Tongues Volume 1 Confused by Ecstasy A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CONFUSING ELEMENT OF ECSTASY A CULTURAL STUDY IN HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES Nodrm PDF

TONGUES: VOLUME 1
CONFUSED BY ECSTASY
A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CONFUSING ELEMENT OF ECSTASY -

A CULTURAL STUDY IN HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL
PERSPECTIVES.
David A. Swincer
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Copyright © 2011 by David A. Swincer, Adelaide, South Australia. All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without
written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations in articles and
reviews.
First edition 2006

Revised edition 2011
ISBN: 978-0-9808703-1-2
Integrity Publications, Adelaide,

SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Web: www.integritypublications.biz
Email: publications.integrity@gmail.com

NOTES
1. "Man/him/he" is used in the generic sense throughout this book.
2. Bible references are quoted from the N.I.V., unless otherwise stated.
3. References are made using the Harvard system, to avoid excessively cumbersome
referencing, and to be immediately available for access.
4. Thanks to Josh Barrie for the cover design.

FOREWORD
Dr Swincer has done a monumental service to the Christian world. Addressing a topic
that is often poorly understood, or bitterly divisive, he has sought to remove the
assumptions – in particular, the presumed precursor of ecstasy – from the biblical
teaching about the Gift of Tongues for the Church. He carefully distinguishes between
the one-stage phenomenon of the Book of the Acts, and the two-stage phenomenon of the
gift for the Church.
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.
This should become a text-book on the subject.
Dr Clifford Wilson – prolific author and Christian statesman, Australia.

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 PERSPECTIVES
1.2 LIMITS TO THE STUDY
1.3 METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 2
DEFINING AND EXPLAINING SOME TERMS
2.1 GLOSSOLALIA
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.2 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
A. REFERENCES INCLUDING BOTH γλωσσα AND λαλειν
B. REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA BUT OMITTING λαλεω
C. REFERENCE TO GLOSSOLALIA BUT OMITTING γλωσσα
D. OTHER FORMS OF EXPRESSION
E. DUBIOUS REFERENCES
2.1.3 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
A. KNOWN LANGUAGES
B. KNOWN LANGUAGES AT PENTECOST
C. LANGUAGES IN CORINTH
D. LANGUAGES IN THE MODERN CHURCH
E. PRELIMINARY DELINEATION OF THE PHENOMENON
2.2 MYSTICISM
2.3 ECSTASY
2.3.1 THE GREEK WORD
2.3.2 ENGLISH USAGE
2.3.3 PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS
2.3.4 ASSOCIATION WITH TRANCE
2.3.5 ECSTASY: USUALLY AN INDUCED STATE
2.3.6 CONSEQUENCES AND CHARACTERISTICS
A. A PRECURSOR TO GLOSSOLALIA
B. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRECURSORS
C. PRECURSOR TO CORINTH
D. CONTINUING CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE
E. EXTENSION TO TRANCE
F. UNION WITH THE DEITY
G. THE ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE
2.3.7 CORRECTIVE
2.3.8 SUMMARY
2.4 TRANCE
2.4.1 INTRODUCTION
2.4.2 DEFINITION
2.4.3 ACHIEVING TRANCE.

2.4.4 TRANCE AND GREEK CULTURE.
2.4.5 TRANCE AND GLOSSOLALIA.
2.4.6 CORRECTIVE FOR AUTHENTIC GLOSSOLALIA.
2.4.7 SUMMARY.
2.5 PROPHECY
2.5.1 CLOSE CORRELATION, PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA
2.5.2 DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA
2.5.3 PROPHECY RELATED TO ECSTASY
A. OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY
B. FIRST CENTURY CULTURAL BACKGROUND
C. CORRECTIVE
2.5.4 PURPOSE OF PROPHECY, COMPARED TO GLOSSOLALIA
2.5.5 COMPARISON WITH OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY
2.6 OTHERS
2.6.1 PENTECOSTALISM
A. ORIGINS
B. PRECURSORS
C. CHARACTERISTICS
2.6.2 NEO-PENTECOSTALISM
A. ORIGINS
B. PRECURSORS
C. CHARACTERISTICS
D. CONCLUSION
2.6.3 CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT
2.6.4 THIRD WAVE
2.6.5 CONCLUSION.
CHAPTER 3
COMMENT RE THE LITERATURE
CHAPTER 4
ECSTASY AS A PHENOMENON
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 SUMMARY DEFINITION
4.2.1 PERSPECTIVE
4.2.2 PRECURSORS TO ECSTATIC EXPERIENCE
4.2.3 RESULTANT OVERALL CONDITION
4.2.4 RESULTANT BEHAVIOURAL MANIFESTATIONS
4.2.5 NEED FOR DISTINCTIONS TO DETERMINE AUTHENTICITY
4.2.6 A PURPORTED PREREQUISITE FOR GLOSSOLALIA
4.2.7 OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF PURPORTED BIBLICAL AUTHENTICITY
4.2.8 CORRECTIVE
4.2.9 SUMMARY CRITERIA
4.3 VARIETIES OF CONTEMPORARY SECULAR MANIFESTATIONS
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
4.3.2 DRUGS
A. MESCALINE
B. LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
C. SUMMARY
4.3.3 HYPNOSIS
A. INTRODUCTION

B. PRESUMPTIONS
C. PRECURSORS
D. CHARACTERISTICS
E. SUMMARY
4.3.4 TRANCE
A. INTRODUCTION
B. DEFINITION
C. CHARACTERISTICS
D. VARIETY OF MANIFESTATIONS
E. SUMMARY
4.3.5 SEXUAL EUPHORIA.
A. INTRODUCTION
B. RELATION TO ECSTASY
C. STIMULATION OF SEX
D. ACHIEVING POSSESSION
E. EUPHORIA – AN EXTREME
F. POSSESSION AND GLOSSOLALIA
G. SUMMARY
4.3.6 SUMMARY OF THE VARIETIES
4.4 CULTURAL CASE STUDY
4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.4.2 COAST SALISH SPIRIT DANCING
A. INTRODUCTION
B. PRECURSORS
C. CHARACTERISTICS AND PHENOMENA
4.4.3 SUMMARY
4.5 ECSTASY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ANTECEDENTS
4.5.1 INTRODUCTION
4.5.2 PERSPECTIVES OF ECSTASY AND PROPHECY
A. INTRODUCTION
B. MEANING OF ECSTASY
C. ACHIEVING ECSTASY
D. BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES
4.5.3 WORDS FOR PROPHET/PROPHECY IN SECULAR EXPERIENCE
4.5.4 ECSTASY AND PROPHECY IN BIBLICAL USAGE
A. INTRODUCTION
B. PROPHETIC GROUPINGS
C. EARLY PROPHETS
D. LATER PROPHETS
E. SUMMARY
4.5.5 VIEWS AND PROPONENTS
A. INTRODUCTION
B. ALL PROPHETS WERE ECSTATICS
C. PROPHECY AFTER ECSTATIC EXPERIENCE
D. EMPHASIS ON CONTENT, NOT EXPERIENCE
E. WRITING PROPHETS (at least) NOT ECSTATICS
F. SUMMARY
4.5.6 CORRELATION OF O.T. PROPHECY AND N.T. GLOSSOLALIA
A. INTRODUCTION
B. PARALLELS AND CORRELATIONS
C. SUMMARY

4.5.7 SUMMARY OF OLD TESTAMENT ANTECEDENTS
4.6 ECSTASY IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
4.6.1 INTRODUCTION
4.6.2 OVERVIEW OF ECSTATIC EXPERIENCES
A. INTRODUCTION
B. GENERAL RANGE OF EXPERIENCES
C. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF ECSTATIC EXPERIENCES
D. SUMMARY
4.6.3 SPECIAL CASE: SLAYING IN THE “SPIRIT”
A. INTRODUCTION
B. TERMS
D. PURPOSE
E. MOTIVATION
F. WARNING
G. MAIN INSTIGATORS
H. BIBLICAL “EVIDENCE”
I. HISTORICAL INCIDENTS/“EVIDENCE”
J. METHOD
K. DURATION
L. DANGER OF REPLICATION/ABUSE
M. CONCLUSION
4.6.4 GREEK MYSTERY RELIGIONS
A. ADEQUATE EVIDENCE FROM MYSTERY RELIGIONS
B. GENERAL EXPERIENCE OF ECSTASY IN THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS
C. PARTICULAR CASES OF MYSTERY RELIGIONS
D. CORRELATION OF UTTERANCES OF THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS AND GLOSSOLALIA AT
CORINTH
4.6.5 CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ECSTASY IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
4.7 ECSTASY IN CHARISMATIC AND PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE
4.7.1 INTRODUCTION
4.7.2 HISTORIC ANTECEDENTS
4.7.3 ECSTASY IN HISTORICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
4.7.4 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ECSTATIC ASSUMPTION
A. WEIGHT OF OPINION
B. SIGNIFICANT ECUMENICAL FACTOR
C. ELEVATION OF NON-RATIONAL EXPERIENCE
D. NON-CRITICAL COMPARISONS
4.7.5 CORRECTIVES CONCERNING ECSTASY IN CHARISMATIC AND PENTECOSTAL
EXPERIENCE
4.7.6 CONCLUSION
4.8 ECSTASY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
4.8.1 INTRODUCTION.
4.8.2 JESUS AND ECSTASY
4.8.3 THE APOSTLES AND ECSTASY
A. APOSTLE PETER
B. APOSTLE PAUL
C. APOSTLE JOHN
4.8.4 SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND ECSTASY
4.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5

GLOSSOLALIA AS A PHENOMENON
5.1 INTRODUCTION.
5.2 REDEFINING THE TERM
5.2.1 INTRODUCTION.
5.2.2 UPGRADING THE DEFINITIONS
A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
B. RECENT CONSIDERATIONS
C. BACK TO BASICS
D. EXPRESSION OF EMOTION/ECSTASY
E. GLOSSOLALIA – A GIFT
F. ATTEMPTS TO ANALYSE
G. GENUINE LANGUAGE
H. VALID LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA
I. SUMMARY
5.3 BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA
5.3.1 OLD TESTAMENT
SUMMARY
5.3.2 NEW TESTAMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
B. THE GOSPELS
C. ACTS
D. DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES
E. SUMMARY OF NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES
5.4 EXTRA-BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA
5.4.1 INTRODUCTION.
5.4.2 ANCIENT PRE-BIBLICAL EXAMPLES
5.4.3 THE CENTURIES BEFORE BIBLICAL TIMES
5.4.4 THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD
5.4.6 EXTENDED NEW TESTAMENT TIMES
5.4.7 ANTE-NICENE PERIOD (100-325 A.D.)
5.4.8 NICENE AND POST-NICENE PERIOD (311-600)
5.4.9 MIDDLE AGES/RENAISSANCE
5.4.10 THE REFORMATION (1517-1648)
5.4.11 POST-REFORMATION PERIOD (1648-1900)
5.4.12 MODERN PERIOD (1900-)
5.4.13 SUMMARY OF EXTRA-BIBLICAL GLOSSOLALIA
5.5 CURSORY ANALYSIS OF RECORDED GLOSSOLALIA
5.5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.5.2 PURPORTED EXAMPLES OF TONGUES.
5.5.3 A PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC OF RECORDED TONGUES
5.5.4 EVALUATION OF RECORDED TONGUES.
5.5.5 SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSES.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX
THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH
1. INTRODUCTION
2. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.
3. PREDICTION AT PENTECOST
4. PREMISE OF THE CHURCH
5. DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENT
6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW ENTITY IN ACTS.
7. RELEVANCE OF THE DISCUSSION.
SUMMARY.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
FURTHER READING

CHAPTER 1
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.
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
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.
1.2 LIMITS TO THE STUDY

It is recognized that ecstasy is not only related to glossolalia in many of the
contemporary expressions, Pentecostal, charismatic and otherwise, but also to other
gifts. Reference will be made to other gifts/phenomena, especially in secular and
cultural manifestations, in order to demonstrate the parallels with the biblical
manifestations, but little detail will be possible. It will be sufficient to demonstrate that
there needs to be care in identifying the source of apparently biblical manifestations.
The fact of operation does not authenticate the source beyond dispute.
There will be some general focus on ecstasy in religious experience, without
detailed correlation to specific gifts/phenomena.
Although referring to cultural and secular manifestations, it will not be possible to
demonstrate accurately their source for operation. It will be sufficient to demonstrate
that there are different sources, and that the onus is on any Christian to "try the spirits"
(1 John 4:1) rather than to assume that his manifestation is necessarily "of God".
Sufficient aspects will be covered by the study in order to delimit spurious sources, and

spurious gifts.
However, it will be advantageous to look more closely at the different sources
proposed for glossolalia, as definitive of the study.
Frequently glossolalia is associated with "Baptism in (into, with, by) the Spirit".
For the purpose of this research it will not be necessary to pursue this avenue, although
it must be noted that frequently deep emotion (ecstasy) is associated with the "Baptism
in the Spirit" (Howe 1977, 32). Because of its association with both ecstasy and
glossolalia, “Slaying in the ‘Spirit’” will be briefly investigated.
Finally, it will not be possible to look in detail at some aspects of glossolalia per
se. "Tongues in private", and the "initial evidence" of glossolalia, will be of limited
relevance to the study. It will not be possible to look in detail at an identification of the
authentic practice of glossolalia. This is due to the lack of explicit biblical material as
well as inadequate examples of actual practice, apart from it being an extension from
this specific study. It will be proposed, as part of a “Projected Study” to be undertaken
in a second volume on this topic.
There will be an attempt to identify the parameters of an authentic glossolalic
expression, as a result of delineating the confusing element of ecstasy in the context of
the Corinthian experience. The focus will be to thus reaffirm credence in a true, biblical
glossolalia, that is potential for contemporary usage if God should so ordain, but that it
is not to be abused for selfishly motivated goals nor assumed to have valid
contemporary operation simply by virtue of some contemporary phenomena. A true
biblical glossolalia is stated to be a potential reality, as a conclusion of the evidence
examined.
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.
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
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.
*****

