by Floyd Chappelear
via Sentry Magazine, Vol 18 No. 4, December 1992

One must be impressed with the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit in the first-century church.. The apostles, for instance, were told they did not need to plan ahead with respect to what they were to speak, for the Holy Ghost would guide their very tongues (Matthew 10:19; Mark 13:11). Later, they were to be told that the Spirit would guide them into all the truth (John 16:13).

Additionally, by His power, they would raise the dead, heal the sick, cast out demons, and perform other miracles as well (Matthew 10:8; Acts 13:11). (Elymas would gladly testify that not all miracles were beneficial.) On the day of Pentecost, the prophecy of Isaiah 28:11 was fulfilled when the miraculous gift of tongues was manifested (Acts 2:4,11). Pentecost marked the beginning (Acts 11:15), but not the beginning of the modern Pentecostal (or charismatic) movement.

The Modern Charismatic Movement

Some historians suggest that the modern version of Pentecostalism originated in the teachings of John Wesley. However, while there is much in Wesley’s teaching to suggest that his "methods" may have led to the fervor of the modern "spirit-filled" religion, Wesley was really quite indifferent to such a concept. His interests were more along the line of getting people to evidence the fruit of the spirit rather than the gifts thereof. Wesley said, for instance:

"Indeed I do not mean, that Christians now receive the Holy Ghost in order to work miracles; but they do doubtless now ’receive,’ yea, are 'filled with, the Holy Ghost in order to be filled with the fruits of that blessed Spirit’" ["A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” pt. 5, sect. 28 in the Jackson edition of Wesley’s Works, 8:107].

Methodists had to wrestle with the question of whether the "moment of grace" would be confused with the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and all that such might imply. Wesley, of course, resisted this impulse, but many of his disciples did not. John Fletcher, the vicar of Madelay, was more than willing to ascribe the miraculous to living disciples. In a personal letter to Mary Bosanquet, a preacher to whom he would later be married, he wrote:

"I would distinguish more exactly between the believer baptized with the Pentecostal power of the Holy Ghost, and the believer who, like the apostles after our Lord’s ascension, is not yet filled with that power."

He believed the full power of Pentecost was poured out on living believers. Even with the advocacy of Fletcher and others, the charismatic movement as we know it today did not flourish. However, in the colonies, it was to receive a warmer welcome. It was here, starting in the mid-nineteenth century (and in isolated instances even earlier), that the Methodist concept of Perfection of Holiness began to blossom with its attendant philosophy of the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit.

In 1856, a very popular tome was written called "The Tongue of Fire." Its author, William Arthur, a Methodist preacher of the U.K., said the following in its concluding prayer:

"And now, adorable Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, descend upon all the Churches, renew the Pentecost in this our age, and baptize thy people generally - O, baptize them yet again with tongues of fire. Crown this nineteenth century with a revival of 'pure and undefiled religion' greater than that of the last century, greater than that of the first, greater than any 'demonstration of the Spirit,' even yet vouchsafed to men."

With such encouragement, Pentecostalism took off in the New World. By the turn of the twentieth century, out of Methodism, one finds springing the Holiness, Pentecostal, and Charismatic movements of the Americas. Having said the foregoing, however, it would be unfair to say that the modern Charismatic movement had its origins in Methodist theology. It predates Methodism by many centuries.

Its Origins in the First Century

Obviously, it would be improper to suggest that what passes for the miraculous today has as its predecessor the activities of the Spirit in the first century. The manifestations of the "miraculous" today and what happened by God are so different as to be impossible to confuse them. Yet, what is happening today has a first-century root as much as churches of Christ today have a first-centuiy׳ foundation. This is not to say that God is behind it, but it nevertheless has first-century practices upon which to build.

Let me remind you that Jesus warned about "lying winders" (Mark 13:22; II Thessalonians 2:9). Even the elect might be deceived by the "miracles" wrought by the false prophets and teachers. Is it any wonder, then, that non-saints might be carried away by such?

Simon the Sorcerer, a "bewitcher" of the people, saw profit in the truly miraculous because of its obvious superiority (Acts 8). However, he had apparently made quite a lucrative living off the fraudulent before becoming a child of God. The "signs and wonders" of the false workers in the first century are the antecedents of the charismatic miracles of today. Who can deny it? In acknowledging it, one admits the "biblical" origin of the Pentecostal movement.

