The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting

The use of the gifts in a Revival meeting

Is it a biblical practice?

Is the decently and in order use of the gifts of the spirit as used by the Revival churches a correct interpretation of how things were intended to be? What does the bible mean by two at the most three*? It sounds like more of a recommendation than a commandment to me. Does it anger God if the gift is used only once or four times? If this is the Holy Spirit speaking, then who is Paul or anyone else to place a controlled restriction on it?

*Interestingly, in the other instances of the use of the number phrase 'two or three' (Matt 18:20 two or three are gathered - John 2:6 two or three firkins) the addition of the second number calls attention to the fact that the first number is not meant to be an exact sum.

It goes like this: One stands up and speaks in an unknown tongue, another stands up and explains what the other just said. They conclude God had something to say, and communicated it this way. Logic asks then, "Why did God have to speak gibberish, then raise someone up to speak intelligently, when all the while He is supposed to be using the pastor to speak to the congregation in the first place?"

Tongues as a prayer language:

We were lead to believe that God gives the gift of tongues so we can pray more effectively but where does it say He has to pray through us in an unknown tongue?

Romans 8:26 reads, "Likewise the Spirit also helps with our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." Observe closely here, "cannot be uttered" Whether in English, or some supposed mysterious language given by God, it says plainly - cannot be uttered.

Tongues to enable witnessing (yes, already covered well in another thread)

Jesus made it clear in Acts 1:8 that the Holy Spirit would enable followers to be witnesses for Him. We read immediately in the second chapter that this is what happened. People were gathered from different regions of the Mediterranean world and spoke many different languages. Yet afterwards, they heard them speak in their own native language! Galileans speaking miraculously as Parathions, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamian, Cretes, Arabians, Egyptians, ... the wonderful works of God. (Acts 2:8-11) The original intent of the language gift was to maximize the efficiency of transmitting the Gospel message.

Context means everything when defining a concept, and the context of the phenomena of 'unknown tongues' here is plainly to communicate the Gospel in a simple, communicative, understandable language to the listeners that surrounded them. Acts 2:6 tells us that they heard them speak in their own language. They didn't hear words they couldn't understand, but benefited by hearing the gospel in their own dialect.

Tongues of angels and men

I've mention recently that the term angels can simply refer to anyone sending a message as the word 'angel' means messenger, but let's unpack it a bit further.

"Though I speak with the tongues of men or angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Should we read a prayer language into this? Is this the subject Paul was emphasizing? No, he's saying how important is is to be lead by love no matter how blessed with gifts one is. Without love it's meaningless. He is exaggerating to prove a point. Isn't that obvious? He does it again in Galatians 1:8, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." In other words he's saying: "Sheesh, I don't care if an angel drops down from heaven, don't listen to them if it isn't what I've told you". It's a hypothetical exaggeration here, to make it obvious to the reader, hardly a place to base a doctrine for a prayer language! Some then quote 1 Cor 14 but the entire emphasis of that chapter is in the gift of prophecy where all can be edified by understanding clearly what the speaker or the person praying publicly is saying!

Thought... Why does a prophesy sound exactly like an interpretation?

In verse one he asks us to desire the gifts but most importantly - prophesy. The Greek meaning of prophesy is to both foretell and forthtell, or to preach understandably. The word is propheuo and means to declare truth whether through prediction or not. In verse 5 Paul wishes that they all spoke with tongues. Why? They would be more useful if they all had the ability to cross language barriers. But he prefers that they prophesy unless there is an interpreter. Now this leads to the next question...

It's all right to speak in tongues if there is an interpretation!

First of all, that's not the emphasis here, secondly, what kind of language was being interpreted?

Let's use our imagination here for a sec. Suppose you've been given a 'language' gift from the Lord and you use it in the meeting. Only one problem, no one understands what you just prayed including you! (verse 14) My spirit (i.e. my inward sincerity) was there, but who knows what I said! Over and over again Paul places the emphasis on communicating that all may understand in this chapter. He even uses musical instruments as an analogy.

In verses 27 and 28 Paul states that speaking in tongues is permissible if we have two, and at the most three speak in this fashion. Then, and only then, if one interprets. Let's use our imagination again, eh? The assembly has gathered, and the pastor moves to the pulpit and lo and behold, he's carrying the original Hebrew text! Someone says afterward: "Wow! We heard a message from Hebrew! He sure is gifted having the ability to read the original Hebrew! We sure are blessed, I enjoyed hearing the Hebrew read today in our meeting." The other would respond: "Yeah, but I wonder what he said?" Sound far-fetched? The Roman Catholics have read sermons in Latin for years! Paul is telling them, if you do use a different language, explain it that all understand.

Tongues was explained at pentecost as a gift given to clearly communicate the Gospel in a language that all could understand. It's the same Greek word "glossa" throughout the New Testament and yes, even in 1 Corinthians where Paul found the most problems. Being the same Greek word, why should anyone change the meaning to the way it is being practiced by Revival and their ilk?

• Where do they get off implying that all who don't practice tongues are on their way to hell?
• Where do they get the revelation to say that one church is better than the other because one practices tongues and the other doesn't?

Not from the bible.

and some more...

A little bit of logic unravels the whole 'gifts' ritual very quickly. ie. The two or three tongue messages TO the Lord are interpreted as messages FROM the Lord. The interpretations are completely similar to the two or three prophesies that come afterward... and are not prophetic at all.

Many Revivalists claim the miracle of the gifts because the one they were about to blurt out had a similar message to the one that got in first. This isn't surprising considering everyone in the community has been listening to the same talks, and talking in the same circles... not to mention the mathematical coincidence effect that there are only so many topics commonly used and that every now and again someone is going to beat you to the punch with a similar message.