produce possession by both divine or demonic powers
(Sargant 1975, 89). Often drugs were used to assist in ritual intercourse (90), and
temple prostitutes helped worshippers to achieve trance through sexual intercourse.
D. ACHIEVING POSSESSION
In the Greek cult of Dionysos, devotees believed that union with the divine could
be achieved through "sexual intercourse, eating and drinking, touch, and dance and
music leading to ecstasy. The seer was preeminently ecstatic" (Clemen 1931, 191). The
seer, in this ecstatic state, became filled with the god, who spoke through him. Thus, in
significant part, sexual intercourse (apart from moral restraints) was seen as acceptable
in the context of the goal of the ecstatic experience and the evidence of divine
possession, namely, verbal utterance (tongues).
Sargant (1975, 88) refers to medieval nunneries and monasteries where sexual
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
means were used to "induce the presence of God in the worshipper". Pious nuns could
feel themselves seduced, loved and possessed by Christ during their meditation,
resulting in orgasm.
E. EUPHORIA – AN EXTREME
Since the state of mind involved in ecstasy and orgasm was purportedly so
similar, the pursuit of orgasm became an obsession. Repeated orgasmic collapse has
already been noted in crude American revivalism.
Aleister Crowley, as an highly intelligent seeker after contact with the spirit
world, carefully studied Indian mysticism and tantric practices (Sargant 1975, 95).
Crowley used "sexual trance technique" which he subsequently called "Eroto-comatose
Lucidity", which he thought aided him in contact with the spirit/demon world. Repeated
sexual orgasm was used to gain trance and spirit possession (Sargant 1975, 93). There
was a process of sexual stimulation and exhaustion resulting in sleep before further
stimulation and sleep, aided by experienced attendants whose duty it was "to exhaust
him sexually by every known means" (Sargant 1975, 94). In this state his spirit is set
free and "communes with the most Highest (sic) and the Most Holy Lord God of its
Being, Maker of Heaven and Earth" (95). The experience, referred to as the "Ordeal",
was to achieve a trance state in which the subject is possessed by the god or devil.
Eventually Crowley also used homosexual acts and drugs to achieve and improve
the trance and its associated experiences (Sargant 1975, 95).
G. SUMMARY
Clearly, if ecstasy is pursued as a goal in itself, there is evidence that the methods
to achieve that goal are often unprincipled, and the ultimate goal of spirit possession
and the attendant evidence of some verbal utterance, casts true Christian glossolalia into
a continuum containing damning indictments.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
It is evident that some very clear delineation must be done to protect the veracity
of true Christian glossolalia from the morass of demonically spurious through to the
deceptively spiritual in the range of expressions. Two examples from Sargant (1975)
show the immoral consequences of the failure to make this delineation, and the shame
brought on the church as a result.
One of the laboratory assistants from Duke Hospital used to attend the snake-handling in Durham. He told his
employer, who was one of the Professors at Durham, that when girls reached the climactic stage of
suggestibility, trance and collapse, they appeared to be no less amenable to his sexual suggestions after the
meeting was over than they were to Pastor Bunn's message of redemption while the meeting was on. He
would follow one of them out from the meeting and found it easy to draw her into immediate sexual abandon.
But he said he could not understand why, when he telephoned her a few days later to arrange another meeting,
she would say indignantly, ‘I am not that kind of girl’ ...
I was consulted medically by a woman who kept a brothel in Durham; she assured me that some of her best
customers were the pastors and members of the congregation at the revivalist churches.
(Sargant 1975, 187).
I also visited ‘God's Bible School’ in Cincinnati where basically the same type of conversation and faith-
creating technique was used. Here again all the trance and hysterical phenomena were seen and the people
concerned were certain that the Holy Ghost was among them and was possessing them ...
Suicides have been known to result from some of these meetings. Displays of abandoned sexuality were also
reported to occur in the evenings, after the meetings, in the grounds surrounding the hall. It was noticed in the
mental observation wards in Cincinnati that the number of patients admitted increased considerably after these
meetings, when people had been stimulated and excited into states of mental confusion rather than conversion:
they settled down again with a few days' sedation and rest. It is always the more normal, as I have already
pointed out, and not the mentally ill who can more easily obtain these feelings of salvation and sanctification
and of being possessed by a variety of gods, spirits and devils, because they are more suggestible.
(Sargant 1975, 189-190).
Whilst it is clear that Sargant is cynical about the Christian faith and practice, and
that he has some well documented examples to substantiate his claim, it is to the shame
of practitioners of glossolalia that they have generally failed to address the
problems of abuse and misuse, which was Paul's main concern in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
A. INTRODUCTION
This case study is most pertinent to the study, as the author of the book, Coast
Salish Spirit Dancing, Pamela Amoss, makes a number of references to Pentecostal and
religious phenomena that equate to the Coast Salish experience. It thus highlights the
type of cultural parallel that causes a confusing element with biblical phenomena. The
unintended counterfeit is a salient reminder of the need for objective correctives.
Amoss states (vii):
Pentecostalism, spirit dancing, and Shakerism all function in the modern social field of the Coast Salish as
alternative or complementary ways of finding answers to questions about the meaning of life and a person's
place in it.
In this sense, biblical experiences (as portrayed by the Pentecostal expression)
are equated with spirit (demon) experiences that debase biblical credibility.
B. PRECURSORS
a. Deprivation.
The Nooksack people feel significant deprivation in four recognised areas (164).
They feel deprived of possessions, because of lack of land claims against the
government. They feel deprived in behaviour, being acutely aware of their tribal failure
to realize their own standards of conduct. They also feel deprived in both status and
worth because they see themselves on the bottom of the social scale and intrinsically
inferior to whites.
The tribe itself is very small - just less than 300 live in the Nooksack valley -
(32) and most have substandard housing. A majority of the families are on welfare
payments (162) and altogether this contributes to a sense of personal helplessness.
It appears that these deprivation factors are similar to the background factors of
the Pentecostals in particular, and similarly contribute to their needs in religious
experience.
Vivier (1960, 380, 385, etc.) discovered, after extensive testing, that glossolalists
(in a Pentecostal context) experienced a range of deprivation. They came from homes in
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
which a high degree of psychopathology was present, resulting from alcoholism,
nervous breakdown, insecurity and guilt. Oates (1967, 84) reports that glossolalia in
Pentecostalism broke out of depression and economic deprivation during the
Depression years. By contrast, glossolalia in neo-Pentecostalism followed from
affluence (Oates 1967, 84). Many writers refer to glossolalia as an expression of
cathartic release that meets an emotional need (e.g. Kelsey 1968, 138-9). Generally
social scientists found that Pentecostalism was related to socio-economic deprivation
(Bradfield 1979, v).
b. Identity factor.
In the religious experience of the Nooksacks, becoming a spirit dancer causes a
sharp division in the tribe. The individual transfers from those who "ain't got nothing" to
one who "has something", finally achieving the spirit dance (55). The initiated
Nooksack thus approaches the lofty experience of the Shaman, and whilst there is a
difference of degree in the experience of the ordinary spirit dancer and the Shaman, a
much greater gulf exists between those who "ain't got nothing" and the spirit dancer
(65).
Such a division exists in Pentecostal (and charismatic) experience. There is a
two-tiered society of the "haves" and the "have-nots" - those who have purportedly
spoken in tongues, and those who have not (cf. MacArthur 1979, 12). This division is as
old as the Corinthian church in the context of this study, and Montanus in the historical
context of Pentecostalism. Montanus claimed that the church was comprised of two
groups: the "spiritual Christians" and the "carnal Christians", differentiated on the issue
of dramatic gifts, especially tongues (MacArthur 1979, 28).
c. Religious beliefs/experience.
Amoss adopts a definition of religion as "a system of thought and behaviour that
regulates a people's relations with the sacred" (42). The explicit goal of Nooksack
religious practice is control of the supernatural power (43). It is a view of power in a
"diffused impersonalised" sense. The control of the power, is the successful
manipulation of power for one's own needs. In this latter sense, they are not dissimilar
to the Pentecostal position of demanding that God give the desired evidence of tongues,
healing, prophesy, prosperity, etc. that is the manifestation of the subject's desires or
adopted theological framework.
This manipulation for personal goals, is also true of the Shaker religion which
Dyer sums up by stating:
Their religion consisted in confessing sin to the leaders, dancing and whirling, speaking in their unknown
tongues, as they called it, stripping and dancing naked together, men and women.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
(Cited in Mackie 1921, 94.)
Perhaps the most important aspect of religious belief is the High God complex,
which identifies "religion" as distinct from three other systems (guardian spirit complex,
the ghost complex, and the magic complex) which are grouped together as the "Indian
Way" (46). The High God complex has come from outside the Indian experience, and
there are two models for viewing the relationship between the High God complex and
the Indian Way.
Firstly, there is the "syncretic view" (46). In this case, it is argued that God gave
the "Indian Way" as a special gift to the Indian, but after three generations of
missionaries, much of the Judeo-Christian heritage has been imbibed. The two ways are
thus regarded as gifts from God and are allowed to coalesce in the Indian thinking.
Secondly, there is a dichotomous model, which puts the two ways in "opposition"
(46): you are either with the Christian God, or you are against Him. This is the more
conservative view.
These two models (and their precursors) highlight some similarities with
Pentecostalism, Methodism, Shakerism, and Catholicism - religious expressions with
which the Coast Salish Indians are familiar (80). God is perceived as "Holy God" or
"sacred high noble one", but He is one of several supernatural expressions. He is not
seen as omnipotent (80). Nevertheless, God is seen as a means to power - especially to
heal and to possess (81). It is in this latter sense that a strong correlation is shown
between the Nooksack and both Pentecostalism and Shakerism in particular. All of these
groups emphasize possession of the Holy Spirit with resultant manifestations as
evidence. Hence it becomes clear that there is a difference between beliefs and
practices of an essentially religious nature, and those that are distinctly biblical and
Christian.
Ironically, the Pentecostal stance is strongly in favour of the second model
("opposition") and opposed to the first model ("syncretism") (46), and yet its practice
involves phenomena that approximate to the “Indian Way”.
d. Possession.
Amoss maintains that "All religious systems offer supernatural justifications for
the value system which motivates individuals to perform the necessary social roles ..."
(121). If some form of trance experience is available, it provides additional emotional
support. Hence a universal capacity (to adopt trance-like states or altered states of
consciousness - or "possession") is employed to provide direct sensory evidence to
validate the religious system (121).
Altered states of consciousness as related to the Coast Salish, have been
e. Social Need.
The basic deprivation factors noted earlier, produce a deep insecurity in the Coast
Salish Indians. Consequently they have a need for assurance and confidence, and this is
found in various religious experiences, especially through visions (14). Changes in the
cultural patterns have meant that adolescents in their late teens are experiencing the
visions (49), which result in a song and dance as visible proof of their contact with
supernatural power (48). This evidence has a major benefit in producing a sense of
confidence (14) and the approval of their kinsmen (55).
This social need for acceptance and affirmation is commonly noted in religious
groups, and is significantly manifest in Pentecostalism through speaking in tongues.
Bach (1969, 17) speaks of a deep desire to be a public speaker, and the consequent
training and preparation, but rejoices over the sudden achievement: "under the
Baptismal power, I was explosive with the oratory of the prophets and I was voicing the
language of the seers". Through glossolalia, Bach felt "in tune with everything, earth,
sky, air, and life itself" and that his experience had bypassed his bride-to-be, and
bypassed the church of which he was a member (1969, 31). He had achieved instant
greatness and would be able to tell them about this experience. Any inferiority was
overcome.
f. Summary.
The above introductory considerations identify Coast Salish cultural expressions
that are similar to Pentecostal (and Shaker) religious expressions, both in motivation for
an experience with the supernatural, and subsequently with tangible evidence that that
goal has been achieved. Some form of ecstatic experience and its attendant
manifestation, usually with some linguistic component, is regarded as satisfying the
demands of the particular group.
The characteristics and phenomena that are now focused on, are those that stem
from the basic needs of people, whether Coast Salish Indians, Pentecostals (or
otherwise) that highlight firstly, the similarity between secular and Christian groups, and
secondly, the need for biblical differentiation.
b. High God.
The concept of "High God" comes from outside the Indian heritage, and has
resulted from many years of missionary activity. However, because of the potential for
power, the belief is very attractive: power to heal, power to diagnose, power to remove
bondage (especially an addiction - usually drinking) (81). The value in thus
"possessing" God, as a means to power, makes Pentecostalism very appealing to the
Nooksack people.
Several factors involved in achieving possession are very similar for both
Nooksack and Pentecostal.
(1) Vision expectancy/predisposition.
The method of achieving a vision requires the aspirant to be in a susceptible
condition (53) and he naturally has to be aware of the potential for such experience and
that it is expected of him. Similarly, Mackie (1921, 27) notes that men usually only have
the gift of tongues where they know there is a gift of tongues. There usually has to be a
prior knowledge as well as a predisposition to the experience.
The susceptible condition is shown by several patterns.
Sickness may occur that is not curable by Western medicine, resulting in much
distress and desperation. At this point a shaman is usually brought in and will diagnose
the trouble as "Indian sickness". This precipitating illness proves the susceptible
condition by the participation of the spirit in the illness (54).
Sorrow may be the result of bereavement of a loved one. Bereaved spouses and
orphaned children are likely to be visited by a spirit (54).
"Hard feelings" are a mixture of anger and grief caused by a quarrel with a loved
one, potentially making a person susceptible.
· These above three (sickness, sorrow and hard feelings) arouse the pity of the spirit,
but dreaming of the spirit indicates not only susceptibility, but also that the spirit has
laid claim on the person (54).
"Grabbers" induce "susceptibility by capture". This is called the "home-made
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
way" for initiation (53). Grabbers are supposed to be spiritually strong, but physical
strength is also necessary for the process of carrying the candidate (54). Grabbings are
directed by initiators (the "bosses") who direct the whole process. The boss is
responsible for the initiate and the outcome of the initiation, and must have spare
spiritual power to be able to blow some power into the initiate (55). The initiators must
"bring out" what is there if the candidate "has something", and must know whether to put
power into the initiate or to coax out the evidential song.
The overall result is that a susceptible candidate manifests the arrival of the spirit
by vision, song, and dance. He moves from one who "ain't got nothing" to one who "has
something" (55).
In all this experience there are many parallels with Pentecostalism. A variety of
precursors like sickness, sorrow, guilt often lead to a greater emotional susceptibility to
the experience of "trance" and speaking in tongues. Most significantly, there is a "boss"
(or initiator) who is an authority figure who guides the acceptance of the spirit (Holy
Spirit) accompanied by "blowing some of their power into the initiate" or coaxing the
initiate to respond. Often there are "catchers" (as opposed to "grabbers") who assist the
"boss" in the process.
The evidence of achieving the desired end of possession may vary from slaying
(in the “Spirit”) (even the Nooksack have an initiatory seizing in which the initiate is
"symbolically slain" - 56) and speaking in tongues, to the more bizarre "coming through"
sexually for Jesus (Sargant 1975, 88). Normally there is the affirmation of the "bosses".
Bach speaks of the affirmation of Brother John who exclaimed, "Praise the Lord! You
got it!" and hugged and sobbed his approval (1969, 34) and Pastor Ulrich, whom
everyone revered, singled out Bach with a variety of verbal affirmations (1969, 35-36).
Clearly a great responsibility falls on the "boss" in both cases. In the Pentecostal
tradition, John Wesley was acutely aware of the bodily manifestations under his
preaching and noted a variety of these in his Journal in 1739 (Mackie 1921, 44). He
was also aware of his own ability to produce these manifestations, and in fact ceased
producing them after 1742. Clearly they were not true manifestations of the Holy Spirit.
(2) Auto-suggestion.
As distinct from the patterns producing susceptibility to spirit possession, is the
subjective choice of the initiate. He would put himself in a position emotionally and
physically where previous supernatural contacts had been made (52).
Similarly, it is well recognized that Pentecostal experiences are expected and
anticipated by the individual (cf. Bach 1969, 134). Glossolalia in particular, is part of a
"pan-human capacity" through suggestibility and unusual concentration (138). Virtually
anybody is able to produce nonsense gibberish, that at times has been construed as a
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
spiritual gift without any validation whatsoever.
(3). Consent.
Once having achieved a supernatural experience, there is a cooperative
relationship for future possession (60). The subject is able to manage the kind and
degree of influence on his life.
The same experience was noted in regard to a witch doctor in the section on
hypnosis (Chapter 4.3.3), who seemed able to control any professed possession.
As distinct from an overwhelming and uncontrolled ecstatic experience, the bible
implies the same ability to control (by consent) the operation of the glossolalic gift,
either exercising it or restraining it (1 Corinthians 14:27-28).
Unfortunately, much Pentecostal and Charismatic practice is on the basis that
whatever consent is involved, the final outcome is supposedly dictated by the Holy
Spirit in an uncontrolled and subconscious manner.
c. Spirit Possession.
Spirit experiences for the Coast Salish, were possession by demonic spirits, and
early missionaries identified the winter dancing as the work of the Devil (122). After a
phase of negativity and repression of spirit possession, by the missionaries, the coming
of the charismatic revival and possession by the (Holy) Spirit was very attractive (123).
For the Coast Salish Indians to "independently rediscover the possibility of divine
possession within the quasi-Christian framework of the Indian Shaker Church is not
surprising" (123).
This "rediscovery" highlights the similarity of the Indian and Pentecostal
experiences, and that there was little differentiation by the Indians. This should alert the
Pentecostals (and charismatics) to the need to differentiate both the source of their
experience and the need for an independent objective evaluation of it.
4.4.3 SUMMARY
This case study of the Coast Salish spirit dancers shows a large variety of
phenomena that not only existed in the Nooksack Indian community before the
intervention of Western civilization, but were also "revitalized" and affirmed by similar
phenomena in Western religious experience. Without differentiation, after enduring
denunciation of devil-sourced spirit dancing by early missionaries, the Indians
discovered validation for their experiences in the charismatic/Pentecostal experiences,
as well as the Shaker religion. The foundation element of ecstatic type experience in the
two groups high-lights the imperative to examine sources for the experience, in order to
authenticate a true biblical experience from God, as opposed to a culturally derived
experience that has no particular accountability to God, or anyone outside the cultural
group. Identical experiences could be condemned and condoned at the same time (as
they were in the Nooksack tribe).
This stern warning is the precursor to presumed biblical cultural experiences
from the Old Testament, and the motivation to identify clear biblical criteria and
methods of authentication for the true gift of glossolalia.
Robeck (1975a, 29) draws a specific conclusion, “Peter links the gift of tongues,
an activity of the Spirit among the people, with prophecy. The two New Testament gifts
(1 Cor. 12:10) are given the same status”. This is not quite correct, as Paul indicates in
1 Corinthians 14. Haenchen comments that Peter’s reference to Joel asserts that the
prophet’s spectacular relationship with God in the Old Testament had now become a
privilege of all (cited in Robeck 1975a, 29).
Ellis (1974, 132) emphasizes that speaking in tongues may have been exercised
by the Old Testament prophets, by quoting 1 Thessalonians 5:19 to establish a
parallelism between prophecy as a πνευματικα:
The Spirit do (sic) not quench
Prophecies do not despise
and glossolalia as also a πνευματικα issuing from an Old Testament prophetic
background.
In addition to Joel's prophecy as an antecedent for the Day of Pentecost (Acts), is
the reference to the phenomenon of "tongues" in Isaiah, and referred to by Paul in the
significant treatment of glossolalia in 1 Corinthians 14. Associated with these direct
phenomena, is the correlation of prophecy and glossolalia in the discussion of gifts in 1
Corinthians 12-14.
In the Old Testament phenomena, it is widely held that ecstasy was a fundamental
experience in the prophetic schema. By extension, anyone exhibiting some form of
ecstatic frenzy is regarded as acting after the manner of the prophets. If this is a correct
statement of affairs, the Old Testament background involves the association of ecstasy
and prophetic gifts including unintelligible speech, and this construct would seem to
give credibility to a New Testament phenomenon that is similar.
Williams (1974, 320) warns against assuming an absence of any connection
between modern glossolalia and ecstatic prophesy, or that glossolalia could be
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
dismissed as "pathological indulgence". He raises precisely the issue of:
whether, and if so in what way, the ecstatic features associated with Hebrew prophecy can be related to what
has been observed of the experience and behaviour of glossolalists.
(Williams 1974, 321).
Likewise, Gundry (1966, 299) raises the possibility that the glossolalia of the
New Testament is similar to Old Testament prophetism (and Hellenistic religions).
Mills (1972b, 18) agrees, stating that:
A study of tongue-speaking should include a survey of the development of ecstaticism and its relationship to the
Old Testament prophets …
By way of contrast, Russell Spittler, a New Testament scholar and theologian,
who is an ordained Assemblies of God pastor (Robeck 1988, 809), states categorically,
“… there is no Hebrew equivalent for the term glossolalia nor any use of the expression
glōssais lalein in the Septuagint” (1988, 336). Nevertheless, this does not obviate the
apparent similarity of the phenomena.
Alden (1966, 149) states that in the past, any consideration of ecstasy in the
context of prophecy, was only related to the people present. It is only in modern
(twentieth century) times that the matter of ecstasy was related to the prophet himself.
Be that as it may, the fact that a correlation is made impacts on this discussion.
It is necessary for this study to determine the true nature of the Old Testament
phenomena in order to further clarify the New Testament phenomena in order to isolate
the characteristics of an authentic glossolalia in the midst of an ecstatic confusing
element.
He adds, that when the prophet is "seized by Yahweh's spirit" it means the same
as Yahweh's word coming to the prophet, and that those expressions reflect the ecstatic
experience (146). Engnell felt that any devaluing of ecstasy in the great prophets derives
from a failure to appreciate the importance of ecstasy in Israelite culture. For them,
ecstasy does not suggest infirmity or insanity, but suggests heightened activity and
concentration of power (146).
Unlike many commentators, Engnell believes that ecstasy plays an important role
with the later literary prophets as well as the early prophets (148), concluding that "the
great prophets were involved in ecstasy more than most scholars have wanted to admit
... we have felt compelled to reject the thesis that prophetism gradually lost its ecstatic
character and developed in the direction of spiritualization and rationalization ..."
(151).
Likewise Fohrer (1972, 239), using Gunkel's concept of the "secret experience"
of the prophets, recognizes that these secret experiences were "obviously accompanied
by ecstatic experience" even in the great individual prophets. Bright (1952, 230) makes
the broad generalization that the prophets represented an ecstatic strain in Yahwism,
which is psychologically similar to manifestations found in almost every religion of all
time.
The ecstasy in Yahwism was not seen as a disruptive foreign element in that
religion, but a new impulse given by God (Eichrodt 1961, 316), so much so, that
Eichrodt believes that the later prophets did not demean the rise of ecstatic (prophets)
as a "degenerate Canaanitism" (316).
Hence it was not surprising to find that many scholars held an ecstatic view of the
prophets, and Wood (1979, 37) comments that many scholars believed that without the
ability to become "ecstatically frenzied" the prophets would not have been accepted by
their contemporaries. Some scholars speak of ecstatic ability as the badge of authority,
without which the prophet was not accepted (Porteous 1938, 216-249).
Over against the groundswell of opinion in the early twentieth century that
favoured some form of ecstaticism, there were nevertheless some firm opponents.
Robertson Smith in 1907, declared that God
speaks to His prophets, not in magical processes or through visions of poor phrenetics, but by a clear intelligible
word addressed to the intellect and the heart. The characteristic of the true prophet is that he retains his
consciousness and self-control under revelation.
(Cited in Rowley 1945, 4).
H.W. Robinson (1923, 2) rejected the notion of ecstasy, speaking rather of
abnormal behaviour. Other scholars, like Kaufman (1960, 100) rejected the notion that
frenzy (or ecstasy) was a preliminary to prophecy. Young (1952, 163) asserted that
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
revelation was from God, and nowhere else.
During the whole period of the emphasis on ecstasy, there was a growing
corrective against any wholesale capitulation to ecstasy. In particular, a strong
differentiation was made between the early prophets and the later prophets.
Buttenweiser (1914, 153) categorically denied ecstasy in the writing (later) prophets.
B. MEANING OF ECSTASY
Over against the working definition of ecstasy (as in sections 2.3 and 4.2)
scholars writing about the prophets and prophecy address a variety of facets of ecstasy.
Theodore Robinson (1923, 50) gives a vivid picture of the prophet being
suddenly overtaken, "His eye would become fixed, strange convulsions would seize
upon his limbs, the form of his speech would change" and this would be the evidence
that God's Spirit had descended.
Two additional authors suffice to highlight this particular understanding. Fohrer
(1972, 234, 235) speaks of an ecstatic experience characterized by "violent motor
agitation, a kind of ‘frenzy’, associated with a rush of speech, and a ... sense of being
filled and ‘possessed’ by the deity". Martin (1960, 74) adds that there was, "frenzied,
involuntary, and ecstatic utterance".
Whilst these are some of the views about the nature of prophetic ecstasy, this is
not a definitive position – it is only the perception of those who adopt the ecstatic view
of prophecy, in whole or in part.
C. ACHIEVING ECSTASY
a. Prerequisites.
Auto-suggestion, as previously noted, supposedly applies to the prophets. Johnson
(1962) speaks of the "conscious aim of recognized specialists" (21) and that he
deliberately promoted the excitation of his own mental powers (10). He adds that their
behaviour was "artificially promoted" (19) – it was "artificial stimulation designed ex-
pressly to bring about an abnormal (not to say ‘ecstatic’) experience (18). Fohrer (1972,
235) states that the early prophets "would deliberately use auto-suggestion to achieve a
state of dulled and narrowed consciousness".
The choice to achieve ecstasy involved the setting aside of reason, and leaving the
mind open for the reception of the word from God (Wood 1979, 38). Sometimes there
was preparation by asceticism and isolation (Fohrer 1972, 235).
b. The Means
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
The prophets often have secular methods attributed to them by many scholars.
Fohrer (1972, 235) speaks of music, dance and rhythmic movement (cf. 1 Sam. 10:5-6;
1 Kings 18:26ff.), as well as the probable occasional use of narcotics. Likewise,
Eichrodt (1961) specifically notes that the Israelite cultic ceremonial of sacred dance
could easily develop into ecstasy (310). Oesterley (1923) notes that the dance can
signify entering into active union with the deity who is adored (16-17), and by dancing
until unconsciousness, the devotee makes his body a fit state for the temporary abode for
the god (26), referring specifically to the Hebrew prophet giving the oracle of YHWH
(27). Associated with the cultic dance was hymnody (music and song) – which was
often expressed by prophets (311). Eichrodt clearly infers a relation between the
"means" and the "result": "in frenzy singing passes into staccato invocations or even
ends in inarticulate cries" (glossolalic utterance) (311). However, Eichrodt rejects the
notion that narcotics or physical self-torture played any part in Israelite custom (310).
Like Fohrer, Engnell (1969) maintains a cultic association between the cultus and
the resultant ecstasy (30). He asserts that prophets used a variety of means such as
singing and music (Exodus 15:20; 1 Samuel 10:5; 2 Kings 3:15), incessant cultic cries
(1Kings 22:10ff; 18:26ff), (sometimes “babbling their messages in a state of orgiastic
possession” – Kraus 1966, 102), rhythmical movements and dancing (Exodus 15:20; 1
Kings 18:26), or even cutting their own bodies (1 Kings 18:28; 20:41; Zechariah 13:6)
(129). Asceticism can also be included (30). McKenzie (1974, 94) makes an interesting
qualification, observing that music (and other devices) were in such common use that
they were not always specifically mentioned because they were normal. Equally, his
observation is not definitive.
When the above generalizations are made across the spectrum of prophets –
sacred and secular – then the early biblical prophets of the Canaanite-Israelite region
can easily be identified with medicine men, thaumaturges, and the charismatic leaders
elsewhere in the world of religion (Engnell 1969, 145). This is hardly a definitive
position.
Wood (1979) notes the secular application of vaporous gas, sacred dance,
rhythmic music, or even narcotics, to achieve the state of ecstasy (38) but he rejects the
argument as applying to Israelite prophets (39).
Likewise, Robertson-Smith's firm rejection of the ecstatic presupposition has
been noted. Kaufman's voice can be added (1960, 100): "In the Israelite conception ...
ecstasy does not produce prophecy", although he allows that God's word might cause
ecstasy.
It is evident that care must be taken in identifying the means for producing ecstasy,
as opposed to merely associated phenomena (e.g. music). This is acutely important, if
the application of "means" is attributed to a supposed phenomenon, namely ecstasy.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
c. The Results
Against a background of secular ecstatic experiences, the most basic feature is
applied to the prophets as follows: "Ecstasy with all its consequences derives from a
direct irruption of divine power ... which overwhelms a man and takes him prisoner"
(Eichrodt 1961, 318). This experience of frenzy (ecstasy) was not simply the loss of
normal consciousness, but an "endowment with higher powers", thus enabling the
prophet to impart knowledge in the name of Yahweh (Eichrodt 1961, 312). Thus the
prophet becomes the man "in whom the word of Yahweh is" (Eichrodt 1961, 312), he
was "God's mouth, God's spokesman" (Ellison 1969, 26).
Communion with a deity was a common yearning and that it was often sought
through ecstatic frenzy was a common procedure (Wood 1966, 125). The Dionysiac
frenzy in Greece, the enthusiasm of the Crusades or the Flagellant movement in Germany
are examples (Eichrodt 1961, 324). It was concluded that the nabis likewise sought this
possession by their deity (Fohrer 1972, 235).
Evidence of ecstasy was seen in their state of dulled and narrowed consciousness
(Fohrer 1972, 235), falling into rapture (Engnell 1969, 129), lapsing into a coma-like
state (Greenbaum 1973a, 42), or acting and speaking as in an intoxication (Pederson
1946, 129).
In the prophetic movement, the prophets came to be called "madmen" (Wood
1979, 39) because of the extreme nature of their behaviour. There was "violent motor
agitation" and a rush of speech (Fohrer 1972, 234); normally a physical seizure (Wood
1979, 38); constriction of the muscles (T.H. Robinson 1923, 31); performed symbolic
acts (Engnell 1969, 150-151); and perhaps tearing off their clothes and going naked and
barefoot (Engnell 1969, 129, 151).
The most significant prophetic ecstatic manifestation was the verbal utterances
that might come in a form that was unrecognisable as human speech (T.A. Robinson
1923, 31), inarticulate cries (Eichrodt 1961, 311), or raving or "speaking forth a
message" (Wood 1966, 135).
At worst, these utterances are given whilst in possession trance and are not
remembered by the subject. At best, they are given in trance vision (or dream) and are
remembered. This is the distinction made by Bourguignon (1973b, 14-15). However, the
prerequisite of trance (ecstasy) is far from established, and the fact that the prophets did
record their visions, doesn't prove that they had their visions in a trance that involved an
altered state of consciousness.
D. BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES
Mundle (1976, 527) makes clear that ecstasy (ἐκστασις) correlates with
προφητευω (Hebrew yithnabbe’) and often means "confusion, terror, madness". Payne
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
(1962, 52) notes that liberal criticism regarded early Hebrew prophecy as nothing more
than ecstatic emotionalism, a position derived from studies of comparative religion that
emphasized frenzy in some pagan prophets or the "ravings" of King Saul. This
ecstaticism was purportedly perpetuated by the Jews through Talmudic times, typically
expressing the union with God and "the secrets of His Realm" (Sholem 1955, 5).
However, after the fervour for ecstatic arguments early in the twentieth century,
there was a restoration of balance, with an acknowledgement that any purported early
associations of ecstasy from the Canaanite region were lost in the development of the
truly prophetic traits.
Some had argued for a diminution of the early ecstatic zeal, losing their original
spontaneity and falling into a "routine professionalism" (Wood 1979, 19). Meek (1960,
174) propounded this view, saying "Thus did prophecy become commercialised and
professionalised. It went the way of ... all institutions".
Wood (1979, 20) allows that there were some prophets who were professionals
in the sense that they were "king-pleasers". But there were others like Micaiah, Samuel,
Nathan, Elijah and others who were not king-pleasers. The big mistake of those who
propound the professional view, is in identifying the so-called professional prophets
with the true traditional prophets.
At least the "professional" argument attempted to address the difficulty of seeing
all the prophets identified with rank ecstasy. However, it did little to correct the true
position and give full credence to the true prophets.
Categorically, according to Wood (1979, 37) Israel's prophets were not ecstatics.
Clearly "the prophets laboured under the conviction that the words which he was
uttering were actually indicted of God" – so concludes Young (1952, 175) after a
thorough treatment of all the language used by Isaiah ("the Lord hath spoken", "saith the
Lord", etc.) throughout his book. (Young identifies about 130 such references).
Whatever apparent ecstasy or associated manifestations may appear to be seen in
the prophetic role, there needs to be a clear understanding of the biblical usage, as the
section 4.5.4. shows.
T.H. Robinson assumed this etymology in his emphatic statement (1921, 224-5):
The fact is that Nabi' meant an ecstatic, and it is difficult to see how the term could have been applied to
people who had nothing of the ecstatic about them.
However, Robinson did qualify that all-encompassing statement, as is noted
below.
The simple word "ecstatic" needs to be qualified. Barbour (1981, 6) points out
the range of definitions from narrow to broad. Like T.H. Robinson, Beryl Cohon (1939,
9-14) adopts the narrow sense of the ecstatic as more demonstrative and spectacular,
branding the prophets as "mad enthusiasts". At the other end of the spectrum, Mauchline
(1938, 295) adopts the broad sense, allowing that ecstasy must be differentiated using
factors such as:
(1) the nature of the stimuli which produce it,
(2) the phenomena which accompany it, and
(3) the results which follow it.
Additionally, Parker (1978, 274) notes that the root nb' refers to mediumistic
transfer in Phoenicia, from whence Israel got the word. In that setting it was related to
possession trance. Possession trance is a condition in which an individual is possessed
by a spirit (god) and exhibits the characteristics of ecstasy (Greenbaum 1973a, 42)
including speaking unintelligibly. This condition allows a form of decision-making and
provides a method of expressing dissatisfaction with existing (moral) patterns, thus
bringing pressure to bear on superiors, when other avenues are not available
(Bourguignon 1973b, 26, 33). This type of behaviour is attributed to some of the
prophetic activity (Parker 1978, 273), although Parker himself believes that the
function, whilst present in Israel, was not generally related to prophecy, and in fact
"Yahwistic prophecy in Israel does not involve possession of any kind" (281).
Albright appeals to both the word nibitu which has a passive sense, and also the
verb nabu which means "to call", and concludes that the correct etymological
explanation is "one who is called (by God), and who has a vocation (from God)" (cited
in Young, 1952, 57).
Suffice it to say, etymological considerations are not definitive or conclusive.
Philologically, Rowley (1945, 6-7) questions the assumed ecstatic meaning of the
term, and whilst admitting the sense "to behave in an uncontrolled manner" is present, it
may in fact be secondary to the actual role of the prophet. Guillaume (1938, 112)
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
emphasizes the prophetic role: "philologically the nabhi is one who is in the state of
announcing a message which has been given to him". He thus gives a more passive role
of receiving a message and conveying it, that does not emphasize a prerequisite ecstatic
state to either receive the message or to communicate it (cf. Rowley 1945, 7). Young
(1952, 57) states that "it does not seem possible to ascertain the precise significance of
the word nabhi upon philological grounds alone", hence therefore it is not possible to
deduce a derivation from either a Babylonian or Arabic root.
Psychologically, Hölscher's work in 1914, opened the study of prophetic
experience from a psychological perspective. This followed the early attempt by
Davidson (1903) to work through the psychological problem. He saw the prophetic
state reflecting degrees of mental tension moving from intuition and "self-controlled
excitation to asthenic ecstasy" (Hines 1928, 212).
Hölscher attempted to show that the prophets experienced normal conditions of
consciousness, but that these were altered by abnormal intensifying of the emotions
(Hines 1928, 212-3). Prophetic inspiration is thus a study of the emotions. The peaks of
the strongly excited mind he called ecstasy. And because ecstasy is a universal
experience, it does not define the cause or source of the excitation (Hines 1928, 213).
Engnell (1969, 30) claims that since the psycho-physical state fluctuates between
pure hypnotism and light trance, from a psychological point of view "the authentic form
of ecstasy is hallucination". External symbolic actions are consistent with this
experience.
T.H. Robinson (1923, related in Hines 1928, 214) took the view that ecstasy is
essential to understanding the prophets psychologically. He maintained that the prophets
could have a sudden ecstatic fit, accompanied by a change of speech, glassy fixation of
the eye, and violent twitching of the limbs.
Micklem objects to this debasing of the prophetic role, maintaining that they
performed symbolic actions consciously to emphasize their message, and that this form
of behaviour is better explained as absorption or recollection (Hines 1928, 215). This
is a condition of meditation and deep thought that gives rise to the creative element of
musicians and poets – their inspiration – which is similar to the creativity or "picture-
thinking" manifest in dreams (217).
The prophecies of the great prophets involve "ecstasy" in the sense of
"recollection"/"absorption", resulting in prophesies that issue from profound meditation
into the "meaning and order of the actual world" (Hines 1928, 220, following
Micklem's thesis). However, Micklem concludes that not many of the oracles and
visions of the great prophets were delivered in trance or ecstasy (220). In fact, their
oracles have the mark of artistic creativity and show signs of careful labour.
The utterance of Amos bears the characteristics of ecstatic speech - but how far removed from the older
prophetic ecstasy! No stammered, half-intelligible sounds, but clear publication of divine truths. All the outer
expedients, dance and music, which were still practised in the guilds of the prophets, all excited behaviour has
given place to clear spiritualization.
(Cited in Rowley 1945, 3).
The external stimuli used to induce ecstasy, as noted in the earlier definitions of
ecstasy, and identified in the prophetic context as being dream, music, dance, and even
wine (Rowley 1945, 13), are all abandoned by the time of the reforming prophets
(Mowinckel 1934, 207).
In the midst of the debate on ecstasy and its relevance to prophecy there has been
a smattering of scholars who have maintained a strong emphasis on ecstasy as
fundamental and typical of all prophecy.
Since Hölscher and Robinson there has been an exaggerated tendency to
differentiate between the canonical prophets and their forerunners (Williams 1974,
322). Lindblom, (1962, 25) clarifies that inspiration leading to ecstasy has "many
degrees and many manifestations" (in Alden 1966, 151) thus allowing for a variation in
ecstasy from the early prophets to the latter prophets, but still adhering to the
presupposition of prophetic ecstasy. There seemed to be an obligation to respect the
purported meaning of the nabhi on the one hand, and yet to be honest with the recorded
evidence in the Bible. Robinson's (1921, 225-6) declaration:
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
The fact is that Nabi' meant an ecstatic, and it is difficult to see how the term could have been applied to
people who had nothing of the ecstatic about them
is expressive of a carefully reasoned position that had the mark of authenticity, and
certainly received a solid following. However, Robinson (like Hölscher) was
nevertheless aware of a difference with the later prophets, citing Amos' denial of being
a nabhi as allowance that his "prophetic" activity may not necessarily be "ecstatic
activity", but that there was certainly ecstatic activity prior to Amos (1921, 224).
Following from the early work of Hölscher, Wilson (1979, 322-3) identifies three
major views that move away from the purely ecstatic emphasis. However, it is to be
noted that the ecstatic view had its continuing disciples. A summary of these views and
examples of their proponents are addressed in Chapter 4.5.5.
B. PROPHETIC GROUPINGS
C. EARLY PROPHETS
b. Numbers 11:25-29.
Wood (1966, 126; 1976, 92-100; 1979, 39-41) identifies this passage (along with
1 Samuel 10:1-13 and 1 Samuel 19:18-24) as one of the three passages scholars use to
support their idea of ecstasy in prophecy.
This is the occasion of the prophesying of the seventy administrative assistants of
Moses, with Eldad and Medad continuing their prophesying. Without any attempt at
supporting his statement, Mundle (1976, 527) states: "there was the ecstasy of the elders
in the wilderness". Noth claims that the aim of the story is "to authenticate ecstatic
prophecy" (reported in Rentorff 1976, 797), whilst Parker says that the final
qualification for the role of elder was possession trance (1978, 276), and he claims that
"the institutionalisation of possession trance is explicit" in this passage (279).
Amazingly Parker then paraphrases Numbers 11:29 to read, "Are you jealous for me? I
wish that all Yahweh's people were subject to possession trance, that Yahweh would set
his spirit on them all" (280). There is a remarkable quantum leap from "prophet" to
"subject to possession trance" and with no substantiation.
As if the above conclusions were not bad enough, Martin (1960, 74) seems even
more radical, making the sweeping statements concerning the passage: "the first clear
picture of frenzied, involuntary, and ecstatic utterance ... Very plainly, this was a case of
irregular utterance ... Very clearly, it was a case of unintelligible, incoherent and
inarticulate speech".
Such extravagant statements without substantiation, only serve to discredit the
position. In fact, no message is indicated as having been spoken by either the seventy or
Eldad and Medad (Wood 1979, 40), and there is no proof of any ecstasy (Wood 1966,
127).
c. Numbers 22-24.
This story of Balaam is claimed by Taylor (1901-2, 224) to be the first case of
ecstasy.
Mundle (1976, 527) matter-of-factly asserts that this passage is a description of
the trance condition of Balaam, whilst Martin (1960, 74) maintains that this case
follows from Numbers 11 in the same type of "tongue-speeches", and although the
statements are all perfectly straight forward, he argues that their "apparent coherence
may be due to the possibility that we have here merely the poetic interpretation of that
which the ecstatic was supposed to have said" (emphases mine). He claims that again
"we have evidence of a religious phenomenon of tongues".
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Meek (1960) suggests that Balaam received the experience "undesired and
resisted" (152) leaving him exhausted but completely God's mouthpiece (153). Eichrodt
(1961, 302) argues that the case of Balaam is evidence that ecstasy was well-known in
this early period as a means of receiving divine messages, although he clarifies that at
no time were narcotics used to induce ecstasy, and that no interpreter was mentioned as
being necessary to interpret "such ecstatic oracles". In a footnote, Eichrodt makes the
interesting clarification that Balaam's use of divination served to clearly dissociate the
God of Israel from heathen practices.
d. Deuteronomy 18:15-22.
In this passage Moses refers to himself as a prophet, and states that a prophet like
himself would arise. Although there is a specific reference to Christ, there is also
reference to prophets generally who would arise (cf. Wood 1966, 125). Wood asserts
that Moses was clearly not ecstatic, and hence subsequent prophets, if they were to be
like him, would likewise not be ecstatics. It must also be noted that Christ, being a
prophet like Moses, was also emphatically not an ecstatic, which reinforces the nature
of the prophetic role as non-ecstatic.
Further, in verses 9-14, there is a stern warning against employing the revelational
practices of the surrounding nations. Thus the ecstatic frenzy used by the other nations
was "officially disallowed" (Wood 1966, 126). It is not surprising that prophets like
Joshua, Deborah, Barak, Samuel, Nathan and Ahijah show no ecstatic aspect in their
prophetic roles (Wood 1966, 126).
e. 1 Samuel 9:9.
This verse declares that the one who is now called a prophet, was previously
called a seer.
If the ecstatic precursor from other nations is assumed (Wood 1966, 125) then it is
easy to understand the extravagant statement: "there is no question but that the early
prophets were ecstatics" (Meek 1960, 156), although Meek qualifies the statement,
indicating that their ecstaticism was seldom of the frenzied type, and never orgiastic. He
makes the further interesting comment, that an "experience so universal as prophecy
need owe nothing to other civilizations". This statement allows for a unique type of
Hebrew prophecy, not dependent on other sources.
However, Fohrer (1972, 228) argues that this verse confirms a view that there
were two types of ancient Near Eastern prophecy. Originally nomadic Israelites brought
the institution of the seer and discovered the institution of the nabi in Palestine and
borrowed it. The result was a coalescing of the two distinct forms moulded under the
g. 2 Samuel 6:14-23.
A brief mention is made of this passage since some scholars refer to David's
dancing in the context of "ecstatic frenzy". Ecstatic frenzy is often regarded as the
revelational experience of the prophets.
Whilst it is true that David did lead others in a sacred procession involving
leaping and dancing in association with the ark, no revelation was involved, nor did
David seek a message from God (Wood 1979, 95). In fact no prophetic activity is
involved.
h. 2 Samuel 12:1.
In this verse, and the following passage, the prophet Nathan brings a strong rebuke
to King David. There is no suggestion that Nathan had to give evidence of prophetic
inspiration, nor that he was seized with convulsions before accusing David: "You are
the man" (Rowley 1945, 11). In fact there is no evidence or necessity to show that
Nathan had ecstatic experience, nor that he needed to prove that his message was from
God (cf. Rowley 1945, 12). Wood (1966, 126) concurs with the non-ecstatic nature of
Nathan's prophecy.
i. 1 Kings 18:16-46.
The prophets of Baal in this passage, are regarded by some as of the "frenzied
type" (Martin 1960, 75). They are an example of "collective, self-induced ecstasy"
(Mauchline 1938, 295). This means that there was deliberate group activity aimed to
produce the ecstatic state, using the means of cultic cries (1 Kings 18:26ff.), rhythmical
movements or dancing (1 Kings 18:26) and cutting their own bodies (1 Kings 18:28)
(Martin 1960, 75; Fohrer 1972, 235).
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
These activities are interpreted as "ecstatic speech" and "orgiastic flagellation"
(Martin 1960, 75). Meek (1960, 155) compares the experience to the Dionysian frenzy
of Asia Minor, thus paralleling the experiences in the cultural milieu of the first century
Corinthians. However, as distinct from the belief that this behaviour was typical
prophetic activity, Mowinckel (1934, 206) indicates that there was disapproval of this
behaviour on moral grounds, and that "the wild orgiastic ecstasy (was) ridiculed in the
Elijah legend" - referring to the prophets of Baal.
The ecstatic speech referred to by Martin (above) consisted of prophesyings (1
Kings 18:29), shouts (1 Kings 18:28), and sensible ejaculations (1 Kings 18:26).
However, Parker (1978, 284) rightly observes that this prophesying was not
prophesying in the correct sense of the term, because these "prophets" are not speaking
FOR their god, but appealing TO their god. Further, their prophesying mood is not
possession trance (Parker's assumed term) because they can't even contact their god, let
alone be possessed by him. It must be assumed that the term "prophesying" is purely a
reference to their behaviour, because in reality they were not possessed and were not
prophesying (Parker 1978, 284; and Wood 1979, 41).
Concerning Elijah in this passage, Engnell (1969, 129) regards him as
experiencing quietistic ecstasy, a conclusion he purportedly derives from 1 Kings
18:42ff. Taylor (1901-2, 227) states that Elijah received his revelation in a state of
ecstasy, and that he was the transmitter of a true line of divine ecstasy down to Amos,
standing mid-way between the Nabiim of Saul's day to the ethical prophecy of Amos.
He was a great teacher of righteousness as well as an ecstatic, according to Taylor.
As noted previously, this supposed line of ecstasy is strongly disputed by Von Rad
(in Eppstein 1969, 295).
As distinct from a line of ecstasy, Fohrer (1972, 229) sees Elijah (and Elisha) as
"transitional forms", not being linked to the sanctuary, and without ecstatic experience.
It is evident that this passage (1 Kings 18:16-46) provides no clear basis for an
ecstatic prophetic position, and that any utterance was unrelated to an ecstatic state, and
certainly in the case of the Baal prophets, unrelated to a divine source.
j. 1 Kings 22:7-28.
On the basis of an unexplained assumption, Mackenzie (1974, 94) concludes that
Ahab's court prophets (verses 10-12) are "inducing group ecstasy". Martin (1960, 75)
seems to take more liberal licence, deducing (without explanation) that in verses 7,8
there is the phenomenon of tongues and interpretation with religious significance. This
passage is used to purportedly demonstrate raving as proof of ecstatic manifestation.
However, the imparting of a message (v.12) militates against this conclusion (Wood
k. 2 Kings 3:11-16.
In this passage, Elisha is called to prophesy to Jehoshaphat the king of Judah.
Elisha calls for a minstrel (v.15) and subsequently prophesies. Although there is nothing
to correlate between the harpist and the prophecy, Taylor (1902-2, 227) concludes that
Elisha is an ecstatic "in whom the ecstasy is roused by music". Cohen simply lumps
Elisha into a group of all the prophets, and calls them "mad enthusiasts" (cited in Alden
1966, 152).
Parker (1978, 283) on the most minimal evidence, remarks that this passage has
"remained a favourite proof text for ecstatic prophecy". Kaufman (1960, 96) concludes
that the correlation between the music and prophecy is unique, although there is no
evidence that Elisha's inspiration is a consequence of the music (Parker 1978, 283).
Likewise, Meek (1960, 172) regards the role of the minstrel as a "mechanical
means to induce the prophetic ecstasy" that was to be expected as part of a developing
technique for professional prophecy.
Keil and Delitzsch (1980, 304) see no need to conclude anything further than the
collecting of his mind and subduing of the self-life, in order to devote himself to divine
things. Certainly there is no evidence for a professional role by Elisha. Whilst it is true
that revelation was given and that music was involved, there is no evidence of
deliberate self-stimulation to achieve some ecstatic state (Wood 1979, 96).
D. LATER PROPHETS
a. Introduction
The primary focus in this grouping is the period of the eighth and seventh
centuries B.C. These prophets are more reflective, seeking religious reforms and they
usually write their prophecies. They are not to be identified with the "sons of the
prophets" (Martin 1960, 75).
Even from the early days of the emphasis on the prophetic ecstasy, there has been
a cautionary note about any over-emphasis, and certainly a distinction between the early
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
and later prophets in that respect. In this regard, the view of scholars like Buttenweiser
have been noted.
Nevertheless, Hölscher, the popular proponent of ecstasy, pointed out abnormal
features as he perceived them, even in the greatest prophets (Robinson 1946, 177).
Meek (1960, 153) maintained that there was always "rapturous ecstasy", but that in the
case of the later prophets, there was a prophetic oracle (154). In this experience, it was
not the prophet who was speaking, but God. And the utterance only came after the
mystic experience and in consequence from it.
Eichrodt (1961, 341) adopts a different stance. He maintains that in the case of
these classical prophets there is no longer "full-scale ecstatic mass-hysteria". Instead,
vision is the exclusive means of prophets achieving their calling. Fohrer (1972, 225)
adds that the prophetic discourse had to be delivered in poetic form in order to gain a
hearing and to be accorded credibility.
Martin (1960, 75) allows for a new type of ecstasy. They used "less frenzied
emotion, with more measured words, and with more illumined and inspired utterances".
Yet the prophecy was still ecstatic, and Martin alludes to references like "in my ears"
(Isaiah 5:9; 22:14) and "hand of Yahweh" (Isaiah. 8:11) to indicate that they experience
the Spirit of God upon them. Meek (1960, 156) gives some balance to Hebrew
prophecy, allowing that not only was it never orgiastic, but that it was less ecstatic and
more rational than neighbouring groups.
Even more positively, was the acknowledgement that with the later prophets came
a re-evaluation of spirit-possession (Martin 1960, 75). That is quite an admission
against Martin's assumption of spirit-possession. Here was a change from ecstasy to an
emphasis on righteous living.
Further, the fact that the later prophets recorded their own utterances allows for
more objective study of their true prophetic nature (cf. Mowinckel 1935, 267).
b. Prophetic examples
i. Isaiah.
Referring to Isaiah 21:3-4, Parker (1978, 281), arguing from a basis of prophetic
possession trance, states that "Yahwistic prophecy in Israel does not involve possession
of any kind". This passage has also been used to provide evidence of ecstatic prophecy.
Parker uses Bourguignon's argument that the subject does not remember his trance
behaviour, to reject the claim (281). In addition, Hillers has shown that this is a literary
convention to convey bad news (282).
There is no evidence of ecstatic prophecy (or possession trance) to categorize
E. SUMMARY
In a number of very thorough studies, Wood (1966, 1976, 1979) very carefully
addresses the criteria for supposed ecstasy in the Old Testament. In particular, he
addressed three primary passages (as noted above) advanced for evidence of ecstatic
prophetic experience (Numbers 11:25-29; 1 Samuel 10:1-13; 1 Samuel 19:18-24) and
carefully notes contrary arguments, alternative arguments, and additional qualifications
(1966, 128-137; 1979, 44-105).
He further looks at "raving passages" (1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Kings 18:29; 1 Kings
22:10-12) and "madness passages" (2 Kings 9:1-12; Jeremiah 29:26; Hosea 9:7) (1979,
41-43).
The clear conclusion of the study of Old Testament usage of ecstasy and prophecy,
is that there is no adequate proof of ecstatic experience for the prophets. No behavioural
variations, peculiarities in presentation, or association with others who demonstrate
aberrant behaviour, in any way implicates the prophets in ecstatic experience, behaviour
or utterance. No precedent is available from the experience of true Old Testament
prophets for any New Testament prophetic or associated experience, and in particular,
for ecstasy to be associated with verbal utterance.
F. SUMMARY
The authors who propose an ecstatic explanation of prophecy, base their case on
extra-biblical phenomena (Alden 1966, 154), in particular the Canaanite experience.
There is also the assumption that ecstasy was universally accepted and caused the
prophets to speak religious truth to all times (Taylor 1901-2, 224). However, most of
the features of ecstasy as found in most religions "from the ancient Babylonian cults to
the mystic Eastern faiths as well as certain branches of Christianity" are absent from
most of the biblical prophets (Alden 1966, 155). And since ecstasy usually has
derogatory overtones and is "used almost exclusively to describe pagan religious
actions", it is inappropriate to be used in reference to the Hebrew prophets (Alden
1966, 155).
Much subjective confusion has surfaced over the years, so that one scholar may
detect only heathen frenzy, whilst another sees the origins of the essence of Yahwism
(Eichrodt 1961, 309). However, Israel's seers felt that they were definitely in a class
apart from heathen soothsayers, and had a more objective means of God's revelation
(Eichrodt 1961, 303). Mowinckel (1935, 267) clearly affirms, that in spite of Canaanite
comparisons and parallels with orgiastic-enthusiastic behaviour, individuals as early as
Elijah and Elisha stood out as intellectually motivated rather than emotional.
Because of a number of complexities in the whole perspective of prophecy and
ecstasy, some scholars have suggested a more individual approach. Mackenzie (1974,
94) believes that the issue of prophetic inspiration should be treated separately, due to
the inadequate material relating to the manner of inspiration. Wilson (1979, 328) urges
that "prophetic possession behaviour must be answered with respect to each individual
prophet and perhaps even with respect to each social situation in which the prophet
worked".
Beyond these uncertainties and presuppositions there has been an increasing
caution against following the extremes of Hölscher and others, and in spite of a
progression of advocates, there has been a growing realization that apparent phenomena
and behaviour of an ecstatic nature, do not necessarily negate the true criteria of God's
prophets, nor do they prove any association with Canaanite or other heathen practices.
a. Joel 2
While it is stated by the Apostle Peter that the phenomenon of Pentecost is a
fulfilment of Joel's prophecy, there is no ecstatic background in Joel's experience that in
any way colours the nature of the Pentecost event. Further, there is no precursor in Joel
that parallels the phenomenon of Pentecost. Finally, it must be noted that the fulfilment in
Acts 2 of the phenomenon predicted in Joel 2 is not to be confused with the Gospel
preaching of Peter on the Day of Pentecost. Joel predicted the coming of the Holy Spirit,
and the verbal phenomenon of Pentecost plus the other signs (fire, wind) are signs or
evidence of that fact (Acts 2:12-16). The Gospel preaching was subsequent to and
separate from the verbal utterance that so amazed the crowd, although no doubt this
prepared the people to be in anticipation. The verbal utterance did not require
interpretation, and was not a gift to the church (since the church did not exist at that
point) and hence is distinct from the gift addressed in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
The prophecy of Joel has no bearing on the nature of glossolalia.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
b. Isaiah 28
Because Paul directly refers to Isaiah 28 in the immediate context of glossolalia,
it must be considered here (and detailed later). It has already been concluded that there
is no ecstatic basis for the Old Testament prophets. Paul refers to Isaiah 28 from the
context of:
(1). immaturity in thinking (1 Corinthians 14:20),
(2). tongues given as a sign for unpersuaded ones (unbelievers) of God's people (1
Corinthians 14:22).
In the context of Isaiah 28, the prophet has referred to the irresponsible behaviour
of the leaders of Judah (verses 7-8), effectively calling them a "bunch of filthy drunken
bums" (Dillow 1975, 27). They are indignant at Isaiah's rebuke, complaining that he has
been instructing them as immature infants (Dillow 1975, 27). Isaiah further rebukes
them, warning that God will speak to these unpersuaded leaders of Israel through
"foreign lips and strange foreign tongues" (verse 11), a reference to the Assyrians who
would bring judgment on them (verse 13b). God speaks to them in foreign languages
because they refuse to listen to His message in plain Hebrew through the prophets.
It is to be noted that there was no actual message through these foreigners, they
were simply punished for their refusal to believe. The foreign language was a sign of
judgment (Dillow 975, 28). This correlation between a foreign language and judgment
is not peculiar to Isaiah 28. It is also found in Deuteronomy 28:49, Isaiah 33:19, and
Jeremiah 5:15 (Dillow 1975, 28-29; Davies 1952, 230).
It is also to be noted that the language being referred to is a known foreign
language, not gibberish or some exotic "unknown" utterance outside of normal human
experience.
Clearly there is nothing of an ecstatic precursor in this passage.
c. Ecstasy
Not only is there no ecstatic precursor in the above passages, but there is no
defined ecstatic precursors to the issue of prophecy in the Old Testament. Hence there
need be no presupposition for prophecy in the New Testament (and especially in 1
Corinthians 12-14) from the Old Testament background.
d. Miracles
On the assumption that glossolalia is a miraculous gift (Warfield 1972, 21) some
scholars seek to identify periods when miraculous gifts (or simply miracles) occurred.
Dillow (1975, 96-97) identifies only three periods, each of seventy years, in which
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
miracles have occurred. Relevant to this study is Dillow's identification of the periods
that include Moses (1441-1370 B.C.), Elijah and Elisha (870-785 B.C.), and Christ and
the Apostles (28-70 A.D.). His thesis is that miracles were restricted to these periods of
history alone.
There is no attempted correlation between the Old Testament miracles and the
New Testament miracles (including glossolalia), nor any attempt to pursue ecstatic
presuppositions. Dillow – unsuccessfully – restricts miracles (and hence glossolalia) to
those three periods alone.
Other cessationists likewise try to delimit the use of glossolalia (Edgar 1983, 266
-278; Edgar 1988, 372; Gaffin 1996, 25-64; Thomas 1974, 81-89; Warfield 1972, 21,
etc.) but this will be addressed later.
C. SUMMARY
In spite of all the supposed correlations, there is no sufficient demonstration that
glossolalia must be somehow connected psychologically, lineally or otherwise, in spite
of any apparently similar experiences and manifestations. New Testament glossolalia is
identified as a specific gift for the Church, and must be disentangled from other
detractions.
D. SUMMARY
In this vast area of reports of ecstatic tongues-speaking over the centuries and
throughout the world, the reports are made according to the expectations and framework
presuppositions of the reporters. Generally there is a failure to establish objective
criteria for tongues-speaking, although there is more general recognition of a broad area
of ecstatic/trance-like/mystical experience (even if that also lacks definition). There
could be a whole variety of ecstatic or non-ecstatic linguistic phenomena that do not
necessarily have to be equated or connected. More particularly, there is no established
B. TERMS
The phenomenon of slaying in the Spirit has been variously named over the years.
Davenport (1905, 55) speaks of a violent emotional experience called “falling out”, a
particular experience of the American Negro. Other terms include “go down” (Coppin
1976, 9), “slain under the power”, “fallen under the power” (or just “under the
power”), “prostration” (Eusler 1988, 18), whilst Catholic charismatics also use the
term “resting in the Spirit” (Venable 1988, 21).
C. DEFINITION
George Maloney describes the experience as “a release of God’s energy that
flows out from one person usually touching another, that causes the receiver to ‘fall’
under this so-called power of the Holy Spirit” (cited in Venable 1988, 21). He seems
less than convincing about the source, the Holy Spirit, and in fact he speaks of the
initiative residing largely with the recipient – “It seemed to happen readily to those who
want it to happen and who easily could ‘let go` and merely let it happen”. (Cited in
Kelsey 1978, 16).
Coppin (1976, 96) contends that this phenomenon happens primarily in order for
God to get the attention of the person. Many neo-Pentecostal groups have accepted
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
slaying in the Spirit as a mark of an individual’s openness to religious experience
(Kelsey 1978, 11). Bouder (1976, 610) believes that the physical effect is the result of a
revelation of God.
Clearly there is no clarity of definition, varying from a mediumistic-type transfer,
to auto-suggested experience, to a God-initiated command for attention, to a measure of
propensity for religious experience, to reaction to revelation of God. There is neither a
precise or implied biblical phenomenon, nor an agreed religious (let alone Christian)
experience.
D. PURPOSE
It follows from the lack of definition, that there is an absence of clarity about the
purpose of this phenomenon.
Coppin (1976, 96) says, that in trying to get the attention of the person, God is
saying, “I am here”. Apart from appearing as a banal statement and trivialization of
God, it is a truism. Theologically God is omnipresent, and experientially God does not
universally cause people to fall to announce that “He is here”.
Francis McNutt describes the purpose as “overcome by the Spirit in order to rest
in the Spirit” (cited in Venable 1988, 21). Patently this is not the sine qua non of
“resting in the Spirit” nor is this the consequence for the persons in the supposed
biblical evidences for slaying in the Spirit.