CHAPTER 2
DEFINING AND EXPLAINING SOME

TERMS
2.1 GLOSSOLALIA
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION
The plethora of definitions and ideas for glossolalia need a yardstick for
appraisal in the context of this study, in which a biblical basis is assumed. Robinson
(1972b, 8) refers to "speak in a tongue," "to speak in tongues," "to speak in other
tongues," "to speak in the tongues of men," "ten thousand words in a tongue," and so on.
Usually these phrases are interpreted to suggest some kind of ecstatic activity, simply
because a sense that is different from our language is assumed. But this exotic nuance
has no correspondence in Greek phrases. A clarification, and than a corrective, must be
established. The Anglo-Saxon word "glossolalia" does not reflect a simple Greek word.
It is a compound of the two Greek words glwssa (tongue) and lalew (to speak). The
compound term glossolalia was not used before the nineteenth century (Robinson
1972b, 2; Spittler 1988, 336). Interestingly, an English dictionary definition of
glossolalia quickly dismisses it as:
1. Fabricated non-meaningful speech, especially as associated with certain schizophrenic syndromes.
2. The gift of tongues.
(Morris 1969, 562)
If the first part of the definition was the final word on the matter, there would be
little further discussion. However, an entry enlarging on the second part of the definition
("gift of tongues") comes closer to the more commonly accepted biblical definition,
although the precise phrase never occurs in Scripture (Spittler 1988, 336):
An ecstatic utterance that is partly or wholly unintelligible to hearers, especially as practiced liturgically in
certain Christian congregations. Also called "glossolalia".
(Morris 1969, 556)

This definition reflects the often repeated idea of ecstasy as essential to
glossolalia, although that conclusion has not been adequately demonstrated.
An editorial in The Expository Times of 1929 (Expository Times, 4) indicates the
superficial response of the "new psychologists" who dismissed glossolalia as "... a
stream of meaningless syllables, some-times mixed with real words, poured out under
the influence of intense emotion", closely related to "convulsive attacks of hysteria," or
"senseless combinations of vowels and consonants" similar to a "hue and cry, yell and
howl".
There is a general tendency to associate glossolalia with other phenomena,
especially ecstasy, and that is with good historical precedent in first century Corinth, but
consequent expressions of the phenomena often beg a carefully reasoned appraisal of
glossolalia in its biblical context and its correct cultural background.
Referring to the cultural background, Conybeare (1911, 9) says, “... the gift of
tongues and of their interpretation was not peculiar to the Christian Church, but was a
repetition in it of a phrase common in ancient religions. The very phrase γλωσσα
λαλειν, ‘to speak in tongues’, was not invented by the New Testament writers, but
borrowed from ordinary speech”. Kelsey (1968, 144) would dispute that conclusion as
unsubstantiated. For his part, Harrisville (1976, 47) concludes,
All questions of definitions and parallel phenomena in pagan religion aside, our conclusion is that use of the
technical term γλωσσα (ἐν γλωσσῃ or γλωσσαις) λαλειν had its occasion and origin in pre-Christian, Jewish
sources.
Part of this study is to look at that cultural context. For the moment, the scriptural
basis of the term, “glossolalia”, must be addressed.
2.1.2 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

(For a detailed lexicographical study, see Harrisville 1976).
A. REFERENCES INCLUDING BOTH γλωσσα AND λαλειν

Mark 16:17 (See below).
Acts 2:4 “... to speak in other tongues ...”: λαλειν ἑτεραις γλωσσαις
Acts 2:11 “... declaring ... in our own tongues ...”: λαλουντων αὐτων ταις ἑτεραις
γλωσσαις
Acts 10:46 “... speaking in tongues ... (and praising God)”: λαλουντων γλωσσαις
Acts 19:6 “... they spoke in tongues ... (and prophesied)”: ἐλαλουν τε γλωσσαις
1 Cor. 12:30 “... speak in tongues?”: γλωσσαις λαλουσν
1 Cor. 13:1 "... I speak in the tongues of men and of angels ...": ταις γλωσσα των
ἀνθρωπν λαλων και των ἀνγελλων
1 Cor. 14:2 “... anyone who speaks in a tongue ...”: λαλων γλωσσαις
1 Cor. 14:4 “He who speaks in a tongue ...”: ὁ λαλεω γλωσσῃ
1 Cor. 14:5 “... to speak in tongues ...”: λαλειν γλωσσαις glwssai~
1 Cor. 14:5 “... speaks in tongues ...”: λαλεω γλωσσαις
1 Cor. 14:6 “... speak in tongues ...”: γλωσσαις λαλων
1 Cor. 14:13 “... speaks in a tongue ...”: λαλων γλωσσῃ
1 Cor. 14:18 “... I speak in tongues ...”: γλωσσαις λαλεω
1 Cor. 14:21 “... of strange tongues ... I will speak ...”; ἑτερογλωσσοις ... λαλησων
1 Cor. 14:23 “... speaks in tongues ...”: λαλωσιν γλωσσαις
1 Cor. 14:27 “... speaks in a tongue ...”: γλωσσῃ ... λαλει
1 Cor. 14:39 “... speaking in tongues ...”: λαλειν ... γλωσσαις
B. REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA BUT OMITTING λαλεω

1 Cor. 12:10 “... different kinds of tongues ...”: γενῃ γλωσσων
“... interpretation of tongues …”: ἑρμηνεια γλωσσα*
1 Cor. 12:28 “... different kinds of tongues ...”: γενῃ γλωσσων*
* “speaking in/to speak in” - in the NIV, is not found in the Greek.
1 Cor. 13:8 “… or tongues …”: γλωσσαι
1 Cor. 14:14 “... pray in a tongue ...”: προσευχομαι γλωσσῃ
1 Cor. 14:19 “... in a tongue ...”: ἑν γλωσσῃ /
1 Cor. 14:22 “Tongues ...”: αἱ γλωσσαι
1 Cor. 14:26 “... a tongue ...”: γλωσσαν
C. REFERENCE TO GLOSSOLALIA BUT OMITTING γλωσσα

Acts 2:6 “…each one heard them speaking in his own language.”: ἠκουον εἰς
ἑκαστος τῃ ἰδια διαλεκτων λαλουντων αὐτων
1 Cor. 14:28 “… speak …”: λαλειτω
1 Cor. 14:34 “... not permitted ... to speak ...”: οὐ ... ἐπιτρεπεται ... λαλειν
1 Cor. 14:35 “... disgraceful ... to speak ...”: αἰσχρον ... λαλειν
D. OTHER FORMS OF EXPRESSION

1 Cor. 14:16 “… saying …” λεγεις
E. DUBIOUS REFERENCES
Mark 16:17 “... speak in new tongues ...”: γλωσσαις λαλησουσιν καιναις
Acts 2:4 “... enabled ...”: ἀποφθεγγεσθαι
Acts 4:31 “... spoke the word of God boldly ...”: ἐλαλουν τον λογον του θεου
μετα παρρησιας parhhsai~
Acts 8:14-17 [The assumption is, that in parallel with Acts 2:4, Acts 10:46, and Acts
19:6, speaking in tongues took place although it is not mentioned.]
Romans 8:26f “... groans that words cannot express ...”: στεναγμοις ἀλαλητοις
Ephesians 5:19 “Speaking to yourself in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs ...”:
λαλουντες ἑαυτοις ψαλμοις και ὑμνοις και ᾡδαις πνευματικαις
Col. 3:16 “... sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs ...”: ψαλμοις ὑμνοις ᾡδαις
πνευματικαις
1 Thess. 5:19, 20 “Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with
contempt.”: το ονευμα μη ηβεννυτε προφητειας μη ἐξουθενειτε
2.1.3 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

A quick overview of the scriptural references allows a number of observations to
be made, and a general understanding of glossolalia to be deduced. Detailed treatment
of these references will occur later.
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
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.
B. KNOWN LANGUAGES AT PENTECOST

On the day of Pentecost, the only "irrationality" was that the speakers were
Galileans, not that the languages were "unintelligible". That they were foreign
languages, has already been noted. Neither Acts 10 nor 19 establishes foreign language.
But neither do they establish unintelligible noise. Carson (1988, 80-81) notes quite
emphatically that what happened at Pentecost was “known, human languages”. Further,
that γλωσσα never denotes non cognitive utterance, in fact, “The utterance may be
enigmatic and incomprehensible, but not non cognitive”.
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
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.
D. LANGUAGES IN THE MODERN CHURCH

Independent of the phenomena in the Corinthian Church, is the identification and
comparison of phenomena in the modern church and in extra-biblical contexts. This is
an essential corrective to the assumption that a phenomenon occurring today, can
automatically be identified as an authentic replication of the Corinthian experience. This
corrective is applicable, not only to “speaking in languages” (and “interpretation of
languages”) but also to “a word of wisdom” and “a word of knowledge”. Until Paul's
meaning for the Corinthian church can be conclusively established, no valid conclusion
can be drawn for the modern church. An honest exegesis must reserve its judgment.
E. PRELIMINARY DELINEATION OF THE PHENOMENON

In the Corinthian context, Paul uses phrases that are pointers to be noted in the
identification of the phenomenon. The “... ability to speak in different kinds of tongues”
(1 Cor. 12:10) immediately suggests a variety of tongues, and here “tongues” cannot be
reduced to purely a genre of “a prayer language” or only a reference to an “angelic
language” or perhaps a general “language” that has no definition. The suggestion is of a
variety of distinctly different languages (“different kinds of languages”).
Further, the uses of the singular where each person has a contribution, including
“a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:26), have the implication of an individual language, otherwise the
plural “tongues” (1 Cor. 14: 5,18) has no meaning.
If “tongues” is the reference to an amorphous unintelligible utterance that lacks
definition or cohesiveness then there is no purpose in distinguishing singular from
plural. To speak in some genre of tongues (plural) that is without distinction is to speak
in a tongue (singular) that equally has no distinction. The interim conclusion is that (in
reference to glossolalia) Paul in Corinthians (and certainly Luke in Acts) is describing
the ability to speak in foreign languages under the enabling of the Holy Spirit (i.e.
languages foreign to the speaker).
This conclusion is reinforced by the verb ἑρμηνευω and its cognates. It most
commonly means to translate what has been spoken in a foreign language into the
vernacular (Thayer 1979, 250). Placed together with γλωσσα, the strongly inferred

meaning is “to translate a language”.
Further, Paul's reference to a variety of sounds in the world (“instruments” - 1
Corinthians 14:7-8) makes clear that the primary sound must be intelligible, or the
interpretation cannot be made. Hence, “... if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who
will get ready for battle?” The primary factor is the trumpet sound, which of itself must
be intelligible. The interpretation is made on the intelligibility of the initial sound.
Hence the secondary “advance”/“retreat”, can be deduced from the initial sound only if
it is itself intelligible. He adds: “So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words
with your tongue ...” (14:9). This is a reference to the primary utterance. Of itself it must
be intelligible (and hence translatable) so that the interpretation can be made and
subsequently heeded. There is no provision for unintelligible primary utterance. And
this is true of supposed private prayer language. Any unintelligible primary utterance
has no value.
Paul follows this reference to “lifeless things” by speaking of “all sorts of
languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning” (1 Cor. 14:10). Paul's
conclusion is that we are constituted “foreigners” on the basis of a language, one of
many “in the world”. There is no hint of another utterance that is not a known foreign
language (which has meaning).
Finally, in the 1 Corinthians 14 passage, Paul refers to Isaiah 28, speaking of the
Assyrians who speak in a known but foreign (to Israel) language, a message to Israel.
This tongue is a known foreign language. And the Assyrian phenomenon is referred to,
to show that it was a sign. “Tongues, then are a sign ...” (1 Cor. 14:22a). Hence we must
note this qualification in using (and indeed identifying) this gift to the church.
One other characteristic derived from the Assyrian reference, is to show that the
use of languages is for those unconvinced by conventional methods of communication:
“... a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers ...” (1 Cor. 14:22b). “Believers” in the
Assyrian context are not Christians, but reference is to unpersuaded or unconvinced
Israelites. Those unpersuaded by the conventional method of communication through the
prophets (in Hebrew), were faced with an unmistakable “communication” through
foreign language people. Later, God again “spoke” to His unpersuaded people through
another group, the Chaldeans. From this factor, it is evident that the use of glossolalia in
the church (God's people) is to convince unpersuaded Christians (i.e. “unbelievers” –
not non-Christians) that God is trying to speak to them through normal conventional
methods, but since they refuse to be persuaded, He may on exceptional and only
occasional times, speak through a foreign language so that there is no mistaking that it is
His message (and not the messenger's), even if finally they still remain unconvinced (“...
even then they will not listen to me.” 1 Cor. 14:21d). After all, Israel was a “hard-
hearted” and “stiff-necked” people. Occasionally, this resistant attitude might be found
in the church, and require God's special intervention to demonstrate that it is He who is
speaking through the messenger, and not the words of the messenger himself.
2.1.4 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS

Glossolalia must involve:
(1) a known language, foreign to the speaker;
(2) a known language, foreign to the listeners;
(3) the intelligibility of the primary utterance;
(4) the role of a translator (as distinct from interpreter);
(5) the concept of a sign;
(6) the sign is for "unpersuaded ones" (unbelievers, but not necessarily non-
Christians).
Glossolalia must be tested against:
(1) the Corinthian mystery religious context;
(2) other cultural contexts;
(3) historical understanding;
(4) contemporary usage.
These observations will be tested in the course of this study.
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

characteristic of the Corinthian Mystery Religious experiences. Also, the factor of
“enthusiasm”/ecstasy, is part of those experiences.
Bridges (1970, 4) says:
Mysticism is selfless, direct, transcendent, unitive experience of God or ultimate reality, and the experient's
interpretation of that experience.
Thus Bridges also emphasizes a “unitive experience of God”. William James
speaks of “passivity” (one of four aspects of mysticism) in which the subject of a
mystical experience feels himself in the grip of a Power other than himself (Clark 1958,
269). Likewise, Zaehner (1957, 32) concurs with the concept of a “unitive knowledge”,
stating categorically, “In Christian terminology mysticism means union with God”.
Certainly in Corinthian Mystery Religious practice, and indeed in much religious
phenomena (including Pentecostal and charismatic glossolalic expression), this mystical
experience is regarded as “ultimate reality”. In some writings, this ultimate reality is
claimed to allow that we have become gods, that we are gods. Morris Cerullo states:
“You're not looking at Morris Cerullo – you're looking at God. You're looking at Jesus.”
(Hanegraaff 1995, 11). The “transcendent, universal Self” of Marilyn Ferguson (1976,
101) is the pantheistic God in which we all share. We are God, and God is us. Benjamin
Creme (1980, 204) claims that,
My purpose is to show man that he need fear no more, that all of Light and Truth rests within his heart, that
when this simple fact is known man will become God. (Emphasis mine).
Whilst mystics may vary in their definitions, they all seem to describe the same
kind of thing, especially the correlation of experience and thought (Bridges 1970, 4).
Both experience and thought are essential, but the mystic interprets his experience by his
thoughts, or intellectual ideas - which reflect his background (Bridges 1970, 5).
Ellwood (1980, xi) includes this factor of interpretation into his definition of
mystical experience, but he assumes a religious background:
Mystical experience is experience in a religious context which is immediately or subsequently interpreted by
the experiencer as encounter with ultimate divine reality in a direct non rational way which engenders a deep
sense of unity, and of living during the experience on a level of being other than the ordinary. (Emphases mine).
However, in spite of his emphasis on experience and interpretation in interaction
with religion, Ellwood recognizes that there is not clear agreement on this definition,
and that in fact there is some treatment of mysticism in an abstract and philosophical
sense. Nevertheless, there is a fairly common correlation of mysticism and the
experience of ecstasy (Ellwood 1980, x), although ecstasy often lacks the intense
transcendence of mysticism.
The work of William James was noted above. Egan (1982, 6) draws attention to
the very significant work of James especially as it relates to mysticism and religion:
Perhaps no book in this century has done more to render psychology benevolent to mysticism and religion than

William James’ classic on the psychology of religion, The Varieties of Religious Experience. This book has, in
fact, influenced to some extent almost every noteworthy contemporary study of mysticism.
On this advice, it would be wise to note the contribution of James. He especially
noted four marks of mystical experience: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and
passivity (James 1961, 299-300). “Ineffability”, conveys the idea that the experience
can never be conveyed by words, but must be experienced individually – also true of
the glossolalic experience. The “noetic quality” conveys the illumination or revelation
of the mystical experience – a supposed state of knowledge acquired through the
experience (and yet it is an exotic, even elitist experience that proffers individual
superiority) akin to glossolalia. “Transiency” draws attention to the fact that mystical
states cannot be sustained for extended periods – rarely more than half an hour
(compare the extended time frame of trance, noted above, and associated with
contemporary “Toronto Blessing” experiences). “Passivity” conveys the sense of being
surrendered to a “superior power” whilst the mystic’s will is in abeyance – a trait like
that of the glossolalist being God’s mouth-piece.
Whilst these marks may not be strikingly significant of themselves, they are
nevertheless confirmatory of the observations of glossolalic experience.
In spite of James’ significant contribution, Evelyn Underhill disagrees with his
four marks of mystical experience and instead gives five of her own (Egan 1982, 41).
Central to the mystic’s experience is “an overwhelming consciousness of God and of his
own soul” (Underhill 1920, 2) – that is, a living God Who is the primary interest of
consciousness, and of a personal self capable of communion with Him (3). The focal
point of true mysticism is the “perfect consummation of the Love of God” (Underhill
1955, 81). In spite of the merits of Underhill’s theses (compare Elwood, above), her
views are not part of the spectrum of mystical ideas that approximate to trance and
ecstasy and thus cause confusion in the perspective of glossolalia.
From the aspect of religious precursors, MacGregor (1947, 126) states that
“Mysticism in its widest sense has its origin in the raw material of all religion”.
Although this may be the most common approach, others like Zaehner, maintain that
there is a secular mysticism that can be obtained artificially by taking drugs, or that is
present naturally in the manic (1957, xiii). He clarifies this differentiation in the
following:
It must then follow that the vision of God of the mystical saint is "one and the same" as the hallucination of the
lunatic.
He thus indicates a secular experience that has similar factors in the religious
experience.
Nilsson (1964, 205) speaks of the ecstasy of the Dionysian worshippers,
motivating them to a desire for communion with the divine:

This is the literal meaning of the Greek word enthusiasm, the state in which god is in man. The rising tide of
religious feeling seeks to surmount the barrier which separates man from god, it strives to enter into the divine,
and it finds its ultimate satisfaction only in that quenching of the consciousness in enthusiasm which is the goal
of all mysticism. (Emphases mine).
Nilsson (1964, 206) continues with reference to the Dionysian ecstasy that is part
of their mystical experience. Ecstasy and mysticism are closely related in the context of
unintelligible utterance, which is often described as glossolalia.
It is these common factors that are of interest in this study. The experiences of the
Coast Salish dancers and the religious euphoria of the Shakers (and others) and perhaps
those in the “Toronto Blessing” have many factors in common, and study of these
aspects is important in differentiating a false glossolalic experience from a true
glossolalia. Some authors (like Hayford 1992, 26) reject any mystical (or trance-like)
trip beyond themselves.
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.
2.3.1 THE GREEK WORD

The Greek word is ἐκστασις. It means:
1 ... any casting down of a thing from its proper place or state; displacement,
2. a throwing of the mind out of its normal state, alienation of mind whether such as makes a lunatic ... or ...
rapt condition ...
3 ... amazement ... a state of blended fear and wonder ...
(Thayer 1979, 199)
Pfitzner (1966, 22) develops the Greek word from its two root words ἐκ (out
from) and στασις (to stand), deriving the meaning of a state in which one “stands outside”
of oneself. Hence “the ecstatic person is literally ‘beside himself’”.
Bagster (n.d., 147) defines it as:
... a displacement; hence, a displacement of the mind from its ordinary state and self-possession;
amazement, astonishment, ... excess of fear; fear, terror ... ecstasy, a trance ...
2.3.2 ENGLISH USAGE

The English usage reflects the Greek root (Morris 1973, 413):
1. A state of exalted delight in which normal understanding is felt to be surpassed ...
2. A state of any emotion so intense that rational thought and self-control are obliterated ...
3. The trance, frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation.
Worcester (1897, 463) adds the aspect of madness, as a possible expression of

the excessive enthusiasm, indicating that ecstasy denotes extraordinary emotion or
excessive mental excitement, and suggests that it is always pleasurable.
2.3.3 PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS

Added to the above technical definitions, are some particular definitions:
· Wilson (1980, 34f) says that ecstasy is a psycho-physiological state, having
different causes, and yet definite patterns in a given society, and is marked by
dissociation. He thus alludes to cultural expression patterns as significant.
· Dunn (1975, 84) states that ecstasy is:
an unusually exalted state of feeling, a condition of such total absorption or concentration that the individual
becomes oblivious to all attendant circumstances and other stimuli, an experience of intense rapture or a
trance-like state in which normal faculties are suspended for a shorter or longer period and the subject sees
visions or experiences ‘automatic speech’, as in some forms of glossolalia.
He clearly bridges from the mental condition to the experiential phenomena, in
particular, glossolalia, that he implies can be equated to "automatic speech".
· Andrews defines ecstaticism as:
Those religious phenomena in which the devotee is given to such conditions known to psychologists as trances,
hypnotic states, or extreme euphoria, followed or accompanied by external behaviour such as dancing,
shouting, whirling, jerking, prostration, and speaking with tongues, or glossolalia.
(Cited in Mills 1985a, 8).
Glossolalia is here closely associated with ecstasy, trance and hypnosis.

· Bourguignon (in Wilson 1979, 324) is quoted from the anthropologists’
perspective, in which they use the term ‘trance’ to indicate the behaviour associated
with ecstasy. This state is:
a psychological and physiological state, typically ‘marked by reduced sensitivity to stimuli, loss or alteration of
knowledge of what is happening, [and] substitution of automatic voluntary activity.’
(Cited in Callan 1985, 126)
Wilson (1979, 324) laments his observation, that “biblical scholars have been
somewhat imprecise in their use of the term ‘ecstasy’”, and hence he attempts to
emphasize the behavioural manifestations. These include loss of consciousness,
physiological collapse, obsessive or compulsive actions, garbled speech and visions.
Wilson focuses on the application to prophets and prophecy, but the definition relates to
the prophetic background of the phenomena on the Day of Pentecost, and the expression
of glossolalia in particular.
Smith (1973, 106) confirms the imprecision of definitions, but notes that ecstasy
always includes the concept of emotional excitation, and is usually involved in
discussion about tongues. In fact he goes further, to suggest that "all writers ... would
agree that ecstasy is sometimes or usually involved in tongues speech". Cutten (1927,
157) would concur, concluding that since the New Testament period, all tongues "may
be classed as ecstasy or allied phenomena". However, the charismatic Lutheran pastor,
Larry Christensen (1968, 24) strongly disagrees. He points out that the terms “ecstatic
utterance” or “tongues of ecstasy” are never used in the Bible to refer to a speaker who
is speaking in tongues. Further, there is nothing in the nature of speaking in tongues
which is per se ecstatic. The terms are misleading and not biblical.
The overall condition of ecstasy involves emotional exaltation in which the
subject:
(1) is more or less oblivious to the outside world,
(2) to some extent loses self-consciousness, and
(3) loses the power of rational thought and self-control.
In extreme cases, ecstasy may produce complete insensibility. For example,
anaesthesia of the skin is quite common.
Inge (1955, 158) speaks of a poor girl in Germany who persuaded her friends to
crucify her, and expressed only pleasure when nails were driven through her hands.
Isbell (1976, 62, quoting R.H. Robinson 1923, 31) refers to the insensibility to
pain, including violent slashing and cutting of one’s own body.
Angus (1925, 101) develops the idea of abnormal consciousness, pointing out that
there are two extremes of ecstasy. Not only is there the passive characteristic like a
trance, but also there is an exhilarating condition of release from the body, and active
“orgiastic character of excitation resembling what Plato calls ‘divine frenzy’”. It is this
active character that is often associated with glossolalia. It is because of this underlying
presupposition of the association of ecstasy and glossolalia, that most of our difficulties
have developed. Theological aberrations have arisen from presuppositions that have not
been differentiated from Greek cultural phenomena throughout the centuries, biblical
antecedents (the nature of the prophecy and prophets), and the prejudice of individual
experience that is purported to be proof of spirituality.
If frenzied experience (ecstasy) is a proof of spirituality or of a true spokesman
for God, then how can a truly spiritual person be differentiated from the prophets of
Baal (1 Kings 18) who induced a state of ecstasy through dancing, shouting and gashing
themselves (Pfitzner 1976, 22, 31)? Ecstasy is no proof per se of spirituality, nor by

extension is it proof of the authenticity or authority of any associated phenomena,
including glossolalia. Although there is no adequate or accurate definition of ecstasy
(Alden 1966, 155) there is sufficient agreement on the dissociation state and enthusiasm,
to identify it with glossolalia.
Our reaction to the enthusiastic aspect of ecstasy is largely determined by Western
culture. Western people generally feel uncomfortable in the presence of religious
ecstasy (MacGorman 1983, 119), although ecstasy in the football stadium seems to be
another matter. Corinthian antecedents are critical, as also is the prophetic ecstatic
antecedent, in determining the confusing element of the antecedents in understanding true
biblical glossolalia.
Ecstasy does not invalidate gifts or experience, it simply increases doubts
concerning authenticity and proliferates the possibility of counterfeit.
2.3.4 ASSOCIATION WITH TRANCE