The "false Christs, apostles, and prophets" of that ancient time have their corresponding characters today. In their work, they similarly boast of miracles and the operation of the Spirit of God (or, in the first century, the gods). They, modern charismatics, did not need to wait until Methodism prepared a fertile field for their deeds; that field had been plowed nineteen centuries before (and beyond).

Additionally, the "charismatic" movement has its roots firmly planted in paganism and paganistic practices, which predate the advent of Christianity. A brief study of paganism will confirm this.

The Appeal of Paganism

Paganism was a religious concept very much rooted in the sensual. It appealed to the fleshly appetites of the adherents. This can be demonstrated when one examines the contest on Mt. Carmel between a Spirit-filled servant of God and the pagan priests of Baal (see I Kings 18:25-40).

In a simple, logical, and rational manner, at the prescribed hour, Elijah called upon God to manifest Himself (I Kings 18:36-37). The actions of the Baalists, however, were irrational, frenzied, and devilish, all the while appealing to the sensate desires of the people (cf. James 3:15). After praying for hours and being chided by the prophet, they threw themselves about the altar and even went so far as to cut themselves with knives. Similar activities take place among charismatics today. An emotional frenzy characterized their worship; much like the holy-roller altar calls of today, where people do injure themselves (unintentionally) in their excitement.

Eugene Peterson, in his essay, "Baalism and Yahwism Updated," said the following:

"The emphasis of Baalism was on psychological relatedness. The gulf between man and God was leveled out of existence by means of participatory rites. The terrifying majesty of God, his ’otherness,’ was assimilated to the religious passions of the worshipper. The god of the bull image, the god of wine, and the god of the fertility figurines were the gods of relevance, fulfilling personal needs with convincing immediacy. The desires that inflamed the soul were fulfilled in the cultic act of worship. The transcendence of the deity was overcome in the ecstasy of feeling.”

In some ways, one could substitute "charismatic" for "Baalism" and be satisfied that an apt description was given. Baal worship focused on "sensory participation" much as charismatic worship today does. It was accompanied by music, dance, and satisfaction of the sensual needs, just as Pentecostalism satisfies them now. (If you question this, watch a charismatic program on television sometime.) Peterson also said the following:

"It referred to worship that sought fulfillment through self-expression, worship that accepted the needs and desires and passions of the worshipper as its raw material. ’Harlotry' is worship that says, 'I will give you satisfaction. You want religious feelings? I will give them to you. You want your needs fulfilled? I’ll do it in the form most attractive to you.’"

Paganism in the Early Church

The desire to be like the nations round about us (see I Samuel 8:7) did not die with him who anointed the first kings. It was evidently a problem in the New Testament church, as evidenced by the numerous warnings given in the New Testament concerning it. Paul, for instance, pointed out that not all faithful saints knew that an idol was nothing (I Corinthians 8). Some, in fact, ate the meat sacrificed to an idol as if there were something to be gained (cf. Romans 14; I Corinthians 8 and 10). Paul pressed them to divorce themselves from the religions of the flesh and mind (Colossians 2:23). Religious holidays and feasts were bleeding in from paganism as well as from Judaism (Galatians 4:11; Colossians 2:16). The sexual license of pagans was a continual problem in the church leading John to warn about the Nicolaitans (Revelation 2), and for Peter to warn about liberty being abused (II Peter 2). Indeed, by the second century, if not the first, charismatic tongue-speaking had become a problem.

The Warning Concerning Tongue-Speaking

In time, tongue-speaking (of the charismatic variety) became a part of pagan worship. The unintelligible utterances were regarded as evidence that the gods were speaking through the communicant. Of this phenomenon, Plato had the following to say:

"The greatest blessings came by way of madness, indeed of madness that is heaven-sent. It was when they were mad that the prophetess...achieved so much...; when sane they did little or nothing" (Phaedrus 244).

Put that word "madness" into your memory bank, for we will take note of the concept again. In Timaeus 71-72, Plato added these thoughts to the discourse:

"And herein is proof that God has given the art of divination not to the wisdom, but to the foolishness of man. No man, when in his wits, attains prophetic truth and inspiration, but when he receives the inspired word, either his intelligence is enthralled in sleep or he is demented by some distemper or possession ...But, while he continues demented, he cannot judge of the visions which he sees or the words which he utters...And for this reason, it is customary to appoint interpreters to be judges of the true inspiration."

I hope you caught that. His speech is unintelligible, requiring the assistance of interpreters. He is speaking in an unknown tongue exactly as holiness people do today.