Another expectancy is expressed by Eutsler (1988, 19). He maintains that the
experience calls for undivided attention, and that
Each prostrated believer should receive an extraordinary revelation of the Word or will of God, if his
experience is genuine. (Italics his)
The absence of extraordinary, or indeed any, revelations should demonstrate that
this is a nonsense. “Falling down” simply does not produce this revelation – nor indeed
does any ecstatic experience per se. Further, the question is begged of what is a
“genuine experience” in Eutsler’s definition. Certainly this is an important question in
the context of early Revivals where non-Christians fell – why and for what purpose?
Certainly it is not an extraordinary revelation of the Word of God.
E. MOTIVATION
As a corollary to the definition and purpose of slaying in the Spirit, is the
motivation. The range of ideas again belies any clear concept of the whole experience
or its purpose.
On one extreme, Venable (1988, 25) asserts that slaying in the Spirit “is definitely
a sovereign act of God – it cannot be conjured or psyched up”. The motive is to seek
God, and not the experience. Whilst this view is idealistic and makes man the passive
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
recipient, it would be the minority position experientially.
Coppin (1976, 65) claims that, associated with the provision of official catchers
to provide comfort and ease to the participants, the whole experience has become a fad.
George Maloney observes that usually people wanted the experience to happen, and as
distinct from Venable, instead of a sovereign act of God, the experience was most
prominent for those who wanted it to happen and who could easily “let go” (cited in
Kelsey 1978, 16). Further, Kelsey notes that the experience happened more easily if a
person was “high” – a contradiction of Venable’s assertion that it was God’s sovereign
act. Slaying in the Spirit is subject to the emotions (1978, 24). People “fall over in a
faint because they expect to … what is supposed to happen … does happen” (Rice
1976, 169).
In making a distinction from earlier revival experiences where scoffers and
mockers were struck down (compare again Venable’s idea of the sovereign act of God),
modern charismatic and Pentecostal groups regarded slaying in the Spirit as something
to be sought (Alexander 1988, 790). Venable (1988, 24) warns of the danger of seeking
to be “slain”, as if seeking a gift from God. Unfortunately many ministers encouraged
this expectation. George Maloney warns that this approach promotes the danger of
seeking the experience rather than seeking God (Venable 1988, 23), that we are turning
from “the Spirit of Jesus” and using God for our own needs (Venable 1988, 24).
Because of the sensationalism attached to the experience, Maloney finally urged
that slaying ought to be avoided, “if for no other reason than to keep from hurting the
Renewal movement” (in Kelsey 1978, 23). Likewise, David du Plessis, for all his
popularising of the Pentecostal position in ecumenical circles, urged Maloney to stay
clear of slaying in the Spirit entirely, because he had never seen it build up the Church
anywhere throughout his many years, but rather that it discredited the Pentecostal
position (cited in Kelsey 1978, 23).
F. WARNING
Against the above discussion, a strong cautionary note must be sounded. Indeed,
Venable does precisely this in Paraclete magazine (1988, 24). He admits:
Many are trying to make a doctrine of ‘slain in the Spirit’, but it cannot be taught as doctrine.
Furthermore, Venable argues that the experience is not a gift to be sought, or else
all other manifestations in the Bible (like Moses’ rod turning into a serpent, stopping the
moon and sun like Joshua, etc.) should equally be sought (1988, 25).
Yet in the same issue of Paraclete, Eutsler has an article on “Slain in the Spirit”,
titled, “The Doctrine of Prostration” (emphasis mine). Venable denies that the
experience can be taught as a doctrine, Eutsler presents it as a doctrine. There is no
clear teaching or precedent to clarify the practice of slaying in the Spirit, let alone any
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
criteria for delineating a doctrine.
G. MAIN INSTIGATORS
(of the modern movement).
Slaying in the Spirit was most significantly associated with “emotionally packed
evangelic (sic) situations”, in the camp meetings and revivals (Kelsey 1978, 11),
including those of the Wesleys and Whitfield. These were largely forerunners of
twentieth century Pentecostalism. Kathryn Kuhlman is recognized for her early
influence, followed by Kenneth Hagin (Sr.), and Charles and Frances Hunter (Alexander
1988, 790; Kelsey 1978, 11, 14-18, 20). The practice has proliferated through
Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostal and charismatic circles. As Kelsey noted, it has normally
been associated with emotionalism (and ecstatic-type experience).
H. BIBLICAL “EVIDENCE”
Beyond the historic occurrences, what are the biblical precursors?
Kelsey warns (1978, 30):
Religious descriptions do not always tell us what was happening inside the person, and this makes it hard to be
sure about a complex experience like slaying in the spirit. There was obviously nothing in biblical times exactly
similar to a modern service in which people come forward, are touched and fall down; on the other hand, there
are many references in the Old and New Testaments to people who fell before God and seemed to be struck
down by his spirit.
At best, biblical parallels may be noted that may have some similarities to
contemporary events, but that does not validate the contemporary events, nor does it
establish any definitive biblical precursor.
A wide range of examples is appealed to, including some very tenable ones. Many
of these are noted.
(1) Genesis 2:21 God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam. (Venable 1988, 22).
(2) Genesis 15:12 Similarly, God caused a deep sleep to fall on Abraham (Venable
1988, 22; Kelsey 1978, 31; Alexander 1988, 790).
(3) Genesis 17: 3, 17 Abraham twice fell on his face (Kelsey 1978, 31).
(4) Leviticus 9:24 Aaron and the people fell on their faces when the fire came from
God and consumed the sacrifice (Kelsey 1978, 31).
(5) Numbers 24:4 A vague reference to one who falls prostrate yet with his eyes
open (Alexander 1988, 790).
(6) 1 Samuel 19:20 A particularly tenuous reference. Since Samuel is standing, it is
seen to imply that the prophets were “slain in the Spirit” (Alexander 1988, 790).
(14) Acts 9:4 (26:14) On the Damascus road, Paul fell to the ground (Venable 1988,
22). It is to be noted that this was at Paul’s conversion and unexpected, - a
“genuine spiritual experience similar to the modern phenomenon in description but
distinct in purpose” (Alexander 1988, 790). Most modern phenomenon relate to a
post-conversion experience that is anticipated. Eutsler (1988, 19) states that (in
spite of the apparent evidence of the following example, at 15) Paul is the only
example of prostration in the book of Acts.
(15) Acts 10:10 Peter fell into a trance at Cornelius’ house (Venable 1988, 22).
(16) 2 Corinthians 12:2 Paul’s recollection of a personal experience is appealed to
as evidence of slaying in the Spirit, but Alexander (1988, 790) disputes this claim.
(17) Revelation 1:17 John’s experience of falling at the feet of one “like a son of
It is to be noted that many of the references are to unique, unexpected events that
provide no basis for replication, let alone repeated replication ad nauseam. The cases
of Adam, Abraham, Aaron, Ezekiel, Daniel, Christ are peculiarly unique and isolated
from any of the auto-suggestion and hype that is associated with the contemporary
phenomenon. Examples like the guards and soldiers provide no evidence of slaying in
the Spirit, and can hardly be advanced even as parallels.
Suffice to say, here is another experience, clouded by emotion, and advanced
without substantiating criteria, in the same context (for the most part) as glossolalia.
I. HISTORICAL INCIDENTS/“EVIDENCE”
As early as 175 AD, enthusiastic expressions were associated with the heresy of
Montanism (Kelsey 1978, 35). Kelsey quotes a report by Eusebius:
... there would be sudden seizure, he would fall into a trance, and start raving in his speech. He would speak
with strange tongues, too, and prophesy (or so it was called) in a manner quite contrary to that which has come
down to us, by continuous tradition, from earlier times.
It is to be noted that both ecstatic (trance) experiences of falling and verbal
utterance are associated in the same context.
Similar experiences were found amongst the Jansenists and Quietists, the
Camisards, Quakers and Shakers (Kelsey 1978, 36: Venable 1988, 22). Perhaps most
significantly for the modern period, and having the greatest credibility, was the
influence of John Wesley and George Whitfield (Kelsey 1978, 36; Venable 1988, 22-
23), following through into the Camp Meetings and Revivals of the nineteenth century.
Rogers (cited by Venable 1988, 23) reports on the Cane Ridge Camp Meeting in which:
“Many, very many, fell down, as men slain in battle, and continued for hours together...”,
and he spoke protectively of “the falling exercise”.
It is particularly noteworthy that the experience called slaying in the Spirit was, in
the early days (early 1900’s), most common amongst sinners (Venable 1988, 23). A
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
similar experience was encountered with the “jerks”, in which “many a scoffer bit the
dust in the midst of his contempt and derision” (Davenport 1905, 79).
By contrast, the modern experience is practiced mostly by Christians (Venable
1988, 23).
J. METHOD
In the same way that there is no clear definition or purpose or motivation or
biblical foundation, there is no clear understanding of method for slaying in the Spirit.
On one extreme is George Maloney’s view that is tantamount to mediumistic
transfer, “God’s energy flows out from one person usually touching another …” (cited in
Venable 1988, 21). And yet Venable himself states that there is no biblical basis for
people being touched or having hands laid on them (1988, 24) that would allow for such
transfer.
“Laying-on-of-hands” nevertheless became a tradition as exemplified by Agnes
Stanford and Kathryn Kuhlman (Kelsey 1978, 13-15) ranging from specific hand on the
head or shoulder, to touching the forehead or under the chin. This tradition is common in
a variety of cultural situations where there is “transfer” of powers for healing or spirit-
possession. Richards (1980, 9) warns that contrary to the biblical injunction to “Lay
hands suddenly on no man” (1 Timothy 5:22), it is now common to “lay hands suddenly
on every man”. In fact, “laying on of hands is being given by almost anybody for almost
anything”. The !Kung Bushmen use “laying on of hands” to help induce the trance state,
but more particularly to “cure” other persons, especially if they are sick (Lee 1968, 40).
The practice is also used by spiritualists for healing by spirits or spirit-doctors
(Richards 1980, 13).
On the other extreme, there is no physical contact at all. This often (if not mostly)
occurred under John Wesley’s ministry (examples in Davenport 1905, 148-168). Velmer
Gardner recounts, “Many times people [500 at times] … fell under the power of God
where they stood” (cited by Coppin 1976, 10). Likewise with George Whitfield, at
Cambuslang, not less than three thousand people cried out to God (Spurgeon n.d., 6). At
Cane Ridge, Kentucky, “Many, very many fell …” (cited by Davenport 1905, 74) or
again, “The whole body of persons who actually fell helpless … during the progress of
the meeting … three thousand persons” (Davenport 1905, 77). Charles Johnson recounts
a “conscientious Presbyterian minister” carefully counting three thousand fallen people
(recounted in White 1988, 69-70). He also records the observations of James B. Finley:
“At one time I saw at least five hundred, swept down in a moment as if a battery of a
thousand guns had been opened upon them” (cited in White 1988, 70). White (1988, 94)
reports on an extreme of this phenomenon in Argentina, where people fell on their way
to some meetings, whilst “others were reported to fall from their seats in buses that
K. DURATION
The bizarre nature of the variety of manifestations raises serious doubts about the
authenticity of this experience. The excesses under Wesley’s ministry were noted
earlier:
The picture of the agonies and contortions of body of many little children, the loud breathing of men and
women half strangled and gasping for life, the outcries, the bitter anguish, the faces turning red and then almost
black, the sinking in silence, the convulsions, the awful morbid contagion that swept over the stifled crowd, the
numbers carried into the parsonage house, where they struggled or lay as dead, the breaking of pews and
benches, the dropping in a heap on the road home, the trance, the demoniac shrieks, the emergence of the
second personality, the uncontrollable laughter, the child seven years old and her visions, the woman rolling on
the ground and tearing up the hard-trodden grass with her hands, … The experiences in trance were as
irrational as ever floated through the untutored brain of an African savage.
(Davenport 1905, 172)
Wesley recalls “a woman opposer” who fell trembling in pain, and continued for
12-14 hours (quoted in Davenport 1905, 157).
Charles Finney recounts in his autobiography of people who could not move or
speak, in one case for sixteen hours (Alexander 1988, 789).
Under the ministry of Charles Price, often people fell and remained there for
hours (Coppin 1976, 10). Coppin relates Charles Price’s own experience, in which he
lay on the floor for hours.
Many at the Kentucky Camp meetings fell down and remained “apparently
breathless and motionless” for hours together (Venable 1988, 23).
In the Negro experience, without warning a person might drop to the floor, lying
there for hours, speechless and motionless (Davenport 1905, 56).
Kenneth Hagin reports a woman who “stood like a statue for three days and three
nights” (Alexander 1988, 790).
Barry Chant (1984, 91) records that some folk “lay on the floor for hours on end”.
L. DANGER OF REPLICATION/ABUSE
In addition to the several cautionary notes already sounded in relation to the
definition, motivation, supposed biblical evidence, and contemporary practice, is the
vulnerability to counterfeit.
Although Venable (1988, 25) says that the experience cannot be psyched up, yet
Maloney, having studied under a Jewish parapsychologist who could replicate the same
experience without any reference to God (Kelsey 1978, 23), puts the lie to that naïve
statement.
Ezra Coppin, as an advocate of slaying in the Spirit, nevertheless warns clearly
(1976, 64):
Of all the things in the present church renewal Satan is capable of duplicating, “being slain in the Spirit” must
rank as one of the most likely.
John Wesley was not convinced that the phenomena, including “falling”, were of
supernatural origin (Davenport 1905, 152). He was able to encourage the phenomena
with it reaching a climax of intensity after a couple of years (by 1740) after which he
gave less encouragement (171). There “were no strange phenomena till Wesley initiated
them” (168). Because of the ability to produce the phenomena, Davenport accuses that
Wesley cannot escape a measure of responsibility for the “wild excesses” of some of
his followers (1905, 171). The ability to replicate the phenomena was demonstrated by
the fact that Whitfield, in spite of his impassioned preaching, was initially unable to
produce the same evidences as Wesley (Davenport 1905, 156), and yet Wesley, by
contrast, was marked by “perfect outward calmness and self-possession” (168).
Nevertheless, “Immediately one and another and another sunk to the earth” (150). It was
evident that the phenomena occurred only after they were demonstrated by Wesley and
were spread by “imitation and contagion” so that Whitfield could then invoke them
(Davenport 1905, 149). For his part, Charles Wesley discouraged the use of these
“signs”, and they seldom occurred, even when “the tendency to morbid imitation was at
its height” (Davenport 1905, 158).
The contagion experienced in Wesley’s era, was common in later years. A report
in 1885 spoke of “Dozens lying around pale and unconscious, rigid, and lifeless as
though in death” (cited in Alexander 1988, 790). Maria B. Woodworth-Etter spoke of
large audiences in which “hundreds of people were struck down by the power” (quoted
M. CONCLUSION
Quite rightly Venable (1988, 19) points out that God may well occasionally
prostrate believers, but that when He does it will always be in accordance with His
Word. The fact that the practice is unusually frequent and not in accord with Scripture,
leads Venable to conclude that the practice is an abuse. In fact Kelsey (1978, 19) notes
that: “Nearly always the same people came forward … The same people have the same
problems …” (A report of a Pentecostal church in Kamas where the slaying occurred
almost weekly). Again, there is the sense of an experience sought for its own sake, with
neither validated precedent nor validated experience.
Venable outlines some of his reasons for concluding that the “common practices
are apparently abuses” (1988, 19-20).
* There is no evidence of mass prostration in the church of the book of Acts. In
fact, Venable identifies only the experience of Paul. There was no “demonic type”
of falling.
* There is no biblical account of anyone praying for people at the time of
prostration.
* No catchers are mentioned in the scriptural accounts (if indeed these are true
biblical examples).
* Most of the experiences in the Bible occurred in dramatic times and to prominent
persons, leading to the conclusion that the experience only occurs in unique
circumstances.
* Prostration is not the most common response to divine blessing, rather, “arising”.
* Absence of teaching in the New Testament implies that the action had no
prominent place in the Early Church.
a. Introduction.
The Mystery Religions are associated with a period most significantly occurring
from several centuries B.C. and into the Christian era. They are commonly known as
“Mystery Religions” because they had a secret initiatory ritual into the particular cult,
and because mysteriously the initiate made communion with a god (or goddess) and
obtained a promise of bliss beyond death (Vos 1988, 113).
The official cults – Epicureanism and Stoicism – touched only a minority, because
they did not offer what the Mystery Religions offered: personal involvement, emotional
stimulation, and promise of a future life (Vos 1988, 113).
Members of these secret societies were commonly called “Orphics”, after
Orpheus, who was supposed to have visited the underworld and to have introduced the
rites of initiation, which appeared about 600 B.C. (Vos 1988, 113).
Irrespective of Oriental or Greek origins, the mystery Religions had many
similarities. Vos (1988, 114) outlines the similarities as follows. They all had at their
base a divinity whose annual death and resurrection corresponded to the rhythm of the
seasons. The initiate believed that union with the god was established in an emotional
or even orgiastic way – assuring him of eternal bliss with the deity. Local groupings
gave the initiates social and psychological cohesion. Sürala (1963, 158) adds that in
Greece, individuals reaching a state of ecstasy were respected, and their (interpreted)
advice was heeded to a great extent.
Because Christianity has some of the same elements, it was often classified as a
Mystery Religion. It is precisely this correlation that is fundamental to this study.
Ancient Greeks were no strangers to “madness” as Plato described the ecstatic
speech of his day (Inge 1955, 157). But orgiastic religion was not indigenous to Hellas,
but had origins in Macedonia and especially the “barbarous land of Thrace” (Inge 1955,
157; Martin 1960, 79). Mystery cults and polytheism dominated the Graeco-Roman
religious scene (Martin 1960, 79). Hence the people of Paul’s day were completely
familiar with this ethos of religious worship.
Plato detailed his reference to “divine madness” by distinguishing four types and
relating them to the gods. Prophetic madness had Apollo as its patron, telestic (ritual)
madness had Dionysus as patron, poetic madness was inspired by the Muses, and erotic
madness was inspired by Aphrodite and Eros (Dunn 1975, 304). Plato gives the
example of the Pythia at Delphi as a particular evidence of prophetic madness
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
(Fairbanks 1910, 56-57). Thus ecstatic speech (divine madness) was essentially
religious.
vi. Serapis.
This deity originated from Egypt and first reached Rome by 80 B.C. (Walker
1959, 10). Serapis was fused with Osiris to produce Osorapis. He was sometimes
identified with Zeus, Asclepius or Osiris (Vos 1988, 115). The consort of Serapis was
Isis (not the Egyptian deity) but a goddess resembling the Ephesian Diana (Jackson
1924, 182). In the Alexandrian origins, Serapis was worshipped with “the most frantic
devotion” (183).
Prefaced by a desire for monotheism in the Roman Empire, worship of Serapis
became very popular (throughout the Greek world before Christ, and spread widely in
the Roman world in the first Christian centuries [Vos, 1988, 115]) for worship by
Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike, according to the emperor Hadrian (cited in Jackson
1924, 183). Some Gnostic philosophers saw in Serapis a prototype of Christ (183).
This wide acceptance of an ecstatic religion no doubt gave greater acceptance of
ecstaticism to the early Christians.
vii. Isis – Osiris.
Isis was a major Egyptian goddess, whose cult became very popular throughout
the Roman Empire, often as a mystery religion (Neal 1974, 691). Isis, the mother-
goddess, suffered the loss of her consort Osiris, but she recovered his dismembered
parts and restored him to life, making him king of the netherworld. She became
recognized as the giver of immortality, and became accepted as a tender and
sympathetic friend, especially to women. When Christianity pervaded the Empire, many
adherents transferred their worship to the Virgin Mary, and sometimes Isis statues were
used as images of the Madonna (Vos 1988, 115).
viii. Mithra.
Mithra was an old Persian god of light, but it also drew on Zoroastrian dualism
(Neal 1974, 691). It was the last Mystery Religion to become popular in the Roman
Empire and became the most widespread. Only men were initiated [to the seven grades
of membership (Neal 1974, 691)], women being excluded (Vos 1988, 116). Although
first coming to Italy in 67 B.C. (Jackson 1924, 184), it did not become widely
conspicuous until 100 A.D., spreading widely later in the second and also the third
centuries (Walker 1959, 10). Mithra was the patron deity of soldiers (who thus aided
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
the spread) (Vos 1988, 116). It had rites so closely resembling the two ordinances of
Christianity that both Justin Martyr and Tertullian declared them “diabolical imitations
of the Sacraments” (Jackson 1924, 185). Mithraism, like the previous two mysteries
considered, thus had a particularly insidious influence on Christian thinking. Augustine
even identified the Mithraic priest as a Christian (Jackson 1924, 185).
ix. Orpheus.
The Orphic cult was probably a revised version of the Dionysian cult having an
early influence on the people of Greece (House 1983, 137).
In typical ecstatic experience, the votary believed that he was possessed by the
deity, enduring a life of austerity as a preparation for this high religious attainment with
its enthusiasmos – spiritual ecstasy (Kennedy n.d., 14-15). Immediate union with the
god occurred through orgiastic ecstasy (Kennedy n.d., 13).
ii. Dionysus.
An ecstatic cult from Thrace, it became one of the most popular in the Hellenistic
world (Vos 1988, 115). Although its exact beginnings are unclear, Dionysus was known
as early as the Homeric period (about 900 B.C.) and continued as late as the church
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
fathers (Rogers 1979, 250). It was quite active during the New Testament period. In fact
the cult had spread to practically every area of the Roman Empire and affected not only
the geographical expanse, but also penetrated every level of society (252). It was
certainly indigenous to Greek society by the end of the second millennium B.C.
Although both sexes were initiated into it, it flourished among women in classical
Greece (Neal 1974, 691).
Originally Dionysian ceremonies were highly orgiastic. After drinking animal
blood, the devotee went into a frenzy as a result of being identified with the god (Vos
1988, 115) and in a state of enthusiasmos they climbed mountain paths, dancing wildly
to the beat of drums (Hoyle in House 1983, 137).
iii. Apollo.
Several temples in Corinth were for the worship of Apollo, the famous shrine of
Delphi being primarily that of Apollo (House 1983, 138). The oracle of Delphi was the
most famous of all Greek religious institutions, an influence attributed to the Pythia
(Dodds 1973, 196). The ecstatic tongues-speaking of the oracle, together with the
priestly interpretation are well known (House 1983, 138). She was the famous example
of Plato’s prophetic madness (Mills 1985a, 82). Coupled with auto-suggestive power,
was the fact that the Pythia could only exercise her gift in a state of trance (Dodds 1973,
197-198). The ensuing utterances were obscure as she spoke in “riddling symbols”,
which the priests supposedly interpreted and amplified (197).
d. Summary
With the cymbals, drums and flutes, coupled with the frenzy and self-mutilation of
the Cybele-Attis cult; the ecstaticism, in Dionysianism; together with the emphasis on
tongues-speaking and oracles in the religion of Apollo, it is no surprise to find that the
Corinthians carried these pagan ideas into the church at Corinth – especially the
practice of speaking in tongues – the sure evidence of union with God (compare House
1983, 138).
Although there is much debate concerning the true nature of much of the ecstatic
phenomena in the Mystery Religions, there is no doubt about the widespread impact of
ecstatic experience on the whole ethos of Greek life and religion. It is this broad
familiarity that fundamentally affects the Corinthian Christian thinking that is the
particular focus of this study.
Martin (1960, 78) summarizes:
Clearly, these extra-biblical accounts of phenomena similar to Apostolic glossolalia show how prevalent
ecstatic, frenzied, inarticulate, and for the most part incoherent speech was in the Graeco-Roman religious
history and experience. They are all plainly connected with religious practices, and all are given religious
interpretation, explanation and significance.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Best (1975, 53) comments:
… because of the cultural situation in Corinth there was a strong likelihood that religion would be manifested in
forms which we would term ecstatic or possessed.
a. Introduction
There is no doubt about the broad range of non-Christian religions forming a
background to the Corinthian culture. The following section attempts to look at the
intensity of that broad range of phenomena that occurred in that spectrum, before
focussing on the even more intense characteristics of the three predominant Mystery
Religions.
b. Range of Phenomena
The basic motivation of the mystery religions was to establish communication
with a god or goddess, with a view to being his/her mouthpiece and to obtaining
assurance of future bliss. Usually this state was associated with ecstasy or trance, and
was achieved through secret initiatory rights. The most notable evidence of this process
was some form of ecstatic utterance.
Schrenk (cited in Bruner 1970, 286 fn 2) observes that
In Enthusiasmos ecstasy is always considered the most highly valued and sought condition, the peak and truly
ultimate means for obtaining connection with the divine.
Burkert (1985, 109-110) refers to a number of words used to describe the
phenomena of enthusiasmos. Entheos describes an abnormal psychic state meaning:
“within is a god”. The evidence is shown by the god speaking in a strange voice, or in
an unintelligible way, often accompanied by odd or apparently senseless movements.
Simultaneously, the god seizes or carries the person in his power, katechei, which
translates as “possession”. During the experience of stepping out, ekstasis, the person’s
soul doesn’t leave the body, but he abandons his normal ways, and his understanding
departs. The resultant term, mania, describes the overall frenzy or madness of the
individual in expression of the anger of the god.
As in the case of the maidens of Delos, they “imitate the dialects and chatterings
of all men”, a phenomenon that “has justly been compared to … speaking in tongues in
the New Testament” (Burkert 1985, 110).
The strong urge to achieve the goal of speaking ecstatically, as a proof of favour
with a deity, followed a pattern. Firstly, there was the necessity, through a variety of
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
methods, to achieve a state of ecstasy or trance in which unity with the deity might be
achieved. Secondly in this state of possession and delirium there were a variety of
expressions, but the central aim was for the possession to be manifest by the god
speaking through the devotee. These two aspects are detailed in the following.
Firstly, there were methods to achieve ecstasy and hence union with the god.
(1) It was not uncommon that a seer or priest was required to assist the devotee in
his quest (Pearson 1955, 128). Novices especially required the co-operation of a
seer.
(2) Water from a secret spring allowed a priest of the oracle of Clarian Apollo to
give utterances composed in formal verse. A similar potency was ascribed to
waters in other cases at Cassotis, Boeotia and Cynaneae (Pearson 1955, 128).
(3) Wine was well-known, and not a surprising intoxication agent, especially noted
in the case of the priests at the shrine of Dionysus, that induced the desired
ecstatic gibberish (Burkert 1985, 110; Martin 1960, 21; Pearson 1955, 128). The
result of this intoxication by wine, and also the chewing of ivy, together with
eating raw flesh of animals, was to have Dionysus (in particular) enter the body of
the worshipper, and fill him with “enthusiasm” (Rogers 1979, 254). Wine was for
them the “quintessence of the divine life” (Mills 1975, 168), the “sheer physical
intoxication from the drinking of wine was the essence of Dionysian religion”
(Willoughby in Mills 1985a, 10-11).
(4) The priestess of Apollo Diradiotes became inspired by drinking blood from a
sacrificial lamb. At Aegira, the priestess drank the blood of a bull. (Pearson
1955, 128).
The whole issue of blood, is an extension of the wine. As the grape is
ground in order that “it’s raw blood might be devoured” (the “blood of the
earth”), so the body of a boy, or more commonly an animal, might be torn to
pieces and devoured raw so that the blood would not be lost (Luyster 1980, 126).
Sucking or drinking the blood of a sacrificial victim was a not uncommon method
of excitation (Fallaize 1955, 125). The god was incarnated in the sacrificial
victim and so the flesh was eaten raw to ingest the blood (Nilsson 1964, 95). This
ritual (omophagy) became a central rite of Dionysus (Nilsson 1964, 95; Burkert
1985, 291).
One of the earliest accounts of omophagy is of female worshippers of
Dionysus roaming the Parnassus to hunt wild animals and eat their raw flesh in
ecstasy (Pruemm 1967, 161). This is especially significant since Mount Parnassus
is visible across the gulf from Corinth and a constant reminder of Dionysiac
religion (Rudd 1986, 73). The devotee “ate the god” (Clemen 1931, 190) thereby
c. Summary
Martin (1960, 78) concludes (as already noted):
Clearly, these extra-biblical accounts of phenomena similar to Apostolic glossolalia show how prevalent
ecstatic, frenzied, inarticulate, and for the most part incoherent speech was in the Graeco-Roman religious
history and experience. They are all plainly connected with religious practices, and all are given religious
interpretation, explanation and significance.
The climactic gift of verbal utterance, the evidence of the god’s voice, made the
whole phenomenon very attractive to the Corinthian church. Walker (1906, 65)
concludes:
It was a gift congenial to the Corinthian temperament. They were well accustomed to the idea of the divinity
speaking through the lips of human priest or priestess, who, when seized by the power and inspiration of the
God were plunged into a state of unconscious ecstasy, and so, in frenzy, delivered the oracular reply.
The Corinthian Christians were familiar with persons from whom the gods had
removed the mind and spoke through the soulless body (Cutten 1927,22). Hence the
significance of “Ecstasy and Corinthian Glossolalia”, “Tongues: Confused By Ecstasy”.
a. Introduction
Following the brief introduction to the three “predominant Mystery Religions”,
above, some particular detail is now presented to show the invasive nature of these
cults, the specific impact on Greek culture in general, and Corinth in particular, as the
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
setting of the first century Christian church.
Paul was aware that women were more vulnerable to emotional excesses, and this
was amply demonstrated in Dionysiac worship and its extensive influence on the
contemporary culture and ultimately in the church of Corinth, to which Paul wrote.
In Corinth, there was a significant monument “memorialising the savagery of
female Bacchus worshippers” (Kroeger ’78, 7). It was all part of the wine drinking,
frenzied dancing and uncontrolled ravings of the Dionysiac festivals (Rogers 1979,
254).
-vi. The climax of Dionysian worship.
The climax of the festivities left the devotees in the physical condition of
“anaesthesia, unconscious of pain or of anything hostile or disconcerting in their
surroundings”, and they were “endued with preternatural strength” (McArthur 1983,
20). And the purpose of all this activity was identification with the god (e.g. Fairbanks
1910, 241), for only in frenzy could one hold communion with the god (Kroeger 1978,
7). The resultant frenzied tongue (Engelsen 1970, 21) of this state of frenzied
blessedness, produced divine revelations, giving meaning in an increasingly profane
and rational world (Burkert 1985, 292).
Mills (1985a, 11) goes beyond the immediate cultural ramifications for Corinth,
and likens the Dionysiac cult to revival meetings – and these of a “very emotional and
exciting sort” (citing J.B. Pratt).
-vii. Summary.