Trance will be looked at more specifically in the next section, but for the moment
the assumed correlation of ecstasy with trance is noted. Callan (1985, 139) correlates
the two, but is evidently focussing on the passive character of ecstasy whereby there is
"reduced sensitivity to stimuli" accompanied by automatic activity, especially speaking.
Cutten (1927, 86) refers to a Mrs. Hardinge's designation of this type of person as a
"trance medium", whilst describing the activity of a person who in ecstasy appeared
dead, staring vacantly, but speaking constantly.
Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971, 358) defines ecstasy quite specifically as a "State
of trance ... ". Herschel (1962, 324) likewise defines ecstasy in terms of "a state of
trance".
David du Plessis (1963, 76) allows that ecstasy may approximate to trance, and
illustrates by reference to Paul's experience in the temple at Jerusalem (Acts 22:17).
It is the association with trance that opens the way for phenomena found in Bali,
Coast Salish, and other groups, that require an examination of a variety of phenomena
that are common in those groups as well as in charismatic/Pentecostal groups.
Examining a case study will help to deduce the source of true glossolalia, whilst
refuting false manifestations. The phenomena per se are no proof of authenticity, as
similar phenomena occur in a variety of secular (as well as religious) manifestations –
as an expression of ecstasy – but with no Christian foundation whatsoever.
2.3.5 ECSTASY: USUALLY AN INDUCED STATE

The general tenor of the definitions, that ecstasy is a state of dissociation with
automatic responses including tongue speech, implies that it is not a voluntary
condition. Rather, it is induced by a variety of phenomena.
The ecstasy of the Mystery Religions was in large part induced by abstinence
from food. Angus (1925, 25) comments that the purpose of the fasting was, “partly
through the weakening of the body to give the spirit the upper hand and induce the
pathological conditions for the ecstatic exaltation”. Taylor (1873, 410) asserts that
among “the strongest means of disturbing the functions of the mind so as to produce
ecstatic vision, is fasting accompanied as it so usually is with other privations …”.
Other factors included, “tense religious expectancy, whirling dances, physical stimuli,
the contemplation of the sacred objects, the effect of stirring music, inhalation of fumes,
revivalistic contagion (such as happened in the Church at Corinth), hallucination,
suggestion ...”(Angus 1925, 101).
The cult of Dionysos produced ecstasy by means of "orgiastic dances, loud cries,
and wild music" (Clemen 1931, 190). In addition, there was sexual intercourse, eating,
drinking and touching (191). Likewise, Nilsson (1953, 180,185) refers to "Bacchic
frenzy" and "dancing ecstatically" in Asia Minor during the Roman age. Rohde (cited in
Dunn 1975, 305) states that the purpose of the wild dances of the Dionysiac festivals
was to induce a state of frenzy. The picture is reminiscent of Israel at Mount Sinai, after
setting up the golden calf.
Cutten (1927, 157) notes that although some have acquired the ability to achieve a
state of ecstasy voluntarily, nevertheless it is associated with suggestion (auto-
suggestion) and the expectancy of that experience to be replicated. Further, that the
phenomenon seldom (if ever) occurs in solitude but usually in the extreme excitement of
revival experiences ("revivalistic contagion" – Angus 1925, 101). However, Calley
(1964, 54) speaks of ecstatic behaviour amongst the Bandjalang Aboriginal tribe in
Australia, as being a "solitary phenomenon". He never observed ecstatic experience
(equated with "baptism of the Spirit") and its attendant "talking with tongues" during a
service, but only when the person was alone or accompanied by two or three at the
most. One young man then induced the state of ecstasy by lying on the verandah, holding
his Bible tightly and "praising the Lord".
Cutten (1927, 157) also notes that the induced state is achieved by artificial
stimulation – as in the case of the Mystery Religions and many other groups, like the
Coast Salish Spirit Dancers (see later). Wilson (1980, 35) notes that the method of
induction usually follows definite patterns in a given society – that there is a
conditioning process. This author has noted occasions of quasi-ecstasy in worship
services induced by forty-five to sixty minutes of standing with arms raised and singing
lively choruses repetitiously (up tp 50 repetitions, often accompanied by or interspersed
with "dancing" and "whirling"). In a semi-hypnotic state the congregation quietly sits (at
the instigation of the leader) and with a dramatic mood change, quiet smooth choruses
are sung for ten to fifteen minutes before the congregation, again at the instigation of the
leader, stands with arms wafting and swaying. At the direction of the leader, the chorus
tapers off and at a signal to the musicians, they follow a crescendo of white music
whilst on the lead microphone he leads the congregation into a melodious trill that
assumes a harmony of individual monotones accompanied by muttering (purportedly
glossolalia). The crescendo is accompanied by a transformation as the wafting arms
assume a more clenched-fist tension, veins stand out on the neck, beads of perspiration
on the foreheads, and there is a desperate attempt to achieve “glossolalia”. At the
direction of the leader, the musicians taper off to a low hum to release the tension, and
again at a signal from the leader, a further crescendo is built as musicians and lead
microphone take the congregation into a further stage of trance-like ecstasy. This sine-
curve of rise and fall is repeated numerous times depending on the leader, the location,
and the time available (cf. multiple climax, Butler 1985, 10).
This manipulation is voluntary in the sense of the concurrence and expectancy of
the participants, but it is involuntary in that stimulation is from outside the individual
person, and they become swept along in the euphoria of the "revivalistic contagion".
Smith (1973, 106) claims that if the ecstasy involves involuntary behaviour, it is
rarely applicable to tongues. That may be true of individual expressions of voluntary
physical utterance that apparently is the experience of many persons "in private".
However, most common in the late twentieth century, is the group phenomenon
described above. Further, out of the above group phenomenon in which there is
simultaneous "speaking in tongues"/"praying in tongues"/"singing in tongues" in which
there is no interpretation, there usually follows a period in which one individual,
followed by others, sings or speaks purportedly in a language. Often this "tongue" is not
interpreted. The fact that this state of ecstasy is induced, leading to involuntary
behaviour, is contrary to the guidelines of 1 Corinthians 14, where verses 27-28 require
strict control, individual speaking, and the pre-requisite of an interpreter, without which
no utterance should be made.
The guidelines of 1 Corinthians 14 having been flaunted, there is no check
on phenomenon like the "Toronto Blessing" with no biblical precedent, no biblical
guidelines, and no objective assessment of the phenomenon. (Beverley 1995, Boulton
1995, Chevreau 1994, Roberts 1994).
2.3.6 CONSEQUENCES AND CHARACTERISTICS

A. A PRECURSOR TO GLOSSOLALIA
In respect to glossolalia, ecstasy appears to be a precursor to the experience,
inducing a state of "extreme excitement" (Cutten 1929, 157). In fact, since the New
Testament times, glossolalia may be classed as ecstasy (Cutten 1929, 157). Smith
(1973, 106) adds, that ecstasy often appears in discussions about tongues and includes
the concept of emotional excitation. Dunn (1975, 84) speaks of an exalted state or an
"experience of intense rapture" that often results in some forms of glossolalia.
B. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRECURSORS

In the Assyrian cuneiform texts, Albright (1940, 131) notes that ecstatic priests in
a state of frenzy uttered words that needed to be interpreted. Old Testament prophets
were regarded as ecstatics and fanatics (R.B. Taylor cited in Alden 1966, 152).
Hengstenberg (cited by Alden 1966, 153) states categorically that:
After all has been adduced, it will be impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that it was in e'kstasi~
that the biblical prophets prophesied, as well as the heathen seers.
Likewise, Mowinckel (1934, 214) speaks emphatically that we "know" that the
prophets experienced ecstasy, and that they spoke "in a state of mental high tension".
Devotees of Greek Mystery Religions frequently, not only experienced, but also
promoted ecstatic behaviour. Socrates speaks of four types of "divine madness":
prophetic madness (Apollo), ritual madness (Dionysus), poetic madness (Muses), and
erotic madness (Aphrodite and Eros) (Dunn 1975, 304). Plato spoke of the frequent
outcome of ecstasy not simply in "madness" but in the case of the Pythia at Delphi, that
Pythia was possessed by the god who took control of Pythia's vocal chords and spoke
through her (Dunn 1975, 228, 305).
Zaehner (1957, 25) understands that Paul's approach in 1 Corinthians, is to rebut
their appeal to Bacchic orgiastic experience as if the observation of particular rites ipso
facto constituted direct contact with the divine, and consequently the god spoke through
them. Cutten (1927, 158) notes that the ecstatic under emotional pressure, accompanied
by "extravagant bodily movements" makes "impassioned utterances".
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

in religious ecstasy’ …” (Gundry 1966, 299). Even conservative authors have adopted
the assumption of ecstatic identity for glossolalia. For example, Kroeger (1978, 7)
states: “In 1 Corinthians it is clear that the gift of ecstatic language is a gift of the Holy
Spirit (12:10)”. Frenzy (called "divine frenzy" by Plato) is of an "active orgiastic
character", whilst trance is of a passive character, according to Angus (1925, 101).
Certainly these are the two extremes this author has observed as accompanying
glossolalic expression.
D. CONTINUING CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE

During the 1990's, the correlation between ecstasy and religious experience has
taken a more bizarre twist. A variety of physical and emotional manifestations have
been experienced –
uncontrollable laughter, "drunkenness" in the Spirit, intense weeping, falling to the floor, physical convulsions or
"jerks", pogoing and bouncing, shouting and roaring, visions, prophetic words and announcements.
(Chevreau 1994, 27)
Increasingly, in books relating to what has become known as the "Toronto
Blessing", or on a broader scale, books relating to "Signs and Wonders", ecstatic
experience and emotional manifestation have become ipso facto synonymous with
Christian biblical experience. And there is a decreasing attempt to validate the
experiences biblically, so much as to assume or claim their validation due to the
circumstances in which they occur, or because of the character of the person who
manifests it. John White, in his book, When the Spirit Comes With Power, spends much
time relating anecdotal material that describes things that happened, including his own
experience, without attempting to give biblical rationalization. On one occasion (White
1988, 87-8) he says:
I began to express worship ... Then suddenly I saw in front of me a column of flame of about two feet in width
... 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 ...
And for all his intellectual ability, academic objectivity and psychiatric training,
White makes no attempt to give biblical validation to a purely subjective experience.
He was not aware whether others in the room knew of his experience or not, he did not
ask and they did not comment. How can White conclude that he had some "infallible
kind of knowing" that he was "in the presence of the God of holiness"? That is a truism.
Because of God's very nature we are all (and always) in the presence of the God of
holiness (and all His other attributes). Why is there this popular attempt to elevate
personal (and private) unsubstantiated experience to some unquestioned level of
"correctness"?
E. EXTENSION TO TRANCE
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).
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.
F. UNION WITH THE DEITY

Not only does ecstasy dissociate the soul from the body, and release the mind
from rational thought and self-control, but it leads to a positive communion with the
deity (Rohde cited in Angus 1925, 101), or as a "union with all that is" (Ellwood 1980,
x) – a type of pantheistic coalescence. Specifically, the soul departs from the body and
becomes united with the deity (Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971, 358). The ecstatic is out of
himself while united with the deity (Bergsma 1965, 8). As the goal of ecstasy, the
devotee becomes "incorporate in" God (Angus 1925, 102). The positive communion
with deity becomes identity: "I am thou and thou art I" (Angus 1925, 102).
This union with the deity is common to devotees of all religions exhibiting
ecstatic phenomena like jerks, trance, and tongues-speech (Martin, 1960, 99). In Bali,
Jane Belo (1960, 2) speaks of "the gods' utterance" associated with trance experience,
resulting in the practitioners becoming a specific god's representative. In Palau, the
medium uses possession trance to speak in the voice of the god, although the experience
reflects local idiosyncrasies (prepares with betel mixture, answers in the vernacular,
expresses the answer with impatience because “I am very busy up here [in ‘heaven’
where gods live]”, and speaks in opposites to the enquirer’s question) (Leonard 1973,
154, 156). In Egypt, a worshipper of the god Amon became possessed by a god (and
spoke in ecstatic language) (Butler 1985, 16). Zaehner (1957, 32), from a mystical

perspective (which is associated with ecstasy - see above), claims a unitive experience
with God which results in the Christian being a "temple of the Holy Ghost". Likewise,
the Old Testament prophet was regarded as experiencing frenzy which not only
dissolved normal consciousness, but caused an "endowment with higher powers"
(Eichrodt 1961, 312) - God's representative.
Also common to these religions, is the idea that the devotee, being united with the
deity, became controlled by the deity. It was understood in the Mystery Religions that
the god took possession of the Pythia's vocal organs and spoke through her, and that
similarly, in Dionysiac festivals the devotees were possessed by the god and were
completely in his power (Dunn 1975, 305). Likewise, others thought of God's Spirit as
simply taking over a man and causing him to speak like a musician uses an instrument,
or as Montanus stated, "... a man is like a lyre, and I [God] strike like the plectron ..."
(Currie 1965, 288f).
Hence, the final expression of ecstasy could be attributed to the god, who was
controlling the person. Thus the person accused of being "out of your mind" (1
Corinthians 14:23) may claim to be making an expression that issues from God's
control. According to Dunn (1975, 305) the parallel between such ecstatic behaviour
and "madness" cannot be ignored, but again, it is the confusing element to true
expressions from God.
The ultimate expression of being possessed by the deity is oracular utterance, and
hence glossolalia.
G. THE ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE

Issuing from the state of ecstasy, and/or the associated states of mysticism or
trance, is the climactic experience of not only union with the deity, but of the verbal
"evidence" of that union - proof of initiation - in contrast to the lack of experience of the
novice or uninitiated. Here was the undeniable evidence of reaching the pinnacle of all
experiences, being acceptable to, indwelt by, and now the mouth-piece of, the god.
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
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)

states categorically that Paul never mentions the church (or anyone) receiving a message
in tongues (even with interpretation), but that all tongues to Paul was prayer addressed
to God, and never a message to men. If that is so, why is there a gift of interpretation?
Down through history there are examples, intermittently, of purported
glossolalists, most commonly in a state of ecstasy and claiming that God, the Holy
Spirit, is speaking through them. There are examples of expression of unknown tongues
in ecstasy all over the world (Koch n.d., 108). Smith (1973, 106) believes that probably
all writers would agree that ecstasy is "sometimes or usually" involved in tongues.
Cutten (1927, 157) does not doubt that speaking in tongues is usually associated with
extreme excitement (ecstasy), and further noting (159) that this emotional element results
in a higher proportion of women being involved. He does not make direct reference to
God, as he sees ecstasy as artificially stimulated on the one hand, but also explicable as
hysteria or catalepsy on the other (159).
More specifically, White (1988, 101) believes that the Holy Spirit is the author of
recognizable language today, like the experience of Pentecost.
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)

Addressing the issue of prophecy, Callan (1985, 139) concludes that this message
from God was not accompanied by trance, and that in particular, Paul did not regard the
conveying of God's message as an ecstatic experience. Further, if there was a loss of
self-control, or an unconscious state as a pre-requisite for god-inspired utterance, it
would not be possible to follow the criteria of 1 Corinthians 14: 27-40, and to limit
numbers, check if there was first an interpreter present, and so on.
Kelsey (1968, 145) reports an article in the American Anthropologist that
supports the secular ideas that:
both the ecstatic speech of the shaman and the speech of his people during hysterical frenzy, are essentially
comparable to Christian tongues
but against that, one must allow that emotionalism is not an essential part of glossolalia.
He states that the main Pentecostal position at that time (1968) was of glossolalia free
of emotion.
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.
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)

notes these two major methods:
First, the spirit may possess the intermediary. In this case the spirit physically enters the human body and takes
control of the host’s speech and physical actions. Second, the spirit or soul of the human may leave its body
and travel to the world of the spirits.
During this time of communication, the type of behaviour of the recipient is

described as trance (instead of the word "ecstasy"), defined by Bourguignon as a
psychological and physiological state, typically "marked by reduced sensitivity to
stimuli, loss or alteration of knowledge of what is happening (and) substitution of
automatic for voluntary activity" (cited in Wilson 1979, 324).
Callan (1985, 126) believes that in the New Testament, prophets received
communication by spirit possession. That is of special importance, due to prophecy
being practiced by Pentecostal and charismatic Christians; and because Paul compares
prophecy with speaking in tongues, the concept of trance is important for understanding
speaking in tongues. Callan maintains that in fact trance is not essential to speaking in
tongues or prophecy (1985, 138) and that Montanism is an example of a change from the
true position of the church – prophecy without trance – to prophecy with trance (139).
Cutten (1927, 86) correlates ecstasy and trance as the basis for the abnormal state
for the many examples of speaking with tongues that he advances, and in that state,
"certain mental powers are exalted" which enable this particular expression of
glossolalia.
Following the definition from Philo, Angus (1925, 101) allows that trance may be
of a passive form of ecstasy, as opposed to "an active orgiastic character of excitation"
that correlates to Plato's "frantic delirium". It is therefore evident, that many cultural
cases of manifestation of verbal utterance may be inadvertently ignored, if there is no
acknowledgement of the strong correlation, especially by anthropologists, between
trance and ecstasy. Because the terms are used almost interchangeably, trance opens up
much cultural background to the confusing element of ecstasy (trance) for glossolalia.
2.4.3 ACHIEVING TRANCE.

In a similar way to ecstasy, trance can be induced by auto-suggestion or
consenting to artificial stimulation. In the Samburu tribe, trance is induced by drumming
and dancing until collapse is achieved at which stage the participant is able to be
indoctrinated to respond to the beliefs of the tribe (Sargant 1975, 114-116).
Auto-suggestion can be accompanied by hyperventilation (although that is
disputed) resulting in several stages of increased excitement with well-defined
possession-trance phenomena leading to a state of dissociation (states of altered
consciousness) accompanied by a variety of verbal utterances (Henney 1973, 219, 233-
239). Usually this expression, on the island of St. Vincent, was perpetuated as “the

refuge it offers its adherents from the reality of, and psychic injury from, socio-
economic deprivation” (219). Goodman (1971, 77) also relates verbal utterance to
altered states of consciousness (trance) – see below.
A different method to induce trance, is repeated sexual orgasm until collapse, or
heightened arousal (carezzo). Sargant (1975, 87-90) has discovered this method is used
to heighten the sense of the presence of God. Likewise Tantrism in India, used sexual
intercourse to strengthen feelings of possession by divine or demonic powers, or "to
enable the worshipper to unite himself with demons and deities" (90). Possession is the
prerequisite for verbal expression.
Sometimes the phases worked in reverse with "suggestibility, trance and
collapse" resulting in amenability to sexual intercourse, and patronage of the local
brothel (Sargant 1975, 187). This all raises a cloud over the validity of the source of the
experience attained, as to its true spirituality, and therefore raises questions over the
fruit produced.
Alland (1962, 209) suggests that trance is a form of hypnosis, and that some
people find it easier than others to have trance (210). This hypnosis, which Alland calls
trance, is a form of auto-hypnosis through a learning process (213). It commences with a
copy-cat process whereby novices are initiated into their first trance experience through
the example of experienced trancers infecting new seekers (208). The first trance can be
the most difficult, but a process of controlled auto-suggestion can achieve the desired
result. Additionally, even in the trance state, the candidate can exercise control, or be
taught to exercise control (e.g. the Bushmen in Lee 1968, 41-2). This raises the question
of the authenticity of the trance. Ludwig (1968, 76) refers to “ritualised social forms of
trance”, appropriate for different occasions, demonstrating subjective control of trance.
He notes that this is true of revivalistic religious groups, which demonstrate Holy Spirit
possession and hence a variety of manifestations. Enoch Coppin (n.d., 11) believes that
hypnotism is satanic and should have no place for the Christian. The same principle is
applied to speaking in tongues (12). Against Coppin’s strong assertion of satanic
association with hypnotism, is Van Der Walde’s (1968, 60) careful study of ego
psychology. Rather than satanic, he concludes that hypnosis is more a frame of mind than
an independent state of consciousness. He notes that all trance states, including
hypnosis, have underlying ego mechanisms (59), allowing subjective response to
situational demands (61). Consequently, it is the subject, and not the hypnotist, who
prescribes the criteria and outcome of the hypnosis, irrespective of the input of the
hypnotist.
Gooch (1979, 96) addresses the issue of trance and hypnosis from a different
perspective. Using the definition that “trance-work” is a process by which “information
is converted into experience”, he deduces that dreams are such a case of “experiencing”
(in the dream) certain expectations (information). More specifically, hypnotism is a case
of the subject experiencing the information provided by the hypnotist. Likewise, in the
religious area, the information/expectancies of a charismatic-type leader can be
converted into experience for the subject. Often this is in the form of supposed
glossolalic utterance – the fulfilment of an expectancy – even if there is no
authentication.
A variation of hypnotism and trance in different cultural expression is
"somnambulism". This was the old term for "hypnotic trance" (Sargant 1975, 27). The
difference between possessed states and somnambulistic states, is that somnambulism
"leaves no memory on return to the normal" (Oesterreich 1930, 39). Sargant (1975, 34)
states that a person in "a somnambulistic ... or hypnoid trance" can act quite rationally
but later has no memory of the events in "the amnesic state". Verbal utterance in such a
condition cannot be construed ipso facto as being glossolalia, or anything remotely
resembling it.
As in hypnotism, auto-suggestion is very significant in some “Christian”
experiences, and this is particularly evident in producing the phenomenon of "slaying in
the Spirit". Ezra Copping (1976, 84, 92) correlates trance with this phenomenon,
referring to "(Grover) passed into a deep trance as he was ‘slain in the Spirit’", and
"Emmitt was ‘slain in the Spirit’ and was ... in a spiritual trance ...". Again, there is no
clear evidence to construe trance, whether auto-suggested, hypnotic, somnambulistic or
otherwise, with spirit possession, "spiritual trance" or Baptism in the Spirit.
2.4.4 TRANCE AND GREEK CULTURE.

One of Philo's definitions of trance (1993, 297) refers to it as "sort of frantic
delirium ...", a phenomenon very common in the Greek Mystery Religions. It is in a state
of trance that the prophet spoke as the medium of an oracle (Callan 1985, 139)
translating what became known as speaking in tongues. This is the immediate
background to Corinthian Glossolalia, and serves to explain some of the misconceptions
derived from the Corinthian practice.
2.4.5 TRANCE AND GLOSSOLALIA.

Tongues has been associated with trance in a variety of contexts.
Kelsey (1968, 146) refers to a correlation between tongues and spiritistic trance,
in which the individual is the vehicle through whom a spirit speaks. The French
Camisards exercised their "gift of tongues" whilst the speaker was in a trance (Butler
1985, 32). A range of tribal groups express glossolalia as a result of induced trance
states. For example, Gussler (1973) refers to the Intongo (99), Awandawu, Amandiki,
and Izizwe (103) groups each manifesting speaking in tongues (and other expressions)
as a result of possession through trance. Likewise, spirit possession in Haiti by the loa,

results in trance producing glossolalia and other phenomena (Kiev 1968, 144). Even
possession trance in Catholic (and Protestant Churches) is significant, with Catholic
liturgy noting that one of the symptoms of possession is the knowledge of a language not
previously known (Koch 1970, 61).
Meyer (1975, 135) defines glossolalia as an expression of "spontaneous and free-
flowing vocal sounds" uttered by a person who is in prayer or "in some uncommon
psychological state that may resemble a trance" (this latter, citing Kelsey in Meyer
1975, 135).
Felicitas Goodman, a linguistic specialist, in a number of carefully researched
studies, concludes that glossolalia is not a linguistic phenomenon but “an artefact of an
altered state of consciousness usually termed trance” (1971, 77). Studies in several
cultural groups confirm that tongues-speakers behave differently from ordinary-language
speakers (79). The pivotal difference is found in the ability to “switchover” to trance,
an ability imitated, anticipated and expected in the congregation (79). In a subsequent
article, Goodman (1972a, 297) points out that this state of trance is not a theory but an
observed fact. It must be questioned whether this observed fact obtains on all
occurrences of glossolalia. However, she affirms her definition (1973, 185) that
glossolalia is “an act of vocalization in trance”.
By contrast, Samarin (1972d) states categorically that glossolalia is a normal
phenomenon and inter alia has nothing to do with trance (Hollenweger 1976, 231).
Against this background of trance and glossolalic expression, is the Apostle
Paul's experience in Acts 22:17 of falling into a trance as he was praying in the temple,
and Peter's experience in Acts 11:5, of praying and then seeing a vision in a trance,
which du Plessis (1963, 76) equates with speaking (praying) in tongues.
It becomes evident that many researchers indicate that glossolalia does not stand
as a phenomenon specifically related to God as a unique expression, but is claimed to
be an expression of trance (and mystical and ecstatic) experience in a variety of
contexts. In particular, it is frequently claimed that trance (or an equivalent) is a
precursor to the glossolalic expression. However, there are correctives to this.
2.4.6 CORRECTIVE FOR AUTHENTIC GLOSSOLALIA.

