Did not this same Paul tell us that the gift of tongues was given as a sign to Israel, unbelieving Israel? (Answer, yes.) Isaiah and Paul both make it clear that the truth of God was to be communicated to Israel by way of Gentile languages. What a stinging rebuke to proud Israel, trusting in its history for its salvation.

Israel would not listen to God in the Hebrew language. So in a final warning, yet an invitation too, He would speak to them in a multitude of other languages. A few would hear and believe but many more would go on to their destiny with destruction.

In A.D. 70, Jerusalem was destroyed. Jewish hopes were dashed. It seemed that Israel was finished. The prophecy about tongues came to pass: “… yet for all that, they will not hear Me.” (Isaiah 28:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:21.)

If this was indeed the purpose of the sign-gift of speaking in other languages, its purpose was ended certainly after A.D. 70. God had spoken, they had not listened. But the church, firmly established now, will move on.

Was there another purpose, unwritten? I see tongues at the tower of Babel, given to divide and keep men from evil purposes. Tongues at Pentecost would seem to reverse all that and unite the people of God.

But tongues, or their look-alike, today? Have they not divided the church into many more splinter groups?

There is no evidence anywhere that the gift of tongues survived the destruction of Jerusalem. The rest of the New Testament and the rest of church history is silent about it, except for minor usages of it in connection with heretics.

Until the twentieth century, that is. From 1900 until the present day, tongues have reappeared. Ah, but we have Israel here too, and do they not need that same message they heard in the first century? Yes, there is an Israel today. But by and large, the modern “gift” has nothing to do with Israel. It’s all in the church.

If it is here at all.

Does not cease mean “come to an end”? My most modern dictionary says that. It’s stronger than “stop.” Stop can mean temporarily halt, then move on, as at a stop sign. Cease means, it’s finished. The Greek “pauo” means the same thing: “Come to an end.”

That word is used in Hebrews 10:2, speaking of sacrifices of the Old Testament. The argument is that, if animal sacrifices were sufficient, they would have ceased being offered a long time ago. Come to an end. Permanently stopped.

Those sacrifices did cease by the way. Things of God cease when they are not needed.

So whenever tongues were to cease, that would be the end of them. Scholars on both sides of the tongues issue have fought over the next verses in 1 Corinthians (9-12), trying to determine when “that which is perfect” came or will come. But that which is perfect is not the issue with tongues. By this time of the passage, the gift of tongues is not even being discussed.

Read carefully. Prophecy and the gift of knowledge will be done away. Tongues will cease. Prophecy and knowledge are partial. Partial (prophecy and knowledge) will give way to complete, or perfect. Whether this is the coming of the Bible or the coming of the Lord is immaterial for the discussion of tongues. Tongues is not being discussed.

The simple fact is, Paul prophesied the ceasing of tongues, and the prophecy came to pass not long afterwards. Part of the natural reason, in my opinion for the demise of tongues is that Paul told the Corinthians, and whoever read this letter, that tongues was not a high priority. Go after love. Desire the gifts. But desire to build up the church rather than yourself. When that message connected to the early church, people, in accordance with the appointed plan of God, began to seek tongues less. They finally realized its real function, and it slowly died out.

Which is what God wanted. Time to move on.

The word unfortunately translated “tongues” in most Bibles could just as easily be rendered “languages.”

Following are some Bible translations that do just that (comparing the word for tongues used in Acts 2:4): the New Living Translation, the Contemporary English version, the Good News Translation, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the International Standard Version, the NET Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, the God’s Word Translation, Webster’s Bible Translation, the Weymouth New Testament, and the World English Bible.

True, I would not subscribe to many of those translations, nor should you, but it is of note that the more modern Bibles have used the more modern word: languages.

Because that is what they were. Known languages, but unknown to the speaker. It is crystal clear that the purpose of the languages was to be understood somehow, not to remain mysterious and mystical and an object of pride to the speaker.

But were not tongues also a “private prayer language”? No, that’s not in any translation, but was invented to explain a habit that forms when one begins to “speak in tongues.” It fills up a lot of empty prayer space. And if said aloud at home, it adds a bit of flavor to whoever might be listening. A spiritual flavor. An advanced flavor. A “Here I am” flavor. You understand.

No, 1 Corinthians 14, the basis for the “devotional tongue” is not a basis at all. Do as I did. Circle the word “church” in that chapter. You will be forced to the conclusion that Paul is talking only about the church, not about the individual. It was to be for edifying, period. Not self, but the church. If the church was not edified, be quiet.

Slowly that gift died out, when that principle was applied.

But didn’t Paul say that he spoke with tongues more than all of them, and that therefore he spoke those tongues at home, not at church?

He did speak more. Corinth was not the only place he ministered in the miraculous. He was constantly in church, and God was using him in this and other gifts. I don’t believe he limited himself to five words, either, in these places. He knew how the gift was to be regulated and used to edify. Even in the restricted usage of that gift, he spoke more than any Corinthian did, in the churches.

But wasn’t tongues given as a sign that you had received the Spirit? Check it out.

• Day of Pentecost, Peter preaching. The people are convicted, want to know what to do. They are told to repent, be baptized in water. Then they are promised the Spirit and the remission of sins. 3,000 respond. No mention of tongues.

• Acts 9. Paul is converted, healed, filled, water baptized. No mention of tongues.

• Acts 10. As at Pentecost, tongues were part of the baptism of the Spirit for these Gentile believers. Peter wants them all baptized in water, to show that repentance has taken place. No mention of tongues being an ongoing necessity for them.

• Acts 19. Paul imparts a gift of tongues to new believers here. They had already repented and been baptized. The tongues were not automatic in this case, nor required for their salvation.

In every case, the Spirit of God was a part of the initial salvation experience, not a second work of grace. In these early days of the church , tongues was part of some of the initial experiences, but no one could demand that it was necessary for all. And as the New Testament proceeds, tongues is practically non-existent.

Consider Paul and Silas announcing salvation to the Philippian jailer. Consider Paul’s works on the island of Malta and in his own house in Rome. No tongues.

The Holy Spirit introduced Himself to the Church in this miraculous way, but did not/does not demand this expression as the church continues.

MARK 16:9-20. Spurious? Looks like someone was not satisfied with how the Gospel ended and put an ending on it. Most of the events mentioned are recorded elsewhere .The only issue is vs 17-18.

Vs 9-11, John 20:11-18….. vs 12-13, Luke 24:13-32…. Vs 14-16, Matthew 28:19, 20, though at a different location (I Corinthians 15:5). Vs 19: Acts 1:, 2-3….. Vs 20: Hebrews 2:4

But not serious: believers did all these things. Apostles were believers. Those that they laid their hands on were believers. But not all believers were to do these things, and not for all time. Literal truth is that believers did just what this passage says.

Or, since the passage is not in the earliest manuscripts, and maybe it was an addition, best not to use this passage alone to create a doctrine. (Macarthur)

We must now fast forward into time and ask, What in the world have we here? Was there a genuine “Pentecostal” gift being restored to the church, or was something else deposited?

The church fathers knew nothing of tongues except in the rising up of heretics. The catholic church had many “miracles” but also many false doctrines. Even pagans have miracles. Where do we have to go to find out how today’s tongues began. Let’s start in the 1820’s mentioned above...