Over against the correlations between Dionysian religion and the Corinthian
Christian church excesses, Rudd (1986, 90) cautions against overstating the case,
arguing that the more ecstatic practices from the older cult practices were left out, and
hence the ecstatic fanaticism of the Corinthian Christians should not be too readily
attributed to the Dionysian cult. However, he readily admits that Mystery Religions had
become “increasingly popular and were rampant in the Graeco-Roman world” since the
first century B.C. Later (108) he admits that it is not disputed that the Corinthians were
familiar with the fanaticism of the cult, and that it no doubt had an influence on the
church.
Zaehner (1957, 25-26) interpolates the Dionysian-Corinthian correlation thus:
In your Bacchic orgies you thought that, by devouring the quivering flesh of beasts, you were entering into
direct contact with the divine. This you did in a state of frenzy, even madness. You may have thought that this
was what I offered you in the sacrificial meal we call the agape. If you did, you were wrong: for whereas
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
your own sacrificial meals may well have prefigured the Christian sacrament, they were essentially different in
kind ... Strong drink, you found, contributed to the attainment of ecstasy, and for that reason you used it in your
ceremonies. This is not, however, what I preach. I preach to you redemption through Christ. When you come
to take part in the sacrificial meal, I would prefer that you came without having taken any stimulants. Christ
came to make you whole: he did not come to make you ecstatics ... In your ancient mysteries you sought to
escape out of yourselves: you wanted ecstasy ... During this process it may be that you will have
praeternatural experiences: you may have ecstasies; you may see visions and dream dreams. All this means
nothing, for the same effects can be produced by the use of wine or drugs. Do not be led astray into thinking
that what happens in the Eucharist is the same as, or even comparable to, what happens to you in a Bacchic
orgy ... Elation or exaltation is a state that is common to saints and sinners alike: it can be produced by alcohol
or drugs, but do not confuse that with the grace that is infused into you at our agape. For in the agape, which
we call a "rational oblation", there is no room for ecstasy. It is receiving of Christ quietly into the inmost
essence of your soul. You must realize that there is a total difference between the two.
(Zaehner 1957, 25-26).
Siculus continues:
And when the shepherd marvelling at this prodigious behaviour examined the chasm to find out what caused it,
he himself was effected (sic) in the same way as the goats, who in truth behaved for all the world like people
possessed, and began to prophesy the future. Later, news of what happened to those who visited the chasm
began to spread among the peasants, and they flocked to the spot in large numbers, anxious to put the oracle to
the test; and whenever one of them drew near he fell into a trance. Thus it was that the place itself came to be
regarded as miraculous, and they believed that the oracle came from the Earth goddess.
(Cited in Rudd 1986, 94).
Because of the association with the goats, who first discovered the oracle, the
people of Delphi continued to use a goat for their sacrifices. In addition, a goat was
used as an omen that the god was favourable to consultation. It had to tremble from head
to foot before it could be sacrificed, and this should occur as the Pythia trembled in
ecstasy before she mounted the tripod (Rudd 1986, 100). Both conditions were
attributed to the god. And the tripod was in the innermost sanctuary of the temple, where
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
it was believed that the god himself was (Rudd 1986, 99).
-ii. Overview of the cult
Butler (1985, 16-17) records a brief overview of the cult. The shrine was
originally the house of Python, a male snake, who was killed by Apollo and so
possessed the holy place. Priestesses retained the name of the original owner of the
shrine and so were called Pythia (or the Pythoness). The Pythia was a woman dedicated
to the service of Apollo for life (Burkert 1985, 116). Initially this woman – a native of
Delphi – was a maiden, but later, an aged woman (Fairbanks 1910, 59) but she was
always dressed as a young girl, and she claimed to be the “wedded wife” of the god
Apollo (Burkert 1985, 116). She was the patron and ideal of young women, even as
Apollo was for young men (Fairbanks 1975, 1299).
Apollo was renown as the god who spoke through the Pythian priestess (Clemen
1931, 191) and possessed her (Easterling 1985, 139) and was worshipped as the
protector of crops and flocks (Fairbanks 1979, 1299). He was also the god of music
and prophecy, and it was in this latter respect that he achieved great renown at Delphi
(Fairbanks 1979, 1299). He was recognized as the patron god of prophetic madness
according to Socrates (Dunn 1975, 304), and the influence on Corinth was considerable,
there being several temples in Corinth for the worship of Apollo, most notably at Delphi
(House 1983, 138).
-iii. The Pythoness.
The oracle (a priestess) usually sat on a tripod to prophesy, and being caught up in
a belief in the god’s power to dictate messages to her, she would speak intelligibly or
otherwise. An inquirer would receive a message from the god through the Pythia,
regularly couched in hexameters, but subject to “extensive editing or wholesale forgery”
(Butler 1985, 16-17). Aune (1983, 28) adds that normally in Plutarch’s time (ca. A.D.
50-120) there was only one Pythia, but at earlier times of popularity, there may be two
prophetesses with a third in reserve. Aune (1983, 30) details the ritual procedure for
preparation to receive oracular confessions: the ritual purification bath, goat sacrifice,
sitting on the tripod, drinking water from the spring “Kassotis”, chewing of laurel
leaves, and on some occasions, drinking the blood of a lamb.
Chrysostom, the fourth-century Christian theologian records (cited in Gromacki
1972, 7-8):
… this same Pythoness then is said, being a female, to sit at times upon the tripod of Apollo astride, and thus
the evil spirit ascending from beneath and entering the lower part of her body, fills the woman with madness,
and she with dishevelled hair begins to play the bacchanal and to foam at the mouth, and thus being in a frenzy
to utter the words of her madness.
This situation is interpreted more graphically by the quote in Oesterreich (1930,
-viii. Summary.
Although the situation is inconclusive on the conflicting evidence, nevertheless,
the fact that such a phenomenon of utterance and interpretation was reputed to occur, and
was so highly revered and so widely known, cannot be ignored in considering the
cultural assumptions and expectancies for the Corinthian culture. Of this there can be no
doubt. Spittler (1988, 336) states:
… the Delphic ecstatic speech formed, not only a parallel to, but also a precedent for, the glossolalia at Corinth.
a. Introduction
If the inspired speech of the Old Testament was typically intelligible prophecy, and if the glossolalia as found in
Acts is not the model for the Corinthian phenomenon, then only one other source remains: pagan religion.
(Rudd 1986, 73).
As the Christians in Corinth looked out across the Gulf of Corinth toward Mount Parnassus, would they not be
reminded of the ecstasy inherent to the Dionysian religion, a religion which had already existed for perhaps a
thousand years in Greece? As they looked out across the same gulf toward Delphi, would they not also be
reminded of the prophetic god Apollo, who was perhaps the most popular of Greek gods?
(Rudd 1986, 73-74).
These two quotes serve to indicate the majority view of the cultural impact of the
Mystery Religions on the religious experience of the first century Corinthian church.
Bach (1969, 75) states quite emphatically:
Clearly glossolalia had its origin in unrecorded history and then found its way into the Old Testament
Against that statement, he further indicates (75) in the old Testament setting in
relating the story of Saul meeting some prophets at Gibeah, that
(Saul) was experiencing his first exposure to the gift of God as it comes in glossolalia, not, of course, the
Christian Pentecostal type, but the gift nonetheless.
These introductory quotes indicate the supposed correlation between Corinth and
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
the cultural antecedents in the pagan world, the Old Testament, and more immediately in
the Mystery Religions of Greece. Although there is not complete agreement about the
antecedents, nevertheless there is very strong majority support for not merely a
correlation between the Mystery Religions and the glossolalia at Corinth but a direct
link between the two.
The following categories attempt to summarize a range of scholars on this issue.
b. Direct Link
W.E. Mills (1985a, 81-82), who has done extensive research into the literature on
glossolalia, including antecedent and cultural studies (see Mills 1974a, Literature on
Glossolalia, and Mills 1985a, Glossolalia: A Bibliography) observes that:
This assumption, i.e., that glossolalia at Corinth is similar to the ecstatic utterances of Hellenistic religions, is
accepted by many notable scholars.
1900? Findlay.
Many (Corinthians) took a low and half superstitious view of the Holy Spirit’s influence, seeing in such
charisms as the “tongues” – phenomena analogous to, though far surpassing, pagan manifestations (884).
1911 Conybeare.
Glossolalia, a faculty of abnormal and inarticulate vocal utterance, under stress of religious excitement, which
was widely developed in the early Christian circles, and has its parallels in other religions. (9).
1927 Lake.
… the magic papyri show that (ecstasy resulting in miraculous deeds) was as common in heathen circles as it
was among Christians … (203).
Traces of glossolalia in other circles than that of Apostolic Christianity, though not common, are sufficient to
show that it existed at other times, and to throw some light on its nature.
A very remarkable light on “tongues of angels” is thrown by the Testament of Job. (243).
1927 Cutten.
We could, I believe, find examples (of speaking in tongues) which would as clearly indicate its appearance long
before the days of Christianity. Were records as numerous and as amplified, there seems little doubt that it
could be traced to primitive times, for it is a primitive experience, a reverberation of very early days in the
history of the race. (2).
1934 McDonald.
The phenomenon was not peculiar to early Christianity. There were pagan parallels: the Delphian prophetess;
the magic papyri. (42).
1937 Drummond.
The roots of glossolalia lie deep in the past, involving a study of primitive religion, possession, inspiration and
prophecy. (278).
Throughout the Roman Empire glossolalia, automatic writing and other phenomena were popular in the
“Mystery Religions”. (279).
1964 Behm.
In Corinth, therefore, glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance. One of its forms of expression is a
muttering of words or sounds without interconnection or meaning. Parallels may be found for this phenomenon
1965 Bultmann.
By what criterion can divine and demonic ecstasy be distinguished from each other?
(Cited in Mills 1985a, 81, indicating Bultmann’s assumption that this is the criterion for Paul’s discussion in 1
Corinthians).
1966 Gundry.
… what Paul regarded as genuine human languages sounded to unbelievers like meaningless successions of
syllables similar to the ecstatic speech in Hellenistic religions familiar to the hearers … (305).
1968 Kleinkneckt.
Theologically significant is the idea that pneuma is the cause and source of ecstatic speech in which the
priestess becomes … directly the “divine voice”. (345).
The characteristics of experience of the divine spirit here are formally no different from those found in the
New Testament in the story of Pentecost (Ac. 2:1-4), the conversation with Nicodemus (Jn. 3:1-8), or the
outbreak of tongues in the church at Corinth (1 C. 12-14). (346).
1969 Bach.
Neither … would have understood the dramatic wonder of it all or realized how the path of glossolalia led from
the festivals at Eleusis to Delphi where the oracle sat in the sulphurous mist, her throne the tripod of Apollo,
whose messenger she was. (74-75).
Delphi – where men drank of the sacred stream and stood at the water’s edge and spoke in tongues. (75).
1970 Engelsen.
The sources examined demonstrate beyond doubt the occurrence of involuntary or automatic speech within the
Greek oracle cult. (20).
The speech phenomena evidenced in the Dionysian cult are similar to the ones in the Corinthian church … (22).
The ecstatic phenomena in Corinth are not as such distinctively Christian, but are pan-human. (23).
1972 Gromaki.
Occurrences of glossolalia among non-Christians have been reported by both pagan and Christian writers. The
similarities of these instances to Biblical glossolalia are quite apparent. (9).
1975 Dillow.
Corinth was an extremely immoral city, full of pagan superstition and idol worship. In the heathen worship there
of the goddess Diana the use of gibberish, or unintelligible language, was common. Paul refers to this idol
worship in 1 Corinthians 12:2 when he speaks of “dumb idols”. (12).
In their heathen days these believers had thought that when they spoke in ecstatic speech or gibberish they
were speaking secrets or mysteries with their god. (13).
1975 Dunn.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
These features of Corinthian glossolalia are too reminiscent of the mantic prophecy of the Pythia at Delphi and
the wider manifestations of ecstasy in the worship of Dionysus, so that the conclusion becomes almost
inescapable: glossolalia as practiced in the assembly at Corinth was a form of ecstatic utterance … (242-243).
1976 Peisker.
The Pythia sat on a tripod over a cavity in the earth, from which an “oracular spirit” (pneuma mantikon) in the
form of smoke arose and gave her the inspiration. This was enhanced by the chewing of bay-leaves (Apollo’s
plant). As a result she would burst out with enigmatic inarticulate sounds, similar to glossolalia. (75).
1977 Bruce.
Glossolalia in itself was not peculiar to Christianity: Greece had long experience of the utterances of the Pythian
prophetess at Delphi and the enthusiastic invocations of the votaries of Dionysus. (260).
1978 Kroeger.
Too often we regard speaking in tongues as a purely Christian phenomenon, but it was known in the ancient
ecstatic religions; (7).
1979 Roberts.
In using ecstatic religious experience, the Corinthians, and indeed the rest of the early Church, were sharing in
the culture of their time and place. (202).
Ecstatic experience, in fact, is a part of the common religious heritage of mankind and was no stranger in the
first-century Mediterranean world. (202).
1979 Rogers.
Some of these cultural matters form a tacit background to the New Testament writings, though they are not
specifically mentioned by the new Testament writers - perhaps because they were so commonplace and well
known that they did not need elaboration (250).
1983 House.
With the ecstacism of Dionysianism and the emphasis on tongues-speaking and oracles in the religion of Apollo,
it is not surprising that some of the Corinthians carried these pagan ideas in the church at Corinth, especially
the practice of glossolalia for which both of these religions are known … (138).
1983 McArthur.
Now, those two things (ecstasy and enthusiasm) made up the system of religion in which the Corinthians had
lived and grown. When they became believers they stayed the same because they were not spiritual but
carnal. They manifested the same type of religious behaviour as they had every other dimension of the world
by dragging this into their assembly. Their kind of religion was ecstatic, orgiastic frenzy. It was chaotic and
confusing. (20).
1985 Burkert.
… the choruses of maidens on Delos know ‘to imitate the dialects and chatterings of all men; each would say
that he were (sic) speaking himself: in such a way is the beautiful song joined together for them.’ This has
justly been compared to the Pentecostal miracle and the speaking in tongues in the New Testament. (110).
1985 Butler.
It should be noted that ‘charismatic’ phenomena were known in Corinth before the arrival of Paul the apostle.
We have seen that the followers of the god Apollo were well acquainted with prophecy and tongues. (18-19).
1986 Rudd.
The people converted to Christianity in Corinth were either from Judaism or one of the many Gentile religious
backgrounds represented in the then known world. Their religious beliefs, convictions, and practices would
have been shaped by these respective religious preferences. It is easy to conceive how this would cause
problems in a young, developing church. (106).
c. No Direct Link
It follows from the comments summarizing the previous section, that some
scholars conclude that there is no direct link between ecstatic phenomena in the Greek
Mystery Religions (or indeed elsewhere) and the glossolalic experience of 1
Corinthians.
Kelsey (1968, 141) asserts:
d. Limited Influence
Pahl (cited in House 1983, 135) says cautiously:
The Mysteries may have exerted limited formal influence on certain subsequent developments of Christianity
but they had no influence whatever on the origin of Christianity.
Latourette (1953, 259) asserts, that although there are a number of similarities
between Christianity and the Mystery Religions (a divine being slain and raised,
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
immortality by identification, initiatory rites, etc.) nevertheless there is no proof of
conscious or even unconscious copying. However, it is precisely the similarities,
including ecstatic utterance, which are seen to be the confusing element.
Rudd (1986, 90) acknowledges a significant ecstatic fanaticism in the older cult
practices which were left out of the more recent (first century B.C.) practices, and hence
one cannot attribute ecstatic fanaticism to the former religions of the Corinthian
Christians. However, that position begs the question of the evident correlation of
phenomena, and the relative degree of ecstatic experience in the Corinthian practice.
There is nothing to indicate an extreme at Corinth, but enough to require a corrective
from the apostle Paul.
Seeking to be a little more specific, and moving away from purely ecstatic
utterance, Kroeger (1978, 7) states:
While a heathen might babble without consciousness of what he was saying, there is no indication that
speaking a known language without prior instruction was practiced outside of a Christian context.
At least Kroeger is trying to signal that the Corinthian experience should not be
blindly identified with heathen ecstatic gibberish simply because there is a common
conception that the Corinthians also spoke ecstatic gibberish. Ecstatic gibberish per se
is hardly a spiritual gift.
e. Reverse Influence
In the context of the history of the Mystery Religions, compared to the more recent
rise of Christianity, Metzger (noted in House 1983, 135) posits the view that the
Mystery Religions may have borrowed from Christianity. House (1983, 135) concurs
with this view, but qualifies his position by stating that early Christianity did not borrow
its theology from the Mystery Religions. Whilst that may be true, that negative does not
establish that Mystery Religions in turn borrowed from Christianity.
Rudd (1986, 108) is quite pointed, noting the existence of at least two of the
Mystery Religions (Apollo and Dionysus) for centuries before Christianity came. He
raises the question of the influence of Christianity on these Religions and asserts a
corrective:
To suggest the opposite – that these or other religions prevalent in the first century borrowed tongues and
prophecy from Christianity, or were influenced by them, is foolish. The fact that these phenomena had been
prevalent for centuries before Christianity came on the scene rules this possibility out.
f. “Interpretation”
Since tongues and interpretation are inter-dependent, the phenomenon of
interpretation may also contribute to the argument of correlation between the Mystery
g. Comparison
The above several sections might be summarized by the following comparisons to
indicate the relationship between the Mystery Religions and the early Corinthian
glossolalic experience.
i. Similarities.
(1) Unintelligible speech was seen as a sign of a spirit (good or evil), that the
person was controlled/possessed by the spirit and became the channel of a divine
proclamation (Dodds 1973, 202-203; Lake 1927, 198, 203; Martin 1966, 288).
The god/God spoke through them.
(2) “Madness” – whether the “divine madness” of the Pythia at Delphi, or the
opinion of outsiders attending the assembly at Corinth (Mills 1985a, 86), suggest
some form of “madness”.
(3) Disorder and confusion seemed to be evident in both pagan ritual and Corinthian
worship (Mills 1985a, 86).
(4) Intoxication was a precursor or essential experience of Bacchic revelry, or as a
criticism of onlookers at Pentecost during the glossolalic expression.
ii. Differences.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
(1) In pagan worship, ecstatic speech was essential in speaking to a god. This was
not possible in the native language. For the Corinthians, no gift was given to speak
to God – that was not necessary. God gave gifts to speak to men (the church)
(Dillow 1975 12-13).
(2) Notwithstanding the issue of “madness” under “Similarities” (which was an
opinion of the outsiders), true glossolalia can be controlled. It is not a product of
frenzy, but this was the case in pagan worship (Kelsey 1968, 141-142; Robertson
1986, 268), with a loss of self-control (Mills 1985a, 87). Too often self-control is
lacking in contemporary situations, under the guise of being “controlled” by the
Spirit.
(3) The Greeks believed that inspired speech should be non-rational and
incomprehensible, without the mind. Paul believed that God’s inspired Word
should be rational and comprehensible (Rudd 1986, 96).
(4) For Plato and the oracles, the emphasis was upon learning the “secrets” of the
gods, and union with them. For Paul, it was meaningful communion with God, but
not union (Mills 1985a, 86).
(5) For the Mystery Religions, ecstatic utterance and “prophecy” were not
distinguished, whereas Paul made a strong distinction (Mills 1985a, 86).
(6) Ecstatic experience for the Bacchic rites was sought after as an end in itself, and
was artificially induced (Mills 1985a, 87) especially by auto-suggestion (Dodds
1973, 197, 199). Against this background Paul gave stern correctives to the abuse
of ecstatic experience. The true gift has no artificiality, and is not self-induced or
self-serving. The gifting of God is given without psychological inducements.
(7) The oracles were consulted for information known only to the gods, but the
oracles had to take the initiative. In Corinthians, God takes the initiative in coming
to man (cf. Mills 1985a, 87).
(8) In paganism, there are markedly absent, ethical teachings, whereas in the
Corinthian experience of true glossolalia, the absolute prerequisite is agape love
and its resultant conduct (Mills 1985a, 87). By contrast, the pagan worship
abounded in sensual conduct, lack of restraint, drunkenness and revelry.
(9) The sources in each case are vastly different. Paganism was founded in contact
with a god motivated by self-aggrandisement or fulfilment, both being sourced in
Satan. The true glossolalic gift is sourced in God, although the majority of
expressions through history seem to be unashamedly auto-suggested and spurious,
usually a psychological phenomenon. This will be addressed in a subsequent
section.
(10) In the Mystery Religions, possession by the god was fundamental, whereas true
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
glossolalia is gifted by the true God (cf. Dodds 1973, 197).
(11) In Greece, apart from the official oracles, many “private persons” possessed or
claimed to possess the gift of automatic speech (Dodds 1973, 199). The true
glossolalic gift is given for the church, a corporate gift, notwithstanding those who
claim glossolalia is a private prayer language or for private use (e.g. du Plessis
1963, 81,89: “Tongues are not for public ministry but for private devotions, at
home and in the church”.).
(12) The elaborate ritual noted in the Mystery Religions is totally lacking in the
simple rites enjoined by Paul. As opposed to the detailed procedures of
individual fasting, drug-taking, omen-seeking, god-invoking ritual, Paul taught the
simple instructions of God through the gathered assembly of his people variously
and simply gifted (cf. Kennedy n.d., 282).
h. Summary
In the preceding discussion, it is clear that the “similarities” are more superficial
than real. And in spite of the overwhelming proportion of scholars advocating a “Direct
Link” between the Mystery Religions and Corinthian glossolalia, it is also clear that
their conclusions are based on the apparent correlation of the phenomena on the one
hand, and the assumed basis of ecstatic glossolalic experience in Corinth on the other.
An ecstatic precursor or accompaniment to true glossolalia has not been
demonstrated.
Mills (1985a, 87-88) allows that,
While there likely is a certain formal, external connection between the ecstaticism of certain pagan religious
practices and glossolalia … (it) is fallacious to argue that, because of certain parallelisms, Corinthian glossolalia
at its deepest level betrayed the same meaning as the wild, ecstatic frenzies of the Hellenistic religions. That its
form bore some semblance to these phenomena is most probable, however.
Similarly, Martin (1960, 81) warns that
the total impression made by such an array of instances of ecstatic, involuntary, and most often incoherent
utterances – glossolalia – is that the Apostolic phenomenon was no new thing
but that
One must never make the mistake of linking these earlier and more widespread appearances into some kind of
lineal descent or even into a developing evolution of the ecstatic type of religious speech like Apostolic
glossolalia. For we find no direct connection between these other instances and the Apostolic glossolalia as it
appeared in Christian circles.
Martin has not demonstrated that glossolalia (not the term one would use of
ecstatic involuntary and incoherent ejaculations of the pagans) is in fact ecstatic and
incoherent. However, at this stage it is sufficient to note that the real issue is the
tendency to replicate the excesses of pagan religions into the Christian Church. It is
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
precisely the failure of the Corinthian church to differentiate between the actually
ecstatic and unintelligible utterances of the pagans, and to assume a correlation with the
apparently ecstatic and unintelligible utterances of Corinth (or the Pentecost
experience) that leads Paul to give correctives for abuse, not instructions for use.
It is part of the thesis of this study that true glossolalia is not ecstatic, that it does
not have antecedents, and it does not need antecedents, neither in the culture nor in the
Old Testament (prophetic or otherwise).
1730’s Violent emotions of the Wesleyan revivals, were often artificial and
manipulated. Kuyper (1966, 129) observes:
The senses of sight and hearing are the most effectual means by which the outside world can act upon our
consciousness. In order suddenly to arouse and excite a person, one need only startle him by an explosion or by
the flash of a dazzling light. Acting upon this, some of the earlier Methodists used to fire pistols at their revival
meetings, hoping that the report and flash would create the desired state of mind. The subsequent excitement
of the people would tend to make them more susceptible to the operation of the Holy Spirit.
The result was that “They shrieked, swooned, fell to the floor as if dead, babbled
senselessly, cried out in praise to God …” (Hinson 1967a, 64). These were
crowds of up to 80,000 where the fear of hell generated violent emotions, and the
crisis of despair that the Wesleys prided themselves in producing (Halévy 1971,
36-7). John Wesley especially used his eloquence to produce piercing cries,
nervous quiverings and fits of fainting (Halévy 1971, 62).
1799 John McGee, an evangelist in the frontier revivals, recalls,
I left the pulpit and went through the audience shouting and exhorting with all possible ecstasy and energy, and
the floor was soon covered with the slain.
(Cited in Hinson 1967a, 65).
1801 The Cane-Ridge revival:
“godly hysteria” included such phenomena as falling, jerking, barking like dogs, falling into trances, the “holy
laugh” … “wild dances” … “treeing the devil” … In some services entire congregations would be seized by
the “holy laugh”, an ecstasy which could hardly be controlled.
1858 Behm, (1964c, 722) addressing speaking in tongues in Corinth, gave the opinion
(in 1858 – as indicated in Hazel 1991, 46):
In Corinth, therefore, glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance.
1865 Greene (105) in relating the occasion of Pentecost, assumes that ecstasy is part of
the event.
1882 Smeaton (1958) has no hesitation in asserting that the gift of tongues was a
supernatural gift enabling the speaker to speak in foreign languages which had
never been acquired (51). He notes that the popular German view at the time (that
he did not accept) was that the gift in 1 Corinthians was speaking in ecstasy
(52).
1889 * Heinrich Weinel wrote that the definition of glossolalia as ecstatic speech, was
“not only the prevailing but the only correct definition” (noted in Harrisville
1974, 11, emphasis added).
1890’s Under the teaching of Benjamin Irwin, the Fire-Baptized Holiness Church
(Nebraska) experienced shouts, screams, “jerks”, falling into trances, and
speaking in tongues (Synan 1971, 62).
1894-95 Carl von Weizsacher believed that tongues was an ecstatic phenomenon, the
speaker being in a state of trance (Hertweck 1981, 18).
1897? Rev. A.E. Street, quoted in Henke (1909, 200-1), in which Street refers to an
experience “Some twelve years ago”, thus placing it before 1898, and hence
before the twentieth century Pentecostal phenomenon:
… the power began to seize me and I laughed all through the following communion service. … After some
little waiting I began to laugh with increasing power until I was flat on my back laughing at the top of my voice
for over half an hour … In a few seconds some baby gibberish was uttered, then a few words in Chinese that
I understood, and then several sentences in a strange tongue.
Henke (1909, 201) notes that Street’s experience is “of an essentially hypnotic kind”
with a high degree of suggestibility and “automatic laughing”.
1890 Clemen (348) notes the conclusion that those in Corinth “spoke in a tongue … in
a state of ecstasy”, and in summary states:
The speaking with tongues occurred in ecstasy, and was in general unintelligible.
1902 Robertson (794) like Clemen, held the view that tongues was an ecstatic
experience at Corinth:
… certain utterances on the part of members of the Churches, sometimes intelligible and less ecstatic
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
(prophecy), sometimes more ecstatic and not intelligible (tongues).
1904-5 Synan (1971, 86) reports that frontier revivalism emotional reactions continued
into the twentieth century, as did the holiness phenomena. A.J. Tomlinson (in
Synan 1971, 86) reported “shouting, weeping, clapping their hands, jerking, and
hand shaking”, and on one occasion, people “fell on the floor, and some writhed
like serpents”, whilst others “seemed to be off in a trance for four or five hours”.
1905 Davenport (25-27) in seeking to understand “primitive traits in religious
revivals”, concludes that people act with a crowd psychology, and the “crowd is
united and governed by emotion rather than reason”. The gathering of the
individual emotions in the crowd enormously increases the individual emotions
and “consequently the total volume of emotion of the crowd … imagination has
unlocked the flood-gates of emotion, which on occasion may become wild
enthusiasm or demonic frenzy” (27).
1906 Walker states:
The glossolalia of 1 Corinthians 12-14 seems to have been rapt ecstatic utterance, unintelligible and needing
interpretation (cited in Williams 1975, 16).
1906 Kendrick (1961, 65) records the early ministry of W.J. Seymour in Los Angeles,
which resulted in speaking in tongues. The Pentecostal Evangel (in Kendrick
1961, 65) later reported that “They shouted for three days and three nights” as a
result of this new but “scriptural” experience. Starting on April 9, 1906,
Culpepper (1977, 48) reports the speculation that “spiritual enthusiasm” aided the
revival based on fears of the end of the world, generated by the San Francisco
earthquake of April 18, the same year. Azusa Street, Los Angeles, became the
centre of this revival.
** From 1906, the influence of Azusa Street became dominant in terms of both the
ecstatic experience and glossolalia, in the formative years of the Pentecostal
phenomenon.
1906 After visiting Azusa Street, G.B. Cashwell returned to Dunn in North Carolina,
where he invited people to receive the Pentecostal experience, resulting in many
holiness preachers “speaking in tongues, singing in tongues, laughing the holy
laugh, shouting and leaping and praising God” – similar to the emotional extremes
of the Cane-Ridge camp meetings (Synan 1971, 124).
1907 Michael affirms a position in regard to tongues at Corinth, that results in the
speaker being edified as he feels the nearness of God “during the ecstatic trance”
(262). He concludes that glossolalia
was an ecstatic spiritual rapture – a state of deep emotion during which utterances were given to meaningless
incoherent sounds, such sounds not taking shape in the intelligible words of any language (266).
1908 Aimee Semple McPherson claimed that the Holy Spirit “took my tongue and
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
spoke through me in a language I have never learned, the ecstatic praises …” (in
Bruner 1970, 124).
1909 Following Davenport’s portrayal of the psychological crowd, Henke (1909, 198)
refers to extreme suggestibility of people in a “low stage of culture” who are
largely controlled by their feelings – which often assert complete mastery.
However, Henke admits that the same extremes of emotion are found in Europe
and America as those among the savages of the mission fields.
1910 Sheppard (518) notes:
Glossolaly [to Paul] is clearly a kind of ecstasy, in which the subject behaves in a very abnormal manner.
1910 Reilly similarly affirms Pauline tongues as ecstatic:
Glossolaly was the admittedly audible manifestation of a determinate divine energy operating internally and
producing ecstasy. (4).
In their zeal to praise God, as they had known others to do before them, they worked themselves into ecstasy.
(6).
[Paul] too could drop off into ecstatic rapture and give vent to the mysterious cries and outbursts. (7).
Now all this takes place “in the spirit” (14:14), that is in a state of ecstasy. (10)
1911 Conybeare adapts the prevailing view of Pauline ecstatic glossolalia:
The attitude of Paul toward glossolaly among his converts strikingly resembles Plato’s opinion as expressed in
the Timaeus, p. 72 of the enthusiastic ecstasies of the ancient μαντις. (9).
Conybeare defines glossolalia as:
A faculty of abnormal and inarticulate vocal utterance, under stress of religious excitement, which was widely
developed in the early Christian circles. (9).
And he notes its recurrence through history:
The same morbid and abnormal trance utterances recur in Christian revivals in every age. (10).