Against the background of assumed association of trance and glossolalia, Callan
(1985) examines 1 Corinthians 14 (which compares prophecy and glossolalia) and
looks at prophecy and trance in the context of the Greeks and Hellenistic Jews (139).
He concludes that prophecy, the study of which he believes illuminates speaking in
tongues (126), is not ecstatic, "i.e., not accompanied by trance". He further examines
works by Eusebius, and concludes that prophecy for the early Christians, was not
accompanied by trance (139). By extension, glossolalia is not accompanied by trance.
In a more specific way, Kelsey (1968) states that speaking in tongues is "not a
frenzy" (141), since it can usually be controlled, nor is it done in a state of trance (142)
– loss of consciousness. Trance is not a necessary part of the experience. Further, the
persistent correlation of tongues with violent religious emotionalism should be resisted
(143) because tongues can occur in quiet surroundings, as well as in a highly charged
atmosphere (145).
This latter point, that glossolalia (referred to as "spiritual language" by Hayford)
is not the product of trance, is supported by Pentecostal pastor, Jack Hayford (1992,
26):
The exercise of spiritual language does involve a conscious choice to allow God's assistance to transcend our
own linguistic limits, but it does not surrender to any order of a mystical, trance-like trip beyond oneself.
(Emphasis his).
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.
2.5.1 CLOSE CORRELATION, PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA

The verbal phenomenon on the Day of Pentecost was identified by the Apostle
Peter as fulfilment of prophecy, as he was explaining the phenomenon by reference to
the book of Joel, which called it prophesying (Robertson 1973, 3). Blaney (1973, 52)
confirms this correlation: "Peter's Pentecost sermon ... equated the speaking in tongues
with prophecy ...".
At Ephesus, "When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them,
and they spoke in tongues and prophesied" (Acts 19:7), prophecy and glossolalia are
correlated.
In 1 Corinthians 14:12-13, Paul says:
So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. For
this reason the man who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says.
Robeck (1975, 44f) commenting on this says, "it would appear that a gift of
prophecy has approximately equivalent value to tongues, if the tongues are interpreted".
Irenaeus also adds, that concerning "prophetic gifts", there is no necessary
distinction from speaking in languages (understood as foreign languages) provided the
utterance is made available "for the general benefit" (cited in Robinson 1973, 6).
Plato identified two types of prophecy, in particular, one being the “prophecy of
inspiration”, where the prophet gave a divine utterance (Dunn 1975, 228), somewhat
similar to glossolalia.
Using the criterion of revelation, Robertson (1993) argues that prophecy is the
telling forth of already existing revelation (8) and that glossolalia is speaking "as an
instrument of revelation" that requires translation (27). He then concludes from 1
Corinthians 14:4-5 that "tongues interpreted are equivalent to prophecy" (27).
Addressing the matter of intelligibility, Dunn (1972, 15) correlates tongues in
Acts as intelligible speech which is "linked with prophecy ... usually thought of as
intelligible speech". Blaney (1973, 52) likewise concludes that glossolalia is
intelligible as a result of correlating it with prophecy in Acts.
Friedrich (1964, 851) states that prophecy and glossolalia have much in common
because they are both special works of the Spirit.
It is thus a common perception that prophecy and glossolalia, have a close
association in Acts and 1 Corinthians, and with some qualification, they are equal. Later
it will be shown that this claim is faulty. Further, if the sum total of interpreted
glossolalia is as paltry as Bergsma indicates (1965, 13) then it is an indictment on
prophecy if there is indeed a close correlation.
2.5.2 DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA

Notwithstanding what has been said in the previous section, it is precisely on the
matter of intelligibility that Dunn (1972, 16) makes a distinction. He notes that in 1
Corinthians 14:2-4 Paul explicitly contrasts glossolalia (as a phenomenon that "no one
understands") with prophecy that is spoken to men and edifies the church.
A further distinction is made on the issue of method. Paul prizes prophecy as
"speaking with the mind" using rational discernment, whereas glossolalia is a non-
rational utterance (Dunn 1975, 228). Hence, only glossolalia is described as madness (1
Cor. 14:23f). Prophecy is inspired utterance, but unlike glossolalia (as Dunn sees it) it
is not ecstatic inspiration (Dunn 1975, 228).
2.5.3 PROPHECY RELATED TO ECSTASY

It has been previously shown that glossolalia is related to ecstasy, and that ecstasy
is often regarded as a pre-requisite for glossolalia. Similarly, it has been the common
view that ecstasy is a prerequisite for prophecy.
Friedrich (1964, 851) admits the difficulty of distinguishing between ecstasy ...
and prophetic revelation". Nevertheless he admits that Paul is never "out of the world"
although he received revelations.
A. OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY

Albright (1940,131) establishes the cultural background of "prophetism",
indicating the earliest illustration from the report of “Wen-Amun” (eleventh century BC)
and the latest, an example in the library of Asshurbanapli at Ninevah (seventh century
BC). Albright notes the actions of an ecstatic priest in a state of frenzy producing
oracles. Subsequently, a range of Assyrian men and women (in fact, mostly women)
recited poetic oracles (131).
Parallel to this early prophetic development, Albright (132) sees an ecstatic
phase of the Old Testament prophetic movement in the eleventh century, in which
bystanders were expected to "fall an easy prey to its infectious excitement". Likewise
there was a later shift, 850-750 BC, from ecstatic prophecy to "rhapsodic prophecy".
More precisely, there was a move from a purely ecstatic phenomenon to poems that
were "finished literary masterpieces" which required that the prophet was fully
conscious whilst writing.
Unlike the Moslem dervishes, the Hebrew prophets did not require esoteric
teachings (Albright 1940,133) although some prophets were divines, and some of their
activity resembled that of dervish groups (134).
Certainly Albright believes that by the seventh century, ecstaticism no longer
played a significant role for the prophets (134).
Although the issue of ecstaticism will be discussed more carefully later, suffice it
to say that Albright's position is not uncommon, and highlights the alleged correlation
between ecstasy and prophecy, and by extension, to glossolalia. This being the case, the
confusing element of ecstasy in understanding true glossolalia, is compounded by the
correlation with prophecy and parallel cultural phenomena.
B. FIRST CENTURY CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Against the background of Noah, Isaac, Jacob and Abraham, Philo (1993, 298-9)
develops his theory that "a prophet says nothing of his own, but everything which he
says is strange and pre-empted by someone else". The prophet is "a sounding instrument
of God's voice", and when a person is possessed by an external influence there

develops a
trance, which proceeds from inspiration, takes violent hold of us, and madness seizes upon us ... for the mind
that is in us is removed from its place at the arrival of the divine Spirit, but is again restored to its previous
habitation when that Spirit departs ... the setting of our reason, and the darkness which surrounds it, causes a
trance and a heaven-inflicted madness (299).
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.
2.5.4 PURPOSE OF PROPHECY, COMPARED TO GLOSSOLALIA

Paul clearly states that "everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their
strengthening, encouragement and comfort" and "prophecy in turn so that everyone may
be instructed and encouraged" (1 Cor. 14:3,31). Prophecy is for edification, and it is
relevant in the context of the church. However, the purpose of prophecy is not greatly
different from tongues interpreted. In fact, Robeck (1975, 44f) says that the two are
approximately equal. Both can lead to edification. By contrast, Dunn (1975, 232) says
that "glossolalia in itself is of no value whatever in the assembly". That statement is
true, with or without interpretation.
Secondly, since prophecy (unlike glossolalia) is in the language of the hearers, it
can also have an evangelistic thrust to it (Robeck 1975b, 44). This is because it
involves proclamation (Friedrich 1964, 854), and since prophecy is not addressed
solely to Christians it has "missionary [evangelistic] significance". Dunn (1975, 232)
says that "prophecy lays bare the secrets of the unbeliever's heart".
Negatively, prophecy is not teaching or preaching (Robeck 1975b, 42), although it
obtains in the congregation (Robeck 1975b, 39). Prophets are pneumatics, receiving
their message directly from the spirit, but teachers and preachers are not directly
pneumatics (Robeck 1975b, 42). Glossolalists are also supposedly pneumatics.
Thirdly, prophecy provides a personal corrective. It brings conviction, humbling
and commitment, and "prevents a man from being other than he is" (Dunn 1975, 232). By
contrast to glossolalia (which draws attention to the speaker), prophecy makes the
hearer only conscious of God (Dunn 1975, 232).
2.5.5 COMPARISON WITH OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY

Against the background of supposed ecstatic prophetic phenomena of the Old
Testament, the correlation (if any) with the New Testament prophecy is quite significant
insofar that New Testament prophecy is related to glossolalia.
The most obvious connection to Old Testament prophecy is through the prophet
Joel, and Peter's quote from him in the sermon at Pentecost. Robertson (1993, 11) points
out that Joel uses the identical term for prophecy that is used throughout the Old
Testament; and that the New Testament indicates the fulfilment of this prophecy (12).
Robinson (1973, 4) concurs with this conclusion, drawing attention to the emphasis of
"magnifying God" through the fulfilment of the prophecy, as well as referring to the
quotation from Joel. Paul's usage of prophecy continues the same idea of "prophet" as in
the Old Testament (14), and Peter also indicates that "there is no exception to this
phenomenon as it relates to prophecy" (15).
With particular reference to prophetic revelation, Dunn (1975, 228) believes that
Paul stands "wholly within the (Hebraic) tradition".
Friedrich (1964, 849) notes a number of similarities between prophecy in both
Testaments, including the use of symbolical action (Agabus) and the vision of prophetic
calling (Book of Revelation).
Chantry (1976, 22) states emphatically: "Regardless of the language used,
speaking in tongues is a form of prophecy". He identifies Saul's utterance in 1 Samuel
10:12 as ecstatic speech, thus identifying Saul with the prophets. However, there is a
distinction between prophecy and glossolalia, in that prophecy was in a language
understood by the hearers.

In spite of this distinction, Irenaeus noted that even in his day glossolalists made
the content of their utterances available "for the general benefit", and thus eliminated
any distinction from the "prophetic gifts" (Robinson 1973, 6).
Generally New Testament prophecy is seen as an extension of Old Testament
prophecy, and that both are revelational, but do not necessarily have an ecstatic element.
Equally, it is not proven that glossolalia has an ecstatic element, although it certainly
needs interpretation.
Finally, it should be noted that prophecy is not essentially predictive, foretelling,
but the forth-telling of a revelation from God (Dunn 1975, 230; Robertson 1993, 4).
However, that revelation does not have to be unique new revelation (compare
Robertson 1993, 4) but can be inspirational revelation (compare Dunn 1975, 228).
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"
(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,

these men were not under denominational control, and whilst "healers", they were in the
broader sense, evangelists, introducing many mainline Protestants to the doctrine of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit in the Pentecostal mode.
The movement emerged with the formation of Pentecostal prayer groups in
traditional Protestant and Roman Catholic churches in the early 1950's (Bradfield 1979,
4) emerging more clearly in about 1955, especially in Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Lutheran and Roman Catholic churches, that is, those "fartherest removed from
Pentecostalism historically, doctrinally, and liturgically" (Bradfield 1979, 1).
This new Pentecostal movement became known as neo-Pentecostalism. Bruner
(1970, 53) identifies the Full Gospel Business Men's Fellowship International as the
coordinating organ that gave a sense of cohesiveness and identity to the new movement,
from its first national convention in Los Angeles in 1953 (Hocken 1988, 130).
Others identify 1960 as the real commencing date, deriving from St. Mark's
Episcopal Church in Van Nuys, California (The Charismatic Movement 1975, 5;
Bradfield 1979, 5) under the ministry of Dennis Bennett (Hocken 1988, 130).
During this period (the 1950's and following), David J. du Plessis had a
particular ministry to traditional churches through the World Council of Churches,
introducing them to charismatic renewal through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (sic)
(Hocken 1988, 131).
This latter designation, "charismatic renewal", was part of a continuum from
Pentecostal at one end, to the ultra-fundamentalist at the other. The neo Pentecostal name
increasingly assumed the name "charismatic" (Bruner 1970, 52) as a next step in the
direction of charismatic renewal, changing the movement from a sectarian-type group
(Pentecostal) through an inclusive element in traditional churches (neo-Pentecostal)
through a more general term to describe a broad biblically focused emphasis
(charismatic) to an almost inclusive trend across all denominations (charismatic
renewal, or more recently, just "renewal"). This progression has allowed (what was
initially) an unacceptable extreme, to make subtle inroads into denominational
institutionalism.
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,
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
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.
2.6.3 CHARISMATIC MOVEMENT