For this reason, Jesus warned against "vain repetitions" in our prayers (Matthew 6:7). However, one needs to look at the text. The specific warning was to avoid that practice which was characteristic of the heathen or pagan world. Furthermore, the word translated "vain repetitions" does not mean uttering the same things over and over (as Catholics do when they pray and count beads), but it means empty or meaningless speech (glossolalia). The New International Version gives a very good translation of the term. It reads, "And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans." In his book, Word Meanings in the N T., Ralph Earle says the following:

"7 Use... Vain Repetitions. This is all one word in Greek, batta-logesete, and is used only here in the NT. It means 'babble, speak without thinking' (AG, p. 137)."

Although he goes on to suggest that the term means to repeat useful words without thinking, his initial definition is right on. The term means to babble or to speak unintelligibly. Modern tongue-speaking fits the bill exactly. Jesus was warning against such practices in the church.

When Paul first introduces the idea of miraculous gifts in I Corinthians 12, he made an interesting observation. In pointing out their Gentile heritage, he made a clear reference to their religious background as well. "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led." They were "carried away" and "led" into their practices (which would have included tongue-speaking). We cannot argue that they were "led" or "carried away" by the force of paganism, but by its charm. The charm was the "better felt than told" experience of the pagan religion. The same thing, again, can be said today.

It would be foolish to suggest that pagan influences were entirely absent from the first-century church. Paganism’s appeal was seen frequently in their clinging to idols (I Corinthians 8), the sacrificial meats continuing to have meaning, etc. These things, as noted before, were found in the New Testament church. Why, then, deny that the charismatic tongue-speaking was also found? I think it was and was addressed by the Apostle Paul.

The Miraculous Tongues

The true Pentecostal model needs to be examined first.

When the apostles spoke in tongues, they spoke in languages which could be understood by the hearer (Acts 2:4 and 2:6). The miracle was obvious in that unlearned Gallileans were speaking in tongues they had not learned (Acts 2:8). The unbelievers clearly understood what was said about God (Acts 2:11). The miraculous event confirmed that the word spoken was from God (Hebrews 2:4; Mark 16:17). Intelligible communication was being uttered for the audience was "confounded," were "amazed," "marvelled," and were "perplexed" at what they heard (Acts 2:6,7,12). Obviously, the miraculous gift of tongues was a sign for the unbeliever (I Corinthians 14:22).

It was also evident on Pentecost that the spirit was subject to the prophet; he was in control. Exactly what Paul said accompanied the gift from God (I Corinthians 14:32). No babbling here.

When Cornelius and his companions received the Spirit to speak in tongues, they "magnified God" (Acts 10:46). The hearers recognized this speech and understood it. Clearly not the unknown tongue of paganism. Tongue-speaking of this order was what our Lord had prophesied would occur (Acts 11:15-16). Unintelligible speech has no prophetic precedent in either the Old or New Testaments.

Charismatic Tongue-Speaking

The Greco-Roman cults of ecstasy, however, were to have an influence on the Way of the Lord. Those who had been charmed (led away) by the appeal of paganism were no less likely to be drawn away by that same power after they became Christians. We are reminded that Paul said the Corinthians were carnal (I Corinthians 3:1-3). Carnal appetites had not been discarded among them, and they fell easy prey to the sensual, devilish wisdom which works among men. Why, then, some might say, did Paul say nothing about this heresy insofar as the saints are concerned?

It is hereby my contention that Paul did say something about it. His declarations are found clearly, forcefully, yet kindly in the fourteenth chapter of the First Corinthians letter. Let us make some observations concerning the issue.

Mark this truth down: Every time the miraculous gift of speaking is referred to in the New Testament, the plural "tongues" is used (see Mark 16:17; Acts 2:3,4,11; 10:46; 19:6; I Corinthians 12:10; 28; 13:8; 14:5-6,18,21-23,39). Let me repeat that; whenever the miraculous is referred to, the plural "tongues" is used. Whenever a "gift" of speech is referenced and the singular, "tongue," is used, there is no indication that it is miraculous; it is never endorsed by Paul, practiced by any inspired writer, or in any way given sanction as a gift from God (I Corinthians 14:2,4,13-14,19,26-27). I contend that the singular "tongue" refers to the "unknown tongue" of first-century paganism or twentieth-century Pentecostalism.

Having said the foregoing, look carefully at I Corinthians 14 (see accompanying chart). Wherever "tongue" is used, it is a practice not admitted by Paul as his nor endorsed in any way. In fact, the [unknown] tongue-speaking is regulated right out of existence, whereas Paul forbids any to restrict "tongues"(I Corinthians 14:39).