1911? Robertson and Plummer (1986 printing) follow in the same vein as the
foregoing:
… it seems to be clear that in all cases persons who possessed this gift spoke in ecstasy a language which was
intelligible to themselves, but not to their hearers … This ecstatic language was blissful outlet of blissful
emotions, but was of no service to any one but the speaker and those who had the gift of interpretation. (267-
8).
1926 Diamond, following Davenport (1905) and Henke (1909), above, comments on
the psychological crowd, and the conditions to achieve a “successful revival”:
These are the states of tension, expectancy and subdued excitement which transform collections of individuals
into a psychological crowd. (116).
The aim of the revivalist is to create an atmosphere of contagious emotion and suggestibility. (117).
The fact that the whole congregation could take part in singing made the hymn a means for the expression of
the violent emotions aroused by the revival experiences. (121).
1929 An article in the Expository Times makes the strong assertion that xenoglossia as
an evangelistic tool had been rejected, and the gift of languages disparaged.
The old idea that it miraculously bestowed a knowledge of foreign languages in order to facilitate the spread of
the gospel may be said to be quite dead, and the modern [1929] tendency is distinctly in the direction of
disparaging the gift. There is undoubtedly an element of ecstasy and wildness about it which is antipathetic to
the orderly theological mind.
It is worth noting that the general expectancy had been for xenoglossia.
1931 Schaff (xxviii) maintains the ecstatic understanding of the Corinthian experience:
It was an act of self-devotion, an act of thanksgiving, praying and singing, within the Christian congregation, by
individuals who were wholly absorbed in communion with God, and gave utterance to their rapturous feelings in
broken, abrupt, rhapsodic, unintelligible words. It was emotional rather than intellectual, the language of the
excited imagination, not of cool reflection. It was the language of the spirit (pneuma), or of ecstasy, as distinct
from the language of the understanding (nou~).
1936 The Apostolic Church in Australia was noted for its style of worship (Chant
1984, 174):
All Pentecostals are more exuberant, more vocal and more expressive in worship than their non-charismatic
fellow-Christians.
1937 Easton assumes that ecstatic utterance is a simple explanation of speaking in
tongues, taken in the context of New Testament times:
A complete explanation of the tongues is given by the phenomena of ecstatic utterances. … In ecstasy the soul
feels itself so suffused with the Divine that the man is drawn above all natural modes of perception. (2996).
The phenomenon continues to 1937:
Ultra-emotionalistic outbreaks still cause the formation of eccentric sects among us, and every evangelist
knows well-meaning but slightly weak individuals who make themselves a nuisance. (2996).
1937 Mowinckel states emphatically that “… glossolalia … was ecstasy”.
1940 Holt (741) refers to ecstatic phenomena associated with tongues, deriving from
the Holiness groups, who
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
… believe in the gift of tongues as an additional evidence of God’s grace … involuntary jerking, twitching,
running, writhing, rolling on or beating the floor, shouting, shrieking, or clapping of hands, while the emotionally
exalted state is merely evidence of the “spirit” working within … [an] emancipated state of religious ecstasy.
1947 Morgan (101) is unequivocal in his assertion:
… these, “kinds of tongues”, ecstatic utterances always. Whenever we read of “tongues” in the New
Testament, it is ecstatic utterances … for praise.
1950 Knox (549ff) describes all the activity of glossolalia from the first century to
Montanus to the sixteenth century, as “ecstatic” or “enthusiastic” behaviour.
1955 Conn refers to “recurrence of Pentecost” in terms that assumes an ecstatic
interpretation:
Montanus … seemed to be played upon by the Spirit like a plectron – in ecstasy they spoke in languages …
(24).
This experience became the background for revival meetings of Cane-Ridge and
others in the nineteenth century:
Soon others began to have similar ecstatic experiences … they spoke in tongues, or languages (24).
1956 Barclay, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, perpetuated the common
understanding of glossolalia as an ecstatic experience:
In [the early church] a man became worked up to an ecstasy and a frenzy and in that state he poured out a
quite uncontrollable torrent of sounds in no known language.
1959 Einar Molland described glossolalia as “meaningless words uttered by
ecstatics” (cited in Sahlberg 1985, 70).
1960 Although from a critical standpoint, Burdick reflects the view that glossolalia
results from ecstasy:
One of the oldest and most common explanations describes glossolalia as the result of ecstasy (68)
… ecstatic utterance or glossolalia … (71)
… many glossolalics … assume that spiritual maturity has suddenly arrived in one short hour of ecstatic
experience (86).
1960 Whilst making a distinction between the ecstatic speech of the Greek Mystery
Religions and the Apostolic church, nevertheless Martin affirms “the ecstatic type
of religious speech like Apostolic glossolalia” (81).
1962 Lovekin affirms that glossolalia is speaking in unknown tongues, and that the
“speaking is ecstatic in nature” (iii).
1963 Hitt interviewed many tongues-speaking Christians and noted their common
testimony to a “great emotional experience” (11), and refers to speaking in an
unknown tongue as an “ecstatic utterance” (10) and defined by behavioural
scientists as “behaviour arising from a state of ecstasy” (12).
1963 The editor of Dialog magazine makes the assumption, “since the phenomenon of
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
ecstatic utterance has erupted in the midst of the church …”. (152).
1963 * Farrell (4) makes an assertion that not only is glossolalia not xenoglossia, but
rather unintelligible ecstatic utterance, but also (rather like Weinel in 1889) that
that is the prevailing view:
the weight of biblical scholarship favours identification of tongues not as foreign languages but rather as
ecstatic (“glossolalics” themselves differ as to the propriety of this word) and unintelligible utterances.
1965 In seeking to appraise the surge of interest in glossolalia in the 1960’s, Horn
observes that glossolalia may be a fad like gospel singing with guitars, or the
popularity of folk songs on college campuses, but
They all appeal to the ecstatic. … They all appeal to enthusiasm (317).
1966 * Like Farrell (1963) and Weinel (1889), Gundry refers to the N.E.B. (New
English Bible) translation as symptomatic of “the agreement of practically all
modern commentators on the ecstatic interpretation” of speaking in tongues (299).
In the context of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14, and referring to the N.E.B.
translation of tongues as “ecstatic utterance”, Gundry states:
In so translating, the N.E.B. reflects an almost universal view that at least in 1 Corinthians (if not in Acts)
speaking in tongues or glossolalia means ‘the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy’ either in
‘antiquated, foreign, unintelligible, mysterious utterances’ or in ‘marvelous, heavenly languages’.
1966 Stagg (145) has no hesitation in identifying tongues as ecstatic.
The ecstatic and unintelligible utterance at Corinth is cloaked with the respectability of Pentecost. Modern
tongues are Corinthian, not Pentecostal.
At Corinth … ecstatic utterances were practiced and prized.
1967 Oates (95) says that:
In the experience of speaking in tongues … There is certainly a build up of tension, there is hypnotic impact of
a mass or a group, and there is the ecstatic release of tension.
1968 During behavioural studies, Gerlach and Hine (26) discovered that there was
only very rare (if valid) “xenoglossie” but regular ecstatic utterance including a
range of semi-trance states accompanied by bizarre involuntary motor activity to
quiet prayer in tongues during private or small group devotions in which there is
no loss of conscious control and little if any dissociation experienced.
1968 Another behavioural scientist, Mansell Pattison, ignores the causes of true
glossolalia as a spiritual gift, and the purpose for “building up the church”, and
focuses on the operation in a variety of contexts, as if the function alone could
itself be correlated in these contexts. His assumption is that glossolalia had been
practiced in association with ecstatic phenomena well before the New Testament
period, including the prophets, and that “glossolalia per se is not a spiritual
phenomena” (73).
1973 * Like Milikan (1973, and others), Montague (a Roman Catholic) states:
The more common view today [1973] is that New Testament glossolalia in both Paul and Luke was ecstatic
utterance of some kind (349).
1973 Smith, like so many others, makes the unquestioned assertion:
The tongues in Corinth were clearly ecstatic and unintelligible (39).
1974 MacGorman, although not holding a position of ecstasy, recognizes that ecstasy is
nevertheless the common view. Concerning 1 Corinthians 12:3, he says, “This is
articulate, not ecstatic” (115) and he also warns against an uninformed anti-
ecstatic position that reacts to ecstasy per se without considering other criteria
(119).
1974 Williams assumes ecstasy in glossolalia and in the associated prophetic state:
Physical manifestations of glossolalic ecstasy provide striking parallels to prophetic behaviour … [with] the
possibility that an individual may progress through a whole range of subjective ecstatic states (325-6).
1976 Concerning 1 Corinthians 14, Hasel (1991, 47) quotes Haarbech et al,
There is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy.
1977 Although claiming that tongues were revelation, and have therefore ceased,
because they were a sign of transition (Coppes 1977, 59) yet Coppes says (58):
Paul’s treatment in 1 Corinthians 14 shows that New Testament tongues also served a highly personal ecstatic
function.
1978 Whilst adopting a view of glossolalia that allows for anybody who knows one or
more languages to replicate the phenomenon in certain conditions (143),
nevertheless Holm recognizes that the common view of glossolalia is that it is
equated with ecstasy (141).
1978 Kelsey (25) allows that
There are examples all through religious history, including Christian history, of men and women who
encountered such powerful experiences of the divine …
There are similar descriptions of a deep sense of peace and some kind of contact with the divine in this state
which has been known as trance, religious ecstasy, or rapture (25, italics his).
1981 In common with revival movements elsewhere, Robin reports without question,
the displays of “glossolalia and trance-like states” in a New Guinea revival
(155).
1983 Although not himself holding the view that tongues are associated with ecstasy,
yet House admits that religious ecstasy, especially that manifested in tongues, was
common not only in Hellenistic Greece (135, 138) but also in the Christian church
at Corinth (138, 142), thus confusing the true spiritual gift of tongues.
1985 Malony and Lovekin, arguing from the behavioural sciences perspective, state
categorically, “Ecstatic utterance rather than recognized languages were the norm
in Corinth” (5).
1985 Sahlberg reflects on the commonly held view of glossolalia and its association
with ecstasy in an article appropriately entitled: From Ecstasy to Enthusiasm.
Some Trends in the Scientific Attitude to the Pentecostal Movement.
1986 From a left-wing perspective on the Pentecostal movement, Peter Wagner reports
on the release that Christianity offers through worshipping God and even
becoming ecstatic, and that “the gift of tongues produces much spiritual
satisfaction for many people” (106). He cites a testimony of a Latin American
Having cursed his ungullible (sic) mind for hanging on to reason (15 – as above),
Bach rejoiced in his non-rational experience:
It was insanely wonderful … Just to lie on the floor and roll on the floor and shout prayers to God in a voice
and words that only He could recognize, that only He could have put in my heart in the first place, to know that
for once there was no separation between us (16).
And yet he admitted that in the experience:
The distance between that subjective experience … and the objective teaching … widened considerably
following this Pentecostal night. The gap between what some of us considered spiritual reality and academic
suppositions grew to dangerous proportions, but we never did anything about it (99).
Bach reported a case of a woman who said, “I was longing for the experience [of
speaking in tongues]”, and she had been advised by an Episcopalian woman to “try
nonsense words until God took over” (134). This irrational approach has elsewhere
been described as “fake it until you make it”!
Valdez (1980, 6) almost trivializes God in his reporting of a seemingly banal
situation:
Big, strong men began to cry out loud, then women. I felt like crying, too. I didn’t know why. I just felt, “Thank
you, God, for letting me be here with You”.
John White (1988), as a renown psychiatrist, is somewhat surprising in his
absence of critical appreciation for an odd, non-rational experience:
I began to express worship, conscious of the poverty of my words. Then suddenly I saw in front of me a
column of flame of about two feet in width. It seemed to arise from beneath the floor and to pass through the
ceiling of the room. I knew – without being told – knew by some infallible kind of knowing that transcended the
use of my intellect, that I was in the presence of the God of holiness. In stunned amazement I watched a rising
column of flames in our own living room (87-88).
Bach (1969) recounts a similar type of experience:
I collapsed on the floor and it felt like about 500 volts. There was a spasm of pressure and violet and red light.
I nearly lost consciousness (178).
This type of non-rational experience, as part of the whole charismatic/Pentecostal
spectrum, is usually reported with no attempt to eliminate the bizarre or the demonic or
the purely psychological or emotional. In fact, the recounting seems to give
aggrandisement to a purely self-serving experience that is of no consequence to the
church. And in the middle of it, is usually tongues – unquestioned, and yet earnestly
sought for some undefined reason. Certainly there is no evident spiritual value for the
church, and seldom any attempt to dignify the experience by making such a correlation.
Most disappointing, is the off-handed assumption that the Holy Spirit is responsible for
the whole spectrum of odd behaviour. Synan (1971) reported the response of Parham
and others to the excesses at Azusa Street, stating that, “all the stunts common in the old
camp meetings among coloured folk” were being replicated in the services, but what
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
was more disturbing, was the report that “white people [were] imitating [the]
unintelligent, crude negroisms of the Southland, and laying it on the Holy Ghost” (110).
Masters and Whitcomb (1988, 67) note that the mental conditioning of the
charismatic environment allows charismatics to accept amazing ideas like Oral
Robert’s claim to have seen a vision of Jesus “900 feet tall”. They conclude,
“Charismatic practices loosen up the mind in such an unhealthy way that people will
believe almost anything”.
D. NON-CRITICAL COMPARISONS
In addition to the unquestioned comparisons earlier in this Chapter (whether LSD,
mescaline, Buddha or an illumined avatar) Bach makes some direct comparisons with
heathen worship that are offensive to Christians seeking to be true to God and His Word.
In a Voodoo ceremony in Haiti, Bach comments:
The writhing, pirouetting figures, devotees with flailing hands, blissful faces etched with sweat, eyes euphorious
(sic) in the lantern light, enchanted voices intoning an unknown tongue – these Haitian peasants would be
construed by church and campus as pagan worshipers drunk with rum and witched with dope, but I saw
myself in them when I was drunk with the joy and rapture of the Holy Ghost (1969, 115).
Bach equally makes no critical comparison with the experiences of
Zoroastrianism or Hinduism, and although most scholars would hopefully disagree with
him, nevertheless, there is a broad spectrum of non-critical practitioners anxious to
avoid losing the security and kudos of their own unvalidated experience:
That there is a Holy Ghost in Zoroastrianism and that it was recognized as such a thousand years before the
Christian Era and that it was and still is looked upon by Parsees as the spirit of the Cosmic God made my
feeling about the Christian Holy Spirit more meaningful. That the Hebrew people believed in a Holy Spirit and
considered it a ruah or breath of life, and that the Hindus called it Atman or Prana, by which they meant the
essence of life, was all good news to me!
(Bach 1969, 183).
In the same uncritical and unquestioning way, many scholars associated with the
behavioural sciences have simply analysed behaviours associated with ecstasy and
glossolalia with no attempt to question the possible sources of a purported gift of God.
For example, Maloney and Lovekin (1985, vi) unashamedly state in their Preface, “This
is a treatise on the social/behavioural sciences – not theology”. In fact “the first attempts
of the social/behavioural scientists to understand glossolalia began in spiritualism”
(Maloney and Lovekin 1985, 13). Malony and Lovekin then go on to illustrate by
reference to William James (and Le Baron), Flourney, Jung, and Richet, concluding,
“These are examples of spiritistic rather than religious glossolalia” (16). The
behavioural scientists seem to purely look at a certain phenomenon that appears to be
similarly manifest in many places and under a variety of circumstances, only from the
standpoint of its psychological, emotional and behavioural characteristics. There is no
thought that there might be counterfeits, or even that there is a genuine gift of God. Nor
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
is there any consideration that if the gift is from God then one might expect to observe
behaviours consistent with His holy character. Nor is there consideration that if God has
given a gift, then, being God, He would give it for a specific purpose rather than for
selfish both self-aggrandising as well as cathartic benefits – as valid and beneficial as
they may be of themselves – but are not in any way related to God’s purpose.
Over against what is clearly the majority opinion, even if evidently unquestioned and
untried, is a range of voices specifically questioning the presumption of an ecstatic
prerequisite.
As early as 1921, Mackie was warning:
If ecstasy were a state of mind and nothing but a state of mind, and a state of mind could exist without some
sort of expression in conduct and character, we could probably afford to ignore the ethical problems involved in
the gift of tongues.
But religion is always related for better or for worse to ethics … It is certainly in the field of ethics that we are
to subject religion to its ultimate test (265).
Mackie then looks at the ethics of the tongues movement: “the appalling array of
crimes”, “the criminaloid type of mind” (266) and especially the variation in sexual
ethics (267). Sargant worried about this moral departure because of the serious effects
of ecstatic behaviour (1975, 187, 190, also noted in section 4.3.5).
MacGorman, whilst accepting the presence of ecstatic outbursts in the ancient
world (1974, 21), nevertheless warns that the confession, “Jesus is Lord”, in 1
Corinthians 12:3 (in the context of the “ancient world”) is “articulate, not ecstatic”
(115). Further he warns against seeking an experience per se, quoting Jack Gray:
To have a great encounter with God and to come away enamored with the experience rather than with God is
sophisticated idolatry (118).
Carson argues that tongues should not be confused with ecstasy, especially if there
are derogatory overtones:
Most noncharismatics who argue that ecstasy characterizes contemporary speaking in tongues mean
something more than this … in particular that the languages spoken by tongues-speakers are not real languages
but … mere gibberish. Strictly speaking, however, there is no necessary connection between ecstasy and the
coherence or incoherence of the “tongue” that is spoken (1988, 78).
Hertweck adopts a corrective approach to the presumed ecstatic nature of
tongues. He maintains that the evidence of 1 Corinthians leads to a different conclusion:
The reason the utterances were unintelligible was that the languages in which they were spoken were
uninterpreted; it was not the manner in which they were spoken. Thus, an utterance in tongues would not need
to be spoken in a hysterical manner in order to be a genuine utterance in tongues (1981, 19).
and he notes in the glossolalic context of 1 Corinthians 14:33, that “God is not a God of
confusion” (RSV).
Kelsy looks at the historic antecedents, and claims that objectively:
There was no experience we know of in ancient times which is not clearly differentiated from speaking in
tongues, and in several ways. First, tongue-speech is not a frenzy; it can usually be controlled, and in most
cases it is, so that it can be turned off at any time. Second, loss of consciousness, or the state of trance, is not a
necessary part of the experience (1968, 141-2).
Tongues can occur in a highly charged atmosphere, but it can also occur in quiet surroundings, and the
unleashing of emotionalism is simply not a necessary part of speaking in tongues (145, italics his).
The fact of control outlaws ecstasy as normally defined. The fact of tongues-
speaking in quiet unemotional surroundings denies the necessity of ecstasy, although it
must be noted that this is still no validation of the tongues in this context as being a
genuine biblical gift of God.
In advocating a clear acceptance of tongues in 1 Corinthians as being a “speaking
in languages”, Bridge and Phypers lament the fact that:
Some enthusiasts for tongues-speaking have accepted emotional gibberish as a true manifestation of the gift,
and some translators of and commentators on the New Testament have used such phrases as ‘ecstatic
utterance’ and ‘tongues of ecstasy’ to describe the gift. Such phrases do not reflect the true sense of the
original Greek and seem to indicate considerable confusion about the nature of the gift (1973, 71-2).
They affirm this position in their later book (1982, 62) stating that “[tongues] need
not be associated with emotional excitement … The Greek word simply means ‘other
languages’”.
Significantly, Larry Christenson, one of the early leaders in the Lutheran
charismatic movement in 1961, nevertheless argues strongly against any ecstatic
precursor or association:
[a] common misconception is that speaking in tongues is a highly emotional or “ecstatic” utterance. The terms
“ecstatic utterance” or “tongues of ecstasy” are never used in the Bible in reference to a speaker in tongues.
Those who hear a speaker in tongues are sometimes described as “ecstatic” or “amazed” … but the speaker
himself is never described in this way (1968, 24, italics his).
Holdcroft, as president of Western Pentecostal Bible College in Canada, makes a
clear stand on the nature of tongues. Firstly, that tongues are intelligible:
Both the Biblical tongues-speaker and his present-day successor perform intelligible vocal expression under the
control of the Holy Spirit. The Bible portrays tongues as essentially linguistic performances comprising
languages that communicate (1983, 7).
And secondly, like Christenson, he denies any ecstatic association:
Excitement or ecstasy is not necessarily inherent in the process. Luke’s account of the Day of Pentecost twice
uses the term ecstasy … but these verses describe not the tongues-speaker but the onlookers (1983, 8, italic
his).
4.7.6 CONCLUSION
The majority position, that tongues is premised upon an ecstatic experience that
results in an unintelligible utterance, is a sad monolith that has influenced the Christian
church (and beyond) in a way that does not reflect the true biblical position but rather
confuses the whole issue of glossolalia whilst ignoring the true gift and indeed,
intentionally or otherwise, refusing to seek validation of the purported gift or to
ascertain its origin or purpose as befits the act of God in bestowing it. This majority
position assumes a stance in which the precursors determine the operation of the Holy
Spirit, as if man –
1. having the auto-suggestive expectation of the gift,
2. having the ability to generate the necessary pre-condition of ecstasy/trance/
hypnosis,
3. having the willingness to be involved in an experience that is self-serving
instead of church-serving,
4. having the desire that the self-serving experience, which is almost totally
emotional (and not cognitive) with no consequent residue of rational thoughts that
can be communicated and benefit others, and yet that that experience should be
vehemently pursued almost to the exclusion of other gifts,
5. having the desire that this non-cognitive experience, seeming only to have
cathartic and self-aggrandising motivation and benefits, should be elevated to
superior status, and in some cases to be an essential ingredient to be able to claim
true Christian experience, in fact, the sine qua non of salvation in a large
proportion of early nineteenth century Pentecostals, and
4.8.1 INTRODUCTION.
This section provides a brief overview of some perspectives that are helpful for
the study. It is neither exhaustive in detail nor extensive in coverage, but serves to note
the absence of supposed ecstasy in the New Testament, especially as a purported
prerequisite for glossolalia.
B. APOSTLE PAUL
Paul also had a vision – in Jerusalem (Acts 22:17), being warned by the Lord to
leave Jerusalem. Like Peter, Paul was quite coherent and did not speak in tongues on
that occasion.
Martin (1960, 20) claims that there is evidence of Paul’s “emotional tenseness” as
recorded in his threats to the early disciples (Acts 9:1-2), in his confrontation with
Barnabas (Acts 15:37-40) and his rebuke of Peter (Galatians 2:11). While this
emotional characteristic of Paul may be true, it proves nothing in regard to Paul’s claim
to glossolalic experience, as if it were ecstatic. Indeed, on the contrary, Paul seeks to
curtail any emotional element in the Corinthian tongue-speaking (1 Corinthians 14:26-
30, cf. Martin 1960, 20). Certainly Paul nowhere suggests that tongue-speakers were in
a state of ecstasy whilst exercising their gift (Sullivan 1976, 147), although Robinson
(1973, 5) assumes that the worshippers were “in a state of high spiritual excitement” in
which “a genuine inspiration of Gods’ Spirit [may lead] to utterance over which the
speaker has no rational control”, and yet not so ecstatic as to be unaware of what he is
saying. Mundle (1976, 528) without substantiation, simply asserts that “Paul clearly
regards this phenomenon as ecstatic”. This has not been demonstrated.
Even the reference to Paul being “out of [his] mind” (1 Corinthians 5:13) doesn’t
help to define him as an ecstatic.
The closest one might come to an ecstatic experience for Paul, could be found in
his reference to “visions and revelations” (2 Corinthians 12:1). It is noteworthy, that in
addressing this reference, and the topic of Paul’s “ecstatic or visionary deficiencies”,
that ordained Assemblies of God pastor, scholar and theologian, Russell Spittler (1975,
260-261) comments:
At no time does the apostle attach any enduring ecclesiastical or communal value to the experience: apparently
he had never (in the fourteen years since it occurred, 12:2) mentioned it before to the Corinthians – despite his
stay with them as pastor for a year and a half (Acts 18:11) and despite the highly charismatic orientation of
that congregation. The paradise rapture would not even have been mentioned now but for the fact that Paul
was forced to do so.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
There is no substantiated evidence to conclude that Paul is an ecstatic, and even
less to conclude that his glossolalic experience was premised on ecstasy. On the
contrary, his warnings to curtail and control glossolalia, would lead to the opposite
conclusion.
C. APOSTLE JOHN
In a similar way to Peter and Paul, Mundle (1976, 528) makes the unsubstantiated
comment that John also was an ecstatic, on the flimsy reference to John being “in the
Spirit” (Revelation 1:10; 4:2). Even John’s “transport” to heaven, to see the things that
must subsequently take place, does not constitute a conclusion of ecstasy.
By comparison, it is worth noting Mundle’s comment (1976, 528) that the words
ἐκστασις and ἐξιστασθαι are used to express man’s reaction to the wonderful acts of
God, and that the “examples of ecstatic pious experience (sic) are to be seen as a result
but not as the cause of [their] faith”.
In conclusion, one has to concede that there is no evidence to conclude ecstatic
experience for the apostles, and even less possibility of correlating their limited
glossolalic experience (at Pentecost) with any ecstatic precursor.
*****
GLOSSOLALIA AS A PHENOMENON
5.1 INTRODUCTION.
In concluding Chapter 4, the seriously confusing nature of the assumed ecstatic
precursor was again noted. This confusion is not simply in tending to identify all who
have an ecstatic experience into one indistinguishable mass of humanity (as per Bach),
or into one experience-based ecumenical group of professing Christians with a whole
range of theological vagaries, but more particularly, the ecstatic assumption has
seriously confused the whole concept of true glossolalia itself.
If ecstasy is assumed as the precursor to glossolalia, then glossolalia might be a
valid phenomenon extending from witchdoctors to Mormons to Dionysiac devotees to
biblical Christians. But if ecstasy is not a precursor, as this study postulates, then the
whole scenario changes dramatically. Biblical glossolalia is a gift of God, and therefore
reflects on the character of God (triune). Being a gift of God it fulfils the purposes of
God and relates to His Church, of which He is the Head, and to Whom all glory is due.
True glossolalia demands treatment within these parameters.
In this Chapter, the perspective of purported glossolalic occurrences are
surveyed, the nature and sources of glossolalia as postulated by many scholars and
authors are examined, and against that information the ground work will be laid for a
careful exegesis of appropriate portions of 1 Corinthians 12-14 which will be
undertaken to identify the characteristics and purposes of true biblical glossolalia and
also its relevance to the church as a gift, as well as putting in into historical perspective.
This latter will be addressed in a second volume.
From a numerical perspective, apart from the practice of verbal utterances in
secular groups and non-Christian religions, the enormous number of devotees and
practitioners of purported glossolalia demand attention – in either clearly affirming and
validating their experience, or of soundly refuting and denouncing the current practice.
In 1984, Hollenweger used statistics from David Barrett, taken in 1980, in which
Barrett predicted that numbers of Pentecostals and charismatics would increase from
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
115 million in 1980 to 243 million in 2000 (411), although Hollenweger doubted
Barrett’s extrapolations. Nevertheless, Barrett (1988, 813) reported in 1988 that there
were already 360 million Pentecostals and charismatics (about 50% more than the
predicted total for 2000, but in only 8 years instead of 20!).
The danger is that sheer weight of numbers can be used to conclude, “They can’t
all be wrong”, and hence there can be a failure to be objectively critical biblically and
theologically. However, sheer numbers – whether Roman Catholics, Mormons or
Moslems – do not prove that the basis is biblical Christianity or otherwise. It is
alarming to discover how many authors treat the subject of glossolalia on the
assumption that any form of verbal utterance should be assumed to be an acceptable
glossolalic expression, without any attempt to establish criteria for validation. Hence
the urgent need to carefully and critically review the whole process.
This lack of critical approach is exacerbated by the contribution of the
behavioural scientists, who seem to have muddied the waters of objective research on
the issue of genuine glossolalia. With the purported aim – precisely of objective
scientific research – they have left the correct focus on glossolalia as a gift of God for
the Church, and have moved to purely focus on any purported cases of “glossolalia” as
if they were self-validating. The very thorough research of Malony and Lovekin (1985)
is a case in point. From a behavioural science perspective they look at glossolalia as
extraordinary behaviour (ix). They take a definition from English and English (3) that
puts glossolalia in either religion or psychopathology as two settings in which it might
occur, but note that many scholars make those two areas synonymous. By making the two
areas synonymous, glossolalists are presumed to be “mentally deranged”, and this has
formed the basis of much research by the social/behavioural scientists. Maloney and
Lovekin presume to research glossolalia from this behavioural science perspective (3),
thus making it an inert occurrence. There is no attempt to delineate true biblical
glossolalia from a range of spurious phenomena.
The assumption that glossolalia is “fabricated speech in a strange tongue,
occurring chiefly in states of religious ecstasy, but found also in psychopathic cases”
(English and English cited in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 3) means that their whole
research is seriously flawed, if in fact speaking in tongues should really be defined as a
gift of God, given at God’s initiative for the benefit of the church.
Equally, it must be noted that in Pentecostal and charismatic experience, there is
little attempt to adequately define glossolalia. Any purported linguistic utterance is
assumed to be a genuine glossolalic gift, in spite of there being no evidence to
substantiate that God is the source, as opposed to a spiritistic/demonic source or even
(as appears to be the most common case) a purely psychological source. Furthermore,
there is virtually no regard for any value gained by the church as God’s people, whilst
strenuous attempts are made to validate the experience per se as if that was of
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
considerable consequence.
Malony and Lovekin, using their inadequate and unsubstantiated definition – from
a biblical and Christian perspective – simply take any number of purportedly linguistic
(or verbal) utterances as examined by scholars of no particular persuasion – but
certainly with no Christian prerequisite, or Christian or biblical parameters – and seek
to analyse their findings as if they were all equally valid.
Extremely tenuous and isolated cases – like Flourney’s study of Hélène Smith, or
Jung’s study of Miss S. W. (both cited in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 14-15) – are hardly
credible cases to be considered in a book examining glossolalia, even if there was no
true biblical glossolalia. The test base is too narrow, making the study almost
meaningless from any perspective, certainly from a biblical perspective, and too
“unique” even from a behavioural science perspective.
Likewise, Maeder’s case study of a 41-year-old schizophrenic should be a
particular illustration of a much broader field of similar occurrences (cited in Malony
and Lovekin 1985, 50). Even Maeder’s own findings that this was Mr. F.R.’s own
private language in order to communicate in his fantasy world, indicate that this is not a
broad phenomenon capable of reasonable sampling and proper scientific examination,
but an isolated peculiarity.
Idiosyncratic phenomena are hardly the basis for sound scientific study with
proper comparisons and statistical measurements to allow meaningful conclusions.
Some studies attempted to show that schizophrenese (or psychotic patients’ “word
salads”) is “incontrovertibly different from religious glossolalia” (so Samarin 1972d,
117, cited in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 50). And yet not even religious glossolalia is
adequately isolated for objective study, let alone true biblical glossolalia. The
“incontrovertible difference” doesn’t seem to help clarify the situation.