Bruner (1970, 52), in speaking of the neo-Pentecostals, commented that the "Neo-
Pentecostal movement appears gradually and increasingly to be assuming the name
‘charismatic’". The word ‘charismatic’ is both popular and biblical, but without the
"associations of emotional excitement and sometimes even frenzy" associated with the
traditional Pentecostal movement (52). Bruner (1970, 53), in 1953, expected to find the
term "charismatic renewal" or "revival" become very common. He was quite right. And
in fact the general term has often become ‘renewal’ to obviate any stigma associated
with connections to the earlier Pentecostal extremes. Packer (1984, 170) notes that the
movement prefers the name, "charismatic renewal".
In many quarters, “charismatic” is still used interchangeably with “neo-
Pentecostal” (The Charismatic Movement 1975, 5), but in that connection it still has the
expectancy of baptism in the Holy Spirit, with an almost universal expectancy of the
evidence of speaking in tongues.
Pfitzner (1976, 10) notes a movement towards the use of "charismatic" in a more
general sense, reflecting primarily an emphasis on spiritual gifts. In this sense it can
include Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals, or indeed, anyone who accepts the
contemporary validity and availability of the spiritual gifts.
Consequently, "charismatic" (or "charismatic renewal") becomes a more
acceptable term ecumenically, and likewise the term "renewal" is used widely even in
Roman Catholic and Orthodox religions.
To be accurate, the biblical concept of the charismatic is prior to the grace
(charis) in the gifts, it is actually the nature of the recipient of God's grace in salvation
(Romans 6:23, etc.). In this sense all Christians are true charismatics (The Charismatic
Movement 1975, 5).
According to Dunn (1975, 87), Jesus is a charismatic in the sense of manifesting a
power and authority not His own.
Thus the term charismatic has a wider and more biblical use than neo-Pentecostal,
and does not necessarily have the assumed experience of baptism of the Holy Spirit or
speaking in tongues. Nevertheless, the move towards the term "renewal" has again
kindled a swing back towards the more emotional extremes previously experienced in
the continuum from Pentecostal to neo-Pentecostal to charismatic to renewal.
This has provided an almost universal seedbed for wide acceptance of tongues
speaking and quasi-spiritual gift manifestations (word of wisdom, word of knowledge),
that impacts greatly on the unquestioning acceptability of tongues experience that
undermines the biblical criteria for true glossolalia.
2.6.4 THIRD WAVE

Peter Wagner (1986, 13) coined this term as an extension from the Pentecostal
movement (first wave) and the charismatic movement (neo-Pentecostal, second wave).
He used the term because he found various churches and institutions which did not want
to be counted as Pentecostal or charismatic. He says,
The Third Wave is a new moving of the Holy Spirit among evangelicals who, for one reason or another, have
chosen not to identify with either the Pentecostals or the charismatics. Its roots go back a little further, but I
see it as mainly a movement beginning in the 1980s and gathering momentum through the closing years of the
twentieth century … I see the Third Wave as distinct from, but at the same time very similar to the first and
second waves.
(Cited in MacArthur 1992, 129).
Greig and Springer (1993, 21) add that third wave proponents generally
understand the baptism of the Spirit, not as a second blessing, but as part of conversion.
Marty (cited in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 224) made a differentiation between two
types of “newer charismatics”. There were “hard” charismatics, somewhat similar to
traditional Pentecostals, who saw speaking in tongues as “an absolute necessity or as
integral to the experience of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit”. In addition, there were
“soft” charismatics who did not take a hard line with regard to the necessity of speaking
in tongues, more akin to the “third wave” on the Pentecostal continuum.
Effectively these terms (“soft”/”hard” charismatics, third wave) really bring the
whole experience-movement back to the more traditional position of “Pentecostal” on
the one hand, and “charismatic” on the other. And the subjective experience of speaking
in tongues remains a confusing and elitist element (see also Hummel 1993, 217).
Wagner admits the continuation of the Pentecostal essence (as noted above, but also in
Wagner 1988, 844), including multiple fillings of the Holy Spirit subsequent to the new
birth (similar to the belief of “baptism in the Holy Spirit”). The real identification with
the third wave is more corporate than individual and is premised upon power and
anointing for ministry:
Ministry under the power and anointing of the Holy Spirit as the portal of entrance into the third wave rather
than a spiritual experience as is typical of the first two waves. The context of ministry is most commonly a
body of believers rather than individual activities such as those of a faith leader.
(Wagner 1988, 844).
In addition, Wagner (1988, 844) asserts that the third wave is prepared to
compromise its emphases and terminology (“semantics”) to avoid divisiveness or elitist
implications, the desire to “[avoid] … divisiveness at almost any cost”. The major
difference with the Third Wave movement from its predecessors, is that, whilst “the first
two waves were sovereign explosions of divine grace … they did not arise from the
ministry of any one pioneer” (Hummel 1993, 217). However, the third wave movement
– essentially the Vineyard Fellowship – had one major leader (John Wimber) who
pioneered its ministry and maintained its direction.
Barrett (noted in Hummel 1993, 218) includes other groups in the third wave,
noting that they are like the neo-Pentecostals in remaining in their mainline, non-
Pentecostal denominations, not recognizing spirit baptism as a second experience nor
tongues as an evidence, and therefore he terms them “mainstream church renewal”.
McArthur (1992, 130) summarizes:
… most Third Wave teaching and preaching echoes standard charismatic doctrine. At its core is an obsession
with sensational experiences and a preoccupation with the apostolic charismata: tongues, healings, prophetic
revelation, words of knowledge, and visions. Like Pentecostals and charismatics, Third Wave adherents
aggressively pursue ecstatic experiences, mystical phenomena, miraculous powers, and supernatural wonders
– while tending to underemphasize the traditional means of spiritual growth: prayer, Bible study, the teaching of
the Word, persevering in obedience, and the fellowship of other believers.
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.
*****

CHAPTER 3
COMMENT RE THE LITERATURE

The nature of this study is such that the most recent literature is not necessarily the
most relevant to assist the enquiry. The historical antecedents are paramount in gaining
both historical and cultural perspectives - especially for the twentieth century - thus
covering the modern resurgence of glossolalic experience from the rise of
Pentecostalism in 1900. Literature of any antiquity thus becomes instructive in tracing
the development of ecstasy and associated phenomena, especially the manifestation in
glossolalia.
The availability of books and articles is not at stake. The focus of this study is on
the important shift of emphasis, clarification of conflicting views, and relating all this to
the biblical premises, as well as relating specific religious phenomena with parallel
secular/cultural phenomena that demand a more rational explanation and more biblical
interpretation of the religious phenomena to remove confusion from the true glossolalic
gift and to avoid denigration of the truly God-given gift for today.
It becomes superfluous to recount the range of literature available on this widely
documented area of study, both in the light of the extensive bibliography associated with
this research, as well as the exhaustive bibliographic works already in print.
Cecil Robeck has produced a Bibliographic Essay on Pentecostal and
Charismatic literature for the period of 1973-1982 (1983, 24-34). As well as giving
reflections on classic Pentecostalism historically and numerically, he refers to literature
on ethnic and sociological issues, denominational impact and study resources, as well
as doctrinal emphases, plus sociological trends in the movement from classic
Pentecostalism to current renewal emphases.
In addition, there are many very extensive bibliographies in articles (like C.R.
Smith's unpublished doctrinal thesis with almost 300 entries) or books (like Malony and
Lovekin 1985, with over 350 references).
Perhaps the most significant and comprehensive resources are the materials by
W.E. Mills. In 1974 he published "Literature on glossolalia" in the Journal of the
American Scientific Affiliation. Later, in 1985b, he published Glossolalia: A
Bibliography, with some 1,150 entries (Hasel 1991, 13), and edited Speaking in
Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia (1986b). These resources very
adequately cover the literature on the apostolic period, the Old Testament background,
extra-biblical sources, church history, psychological studies, cultural and personality
considerations, socio-economic studies, deprivation theories, associated phenomena,
socio-cultural studies, biblical studies and exegetical studies.
All of these areas are adequately supplemented by more recent books and articles
that update the research, although not markedly changing the conclusions of early years.
Beyond this material, a specific source is used for the case study, Pamela Amoss:
Coast Salish Spirit Dancing.
Overall, there is no shortage of resources. The greatest difficulty is to
comprehensively cover the range of material to allow for complete assessment in terms
of the focus of this study, so that the findings adequately represent the whole glossolalic
situation, and yet to fairly interpret all views in the context of the presuppositions of the
research. Only thus, will the findings be of consequence.
*****

CHAPTER 4
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
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 SUMMARY DEFINITION

The following factors are noted in summary of the extended treatment in Chapter
2.3 concerning ecstasy, and in the context of the other terms previously defined.

4.2.1 PERSPECTIVE
Definitions vary widely, resulting in ecstasy being used interchangeably with
trance, although ecstasy is usually seen in a more dynamic and active way, whilst trance
is seen as more passive and serene; or at times it approximates to mysticism, perhaps
without the transcendence. Consequently, a wide range of associated phenomena then
became confused in the whole spectrum, thus clouding true biblical experience, in
particular glossolalia, in the context of its assumed correlation with ecstasy.
4.2.2 PRECURSORS TO ECSTATIC EXPERIENCE

Foundationally, and to some degree as a prototype experience, is the ecstatic
prophetic background of the Old Testament.
Individually, the experience normally involves consent of the person seeking the
experience, although there are cases of "contagion" (see later) and involuntary
involvement.
In order to actively pursue the desired experience, a variety of activities are
employed: abstinence from food, whirling dances, physical stimuli, contemplation of
sacred objects, stirring music, inhalation of fumes, hallucination, and artificial
stimulation.
The last action, artificial stimulation, is usually associated with some expectancy
or auto-suggestion, and usually occurs in a group. It is to be noted, that there is
frequently a greater response amongst women in this emotional area. Albright (1940,
131) in examining the background of the Hebrew prophets, discovers that oracular
activity among ecstatic Assyrians is led mainly by women. It has been noted by the
author that in Black churches in San Francisco, it is commonly the elderly women who
take a lead in promoting the ecstatic/trance-like experience during the services.
4.2.3 RESULTANT OVERALL CONDITION

The ecstatic state is one in which the ecstatic is oblivious to the immediate
circumstances and stimuli. There is a sense of being in a subconscious state, or beyond
this world, with attendant senses of an exalted state with heightened mental powers.
4.2.4 RESULTANT BEHAVIOURAL MANIFESTATIONS

· Normal faculties are suspended.
· There is a loss of consciousness, loss of rational thought, alienation of the mind.
· The person is "beside himself".
· There is a loss of control - becoming involuntary.

· Obsessive and compulsive actions ensue.
· Garbled speech or automatic speech, approximating to glossolalia, results.
· Sometimes visions or other phenomena may occur.
· Identification with or possession by a god.
4.2.5 NEED FOR DISTINCTIONS TO DETERMINE

AUTHENTICITY
The need for distinctions is demonstrated by the fact that there are plenty of
experiences of ecstasy that have no connection with resultant biblical expressions. Even
if glossolalia was necessarily prefaced on ecstatic experience, ecstatic experience itself
is not self-authenticating.
The prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) are a case of ecstatic (frenzied) expression, but
there is obviously no connection to true biblical experience.
In the secular area, from the cult of Dionysos to contemporary tribal experiences
of the twentieth century, there are multiple ecstatic expressions, even resulting in verbal
utterances, but there is no connection with an authentic biblical experience. Specific
case studies will demonstrate this fact.
4.2.6 A PURPORTED PREREQUISITE FOR GLOSSOLALIA

A majority of Christian authors assume that glossolalia is "ecstatic utterance" in
some form, and that a state of "extreme excitement" is a prerequisite to the glossolalic
experience.
The verbal expressions of the Old Testament prophets are generally seen as
premised on an ecstatic state.
Greek Mystery religious experience promoted ecstasy in order to achieve some
form of verbal utterance.
In all the variety of ecstatic (and indeed trance-like) states, there is some form of
utterance that normally is perceived as the climax of the experience in which the
devotee becomes united with or possessed by a deity or spirit.
4.2.7 OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF PURPORTED BIBLICAL

AUTHENTICITY
For the sake of credibility, the supposed ecstatic precursor of glossolalia needs to
be authenticated. This authentication became doubly necessary at the end of the
twentieth century, with the arrival of a range of bizarre variations of glossolalic ecstasy.
In this contemporary context, uncontrollable laughter, intense weeping, pogoing,
physical convulsions and jerks, are among a range of emotional manifestations, which
also claim to have historic precursors in Christian history.
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.
4.2.9 SUMMARY CRITERIA

(1). Perspective: ecstasy, trance and mysticism used somewhat interchangeably.
(2). Precursors: consent of the person, auto-suggestion, contagion, artificial
stimulation.
(3). Characteristics: Subconscious state with loss of rational thought, loss of
awareness of time and space.
(4). Consequences: unity with a god who then speaks through them, or gives some
ecstatic utterance.
4.3 VARIETIES OF CONTEMPORARY SECULAR