Let us reiterate, "tongue" is given no approval, whereas "tongues" is endorsed and declared to be from God. Let's examine each use of "tongue" in the text.

He declares that those who speak in an "unknown" tongue do not speak to men (I Corinthians 14:2). Indeed, no one understands him, for he speaks mysteries. Certainly not the gift prophesied in Isaiah 28:11; therefore, not the miraculous gift of tongues. I Corinthians 14:4 finds the man devoid of any act of edification for the church, yet Paul says that "all things should be done unto edification" (I Corinthians 14:26; Romans 14:19; 15:2). A different gift. Because of the need to edify, Paul declares that any who would speak in a tongue needs to be able to interpret (I Corinthians 14:13). Still, he already pointed out that the "tongue" could not be interpreted nor rationally explained (I Corinthians 14:4-5,9). He who speaks in a "tongue" speaks unto the air.

Even the proper gift of "tongues" was subject to this misinterpretation of "speaking to the air." When Paul observed that if all spoke with tongues (at the same moment), an unbeliever might think them "mad" (I Corinthians 14:23). Could this have been an oblique reference to the "madness" of Plato? I think it is. When all speak, it would combine into gibberish very reminiscent of the Pagan practice of babbling. Why, then, should the sign for the unbeliever (tongues) be so abused as to lose its purpose? The practice of tongue-speaking suggests that some spirit other than God’s was in control. (Again, notice the difference between the singular and plural.)

The "tongue" in I Corinthians 14:26 is spoken of without approbation or restriction. It is given almost neutrally. No help to charismatics at all. However, I Corinthians 14:27 would regulate modern charismatics, as well as first-century ones, out of existence. They are to speak one at a time, with no more than two or three. The real "kicker" is that someone must be able to interpret. However, the absence of an interpreter was already declared in I Corinthians 14:2. Paul said, "no one understands him." No one, not even an interpreter. He speaks to God and to the air, not to men. The upshot of this is, when the "unknown tongue" is engaged, he should keep it to himself; it should not be uttered in the church.

Some will argue that Paul admitted the practice for himself in I Corinthians 14:14. No such comfort can be found in that verse. Paul does not say he practiced "tongue" speaking. He said, "If I do," however, he showed very forcefully in the next verse that he did no such thing. On the contrary, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with my mind" is Paul’s statement in the next verse.

The "Unknown" Tongue

I cut my teeth as a young preacher, pointing out that the word "unknown" is an addition only in the King James Version. I was taught to argue that the term "unknown" did not belong in the text, for it only gave comfort to the Pentecostal in his search for justification for "unknown" (unintelligible) tongue speaking. My current view is that the word "unknown" should be left in. Having it in the text does not help the charismatic at all.

On the contrary, I think it makes it easier to show that the "unknown" tongue was never approved by Paul nor endorsed by the Holy Spirit. It came from Paganism and should be avoided. When one contrasts the approved with the merely admitted, the contrast is quite strong. The "admitted" is not from God, although practiced, whereas the "approved" is very clearly different and miraculous. (Again, see the accompanying chart.)

Charismatic Influences in the Early Church

Montanus was a second-century disciple, deeply convinced that Greco-Roman enthusiasms should be replicated in the fledgling church.

Interestingly, most of his followers were women who might well fit the description of II Timothy 3:6. These easily influenced followers could be charmed by the sensuality of "tongue" speaking. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, says the following:

"He was carried away in spirit, and wrought up in a certain kind of frenzy and irregular ecstasy, raving, and speaking, and uttering strange things."

Additionally,

"[He] also excited two others, females, and filled them with the spirit of delusion, so that they also spake like the former, in a kind of ecstatic frenzy."

In the book "Gods and the One God", Robert M. Grant observed:

"They [his enemies, fdc] admitted that he was moved by some kind of spirit or other, but claimed that 'he suddenly fell into a state of possession and abnormal ecstasy, and became frenzied (en-thousian) and began to babble and utter strange sounds ...’ Continence brings harmony,’ said Prisca, a Montanus convert, and they see visions when they bow their heads, they also hear distinct voices, saving and mysterious" (p. 139).

The same kind of things are observed by many charismatics today. In fact, it can be argued that the Pentecostal movement of the 19th century has as its roots the Paganism of biblical times.  To argue that the "spirit" movements of today have a Methodist origin is to miss the mark by about 2,000 years. The frenzy of those days has been reproduced today and is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Brethren, consider these thoughts carefully and share your thoughts with me. I will appreciate you for it.