This difference is ignored when South African psychiatrist, Vivier, and clinical
psychologist, Lovekin, both using Jungian concepts, conclude that glossolalia is
normally constructive and serves a cathartic purpose (Malony and Lovekin 1985, 52).
There is no differentiation made regarding a true source and true purpose. Whilst
writing from a Christian perspective, they use the secular behavioural scientist’s criteria
without referring to the biblical criteria of God as the source and initiator of the true
gift, and the church – not the individual – as the beneficiary. Morton Kelsey, a pastor,
theologian, and Jungian therapist, likewise concludes that glossolalia results in the
individual’s awareness of a newfound depth to the personality (Malony and Lovekin
1985, 53). But that has no biblical basis whatever.
The overall failure to define the terms, and the tendency for most authors to build
on secular presuppositions (including an ecstatic precursor as well as self-validating
unexplained verbal utterances) make the task of objective analysis from a biblical
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
perspective, very difficult. And the prejudice is extremely strong from the professedly
Christian community.
It is the purpose of this study to seek to pursue, as objectively as possible,
glossolalia from a biblical perspective.
B. RECENT CONSIDERATIONS
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Goodman in the Encyclopaedia of Religion gives a general definition of
glossolalia:
(the practice of) non-ordinary speech behaviour that is institutionalised as a religious ritual in numerous
Western and non-Western religious communities.
(Cited in Hasel 1991, 19).
C. BACK TO BASICS
From the perspective of the New Testament, Bellshaw (1963, 147) reminds that
the uniform use of “tongue” in the New Testament is to signify a language used by the
inhabitants of the world. The only exception to this rule is when the word refers to the
physical organ, the tongue. To understand “tongue” (γλωσσα) in another sense than “the
uniform meaning of the word in the New Testament”, requires some compelling reason –
which does not exist.
Further, the compound word, γλωσσολαλια, traditionally has meant both God-
inspired speech, and (generally) a real language (“human or heavenly, extant or extinct”)
(Samarin 1973, 78). Whilst acknowledging this fact, as claimed by practitioners, yet
Williams (1984, 72) claims that speaking in tongues consists of “utterance of
unintelligible sounds … by persons who seem to be in conditions of varying degrees of
dissociation”. Divine inspiration is summarily dismissed.
It is bewildering to know why the objective and traditional meanings of the words
γλωσσα and γλωσσολαλια have so easily been lost.
Regarding the term γλωσσα, John McArthur (1978, 159-161) carefully enunciates
seven reasons for retaining the meaning “languages”, as real human languages.
(1) Γλωσσα primarily means human language when used in Scripture, Old and New
D. EXPRESSION OF EMOTION/ECSTASY
Articulate speech is one of the faculties that separates man from other creatures
(Thomson 1927, 284), and it is conditioned by emotional states. Mild emotion may lead
to stammering, whilst surprise or passion may reduce speech to ejaculation (284).
Assuming that tongues is an expression of emotion, Thomson concludes that glossolalia
(plus “inarticulate ejaculations, moanings and mutterings”) is the expression of religious
exaltation – the result of being personally uplifted, then passing through ecstasy and
frenzy to complete trance (1927, 284). The resulting utterance, although described as
“ecstatic utterance” by many commentators, nevertheless describes the psychological
state of the speaker (Poythress 1977, 130). It is not essential to glossolalia per se.
Following from the assumption of an ecstatic precursor, Harrisville (1974, 14)
notes that the History of Religions School (including Bousset, Gunkel, Lietzmann,
Rohde, Behm and Conzelman) all assert that it is impossible to arrive at a definition of
glossolalia without recourse to comparisons with Greek (especially Delphic) religion.
This has been shown to be a wrong assumption (although it is a most common position)
as noted in Chapter 4, section 7.
As an alternative, it has been suggested that the expression of emotion itself can
be a form of communication, thus “validating” the associated utterances as glossolalia.
This will be developed further.
The result is that glossolalia is addressed primarily as a sociological
phenomenon, rather than a true charismatic gift. Certainly this is true of the approach by
the behavioural scientists. Emotional expression through glossolalia achieves a
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
personal catharsis, but this betrays the fact that there are no characteristics that give it
any advantage over a number of other cathartic experiences, including those in non-
Christian religions and heathen practice.
E. GLOSSOLALIA – A GIFT
It has already been noted that there were claims that glossolalia was not unique to
Christianity, and that it pre-dated Christianity whether in Old Testament prophetic
scenarios, or in non-Christian religions, especially the Greek mystery religions, or in
secular experiences. However, it has been already noted that these verbal utterances are
not to be equated with true biblical glossolalia. It seems to be particularly the case that
the behavioural and social scientists have reduced any verbal utterance as an isolated
phenomenon to be compared and analysed without any pre-existing criteria or
restrictions.
Consequently true biblical glossolalia has been reduced to a mere verbal
utterance that can be equated with any other utterance (grunts, groans, etc.) thus
trivializing it.
The fact is that true glossolalia is a gift of God, as designated in 1 Corinthians 12.
In the Book of Acts, on the Day of Pentecost, the verbal utterance was enabled by God,
it was a comprehensible communication and glorifying to God. As such, there are
fundamental issues beyond the fact of utterance that must necessarily be considered as
part of the total issue with true glossolalia. True glossolalia cannot be treated as an
utterance in isolation from other essential facts – it is a gift of God.
Glossolalia may be a natural gift in the sense that speaking in a language is
natural, but it is supernaturally provided, in that the speaker has not had to learn it.
Glossolalia is one of the charismata – a gift of God’s grace as a provision for
the church. As such, it is far more than some mere mechanical utterance. It is not given
for self-congratulation or self-elevation or even for cold objective scientific analysis,
but is part of God’s provision to promote mutual ministry leading to growth in the
church. All the gifts are given to promote unity and growth (1 Corinthians 12).
Glossolalia is also claimed to be one of the “sign gifts” of Mark 16:15-20
(Napier 1991, 12), in fact, as part of a cluster of “sign gifts”. Interestingly, Napier states
that these sign gifts “were never designed to minister to the church body” (18), and
hence a distinction is made between tongues as a sign gift and tongues as a gift to the
church. Sign gifts are not for today, says Napier (1991,13), but he doesn’t establish any
reason to identify tongues as a sign and tongues as a gift that would enable him to
dismiss the latter because he has dismissed the former. Equally, tongues as a gift is not
for today either, according to Napier.
Glossolalia will be shown to be a clear gift of God to the church, and is always
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
relevant where the church is relevant.
F. ATTEMPTS TO ANALYSE
It has been noted that the term “glossolalia” has been used to describe a variety of
verbal utterances from primitive grunts and groans to pieces of recognizable language to
purportedly true biblical glossolalia. Further, Samarin comments that non-Christian
nonreligious glossolalia – like that of Albert Le Baron – should be placed alongside
contemporary examples because they are all of “the same linguistic phenomenon”
(Samarin 1968, 50). And yet Samarin wants to exclude from this range of “linguistic
behaviour”, xenoglossia, not simply because it is included in the Christian definition of
glossolalia, but because, for example, some Muslims in India have reportedly recited
portions of the Koran in Arabic, without having learned it (Samarin 1968, 50). Hence,
what appears as the most likely explanation of true glossolalia is excluded from the
“technical term” lest the definition is too broad and becomes meaningless (51).
On the contrary, if a valid explanation is omitted from the research, then the true
meaning could be hi-jacked and lost, or some aberrations of the true expression could
usurp the true meaning thus bastardising it. Consequently, in attempting to analyse a
variety of verbal utterances in the name of scientific objectivity, the true meaning could
be lost because the range of verbal utterances has become the focus of the research
instead of the true gift of God. Hence, instead of the true gift of God, purported gifts of
God are reduced to the paltry expressions within non-Christian and nonreligious
psychic automatisms and other utterances.
Following George Cutten, Bloch-Hoell (1964, 142) groups glossolalia into four
types.
(1) Inarticulate sounds or utterings.
(2) Articulate sounds or pseudo-language.
(3) Articulate and combined language-like sounds, art or fantasy language (language-
like glossolalia).
(4) Automatic speech in a real language, either a native language or “xenolalia”
(“xenoglossia” is used more generally).
Looking superficially at these categories it is clear that the range of verbal
utterances is wide but still more focussed on languages than some of the previously
discussed definitions. What is particularly significant is Bloch-Hoell’s claim that “All
these types of glossolalia occur in the Pentecostal Movement” (1964, 143). As such, it
is the claim by the Christian end of the spectrum (of any verbal utterance being authentic
glossolalia) that has caused the shift from true glossolalia as a distinct gift from God, to
include a large range of unsubstantiated utterances that have shown no value in the
G. GENUINE LANGUAGE
The Book of Acts depicts glossolalia as a genuine language, unlearned by the
speakers. Such a phenomenon is referred to most commonly as xenoglossia (Williams
1975, 16), but also xenolalia (Bloch-Hoell 1964, 143) and xenoglossolalia (Gaede
1989, 82).
Although Williams (1975,16) clearly defines xenoglossia as “utterance in a
foreign tongue not known by the speaker of the language”, he excludes it from
glossolalia which he defines as “unintelligible, non-cognitive utterance which may vary
in sound from inarticulate to articulate” (16). Like Samarin (above), these respected
authors aid in the removal of a rational experience of languages as fundamental to true
biblical glossolalia. Significantly, the Pentecostal Lutheran pastor/author Christenson
declares that “speaking in tongues is a supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit,
whereby the believer speaks forth in a language which he has never learned, and which
he does not understand” (1968, 22), although he does not accept that the language is a
known language, but a means of communicating “feeling or thought” (26).
By contrast, Bloch-Hoell uses the term xenolalia, but defines it as “glossolalia in
a real language, previously unknown to the person who speaks with tongues (1964,
143).
McArthur (1992, 166) agrees, stating unequivocally that “the true gift of tongues
was the ability to speak in a known foreign language”. Pentecostal authors like Carl
Brumback and Donald Gee both urge that glossolalia is the speaking in actual human
languages unknown to the speaker (Duewel 1974, 27).
I. SUMMARY
Malony and Lovekin admit that any attempt to classify various purported types of
glossolalia depend on the definitions of the terms (1985, 21). Flourney, Lombard and
May attempted classifications, but their work was all done on the basis that any
linguistic utterance from simple incoherent utterances (ejaculations), to neologisms, to
sacerdotal language, to “phonations frustes”, to foreign idioms, etc. could all be
included in glossolalia, without any attempt to identify the source, or nature and purpose
of true glossolalia (16-21). Finally they had to admit that the whole attempt was not
particularly helpful (21).
However, they concede that “glossolalia lacks the essentials of a language as
understood by linguists” (Malony and Lovekin 1985, 36, emphasis theirs). With that
conclusion, both Mills and Nida would concur.
Malony and Lovekin then decide that glossolalia could be a language in a
different sense of the word, nevertheless, some form of communication (1985, 38). And
even if it has some form of pattern, it is unlikely to be a known tongue or human
language as presently understood.
The problem with this widely held position is that its premise is the belief that
any form of verbal utterance is credited with being a valid expression of glossolalia,
with no delineation of source or purpose.
It is proposed that: glossolalia in the biblical sense, as a gift for the church, is a
real language, best understood as xenoglossia; that it is unknown to the speaker and the
hearer, thus requiring interpretation/translation; that it is therefore a “two-stage”
communication; that it should not be confused with other linguistic utterances that are
“one-stage” and presumably perfectly valid in their own right; and that no form of
ecstatic experience is required for the utterance.
SUMMARY
Referring particularly to the specific cases of Deuteronomy 28:49; Isaiah 28:10-
11, and Jeremiah 5:15, the following can be noted:
(1) the languages referred to are known/genuine languages,
(2) the languages are not understood by the “recipients” (but that was not necessary,
since normal communication was not the issue – the real communication was
discipline),
(3) the discipline (more than any speaking/language) was a sign of God’s displeasure
and judgement,
(4) these events only occurred in extreme cases and somewhat infrequently in history
(they were not weekly, but years apart – they were very rare),
(5) the events are focused upon the community of God’s people (“believers”), but
they were unpersuaded “believers” concerning God’s normal communication
through His prophets in the Hebrew language,
(6) God used these special events to benefit His people (“believers”).
These observations are significant, and will be included in the exegesis of 1
Corinthians 12-14, showing some significant aspects of the identification of glossolalia
through Paul’s reference to Isaiah in particular (see volume 2).
B. THE GOSPELS
Many authors would conclude that there are no references to speaking in tongues
in the canonical gospels. However, there is quite some discussion about Mark 16:17-18.
Firstly, there are a number of other suggested references to be treated briefly.
a. Matthew 3:13-17
Jesus’ baptism, in line with the normal meaning of baptism, included primarily the
concept of inauguration. In His case, the inauguration was that of the kingdom, which He
would later return to consummate. His baptism was not to receive the Holy Spirit, as if
He were bereft of the Holy Spirit previously, that would be Trinitarian denial (cf.
Colossians 2:9).
Whatever the nature of this “endowment” of the Spirit, it was not for service (as if
Jesus lacked); nor are we told it was sought, or that He was obliged to fulfil any
conditions, nor did He even expect it (Bruner 1970, 221); nor does the experience move
Him to speak in tongues (Beare 1964, 230). In fact, the evidence of the Spirit was
neither glossolalic or ecstatic (Bruner 1970, 221), and indeed nowhere does Jesus
suggest that speaking in unknown tongues is any part of His words or action in life or
teaching – and yet of all men He truly demonstrated the “charisma” of the Spirit, and yet
He never spoke in tongues or encouraged His disciples to do so (Blaney 1973, 58-59).
Matthew 3 offers no evidence for glossolalic experience.
b. Matthew 6:7
Several authors refer to this verse as evidence that Jesus “appears to deprecate
any kind of unintelligible utterance in Prayer” (Beare 1964, 229) because He deplored
the babblings of other religions (Blaney 1973, 59). Smith (D.M. 1974, 315) more
pointedly suggests that this verse is an “injunction against tongues” (emphasis his).
At best these thoughts are corrective but not instructive about glossolalia.
d. Mark 16:17-18
i. Textual considerations.
Following his categorical statement: “There is no reference in any of the
canonical gospels to ‘speaking in tongues’” Beare goes on to say that Mark 16:17-18 is
a spurious passage and that “the textual evidence is decisive” (1964, 229).
At the other end of the spectrum are more tempered comments like the “not
genuine conclusion” (Clemen 1898, 345), “not supported by the best manuscripts”
(Blaney 1973, 52) and “doubtful textually” (Burdick 1969, 14), and the reasonable
judgment of Alan Cole (cited in Banks and Moon 1966, 280):
In view of the uncertain textual evidence for this longer conclusion, it would be unwise to build up any
theological position upon these verses alone.
However, along with Beare (above) many scholars believe that the textual
evidence is almost conclusive in discounting Mark 16:17-18 from consideration.
Barnett and Jensen (1973, 71) comment:
It is almost beyond doubt that Mark 16:9-20 is not part of the original text since it does not occur in our best
and earliest manuscripts.
Since this is the only passage in which Jesus is reported to have mentioned
speaking in tongues, some neo-Pentecostals have used the references authoritatively
(e.g. Meyer 1975, 143) leading Barnett and Jensen to more carefully refute that position
(1973, 81-82). They also refer to Cranfield, Cole, Schep and Metzger in support of their
conclusion (82). Beare states categorically that those words have no more claim to be
treated as the words of Jesus than any of the extravagant claims of the apocryphal
gospels (1964, 230). Vincent Taylor, on the basis of internal and external evidence,
concludes that it is an “almost universally held conclusion that 16:9-20 is not an
original part of Mark” (cited in Banks and Moon 1966, 279). Mills is even more
specific, stating that “Virtually all scholars, including Pentecostals, agree that the
reference to tongues in Mark 16:17 is spurious” (1985b, 2), although it must be noted
that many Pentecostals do appeal to Mark 16:17 as glossolalic evidence of a deeper
Christian faith (Bruner 1970, 81). In fact, Barnett and McGregor take a very strong
stance in support of the longer ending, marshalling a great range of “facts”, theories and
supporting authors in defence of their position (1986, 749-775). Likewise, Van Gorder
(1972, 20) points out that nearly one hundred ecclesiastical writers – who wrote before
the oldest of the extant manuscripts – quoted from these verses, thus attributing
credibility to them.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Dunn, as a charismatic author, ignores all the argument about textual variations,
simply concluding that “the passage … is universally accepted as a second-century
addition to Mark’s Gospel” (1975, 246) and on that assumption he concludes that
tongues-speaking was a typical sign of the century-old expansion of the gospel. That is
hardly the consensus of scholastic research.
Clearly there are some fairly strongly held extremes on this issue. Overall, Alan
Cole’s conclusion has much to commend it. The evidence is too uncertain and too thin to
construct a conclusive theological position.
ii. Signs.
Although not referring specifically to Mark 16, Scroggie points out an important
distinction between signs and gifts. Signs are temporary but gifts are permanent
(Scroggie n.d., 31). Was speaking in tongues a gift bestowed on the disciples for their
use afterwards, or was it a mere sign? Scroggie believes that it was a “mere sign”, that
there is no reference to gifts in the passage but the gift of the Spirit Himself (31-32).
The reference to signs is as an attestation of the word spoken (allowing for the
authenticity of the passage) and not as an evidence for the disciples themselves
(Maskrey 1987, 11; Napier 1991, 12). Nor was it a means to communicate the gospel
(contrary to Hasel 1991, 74), but simply that these signs would accompany as
confirmation of the authenticity of the word preached (Mark 16:20).
Although the passage is not “Gospel evidence”, the fact that it is included at some
time, indicates that there was an early Christian belief that one of the signs of the new
age was “new tongues” (Harpur 1966, 166).
Even allowing for authenticity, the passage at best testifies to the significance of
tongues as a “sign”, but does not validate tongues or identify its nature.
iii. Καινος (New) Tongues.
Although καινος is omitted in a very few witnesses (Beare 1964, 230) it really
has little bearing on the discussion because of the generally accepted conclusion that the
whole section is spurious.
However, assuming that the ending is genuine, it is helpful to consider its potential
impact on the debate.
The word καινος means new in form or quality, different from what is contrasted
as old (Vine 1997, 781). One can conclude that this implies a new language to the
speakers, different to what they were accustomed to speak (Vine 1997, 781). The
conclusion is that the “speaking was not an incoherent, unintelligible rhapsody” (Hodge
1857, 249) – a significant observation when considered that it was given by Hodge in
1857, well before the 1900 resurgence of Pentecostalism. This language was therefore
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
not new in the sense of never having been heard before (Vine 1997, 781; Ruble 1964,
96; Zodhiates 1974, 32), hence it was new to the speaker, but not learned (Hasel 1991,
62).
By contrast to καινος, the word νεος means new in respect of time (Vine 1997,
282), only just arisen or appeared, new in the sense of time – young, immature (Hasel
1991, 62). However, νεος is never used in respect of languages or tongues in the New
Testament (Vine 1997, 282; Ruble 1964, 96; Zodhiates 1974, 32).
Further, it is held that the “new” tongues of Mark 16:17 and the “other” tongues of
Acts 2:4 (as well as Acts 10:46; 19:6) are to be taken in the same sense (Vine 1997,
281; Hodge 1857, 248; Hasel 1991, 63). They are all xenoglossia.
Assuming that Mk. 16:17 is genuine, at best we are dealing with genuine
languages that were unknown to the speakers, and that they can be considered as valid
linguistic utterances, but since they do not require interpretation, they perform a
different function to the gift to the church in 1 Corinthians 12-14, and therefore do not
directly relate to the discussion.
iv. Multiple signs.
Maintaining the assumption that Mark 16:17-18 is genuine, Kitson (1983, 5) notes
that there are five signs (cast out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up serpents, drink
deadly poison, lay hands on the sick) but that in spite of some Pentecostal groups
attempting to practice all five, the number has been unofficially reduced to three: casting
out demons, speaking in tongues, laying on hands for healing. The other two – picking up
serpents and drinking deadly poison – have been stifled by fatalities and court cases.
In trying to excuse the use of all five signs, Brumback suggests that the latter two
are conditional experiences. He speaks of “accidentally” taking up serpents, or of
poison “inadvertently taken or administered by an enemy” (Brumback 1947, 84).
However, the Greek text is quite specific concerning serpents, using the future
indicative to indicate that “they shall take up serpents” (Hoekema 1966, 55). This puts
snake handling and tongues in the same category of expectation, and should therefore be
a sign to confirm the faith of believers (Hoekema 1966, 56: Horner 1971, 6). Griffiths
(1969, 10) states that on this basis Biblical Christians should therefore be tongue
speakers and snake handlers – at the very least. Bruner adds that in the context of some
Pentecostal expectancies, snake handling should also be employed as part of “initial
evidence” (1970, 179fn).
The issue of the “multiple signs” thus exposes difficulties in application that have
not been clearly decided, and again reminds of the spurious nature of the passage in
spite of any supposed contemporary experiences at the time of writing. It certainly does
not confirm tongues, which at best in the context could be some linguistic utterance, and
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
at worst a confusion with snake handling and poison taking that is more akin to heathen
ritual.
v. Summary.
Mark 16:17-18 does not establish anything in regard to the practice of glossolalia,
and even if taken as genuine, it raises more problems than it solves. Irrespective of its
meaning (as a linguistic phenomenon) or its significance (as an authenticating sign) it is
not to be identified with the gift of glossolalia for the church.
e. John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel has a rich body of teaching about the Holy Spirit in relation to the
followers of Jesus, but there is no suggestion that His presence will be marked by
speaking in tongues (Beare 1964, 231). This is especially remarkable in the light of
John’s theological reflections (Beare 1964, 233), the mention of Jesus’ proleptic
statement concerning receiving the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) but with no qualifier
concerning tongues; and especially so since John is writing in about 95 AD, well after
the experiences of Acts, which material is in turn after First Corinthians – but there is
still no mention of tongues.
Jesus’ refers to the Holy Spirit Who will inter alia help to recall Jesus’ teaching
and to even expand on this, but there is no suggestion that the Holy Spirit has anything to
do with tongues (D.M. Smith 1974, 315).
John’s Gospel, in spite of its significant pneumatology, provides no information or
expectancy of tongues.
f. Jesus.
In spite of all the teaching and practice of Jesus contained in the Gospels there is
no mention of Him speaking in tongues, nor any suggestion that He taught or encouraged
such activity.
Irenaeus (1962, 531) makes a passing comment about those persons who are
“perfect” as those who have received the Spirit of God, “and who through the Spirit of
God do speak in all languages, as He used Himself also to speak”. He offers no
evidence.
Jesus was “filled with the Spirit” and healed, cast out demons and taught, but He
never spoke in tongues nor did He encourage it or even allude to it.
g. Summary.
C. ACTS
a. Date.
The tongues events of Acts, from Pentecost (Acts 2) to Ephesians (Acts 19) cover
a period of about 30 years, from 30 AD to 60 AD (Spittler 1988, 339). During this time
the church at Corinth had been founded in the early 50’s AD. Subsequently, First
Corinthians was written about 55-56 AD, followed by the Book of Acts, about 63 AD.
Since Acts was written several years after Corinthians, one might expect Luke to
have used “tongues” in the same sense as Paul (Burdick 1969, 22). In another sense,
Luke did not follow anyone, because his aim was to provide an accurate historical
account.
Following from earlier discussion, and Burdick’s argument that Luke and Paul
could be expected to use “tongues” in the same sense, it has been noted that both
utterances can be seen to be “one-stage” utterances. That is, the speaker does not know
the language he is using although it is a genuine language. They are the same linguistic
phenomena. In the case of Acts, the hearers know the language and hence there is no
need for more than the “one-stage” utterance. In the case of Corinthians, there is the
need of an interpreter, and hence there is a “two-stage” communication. The two cases
serve two quite different purposes.
It is notable that Irenaeus, speaking closer to the events of the first century,
pictures speaking in tongues as “speaking in all languages” and that in reference to Acts
and Corinthians, “the statements … in his opinion were not mutually inconsistent”
(Clemens 1898, 346). It is also notable that this was Clemens’ conclusion in 1898 prior
to the resurgence of Pentecostalism in 1900.
Likewise, it is notable that Luke – whilst focusing on much Pauline biographical
material (and pertinently in Corinth), and although writing (63 AD) after the church had
been established and Paul had written his letter exposing the problem of abuse of
tongues – makes no clarification in Acts that there needed to be any modification of the
use of tongues in Corinth, compared to the usages recorded in Acts, especially at
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Pentecost. Although this is an argument from silence, it is a remarkably loud silence
given that Luke records three specific occasions of tongues, and given that he is seeking
to be meticulous in recounting the pertinent details of Paul’s life as they bear on any
disruptive influences that might explain Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, and hence Luke’s
brief for Theophilus (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1-2).
f. Summary of Acts.
i. Clarification concerning the purpose of tongues in Acts, negatively.
The tongues experiences in the three valid references in Acts, are:
(1) not for replication – all are unique events,
(2) not for communication – a common language was available and was used in each
circumstance,
(3) not for evangelisation – even if on the specific occasion some aspect of
evangelism was achieved (e.g. after the tongues of Pentecost, Peter preached
without tongues with wonderful results; John’s disciples in Acts 19 were
converted),
(4) not a gift for the church – which was not founded at the time of Pentecost, and
was in formation in Acts 10 (see Appendix: “The Founding of the Church”),
Romans 8:26 explains that this deep yearning, unable to be expressed, but
more particularly, unable to be comprehended (“We do not know how we ought to
pray”) is assisted by the Holy Spirit Who knows our hearts. He groans on our
behalf, but most notably, without expressed words (ἀλαλητος). Comprehensively,
this is not speaking at all, let alone speaking in tongues. As Robinson (1972a, 10)
states poignantly, “… whatever else speaking with a tongue may have been, it
was, by definition, a ‘tongue’ which was ‘uttered’”.
Geisler (1988, 166) likewise asserts that Paul “is not speaking about
tongues”. Furthermore, this groaning is not a gift, and nowhere is the gift of
tongues mentioned in this passage or anywhere in Romans, not even in the list of
spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6-8.
Clearly Romans 8:26 has nothing to do with speaking in tongues as is
decisively indicated by both context and exegesis.
For this reason it is amazing to see how many authors superficially allude to
this verse in complete isolation from the context, and without regard to the
exegesis.
iii. Romans 8:26 used as a reference to “tongues” or “praying in tongues”.
The following references and quotes give some idea of the extensive assumptions
in treating this verse as supportive of tongues. They also indicate the presupposition of
tongues as being non-cognitive (even ecstatic unintelligible utterance) without reference
to the context and little reference to the exegesis.
Barrett. He allows that there may be a reference here to tongues (1962, 168).
Beet. Noted by Banks and Moon (1966, 293), also Beet makes a charismatic
reference in Romans 8:15.
Bennett. (1975, 19). Referring to Romans 8:26, “It is a powerful means of
intercession … This private speaking is the most general and the most important
way in which tongues are used”, and after noting several versions of the passage,
says, “Surely these describe speaking in tongues”.
Bridge and Phypers. They make the assumption that tongues is a form of prayer and
that Romans 8:26 is such an example of “Spirit-prompted prayer”, although it is
not the only form (1973, 72). Further, they deduce from the verse that “praying in
incomprehensible words is one form which Spirit-directed prayer can take” (73).
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Bruce. He suggests that “speaking to God in the Spirit with ‘tongues’ may be included
in this expression” (1963, 175).
Bryant: “It may well be that St. Paul is referring to praying in tongues (in Romans
8:26)” (1974, 185).
Bultmann – is reported as seeing a charismatic reference in both Romans 8:26 and
also 8:15 (Banks and Moon 1966, 293).
Campolo – states that when Pentecostals talk of speaking in tongues they usually
aren’t referring to speaking in tongues at all, but are referring to praying in
tongues” (1991, 31, italics his). Praying in tongues requires no interpretation, says
Campolo, because it is not a message from God, but they are the “groanings” of
Christians as expressed by Romans 8:26 (1991, 32).
Cutten – feels that the verse may be a reference by Paul to “this form of inarticulate
utterance which at times is preglossolalic and at other times seems to be the whole
content of the experience” (1927, 172).
Dunn – believes Romans 8:26 “quite probably describes glossolalia” (1972, 16) and
that Romans 8:15 could be “prayer in the context or as part of glossolalic prayer”
(1972, 17). Later, Dunn states a little more strongly that “Paul seems obviously to
be speaking of charismatic prayer” (1975, 241) and then proceeds to urge that
“unspeakable utterance” must not exclude glossolalia even if not confined to it
(1975, 241).
du Plessis. The “unspeakable yearnings and groaning too deep for utterance” (du
Plessis quoting from the Amplified New Testament, Romans 8:26) is “just another
way of describing praying in tongues” (1963, 82).
Ewald – is reported as seeing a charismatic reference in both Romans 8:26 and also
8:15 (Banks and Moon 1966, 293).
Godet – (as for Ewald).
Goudge – sees a charismatic reference in Romans 8:26 (Banks and Moon 1966,
293).
Hanson. Referring to Romans 8:26, Hanson (1963, 153) claims that glossolalia may
be used in intercession.
Hayford – uses the verse to claim “Holy-Spirit-inspired” intercessory prayer (1992,
92-93).
Hoy: “The importunate prayer of supplication … seems to be indicated by Paul in
Romans 8:26” (1979, 11).
Käsemann. Regarded as a surprise supporter of the Pentecostal interpretation of
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Romans 8:26, Käsemann states that the reference is not to private prayers, but to
“highly noticeable phenomena” in the public worship of the church. (Noted in
Wedderburn 1975, 369-370).
Kildahl. “Tongues-speakers were exhilarated as they validated their experience in the
words of Romans 8:26” (An observation of Kildahl, cited by Meyer 1975, 136).
Montague. This verse “confirms Paul’s positive evaluation of the non-rational or
preconceptual moment in Christian prayer … everything that needs to be said
comes forth non-conceptually from the Spirit interceding within” (1973, 351).
This compares with Robinson’s observation (1972a, 9) that the value of tongues
“lies in the liberty of being freed from the constraints of rational thought”.
Nelson – a reputed Greek scholar, claims that Romans 8:26 not only includes
groanings escaping from one’s lips, but also praying in other tongues. (Proctor
1990, 32 citing a report by Kenneth Hagin referring to Nelson).
Robeck. Speaking in tongues “may” lie behind the Pauline understanding of the
Spirit’s intercession in Romans 8:26 (1988a, 872).
Sherrill – speaks of “prayer in the Holy Spirit” as the use of other tongues (Westlake
1970, 17).
Smith, D.M.– claims that Romans 8:26 (and other references) may actually imply
glossolalia, although it is not explicitly mentioned (1974, 315).
Spittler – regards glossolalic prayer as “transrational”, and when reason fails in
prayer, the Spirit helps as indicated by Romans 8:26 (1983, 15). It should be
noted that the text does not question rationality (or reason) but inadequacy and
simply not knowing.
Stacey. Along with F.F. Bruce and C.K. Barrett, Stacey allows for Romans 8:26 to
include speaking in tongues, but not necessarily exclusive to it (Banks and Moon
1966, 293).
Stendahl – makes the assumption that Paul “comes to think about the role of
glossolalia in the context of his argument in Romans 8 (26-27)” (1975, 50).
Storms – states that “speaking in tongues is a way of compensating for our weakness
and ignorance in praying … (cf. Romans 8:26-27)” (1996, 217).
Van Hengel – is cited as holding a charismatic view of Romans 8:26 (Banks and
Moon 1966, 293).
iv. Corrective explanations of Romans 8:26.
-i. Rebuttal of glossolalia in the passage.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Blaney (1973, 57) categorically rejects any correlation between Romans 8:26
and 1 Corinthians 14:14 as if they both referred to praying in the Spirit. He notes that
Paul’s statement is hypothetical (1 Cor. 14:14), there is no reference explicitly to
tongues, and he (Paul) adds the preference to pray with the understanding as well as
with one’s (human) spirit (14:15 – as distinct from Holy Spirit).
Significantly, prior to the twentieth century Pentecostal revival, Clemen (1898,
347) notes that the “unutterable groanings” of Romans 8:26 are not designated as
“speech with tongues”.
In speaking of “Spirit-inspired prayers”, Dunn (1975, 245) refers to Romans 8:26
“even though that is not talking about glossolalia as such”. Elsewhere (1972, 16) he
allows that the verse “quite probably describes glossolalia”.
Adolf Schlatter explicitly denies reference to tongues, noting that Romans 8:26
refers to a weakness of all Christians, whereas tongues is a gift to certain individuals;
tongues is a gift of thanksgiving and singing, not of groaning; and tongues is certainly not
unspeakable (cited in Wedderburn 1975, 369).
Dodd and Barrett likewise deny reference to tongues (noted by Wedderburn
1975, 369).
-ii. Concerning responsibility in prayer.
Mallone (1983, 95) states explicitly what many have assumed implicitly, that
Romans 8:26 speaks of an inability to pray, and therefore the Holy Spirit comes to our
aid. Mallone makes the blanket statement that when we don’t know how to pray the
Holy Spirit takes over. The result is an assurance that if the Holy Spirit is praying
through us, then we are absolutely praying according to God’s will (95). He adds, in a
trivializing way, “Praying in tongues is attempting to hitchhike on the prayer Jesus is
praying for the person …” (95).
Hill likewise speaks of the superior value of glossolalic prayer because it
“burn(s) Satan, because he can’t wiretap it” and it “is automatically guaranteed to be
right in the centre of God’s perfect will” (Hill cited in Proctor II 1990, 32).
If these observations are true, why would anyone bother to pray using his own
mind? Surely the mindless exercise of praying in tongues would guarantee the will of
God was prayed for – although of course there would be no way of knowing that
objectively, or of what in fact the will of God was.
Each Christian is in fact responsible to God in prayer in a meaningful and mindful
relationship, seeking to know His will. In Romans 8:26, there is not a limitation of
ability or lack of an object to pray for, but in the context, the simple lack of being able to
know what the nature of the resurrection body is in the light of the yearning to be so
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
clothed.
-iii. Tongues must be uttered.
As noted in the exegetical comments, whatever else, tongues (by definition) must
be spoken.
Wedderburn (1975, 372) notes that if something is literally “unspeakable”, then it
must remain unspoken. To claim to be the recipient of an unspeakable mystery and then
to communicate it, means that the recipient is either being disobedient (because they
were not to be communicated) or using the word metaphorically.
The context of Romans 8:22-26 (and 2 Corinthians 5:2, 4) indicates a deep
yearning for something that is unable to be expressed in commonly understood terms.
Such a dilemma is not resolved by claiming the phenomenon of tongues – as if that was
some “unintelligible utterance” – when in fact there is no utterance.
-iv. The context of Romans 8:26, is “hopes and longings”.
Stagg (1967, 42) is one of very few commentators who even mention the context
of the verse. He notes that the “groanings” of the Holy Spirit have to do with “hopes and
longings which are too deep for words”.
This yearning (hopes and longings) is applicable to all of creation – and
especially mankind – in the light of the redemptive programme. There is nothing to
suggest an application to general daily prayer.
v. Summary concerning Romans 8:26.
There is nothing even remotely compelling to marshal Romans 8:26 as supportive
of tongues. The context and exegesis are quite decisive in refuting any such suggestion.
And the groans cannot be uttered anyhow.
d. 1 Thessalonians 5:19.
Morris (1959, 175) states: “The majority of commentators favour a reference to
the ecstatic”, including speaking in tongues. They feel that the situation at Thessalonica
is opposite to that at Corinth. In the latter there was a need to restrain those who were
going to excess. In the former, those who delighted in ecstatic manifestations were
coming under censure and were in danger of being discouraged. Morris admits that this
seems to be reading too much into the verse. “There is no evidence that can be cited”
(175). Hiebert (1971, 244), a reputed exegetical scholar, makes a similar case to
Morris.
Bultmann and Behm both refer to tongues (Banks and Moon 1966, 194).
Others (“Stanley, Plummer, Andrews, Milligan, Henriksen and others”) all refer
the verse to extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (sic), some mentioning specifically speaking
in tongues (noted by Banks and Moon 1966, 294).
D.M. Smith (1974, 315) claims that the work of the Spirit “may actually imply
glossolalia although it is not explicitly mentioned”.
Dunn (1975, 246) makes the general observation that no flame that the Spirit
kindles should be quenched, “including glossolalia no doubt”. But that is not definitive.
“The strongest argument for taking the verse as an explicit reference to tongues to
the exclusion of other spiritual gifts is the close connection with prophecy (5:20)”
(Banks and Moon 1966, 294). However, Paul’s injunction in verse 19 is more general.
Banks and Moon conclude that the application is to all spiritual gifts rather than
specifically to tongues (1966, 294), not that tongues has ever been established as
included here. Morris is content to leave the statement as a general admonition (1959,
175).
There is nothing in the verse (exegetically) or the context that implies or
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
necessitates tongues.
e. Jude 20-21.
Like the previous verses, no exegetical grounds are advance by commentators to
demonstrate that tongues are necessarily included or even implied in Jude 20-21.
Bridge and Phypers (1973, 77), on the unsubstantiated correlation of speaking in
tongues and “praying in the Spirit”, suggest: “we could infer that Jude is referring to this
form of worship”. This is hardly a compelling or definitive conclusion. Westlake (1970,
18) assumes a similar comparison, as does Bennett (1975, 19).
Tongues is not required by any exegesis of Jude 20-21, and is therefore not
definitive or descriptive of such an action.
Whilst not as sweeping, Edgar (1983, 238) makes the conclusion already
demonstrated in the foregoing:
… as late as 1700 and including the Cévenols, Christians did not equate unintelligible (“angelic, heavenly”)
utterance with the New Testament gift of tongues. The claims, even when not demonstrated by fact, all refer
to actual languages.
At best, the reported operation of tongues was always xenoglossolalic, even
if originating from the devil, but they were never unintelligible utterances. More
significantly, there is no evidence of a two-stage communication as required for
the gift to edify the church.
Cutten (1927, 80) makes the obvious observation, “Nothing more than a perusal of
these songs is needed to disclose their worthlessness”. And one should add, their insult
to the Lord as if He were the source.
Sister Sally in the Shakers, inspired by the drinking of native spirits danced and
sang the following “nonsensical doggerel” (Cutten 1927, 81):
Te he, te haw, te hoot, te te hoot,
Me be mother’s pretty papoose,
Me ting, me dant, te I diddle um,
Because me here to whites come,
He di diddy, ti diddle O;
Round, around, and round me go,
Me leap, me jump, e up and down,
On good whitey, shiny ground.
To ascribe to the Holy Spirit such nonsense is shameful in the extreme.
In his classic, From India to the Planet Mars, Flourney gives details of séances
that he shared with Hélène Smith, recorded as accurately as possible by a third party
(Malony and Lovekin 1985, 14) as follows:
Mitchma mitchmon mimini tchouainem mimatchineg masichinof mézavi patelki abrésinad navette naven
navette mitchichénid naken chinoutoufiche.
In addition there are a few other fragments, but Flourney comments, “the Martian
language is only a puerile counterfeit of French” (cited in Maloney and Lovekin 1985,
14). It is amazing that such nonsense can be seriously recorded as a part of supposedly
valid glossolalia.
At a prayer group, Donovan Bess heard examples of purported glossolalia and
the interpretations (1963, 174):
Ah ’ach ma hah moora, ay
andorra ay ach-ah ha moora.
Almtee muhr ah hah melah, ay
ah nahah mahah murch mahlan.
This was spoken by a middle-aged divorcee, who then gave the English version
of what the Holy Spirit had supposedly said through her (cited in Bess 1963, 174):
“Seek the smooth surface and the high peaks”.
That there is no correlation between the tongue and the interpretation is painfully
obvious. The “message” is banal, and to attribute it to the Holy Spirit is an extreme
insult. Why would God give such a circuitous communication in a mono-lingual
group to communicate such a nonsense? Why don’t the speakers state their nonsense
in the common language and accept responsibility for it?
but observes that “This does not become glossolalia simply because it was uttered for
two minutes by a woman in a Zionist meeting in East Africa”. However, he does not
adopt a clear biblical definition.
CONCLUSION
The premise of this study is that there is a valid glossolalic gift that is part of the
cluster of gifts given to the church. All are gifts given sovereignly by God the Father (1
Corinthians 12:18,28), identified as gifts of grace through Christ the Son (Ephesians
4:7, 11-12), and energized by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:11). They are
Trinitarian gifts (as opposed to gifts of the Spirit) for the church, and none of the gifts
has been withdrawn or abrogated. While the church remains, God is able to use all or
any of the gifts at His discretion for her benefit.
The purpose of the gifts is for the edification and maturing of the church (1
Corinthians 12:12-17; Ephesians 4:11-16). In particular, glossolalia ministers to the
church, but it requires the complementary gift of interpretation (translation) of the
tongues in order to achieve this. Hence the particular verbal gift is identified as a
compound, two-stage gift for the church, to clearly distinguish it from a one-stage
operation noted on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) and the other Acts references. These
latter are “valid linguistic utterances” which are from God for a particular purpose but
they are not the gift for the church.
The confusion occurs when the majority of commentators identify the utterance in
Acts as xenoglossia, whilst the utterance in 1 Corinthians is generally treated as ecstatic
unintelligible utterance. There is no basis for this assumption.
The purpose of this study has been to challenge this assumption, and to expose the
several fallacies contributing to this misunderstanding.
Firstly, the assumption of the ecstatic precursor has been challenged, because this
is the most significant confusing element.
It has been assumed that the prophetic background in the Old Testament supports
the ecstatic view, but that has been refuted. The true prophets were not ecstatics in the
sense of making unintelligible utterances, and hence any correlations of the prophets to
the New Testament passages (Joel – Acts 2; Isaiah – 1 Corinthians 14, etc.) carry no
weight or definition.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
It has been assumed that the immediate Corinthian context of the Mystery
Religions lends weight to the ecstatic assumption, but that has been soundly refuted. The
Corinthians apparently carried past practices into the church, and Paul rebuked
precisely that, but that in no way affects the true biblical gift.
Secondly, and resulting from the “ecstatic precursor”, has been a lack of
definition of biblical glossolalia. The appeal to identify speaking in tongues with
biblical prophets, and then to identify it with the culturally relevant Mystery Religions,
then led to ever widening circles of identification with ecstatic utterances to any and
every religion or secular group of all time. This bowing of Christian scholars to secular
authors and concepts has jeopardized the understanding of the gift of God for the church.
This is a rather tragic situation.
The foundational problem was the ecstatic assumption. The consequent shift was
the opening of the definition to secular exploitation resulting in any grunt or groan being
heralded as “glossolalia”. This is a shame to Christian scholarship.
The study has shown that true biblical glossolalia has no ecstatic precursor.
However close the correlations, whether the case study of the Coast Salish Spirit
dancers, or the bizarre activities in the Mystery Religions, there is no demonstrated
correlation with the gift of God.
Positively, the study has shown that glossolalia as a gift of God for the church,
only occurs in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The biblical position on the operation of glossolalia
as a one-stage phenomenon, is that it is xenoglossolalic. It has additionally been
established that there is evidence for one-stage “valid linguistic utterances”, but they
have no bearing on the gift. Coupled with interpretation, true glossolalia acts to benefit
the church – a two-stage function.
Research into extra-biblical references to glossolalia demonstrates many
assumptions and private agendas, but no validated cases of true glossolalia.
Analysis of purported tongues as recorded, only served to show how empty the
claims were.
Finally, it has become clear that glossolalia in the biblical sense, as a gift for
the church, is a real language, best understood as xenoglossia; that it is unknown to
the speaker and the hearer, thus requiring interpretation/translation; that it is
therefore a “two-stage” communication; that it should not be confused with some
other linguistic utterances that are “one-stage” and presumably perfectly valid in
their own right; and that no form of ecstatic experience is required for the utterance.
This conclusion now establishes the foundation for the next volume. The focus of
this next study will be to establish a clear biblical definition of glossolalia.
In order to delimit this definition, further research on the claimed “sources” of
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
glossolalia will show the urgent need for this definition. In addition, a study of claimed
“purposes” for purported glossolalia will demonstrate the need to include in the
definition the biblical purposes.
It will be postulated that God is the true source of biblical glossolalia, and that
the church is the beneficiary (purpose) of glossolalia.
Finally, a detailed exegesis of sections of 1 Corinthians 12-14 will make it
possible to delineate the parameters for the operation of glossolalia, and to enable a
construct to be made to demonstrate the viable operation of a true biblical glossolalic
gift for the church. Such a conclusion would only be a construct since there are no
reported and validated cases of true biblical glossolalia. Nevertheless, there are
sufficient stated parameters in the bible to draw such a conclusion that would serve as a
corrective against the abuses that are prevalent today, and throughout history, and would
give guidelines for the operation of the gift so that it can be recognized whenever it is
employed under the sovereign hand of God.
*****
Abbott-Smith, G. 1937. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. T & T Clark,
Edinburgh. (3rd ed'n.)
Albright, W.F. 1940. The archaeological background of the Hebrew prophets of the
eighth century. The Journal of Bible and Religion. 8, 131-136.
Alden, R.L. 1966. Ecstasy and the prophets. Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological
Society. 9, 149-156.
Alexander, P.H. 1988. Slain in the Spirit. S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee (eds.)
Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Alland, A. 1962. Possession in a revivalistic negro church. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion. 1, 204-213.
Amoss, P. 1978. Coast Salish Spirit Dancing. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Angus, S. 1925. The Mystery Religions and Christianity. Charles Scribner's Sons,
New York.
Angus, S. 1929. The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World. Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York.
Arden, H. 1975. The pious ones. The National Geographic Magazine. Washington,
D.C., U.S.A. (August). 276ff.
Bach, M. 1964. Whether there be tongues. Christian Herald. (May). 10-11, 20, 22.
Bach, M. 1969. The Inner Ecstasy. World Publishing Co., New York.
Bachman, J.W. 1953. I would that ye all spake in tongues, but ... . Anglican Theological
Review. (January). 35(1), 344-347.
Baer, R.A. 1986. Quaker silence, Catholic liturgy, and Pentecostal glossolalia: some
functional similarities. W.E. Mills (ed.). Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on
Glossolalia. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 313-327.
Banks, R. and Moon, G. 1966. Speaking in tongues. The Churchman. 80, 278-294.
Barbour, B.W. 1981. Prophetic Ecstasy in Ezekiel. Unpublished M.Th. thesis, Grace
Theological Seminary, Los Angeles.
Barclay, W. 1956. The Letters to the Corinthians. St. Andrew press, Edinburgh.
Barnett, D.L. and McGregor, J.P. 1986. Speaking in Other Tongues: A Scholarly
Defence. Community Chapel Publications, Seattle, Washington.
Barnett, P. and Jensen, P. 1973. The Quest for Power. Anzea Publishers, Sydney.
Barrett, C.K. 1962. The Epistle to the Romans. A & C Black, London.
Barrett, D.B. 1988. Global statistics. S.M. Burgess, and G.B. McGee, (eds.).
Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
810-830.
Bauder, W. 1976. Fall, fall away. C. Brown (ed.). Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.1, 606-611.
Beare, F.W. 1964. Speaking with tongues. Journal of Biblical Literature. 83, 229-246.
Bennett, D. and R. 1971. The Holy Spirit and You. Logos International, Plainfield, New
Jersey.
Bennett, D.J. 1975. The gifts of the Holy Spirit. M.P. Hamilton (ed.). The Charismatic
Movement. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 15-32.
Bergsma, S. 1965. Speaking with Tongues. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids.
Bess, D. 1963. Speaking in tongues: The high church heresy. The Nation. 197,
(September). 28, 173-177.
Best, E. 1975. The interpretation of tongues. Scottish Journal of Theology. 28, 45-62.
Beverley, J.A. 1995. Holy Laughter and the Toronto Blessing. Zondervan, Grand
Rapids.
Bittlinger, A. 1973. The charismatic worship service in the New Testament and today.
Studia Liturgica. 9, 215-229.
Bloesch, D.G. 1966. The charismatic revival: a theological critique. Religion in Life.
35, 364-380.
Blomberg, C.L. 1994. 1 Corinthians. T. Muck (gen. ed.). The NIV Application
Commentary Series. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Bodine, W.R. 1966. The Quotations by Paul from Isaiah Regarding Tongues.
Unpublished M.Th. Thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary.
Both Sides of the Question. 1973. Official enquiry into Neo-Pentecostalism of the
Church of England, Diocese of Sydney.
Boulton, W. (ed.). 1995. The Impact of Toronto. Monarch Publications, Great Britain.
Bridge, D. & Phypers, D. 1973. Spiritual Gifts and the Church. IVP, London.
Bridge, D. & Phypers, D. 1982. More Than Tongues Can Tell. Hodder and Stoughton,
London.
Bridges, H. 1970. American Mysticism from William James to Zen. Harper & Row,
New York.
Brock, R.T. 1989. The therapeutic value of speaking in tongues. Paraclete. Winter.
23(1), 21-29.
Bromiley, G.W. (gen. ed.) 1968. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Broneer, O. 1971. Paul and the pagan cults of Isthmia. Harvard Theological Review. 64,
169-187.
Broome, E.C. 1946. Ezekiel’s abnormal personality. Journal of Biblical Literature. 65,
277-292.
Brown, C. (ed.). 1976. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Brown, F., et al. 1979. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English
Lexicon. Associated Publishers and Authors, Lafayette, Indiana.
Bruce, F.F. 1954. Commentary on the Book of Acts. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Bruce, F.F. 1957. Commentary on the Epistle to the Colossians. E.K. Simpson, and F.F.
Bruce. Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 159-312.
Bruner, F.D. 1970. A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the
New Testament Witness. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Budgen, V. 1989. The Charismatics and the Word of God. 2nd ed’n. Evangelical Press,
Great Britain.
Burdick, D.W. 1969. Tongues: To Speak or Not To Speak. Moody Press, Chicago.
Burgess, S.M. and McGee, G.B. (eds.). 1988. Dictionary of Pentecostal and
Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Burkert, W. 1985. Greek Religion, trans. John Raffan. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Butler, C.S. 1985. Test the Spirits: An Examination of the Charismatic Movement.
Evangelical Press, England.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Buttenweiser, M. 1914. The Prophets of Israel. MacMillan, New York.
Carter, C.W. and Earle, R. 1973. The Acts of the Apostles. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Castlelein, J.D. 1984. Glossolalia and the psychology of the self and narcissism.
Journal of Religion and Health. Spring. 23(1), 47-62.
Chant, B. 1984. Heart of Fire: The Story of Australian Pentecostalism. Rev'd ed’n.
The House of Tabor, Adelaide.
Chantry, W.J. 1976. Signs of the Apostles. 2nd ed’n. Banner of Truth, Great Britain.
Cho, P.Y. 1979. The Fourth Dimension. Bridge Publishing, Inc., New Jersey.
Christenson, L. 1968. Speaking in Tongues and Its Significance for the Church.
Bethany, Minneapolis.
Clark, J. et al (eds.). 1978. The Joy of Knowledge Fact Index A-K. Rigby, Australia.
Clemen, C. 1931. Religions of the World, trans. A.K. Dallas. George G. Harrap & Co.,
London.
Coats, R.H. 1955. Holiness. J. Hastings (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 6,
743-750. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Cohon, B.D. 1939. The Prophets: Their Personalities and Teachings. Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York.
Come, A.B. 1959. Human Spirit and the Holy Spirit. The Westminster Press,
Philadelphia.
Conn, C.W. 1955. Like A Mighty Army, Moves the Church of God. Church of God
Publishing House, Cleveland, Tenn.
Conway, F.C. 1980. Pentecostalism in Haiti: healing and hierarchy. S.D. Glazier (ed.).
Perspectives on Pentecostalism. University Press of America, Washington, D.C.
Coppes, L.J. 1977. Whatever Happened to Biblical Tongues? Pilgrim Publishing Co,
New Jersey.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Coppin, E. n.d. The Pentecostal Spirit-Baptism. Photocopied notes.
Coppin, E. 1976. Slain in the Spirit: "Fact or Fiction". New Leaf Press, Harrison,
Arkansas.
Coulson, J.E. and Johnson, R.W. 1977. Glossolalia and internal-external locus of
control. Journal of Psychology and Theology. Fall. 5, 312-317.
Couture, R. 1986. Private interview 20th. May 1986, relating to missionary service in
Western India, 1945-1965.
Cramb, G.A. 1980. A Brief Survey of the Revival in the Baptist Church of the Kyaka
and Sau Enga. Unpublished paper, Baptist Theological College of Queensland,
Australia.
Crampton, W.T. 1993. Sixty years a firewalker. Facts for Faith. Mission Publications,
Australia. 21(4).
Criswell, W.A. 1973. The Baptism, Filling and Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Zondervan,
Grand Rapids.
Culpepper, R.H. 1977. Evaluating the Charismatic Movement. Judson Press, Valley
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Forge.
Currie, S.D. 1965. Speaking in tongues: Early evidence outside the New Testament on
glossais lalein. Interpretation. 19, (July). 274-94.
Davenport, F.M. 1905. Primitive Traits in Religious Revivals. Macmillan, New York.
Davies, J.G. 1952. Pentecost and glossolalia. Journal of Theological Studies. 3, 228-
231.
Deere, J. 1993. Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
DeVol, T. 1974. Ecstatic Pentecostal prayer and meditation. Journal of Religion and
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Health. 13(4), 285-288.
Dimond, S.G. 1926. The Psychology of the Methodist Revival. O.U.P., London.
Dodds E.R. 1973. Supernormal phenomena in classical antiquity. The Ancient Concept
of Progress and Other Essays. Clarendon, Oxford.
Dollar, G.W. 1963. Church history and the tongues movement. Bibliotheca Sacra.
(October-December). 120, 316-321.
Drummond, A.L. 1937. Edward Irving and His Circle, Including Some Considerations
of the "Tongues" Movement in the Light of Modern Psychology. J. Clark, London.
Dumbrell, W.J. 1977. The role of women – a reconsideration of the biblical evidence.
Interchange. 21, 14-22.
Dungey, J.W. 1967. The Relationship of pauo in 1 Corinthians 13:8 to the Modern
Tongues Movement. Unpublished Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary.
Dunn, J.D.G. 1972. Glossolalia in the New Testament. Crux. (May). 9(3), 12-17.
Dunn, J.D.G. 1975. Jesus and the Spirit. Westminster Press, Philadelphia.
Dunn, J.D.G. 1996. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. The New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
du Plessis, D.J. 1963. The Spirit Bade Me Go. David J. du Plessis, Oakland,
California.
Easterling, P.E. and Muir, J.V. (eds.). 1985. Greek Religion and Society. C.U.P.,
Cambridge.
Edgar, T.R. 1983. Miraculous Gifts: are they for today? Loizeaux Brothers, Neptune,
N.J.
Edgar, T.R. 1988. The cessation of the sign gifts. Bibliotheca Sacra. (October-
December). 145, 371-386.
Edwards, O.C. Jr. 1973. The exegesis of Acts 8:4-25 and its implications for
confirmation and glossolalia: A review article on Haenchen's Acts Commentary.
Anglican Theological Review. Supplementary Series #2, 100-112.
Egan, H.D. (ed.). 1982. What are They Saying About Mysticism? Paulist Press, New
York.
Ellis, E.E. 1974. Spiritual gifts in the Pauline community. New Testament Studies. 20,
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
128-144.
Ellison, H.L. 1969. The Prophets of Israel: From Ahijah to Hosea. Paternoster, Great
Britain.
Ellwood, R.S. Jr. 1980. Mysticism and Religion. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Elwell, W.A. 1991. The Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker, Grand
Rapids.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1966. Gift of tongues. 14th ed’n. 22, 288. Encyclopaedia
Britannica Inc., Chicago.
Engelsen, N.I.J. 1970. Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech According to 1
Corinthians 12-14. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University. Microfilm.
Engnell, I. 1969. Critical Essays in the Old Testament. Vanderbilt University Press,
Nashville.
Esser, H.H. 1976. Law, customs, elements. C. Brown, (ed.). Dictionary of New
Testament Theology. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 2, 436-451.
Eutsler, S.D. 1988. The doctrine of prostration. Paraclete. Summer. 22(3), 18-20.
Farnell, F.D. 1993. When will the gift of prophecy cease? Bibliotheca Sacra, 150.
(April-June). 171-202.
Fee, G.D. 1980. Tongues – least of the gifts: some exegetical observations on 1
Corinthians 12-14. Pnuema. Fall. 2(2), 3-14.
Fee, G.D. 1987. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Ferré, F. 1981. Ecstasy and intelligence. The Christian Century. (October) 21. 98(33),
1059-1060.
Finch, J.G. 1964. God-inspired or self-induced? Christian Herald. (May). 12-13, 17,
19.
Findlay, G.C. 1976. St Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians. W.R. Nicholl, (ed.). 1976.
The Expositor's Greek Testament. Vol 2. Eerdman's, Grand Rapids. 729-953.
Flower, J.R. 1968. Speaking with tongues – Sign or stumbling block. Paraclete. 2(2),
16-19.
Forbes, C. 1986. Early Christian inspired speech and Hellenistic popular religion.
Novum Testamentum. (July). 28(3), 257-270.
Forster, G.S. 1972a. The third arm: Pentecostal Christianity 1. TSF Bulletin. Summer.
63, 5-9.
Forster, G.S. 1972b. The third arm: Pentecostal Christianity 2. TSF Bulletin. Autumn.
64, 16-21.
Fraser, S.J. 1987. Satan and His Demons: Their deceit: Their Defeat. Paper.
Missionary Press, Queensland, Australia.
Friedrich, G. 1964. Προφητης κτλ. G. Kittel, (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, trans. and ed. G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 6, 828-
861.
Frodsham, S.H. 1941. With Signs Following: The Story of the Pentecostal Revival in
the Twentieth Century. Gospel Publishing, Springfield, MO.
Fuller, R.H. 1963. Tongues in the New Testament. American Church Quarterly, 3, 162-
168.
Gaebelain, F.E. (gen. ed.). 1976. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. 12 vol.
Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Gaffin, R.B. 1996. A cessationist view. W.A. Grudem, (gen. ed.). Are Miraculous Gifts
For Today? Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 23-64.
Gerlach, L.P. and Hine, V.H. 1970. People, Power, Change: Movements of Social
Transformation. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianopolis.
Gerlach, L.P. et. al. 1966. The charismatic revival: process of recruitment, conversion
and behavioural change in a modern religious movement. Mimeographed paper for 65th
annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Pittsburg, Nov. 20,
1966. Fellow Newsletter.
Gerrard, N.L. 1986. The Holiness Movement of Appalachia. W.E. Mills (ed.). Speaking
in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 205-219.
Gilmore, S.K. 1969. Personality differences between high and low dogmatism groups of
Pentecostal believers. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 8, 161-164.
Glock, C.Y. 1973a. On the role of deprivation in the origin and evolution of religious
groups. C.Y. Glock (ed.) Religion in Sociological Perspective. Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, California.
Good News New Testament. 1976. 4th ed’n. American Bible Society, New York.
Goodman, F.D. 1969. Phonetic analysis of glossolalia in four cultural settings. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion. 8(2), 227-239.
Goodman, F.D. 1972a. Altered mental states vs. "Style of Discourse": reply to Samarin.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 11(3). September. 297-299.
Goodman, F.D., Henney, J.H. and Pressol, E. 1974. Trance, Healing and
Hallucination: Three Field Studies in Religious Experience. Wiley, New York.
Graves, R.W. 1983. Tongues shall cease. Paraclete. Fall. 17(4), 20-28.
Green, M. 1975. I Believe in The Holy Spirit. Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Greig, G.S. and Springer, K.N. 1993. (eds.). The Kingdom and the Power. Regal,
U.S.A.
Griffiths, M.C. 1969. Three Men Filled with The Spirit. O.M.F., London.
Gromacki, R.G. 1972. The Modern Tongues Movement. Presbyterian & Reformed,
Philadelphia.
Grosheide, F.W. 1953. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids.
Grudem, W.A. (gen. ed.). 1996. Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Zondervan, Grand
Rapids.
Guillaume, A. 1938. Prophecy and Divination Among the Hebrews. Hodder &
Stoughton, London.
Gundry, R.H. 1964. The language milieu of first century Palestine. Journal of Biblical
Literature. 83, 404-408.
Gussler. J.D. 1973. Social change, ecology, and spirit possession among the South
African Nguni. E. Bourguignon, (ed.). Religion, Altered States of Consciousness, and
Social Change. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. 88-126.
Halévy, E. 1971. The Birth of Methodism in England, trans. and ed. by Bernard
Semmel. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hall, D.E. 1973. Charismatics ... let's talk it over. Accent Books, Denver.
Hamilton, M.P. (ed.). 1975. The Charismatic Movement. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Harpur, T.W. 1966. The gift of tongues and interpretation. Canadian Journal of
Theology. 12(3), 164-171.
Harris, R.W. 1973. Spoken by the Spirit. Gospel Publishing House, Springfield,
Missouri.
Harrison, R.K. 1969. Introduction to the Old Testament. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Hastings J. (ed.). 1918. Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
Hastings, J. (ed.). 1955. Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics. Charles Scribner's Sons,
New York.
Hatch, E. 1890. The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church.
Williams & Norgate, London.
Hay, A.R. n.d. What is Wrong in the Church? Vol. 2. Counterfeit Speaking in
Tongues. New Testament Missionary Union, Audubon, N.J.
Heath, R. 1886. The Little Prophets of the Cevennes. Contemporary Review. (January).
Henke, F.G. 1909. The gift of tongues and related phenomena at the present day.
American Journal of Theology. 13, 193-206.
Henney, J.H. 1973. The Shakers of St. Vincent: A stable religion. E. Bourguignon, (ed.).
Religion, Altered States of Consciousness, and Social Change. Ohio State University
Press, Columbus. 219-263.
Hertweck, G.F. 1981. Tongues: An ecstatic experience? Paraclete. Fall. 15(4), 18-20.
Heschel, A.J. 1962. The Prophets. Jewish Publication Society of America, New York.
Hillis, D.W. 1969. Tongues, Healing and You. Baker, Grand Rapids.
Hillman, R.J. 1986. 27 Spiritual Gifts. Joint Board of Christian Education, Melbourne.
Hills, J.W.L. 1963. The new Pentecostalism: it's pioneers and promoters. Eternity.
(July). 14(7), 17-18.
Hinson, E.G. 1967a. A brief history of glossolalia. F. Stagg, et al. Glossolalia. Tongue
Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and Psychological Perspective. Abingdon,
Nashville. 45-75.
Hinson, E.G. 1967b. Why a book on glossolalia today? F. Stagg, et al. Glossolalia.
Tongue Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and Psychological Perspective. Abingdon,
Nashville. 9-19.
Hitt, R.T. 1963. The new Pentecostalism: an appraisal. Eternity. (July). 14(7), 10-16.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Hocken, P.D. 1988. Charismatic movement. S.M. Burgess, and G.B. McGee, (eds.).
Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
130-160.
Hodges, Z.C. 1963. The purpose of tongues. Bibliotheca Sacra. (July-September). 120,
226-233.
Hoehner, H.W. 1982. The purpose of tongues. D.K. Campbell, (ed), Walvoord: A
Tribute. Moody Press, Chicago, 53-66.
Holdcroft, L.T. 1983. Tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Paraclete. Summer.
17(3), 7-12.
Hollenweger, W.J. 1976. Theology of the new world 3. Expository Times. 87(8), 228-
232.
Hollenweger, W.J. 1980. Charismatic renewal in the third world: implications for
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
mission. Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research. (April). 4(2), 68-75.
Holt, J.B. 1940. Holiness religion; cultural shock and social reorganization. American
Sociological Review. 5, 740-747.
Holy Bible – New International Version. 1979. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
House, H.W. 1983. Tongues and the mystery religions of Corinth. Bibliotheca Sacra.
(April-June). 140, 134-150.
Howe, L.T. 1977. Pentecostalism today: Theological reflections. The South East Asia
Journal of Theology. 18(1), 32-37.
Howie, C.G. 1950. The Date and Composition of Ezekiel. Society of Biblical
Literature, Philadelphia.
Hoy, A.L. 1968. Public and private uses of the gift of tongues. Paraclete. 2 (4), 10-14.
Hoy, A.L. 1979. Seven uses of tongues. Paraclete. Spring. 13(2), 8-13.
Hughes, D.E. 1976. Shamanism and Christian faith. Religious Education. (July-August).
71(4), 392-404.
Hummel, C.E. 1993. Fire in the Fireplace: Charismatic Renewal in the Nineties. IVP,
Illinois.
Hurtado, L.W. 1971. What are `Spiritual Songs'? Paraclete. 5(1), 8-10.
Hutch, R.A. 1980. The personal ritual of glossolalia. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion. (September). 19(3), 255-266.
Inge, W.R. 1955. Ecstasy. J. Hastings (ed.). Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 5,
157-159. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Irenaeus. (1869) 1962. Against heresies. The Anti-Nicene Fathers. Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids. 1 (5,6,1). 531.
Isaacs, T.C. 1987. The Possessive States Disorder: the diagnosis of demonic
possession. Pastoral Psychology. 35(4). 263-273.
Isbell, C.D. 1976. Origins of prophetic frenzy and ecstatic utterance in the Old
Testament world. Wesleyan Theological Journal. Spring. 11, 62-80.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Jackson, F.J.F. 1914. The History of the Christian Church. (6th ed’n). J. Hall & Son,
Cambridge.
Jacobs, D.R. 1976. Possession, trance state, and exorcism in two East African
communities. J.W. Montgomery (ed.). Demon Possession. Bethany Fellowship,
Minneapolis, 175-187.
Johanson, B.C. 1979. Tongues, a sign for unbelievers: a structural and exegetical study
of 1 Corinthians 14:20-25. New Testament Studies. (January). 25, 180-203.
Johansson, N. 1963-4. 1 Cor. 13 and 1 Cor. 14, New Testament Studies. 10, 383-92.
Johnson, A.R. 1962. The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel. 2nd. ed'n., University of
Wales Press, Cardiff.
Johnson, S.L. 1963. The gift of tongues and the book of Acts. Bibliotheca Sacra.
(October-December). 120, 309-311.
Jones, E.S. n.d. The Holy Spirit and the Gift of Tongues. Mimeographed paper,
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
reprinted from The Herald.
Kaufman, Y. 1960. The Religion of Israel, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Keil, C.F. 1980. 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. C.F. Keil, & F.
Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, various translators.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 3.
Keil, C.F. & Delitzsch, F. 1980. Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes,
various translators. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Kelsey, M.T. 1978. Discernment: A Study in Ecstasy and Evil. Paulist Press, New
York.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Kendall, E.L. 1967. Speaking with tongues. The Church Quarterly Review. 168, 11-19.
Kennedy, H.A.A. n.d. St. Paul and the Mystery Religions. Hodder & Stoughton,
London.
Kildahl, J.P. 1972. The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues. Harper & Row, New York.
Kildahl, J.P. 1986. Psychological observations. W.E. Mills (ed.). Speaking in Tongues:
A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 347-368.
Kitson, J.A. 1983. “The Tongue” in Scripture in the Light of the Pentecostal and
Charismatic Movement. Brisbane, Australia. 2nd ed’n.
Kittel, G. (ed.). 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Kleinknecht, H. 1967. B. The logos in the Greek and Hellenistic world. G. Kittel (ed.),
G.W. Bromiley, (trans. & ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 4, 77-91.
Kleinknecht, H. 1968. πνευμα, πευματικος. G. Friedrich (ed.), G.W. Bromiley, (trans. &
ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed. G.W. Bromiley. 10
vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 6, 332-359.
Knapp, M.W. 1898. Lightning Bolts from Pentecostal Skies. Knapp, U.S.A.
Koch, K.E. n.d. The Devil’s Alphabet. Evangelization Publishers, Western Germany.
Kroeger, R. and Kroeger, C. 1978. Pandemonium and silence at Corinth. The Reformed
Journal. (June). 28, 6-11.
Kuyper, A. 1966. The Work of the Holy Spirit. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Kydd, R.A.N. 1972. Glossolalia and God. Crux. (May). 9(3), 18-24.
Lapsley, J.N. and Simpson, J.H. 1964a. Speaking in tongues: Token of group acceptance
and Divine approval. Pastoral Psychology. (May). 144, 48-55.
Lapsley, J.N. and Simpson J.H. 1964b. Speaking in tongues: Infantile babble or song of
the self? Pastoral Psychology. (September). 146, 16-24.
Lasebikan, G.L. 1985. Glossolalia: its relationship with speech disabilities and
personality disorders. Africa Theological Journal. 14(2), 111-120.
Latourette, K.S. 1953. A History of Christianity. Harper & Row, New York.
Lee, R.B. 1968. The sociology of! Kung Bushman trance performances. R. Prince (ed.).
Trance and Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society, Montreal, Canada. 35-
56.
Levang, R.K. 1989. The content of an utterance in tongues. Paraclete. Winter. 23(1), 14-
20.
Lightner, R.P. 1978. Speaking in Tongues and Divine Healing. 2nd. ed’n. Regular
Baptist Press, Des Plaines, Ill.
Lippy, C.H. and Williams, P.W. (eds.). 1988. Encyclopaedia of the American Religious
Experience. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Lods, A. 1937. The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism. Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London.
Lovekin, A.A. 1962. Glossolalia, A Critical Study of Alleged Origins, The New
Testament and the Early Church. Micro film, Sewanee, Tenn.
Ludwig, A.M. 1968. Altered states of consciousness. R. Prince (ed). Trance and
Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society, Montreal, Canada. 69-95.
Luyster, R. 1980. King ego and the double sex dancer. Journal of Religion and Health.
Summer. 19(2), 121-129.
McCone, R.C. 1971. The phenomena of Pentecost. Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation. 23, 83-88.
MacDonald, W.G. 1964. Glossolalia in the New Testament. Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society. Spring. 7, 59-68.
MacGorman, J.W. 1983. Glossolalic error and its correction: 1 Cor. 12-14. Review and
Expositor. Summer. 80(3), 389-400.
Maclean, A.J. 1909. Gift of tongues. J. Hastings (ed.). Dictionary of the Bible. T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh. 943-944.
Malony, H.N. 1982. Debunking some of the myths about glossolalia. Journal of the
American Scientific Affiliation. 34(3), 144-148.
Malony, H.N. and Lovekin, A.A. 1985. Glossolalia: Behavioural Science Perspectives
on Speaking in Tongues. O.U.P., New York.
Mare, W.H. 1976. 1 Corinthians. F.E. Gaebelain, (gen. ed.). The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary. 12 vol. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 10, 173-297.
Marston, G.W. 1983. Tongues, Then and Now. Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co.,
Phillipsburg, N.J.
Martin, I.J. 1944. Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church. Journal of Biblical Literature.
63, 123-130.
Martin, I.J. 1966. Gift of tongues. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 14th ed’n. 22, 288.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago.
Martin, R.P. 1984. The Spirit and the Congregation. Eerdmans, Michigan.
Masters, P and Whitcomb, J.C. 1988. The Charismatic Phenomenon. Wakeman Trust,
London.
Mayers, M.H. 1971. The behaviour of tongues. Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation. 23, 89-95.
Meeks, F.E. 1977. The pastor and the tongues movement. Southwestern Journal of
Theology. Spring. 19(2), 73-85.
Meyer, M.M. 1975. Speaking in tongues – glossolalia. Brethren Life and Thought. 20,
133-151.
Michael, J.H. 1907. The gift of tongues at Corinth. The Expositor. 4, 252-266.
Mikhaiel, N. 1995. The Toronto Blessing, Slaying in the Spirit, The Falling Wonder.
Nader Mikhaiel, Australia. (2nd. ed’n.)
Mills, W.E. 1972a. Glossolalia. Christian Century. Sept. 27. 89(34), 949-951.
Mills, W.E. 1985b. Glossolalia: A Bibliography. Edward Mellen Press , New York.
Montague, G.T. 1973. Baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues: a Biblical
appraisal. Theology Digest. 21, 342-360.
Morgan, G.C. 1947. The Corinthian Letters of Paul. Charles Higham & Son, London.
Morris, L. 1958. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Tyndale Press, London.
Moulton, J.H. and Milligan, G. 1930. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Mowinckel, S. 1934. `The Spirit' and the `Word' in the pre-exilic reforming Prophets.
Journal of Biblical Literature. 53, 199-227.
Mowinckel, S. 1937. A postscript to the paper, ‘The Spirit and the Word in the Pre-
exilic Reform Prophets’, in JBL, 52, 799ff. Journal of Biblical Literature. 56, 261-
265.
Muck, T. (gen. ed.). 1994. The NIV Application Commentary Series. Zondervan, Grand
Rapids.
Musvosvi, J.N. 1989. The function of the gift of tongues in the book of Acts. Ministry.
(November). 13-15.
Neal, G.C. 1974. Mystery Religions. J.D. Douglas (gen. ed.). New International
Dictionary of the Christian Church. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 691.
Nicholl, W.R. (ed.). 1976. The Expositor's Greek Testament. Vol 2. Eerdman's, Grand
Rapids.
Nilsson, M.P. 1953. The Bacchic mysteries of the Roman Age. Harvard Theological
Review. (October). 46, 175-202.
Norbeck, E. 1961. Religion in Primitive Society. Harper and Bros., New York.
Norman, J.G.G. 1974. Camisards. J.D. Douglas. New International Dictionary of the
Christian Church. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 184.
Oesterreich, T.K. 1930. Possession: Demonical and Other. Kegan Paul, London.
Parker, S.B. 1978. Possession trance and prophecy in pre-exilic Israel. Vetus
Testamentum. 28, fasc. 3, 271-285.
Pattison, E.M. 1968. Behavioural science research on the nature of glossolalia. Journal
of the American Scientific Affiliation. 20, 73-86.
Pavelsky, R.L. 1975. The physiological correlates of act and process glossolalia as a
function of socio-economic class, expectation of glossolalia, and frequency of
glossolalic utterance. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Fuller Theological
Seminary.
Payne, J.B. 1962. The Theology of the Older Testament. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Pearson, A.C. 1955. Possession: Greek and Roman. J. Hastings (ed.). Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 10, 122-127.
Peisker, C.H. 1976. Prophet. C. Brown, (ed.). Dictionary of New Testament Theology.
Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 3, 74-84.
Petty, P.W. 1974. Society of Friends (Quakers). J.D. Douglas. New International
Dictionary of the Christian Church. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 393.
Pfeiffer, R. 1948. Introduction to the Old Testament. Harper & Bros, New York.
Pfitzner, V.C. 1976. Led by The Spirit: How Charismatic is New Testament
Christianity? Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide.
Philo. 1993. The Works of Philo: New Updated Edition, trans. C.D. Yonge.
Hendrickson, Peabody, Massachusetts.
Pinnock, C.H. and Osborne, G.R. 1971. A truce proposal for the tongues controversy.
Christianity Today. October 8. 16(11), 6-9.
Porteous, N.W. 1938. Prophecy. H. Wheeler Robinson (ed.). Record and Revelation.
Clarendon Press, Oxford. 216-249.
Potter, C.F. 1954. The Faiths Men Live By. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Poythress, V.S. 1977. The nature of Corinthian glossolalia: Possible options. The
Westminster Theological Journal. 40, 130-135.
Prince, R. 1968a. Can the EEG be used in the study of possession states? R. Prince (ed).
Trance and Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society, Montreal, Canada. 121-
137.
Rackham, R.B. 1925. The Acts of the Apostles. 10th edn. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.
Reay, M. (ed.). 1964. Aborigines Now: New Perspectives in the Study of Aboriginal
Communities. Angus & Robertson, Sydney.
Reilly, T. à K. 1910. The gift of tongues. What was it? The American Ecclesiastical
Review. 43, 3-25.
Reymond, R.L. 1977. What About Continuing Revelations and Miracles in the
Presbyterian Church Today? Presbyterian & Reformed, U.S.A.
Rice, D.G. and Stambaugh, J.E. 1979. Sources for the Study of Greek Religion.
Scholars Press, Missoula, Montana.
Rice, J. 1949. The Power of Pentecost/The Fullness of the Spirit. Sword of the Lord,
Wheaton.
Rice, J.R. 1976. The Charismatic Movement. Sword of the Lord Publishers,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Robeck, C.M. Jr. 1975b. The gift of prophecy in Acts and Paul, Part II. Studia Biblica
et Theologica. 5(2), 37-54.
Robeck, C.M. Jr. 1977. How do you judge prophetic utterance? Paraclete. 11(2), 12-
16.
Robeck, C.M. Jr. 1979. The gift of prophecy and the all-sufficiency of Scripture.
Paraclete. 13(1), 27-31.
Robeck, C.M. 1988a. Gift of Tongues. G.W. Bromiley (ed). The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 4, 871-874.
Robeck, C.M. 1988b. Russell Paul Spittler. S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee (eds.)
Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
809.
Roberts, P. 1979. A sign – Christian or Pagan. Expository Times. (April). 90(7), 199-
202.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Robertson, A. 1909. Gift of tongues. J. Hastings (ed.). Dictionary of the Bible. T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh. 4, 793-796.
Robertson, A.T. 1931. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 4. Broadman, Nashville.
Robertson, O.P. 1975. Tongues: Sign of covenantal curse and blessing. The Westminster
Theological Journal. 38, 43-53.
Robertson, O.P. 1993. The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues
and Prophecy Today. Banner of Truth, England.
Robin, R.W. 1981. Revival movement hysteria in the Southern Highlands of Papua New
Guinea. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. (June). 20(2), 150-162.
Robinson, D.W.B. 1972a. The Gifts of the Spirit. Unpublished lecture notes,
Melbourne, Australia.
Robinson, D.W.B. 1977. St. Paul's spiritual man. The Reformed Theological Review.
(September-December). 36(3), 78-83.
Robinson, H.W. 1923. The psychology and metaphysics of ‘Thus saith Yahweh’.
Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 41, 1-15.
Robinson, H.W. 1928. The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit. Fontana, London.
Robinson, H.W. 1946. Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament. Clarendon,
Oxford.
Robinson, J.M. 1964. Hermeneutic since Bath. J.M. Robinson, & J.B. Cobb, (eds.).
1964. New Frontiers in Theology 2 – The New Hermeneutic. Harper & Row, New
York.
Robinson, J.M. & Cobb, J.B. (eds.). 1964. New Frontiers in Theology 2 – The New
Hermeneutic. Harper & Row, New York.
Robinson, T.H. 1921. The ecstatic element in Old Testament prophecy. The Expositor.
8th Series, 21, 217-38.
Robinson, T.H. 1923. Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel. Duckworth,
London.
Rogers, C.L. Jr. 1965. The gift of tongues in the Post Apostolic Church. Bibliotheca
Sacra. (April-June). 122, 134-143.
Rogers, C.L. 1979. The Dionysian background of Ephesians 5:18. Bibliotheca Sacra.
136, 249-257.
Rohde, E. 1925. Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality Among the
Greeks, trans. W.B. Hillis. E.T. Keegan Paul, London.
Rowley, H.H. 1945. Nature of prophecy in recent study. Harvard Theological Review.
(January). 38(6), 24-31.
Rowley, H.H. (ed.). 1946. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. T. & T. Clark,
Edinburgh.
Sadler, A.W. 1964. Glossolalia and possession: an appeal to the Episcopal Study
Commission. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. (October). 4(1), 84-90.
Sahlberg, C.E. 1985. From ecstasy to enthusiasm. Some trends in the scientific attitude
to the Pentecostal movement. Evangelical Review of Theology. (January). 9(1), 70-77.
Samarin, W.J. 1972c. Sacred and profane. Crux. (May). 9(3), 4-11.
Samarin, W.J. 1972d. Tongues of Men and Angels. Macmillan, New York.
Saucy, R.L. An open but cautious view. W. Grudem (Gen.ed.) Are Miraculous Gifts For
Today? Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 97-148.
Schaff, P. 1857. History of the Apostolic Church, trans. E.D. Yeomans. Charles
Scribner, New York.
Schaff, P. 1910. History of the Christian Church. 8 vols; Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Scheunemann, D. 1984. The Ministries of the Holy Spirit. Studies against the
Background of the Indonesian Revival. Indonesian Missionary Fellowship, Malang,
Indonesia.
Scholem, G.G. 1955. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Schokem Books, New York.
Scroggie, W.G. n.d. The Baptism of the Spirit and Speaking with Tongues. Pickering &
Inglis, London.
Selter, F. and Brown, C. 1976. Other. C. Brown, (ed.). Dictionary of New Testament
Theology. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 2, 739-742.
Sheppard, W.T.C. 1910. The gift of tongues in the early church. The Ecclesiastical
Review. 42, 513-522.
Sherrill, J.L. 1964. They Speak with Other Tongues. Fleming H. Revell, Westwood,
N.J.
Shine, D. 1986. Private interview 20th May 1986. A converted charismatic nun.
Simon, G. 1969. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. SCM Press, London.
Simpson, E.K. and Bruce, F.F. 1957. Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and
Colossians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids.
Sleeper, C.F. 1965. Pentecost and resurrection. Journal of Biblical Literature. 84(4),
389-399.
Smeaton, G. 1958. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Banner of Truth, London.
Smith, B.L. 1973. Tongues in the New Testament. The Churchman. 87, 283-288.
Smith, C.R. 1935. The Religion of the Hebrews (to AD 70). Epworth Press, London.
Smith, C.R. 1973. Tongues in Biblical Perspective. BMH Books, Winowa Lake, IN.
Smith, D.M. 1974. Glossolalia and other spiritual gifts in a New Testament perspective.
Interpretation. (July). 28, 307-320.
Smith, K.M. 1971. Tongues Reconsidered. Wagga Wagga Baptist Church, Wagga Wagga,
Australia.
Spittler, R.P. (ed.). 1976. Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism. Baker, Grand
Rapids.
Spittler, R.P. 1983. Bat Mitzvah for Azusa Street: Feature, fractures and futures of a
renewal movement come of age. Theology, News and Notes. (March). 13-17, 35.
Spittler, R.P. 1988. Glossolalia. S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee (eds.) Dictionary of
Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 335-341.
Spurgeon, C.H. n.d. The Story of God's Mighty Acts. Evangelical Press, Grand Rapids.
Stagg, F. 1966. The Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Review and Expositor. Spring.
63(2), 135-147.
Stagg, F. 1967a. Glossolalia in the New Testament. F. Stagg, et al. Glossolalia. Tongue
Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and Psychological Perspective. Abingdon,
Nashville. 20-44.
Stibbs, A. 1966. Putting the gift of tongues in its place. The Churchman. 80, 295-303.
Storms, C.S. 1996. A third wave view. W. Grudem (gen. ed.) Are Miraculous Gifts For
Today? Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 175-223.
Sweet, J.P.M. 1967. A sign for unbelievers: Paul's attitude to glossolalia. New
Testament Studies. 13, 240-57.
Tappeiner, D.A. 1974. The function of tongue-speaking for the individual: A psycho-
theological model. Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 26, 29-32.
Taylor, R.O.P. 1929. The tongues of Pentecost. The Expository Times. 40(7), 300-303.
Thiselton, A.C. 1979. The "interpretation" of tongues: a new suggestion in the light of
the Greek usage in Philo and Josephus. The Journal of Theological Studies. (April).
30, 15-36.
Thomas, R.L. 1974. Tongues ... will cease. Journal of Evangelical Theological
Society. 17, 81-90.
Thomas, R.L. 1988. Exegetical Digest of First Corinthians 12-14. Robert L. Thomas,
Los Angeles.
Thompson, W.S. 1927. Tongues at Pentecost. The Expository Times. 38, 284-286.
Thorpe, S. 1984. Religious response to stress: the Xhosa Cattle Killing and the Indian
Ghost Dance. Missionalia. 12(3). (November). 129-137.
Tinney, J.S. 1971. Black origins of the Pentecostal movement. Christianity Today.
(October) 8. 16(1), 4-6.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Tippett, A.R. 1976. Spirit possession as it relates to culture and religion. J.W.
Montgomery (ed.). Demon Possession. Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis. 143-174.
Tongues, Gift of. 1986. NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. 15th. ed’n. 11, 842.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago.
Toussaint, S.D. 1963. First Corinthians thirteen and the tongues question. Bibliotheca
Sacra. (Oct-December). 120, 311-316.
Tugwell, S. 1972-73. The gift of tongues in the New Testament. The Expository Times.
84, 137-140.
Tuland, C.G. 1968. The confusion about tongues. Christianity Today. 13, 207-210.
Underhill, E. 1920. The Essentials of Mysticism. J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London.
Unger, M.F. 1972. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Kregel, Grand Rapids.
Van der Welde, P.H. 1968. Trance states and ego psychology. R. Prince (ed). Trance
and Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society, Montreal, Canada. 57-68.
Van Elderen, B. 1964. Glossolalia in the New Testament. Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society. 7, 53-58.
Van Gorder, P.R. 1972. Charismatic Confusion. Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids.
Venable, J.D. 1988. Slain in the Spirit. Paraclete. Summer. 22(3), 21-26.
Vine, W.E. 1997. Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Thomas
Nelson, Nashville.
Virgo, T. 1995. Fresh outpourings of the Holy Spirit. W. Boulton, (ed.). The Impact of
Toronto. Monarch Publications, Great Britain.
Vos, H.F. 1988. Religions in the Biblical world: Greco-Roman, IID. G.W. Bromiley
(ed). The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 4,
113-116.
Wagner, C.P. 1973. Look Out! The Pentecostals Are Coming. Creation House, Carol
Stream, Illinois.
Wagner, C.P. 1986. Spiritual Power and Church Growth. Creation House, Altamonte
Springs, Florida.
Wagner, C.P. 1988. Third Wave. S.M. Burgess and G.B. McGee (eds.). Dictionary of
Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 843-844.
Wallace, A.F.C. 1966. Religion: An Anthropological View. Random House, New York.
Walvoord, J.F. 1958. (3rd edn.). The Holy Spirit. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Walvoord, J.F. 1986. The Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. Bibliotheca Sacra. (April-
June). 143, 109-122.
Weaver, G.B. 1973. Tongues shall cease. Grace Journal. Winter. 14(1), 12-24.
Welmers, W.E. 1963. Letter to the editor. Christianity Today. (November 8). 8(3), 19-
20.
Westlake, G.W. Jr. 1970. Prayer in the Holy Spirit. Paraclete. 4(2), 16-19.
White, J. 1988. When The Spirit Comes With Power: Signs and Wonders Among God's
People. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
White, J.F. 1988. Liturgy and Worship. C.H. Lippy and P.W. Williams (eds).
Williams, C.G. 1981. Tongues of the Spirit: a Study of Pentecostal Glossolalia and
Related Phenomena. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.
Williams, C.G. 1984. Speaking in tongues. D. Martin and P. Mullen (eds.). Strange
Gifts? A Guide to Charismatic Renewal. Blackwell, Oxford. 72-83.
Williams, C.S.C. 1964. The Acts of the Apostles. (2nd ed’n.). A&C Black, London.
Williams, J.R. 1991. Charismatic Movement. W.A. Elwell. 1991. The Concise
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker, Grand Rapids. 87-88.
Willis, L.J. 1966. Glossolalia in perspective. W.H. Horton (ed.). 1966. The Glossolalia
Phenomenon. Pathway Press, Cleveland, Tennessee. 274-283.
Wood, L.J. 1966. Ecstasy and Israel's early prophets. Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society. 9, 125-137.
Wood, L.J. 1976. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Wood, W.W. 1965. Culture and Personality Aspects of the Pentecostal Holiness
Religion. Mouton and Co., The Hague.
Yaker, H.M. 1963. Letter to the editor. Christianity Today. (November) 8. 8(3), 17-18.
Zaehner, R.C. 1972. Drugs, Mysticism and Make Believe. Collins, London.
Zodhiates, S. 1992. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. World
Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls.
*****
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
From the time of creation, Genesis 3:15 (the “Protevangelium”) predicted the
conquering of Satan by the seed of the woman:
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your
head, and you will strike his heel.
Galatians 3:16 indicates that this seed would be Christ:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds”, meaning
many people, but “and to your seed”, meaning one person, who is Christ.
More specifically, Genesis 12:1-3 spoke of the creation of a new race – Israel –
from one foundational Gentile – Abraham – and that a descendant of Abraham would
bring blessing to the whole world:
The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land
I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you
will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on
earth will be blessed through you”.
Israel was to have the role of bringing blessing to the whole world – which in
reality means the Gentiles.
As God’s servant, Israel was “a light to the nations”, as Isaiah 42: 6-7 records:
I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to
be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from
prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.
3. PREDICTION AT PENTECOST
On the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21) Peter quotes the passage from Joel (2:28-
32), to indicate that God’s plan from Genesis is to include the Gentiles. Further, he
affirms that the gift of the Holy Spirit is for the Jews and “for all who are far off” (the
Gentiles) – Acts 2:39.
5. DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENT
hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create
in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to
God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
(Ephesians 2:14-16).
Extrapolating from this, the Jewish response to the message on the Day of
Pentecost did not constitute the church per se. The response of three thousand at
Pentecost like the Jewish rootstock of Romans 11, needed the “grafting in” of the
Gentiles (following from Acts 10) before the church was truly constituted.
SUMMARY.
This clear distinction between the conversions on the Day of Pentecost, forming
the rootstock of the church, and the church itself as an integrated community of a united
group of Jews AND Gentiles, is foundational to the differentiation of the phenomenon of
tongues on the Day of Pentecost – as a “one-off” sign of the outpouring of the promised
Holy Spirit – and the gift of tongues for the church – as a part of God’s provision for its
ongoing growth and development.
*****
MINISTRY
Dr Swincer served in pastoral ministry for nine years before moving into
seminary education for 13 years. During the latter part of that time he simultaneously
pastored a church before returning to the full-time pastoral ministry – an extra 18 years.
In addition, there have been several interim pastorates.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
During the years of Seminary teaching especially, there was the opportunity to
visit many churches, to address teaching weekends in a variety of circumstances, to
speak at weekend family and Youth camps, and teaching conventions – all of which
provided a rich appreciation of people in all types of circumstances, with counseling
problems from theological misunderstandings or practical insensitivities.
Coupled with research and study, he had the opportunity to travel and to undertake
several preaching/teaching/evangelistic overseas tours. All these opportunities have
provided a rich and diverse background of experience that equips him for the balance of
theological and practical writing which has always been simmering in the background.
*****
SEE BELOW
I highly commend the propositions espoused in this book. The problems associated with
the Doctrine of Original Sin and its ramifications for the ministry of Evangelism are
seldom appreciated, and certainly not adequately addressed. This book presents a view
that is soundly biblical, and theologically helpful in the resolution of many of the
problems – such as Alien Guilt, the Causative Sin in each of our own experiences, and
the matters of our personal responsibility and accountability.
*****
A PERSONAL TESTIMONY
Praise God for this book. Brilliant!
During my theological training, I studied exegesis for four years, with an average of 4
semester hours of lectures each week. At the end of the studies, I could only throw all
my notes into the trash.
Nothing that was said established a methodology for doing exegesis nor how to record it
for the future.
Interestingly, it was on my annual vacation with the family at the end of my first exit year
of pastoral ministry, that I discovered what exegesis was all about. I had taken Kenneth
Wuest’s Word Series book First Peter in the Greek New Testament to use in my
devotions each day. I was amazed to find the simple significance of the Greek in order
to understand the bible.
I was suddenly brimming with information that I desperately wished to keep at my
fingertips, but how to record it in a readily accessible form. And so the search for a
methodology.
Dr Swincer’s book explains clearly why the bible is authoritative, how it should be
interpreted, and then how to use it in the ministry of preaching and teaching through
careful exegesis for my contemporary situation. But the cream on the cake, is a model
for a methodology of how to cumulatively record the fruit of my labours in preparation.
Brilliant!
UNIQUE! This is the only biblical construct that even remotely attempts to identify the
biblical criteria and then to apply them to a practical application. The mountain of
arguments about all the facets of glossolalia are mostly hot air that don’t even touch the
real issues, and nothing constructive results. This book gives a clear outline of the
biblical criteria, identifies the historical precedents and background, and then draws
these together in a construct of Genuine Biblical Languages.