MANIFESTATIONS
4.3.1 INTRODUCTION
Using the Summary Criteria (see Chapter 4.2.9), it is possible to show the
similarity of ecstatic phenomena in contemporary secular manifestations, with
phenomena in Pentecostal/charismatic experience, and thus show the danger of assuming
that practice is self-authenticating, or that experience is ipso facto derived from the
Holy Spirit.
With respect to mystical experience, Ellwood (1980, xii) indicates that religious
groups (like Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi and Catholic) do not have a monopoly. He recognizes
that there is a range from shamans, slaves, occultists, to evangelical converts, that has
equal mystical experience.
In a different area (healing) Yonggi Cho (1979, 36) admitted that Buddhist monks,
Korean yoga meditation, Japanese Sokagakkai, and Pentecostal Christians, can equally
perform miracles. Ultimately Cho comes to the position that Satan can act in the same
manner as God (1979, 43). This blasphemous position highlights the problem of the
counterfeit, and shows the need to differentiate the counterfeit from the genuine.
Bach (1969, 182) makes a similar statement to Cho, noting that Pentecostal
Baptism gives no unique claim to charismatic gifts. People who "never had the Baptism,
never looked for it, and never gave it a thought" (182) equally experienced "change and
release and healing". Albert Schweitzer in Africa, the Hindu Vinoba Bhave in India, or
Jesus of Nazareth, achieved much charismatically without any glossolalic experience or
the "gift of the Baptism" (182).
Particular secular manifestations of ecstasy (with correlating ecstatic phenomena)
that will be addressed are drugs, hypnosis, trances, sexual euphoria, and glossolalia.
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
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.
B. LSD (LYSERGIC ACID DIETHYLAMIDE)

As with mescaline, another psychedelic drug, LSD, is commonly used to produce
mystical states (Sargant 1959, 112) of great (religious) intensity and reality (Pfitzner
1976, 23).
However, depending on the setting, the outcome may not necessarily be religious,
even if the non-religious "truths" impress with religious certainty and fervour. An LSD
enhanced eroticism may lead a couple to believe that a brief union had "the flavour of
eternity" and that they had transcended to the supernatural (Sargant 1975, 107).
Dr. Timothy Leary claimed that sex is an integral part of the psychedelic
experience (Zaehner 1972, 67). Leary makes the extravagant claim that:
There is no question that LSD is the most powerful aphrodisiac ever discovered by man … The natural and
obvious way to take LSD is with a member of the opposite sex … One of the great purposes of an LSD
session is sexual union … In a carefully prepared, loving LSD session, a woman can have several hundred
orgasms.
This extravagant claim might be acceptable to other religions, including the

worshippers of Shiva in India (Zaehner 1972, 66-7) but it fails to reflect moral issues
that are foundational to Christianity.
Zaehner (cited by Egan 1982, 32) is seeking to counter the claims of Aldous
Huxley that religious, mystical experiences can be produced by ingesting psychedelic
drugs, and that all mystical experiences are the same and that they surpass religious (and
cultural) differences. Morally there is a great gulf.
Further, Zaehner (1972, 134) refers to competent investigators to show that:
… perhaps the most reprehensible and misleading statement regarding LSD is the claim that it is a potent
aphrodisiac … They … neglect to mention that the overwhelming majority of those taking LSD have no
interest in sex, preferring their solipsistic trance, and that others who have taken LSD and attempted
intercourse have found it impossible to consummate.
Hence Zaehner (Egan 1982, 32) rejects Huxley’s call for the sacramentalisation of
psychedelic drugs to make them part of all religions.
Dr. Arnold Come (cited in Bess 1963, 176) emphasized the danger, “Rather than
go through the agony of thinking about it, they want a short cut to certainty and this is
dangerous”. He recalled an account of the intemperate meetings of the Anabaptists in
Switzerland, how glossolalia occurred in company with “lewdness and unchastity” and
“fracticide by decapitation”.
Playboy explained that LSD could lead to incredible ecstasy or to confusion,
resulting in making love to God, to yourself, or to a woman (in Bach 1969, 156). The
new approach to spiritual enlightenment was "chemicals to Christ", or to Buddha, or to
every other "illumined avatar" (Bach 1969, 156), all started by hallucinogenic drugs,
especially LSD.
Bach (1969, 158) emphasizes the purely experiential nature of the LSD, and the
possibility of instant religion:
You wouldn't use a horse and buggy in a day of jets. You wouldn't send a message by pony express if you
could do it by radio or phone. You wouldn't pray and fast for thirty days or thirty months in search of spiritual
enlightenment if you could get it in thirty minutes through a draught of LSD.
Francis Geddes, a scholar who has compared glossolalia with “LSD evangelism”
(his term) said, “Both speaking in tongues and taking LSD offer a person a very deep,
very profound, very soul-shaking experience” (cited in Bess 1963, 176). However,
what does this mean? Geddes concludes,
Those who speak in tongues say you get spiritual maturity for nothing. I’d say the LSD evangelists feel that
way too. Both approaches place a high priority on psychological or religious experience as an end in itself. The
LSD people say, “experience, experience, experience”. The tongue-speaking people think they have some kind
of direct channel into the Holy Spirit … When I look the LSD convert in the eyes, I get the same look as when
I look at a speaker-in-tongues – the look of “I’ve got truth”.
(Cited in Bess 1963, 176).
However, subjective experience cannot be used as the sole means of determining

the value of an experience. "LSD users ... have said that nothing can compare with the
heights of ecstasy that they feel when they are on a good trip" (Kildahl 1986, 359). As
noted above, the actual content of the experience may be far from honourable.
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

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).
Zaehner's picture brilliantly portrays the danger of presuming a commonality of
ecstatic experience, as if that was automatically religious, and in turn, ipso facto
Christian. Drug-related ecstasy has no valid comparison with anything of religious
ecstasy, even if it is assumed that ecstasy is associated with glossolalia. Corinthian
glossolalia need not have any ecstatic background whatsoever.
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
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
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

the gift of tongues is generally experienced for the first time only in a group happening.
It is rare to occur in isolation but rather in the presence of a sympathetic person who has
already received the “gift”. After that, the “gift” may occur in isolation.
Amoss (1978, 137) makes a distinction between hypnosis and the cognate
experience trance (either of which can result in glossolalia), in that hypnosis is often
induced by another person, whereas trance is almost always achieved without another
person. Nevertheless, the precursor of group expectancy and auto-suggestion is still in
evidence, even without a particular individual mentor.
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).
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
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,

charismatic leadership, and controlled circumstances, often resulting in a powerful
contagion that precipitates (involuntary) crowd involvement. The Redruth painful
malady (referred to above) involved 4,000 people. Cartwright observed 500 people
jerking at one time in his congregation (Mackie 1921, 52).
Dimond (1926, 117) goes so far as to state that the "aim of the revivalist is to
create an atmosphere of contagious emotion and suggestibility, in which worldly reason
... (is) inhibited". Further, Davenport (1905, 168) observes that "there were no strange
phenomena till Wesley initiated them".
There is great responsibility, and accountability that devolves upon leaders in
terms of any group situation. This is especially so for Christian leadership. "Like
Edwards, however, (John Wesley) cannot escape a measure of responsibility for the
wild excesses of some of his followers" (Davenport 1905, 171).
In particular, reference is made to a wide range of phenomena which are
attributed to the "experiences in trance" (Davenport 1905, 172), which are considered
"as irrational as ever floated through the untutored brain of an African savage".
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.)
These "wild excesses" were part of the Wesleyan revival.

Mackie (1921, 27) refers to this range of phenomena, but gives them the
perspective of "psychological evidences of states of mind analogous to the mental
attitude of modern tongues people". Mackie then draws examples from the literature that
shows the phenomena of the Wesleyan revival occurring in a variety of circumstances,
not necessarily religious, but usually there was some form of associated utterance.
· Children in an orphanage in Amsterdam in 1566, climbed over walls and roofs like
cats, and spoke in foreign languages relating details of contemporary events in other
places (Mackie 1921, 42). Other children became cataleptic - as stiff as tree trunks.
· There are accounts of nuns imitating the cries of animals and the bleating of sheep,
or of barking like dogs, and meowing like cats (42).

· Girls having exhibited the same animal sounds (above) also had the "gift of
languages" (43).
· Wesley experienced a variety of experiences in his meetings. People sank to the
ground – "they dropped on every side as thunderstruck" (44). Coppin (1976, 83)
refers to this experience as "slain in the Spirit" and being in "spiritual trance".
· McNemar (cited in Mackie 1976, 50-52) refers to three other types of
manifestation:
The rolling exercise, the jerks and barks.
1. The rolling exercise, which consisted in being cast down in a violent manner, doubled with the head and feet
together, and rolled over and over like a wheel, or stretched in a prostrate manner, turned swiftly over and over
like a log. This was considered very debasing and mortifying, especially if the person was taken in this manner
through the mud, and sullied therewith from head to foot.
2. Still more demeaning and mortifying were the jerks. Nothing in nature could better represent this strange and
unaccountable operation, than for one to goad another, alternately on every side, with a piece of red hot iron.
The exercise commonly began in the head which would fly backward and forward, and from side to side, with
a quick jolt, which the person would naturally labour to suppress, but in vain; and the more any one laboured to
stay himself, and be sober, the more he staggered, and the more rapidly his twitches increased ...
3. The last possible grade of mortification seemed to be couched in the barks, which frequently accompanied
the jerks; nor were they the most mean and contemptible characters, who were the common victims of this
disgracing operation; but persons who considered themselves in the foremost rank, possessed of the highest
improvements of human nature, and yet in spite of all the effort of nature, both men and women would be
forced to personate (sic) that animal, ... forced, I say, for no argument but force could induce any one of polite
breeding in a public company to take the position of a canine beast, move about on all fours, and growl, snap
the teeth, and bark in so personating (sic) a manner as to set the eyes and ears of the spectator at variance.
The correlation of the trance-state and the variety of phenomena noted, always
includes some form of tongues-speaking. In spiritualism, Mackie (1921, 53) refers to:
"trance-speaking, involuntary utterances, together with speaking in foreign languages". A
particular example is the Amana Community in which utterances occurred whilst in the
trance state (Mackie 1921, 53). Similarly, there were cases of trance preaching or
preaching ecstasy (Mackie 1921, 54). Alongside this are the reports that Francis Xavier
and other missionary saints were able to speak many national languages without having
learned them (Mackie 1921, 28).
Dr. W.A. Hammond (cited in Mackie 1921, 112) relates the experiences of the
Shakers. In a variety of vigorous behaviour approximating to ecstatic "frantic delirium",
they clap and gesticulate in a group producing "perfect bedlam" and talk and sing in
unknown tongues. Further (115) they also experience the "jerks", with young people
being exercised for two to three weeks at a time, climaxing in speaking in unknown
tongues.
Wallace (1966, 141) regards this type of behaviour as the “classic obsessive-
compulsive neurosis” which results in the victim acting in a certain way, saying certain
things, thinking certain thoughts, and experiencing certain bodily sensations that are
foreign to his true nature. Consequently, the victim – against his will – may bark like a
dog, walk on all fours, utter profanities, be overcome with fears or doubts, preoccupied
with sexual thoughts, or be irresistibly compelled into obscene behaviour (cf.
possession in Africa, or Haitian voodoo).
What is interesting, if not disturbing, is that most of these same phenomena that
have occurred in the past in some form of trance-state, and which include some
“speaking in tongues” utterance, are also occurring in the contemporary church scene.
White (1988) refers to trembling and shaking (91) including violent shaking leading to
collapse and falling (92) – these people being in a "dazed and dreamlike state" (93).
Some of the bodily shaking is on a vertical axis producing a phenomenon called "pogo-
sticking" (94) (compare the "jerks" of the American revivals). Falling, involuntarily or
contrived, known as "being slain in the spirit" (94) continued the variety of falling
(gentle or violent) of earlier revivals.
In addition, mention has been made in Chevreau's report (1994, 13) of some of
these manifestations:
uncontrollable laughter and inconsolable weeping; violent shaking and falling down; people waving their arms
around, in windmill-like motions, or vigorous judo-like chopping with their forearms.
Chevreau continues with a variety of manifestations that thousands have
experienced (27):
uncontrollable laughter, ‘drunkenness’ in the Spirit, intense weeping, falling to the floor, physical convulsions or
‘jerks’, pogoing and bouncing, shouting and roaring, visions, prophetic words and announcements, often
accompanied with physical demonstrations ...
Roberts (1994) speaks of weeping, shaking, jerking and animal noises (13) and
that "uncontrollable laughter became a trademark of the meetings" (15). Terry Virgo
(1995, 26-27) relates concerning unstoppable
spontaneous, uninvited laughter ... they were overwhelmed by God and fell to the ground in convulsive laughter
... overwhelmed with laughter and ‘drunkenness’, a joy which could not be contained ... fell to the ground
laughing uncontrollably ... extraordinary ‘drunkenness’ and a release of mighty prophesyings of breathtaking
proportions.
But in the midst of this continuum of superlatives, there is no content of the
experiences and no objective assessment.
An associated factor that needs to be noted, is the time frame of some of these
phenomena. Inge (1955, 158) reports of ecstasy extending from half an hour with Roman
Catholic mystics, to six hours on several occasions for St. Teresa, to five days for Ellina
von Crevelsheim. Mackie (1921) referred to the "Jumpers" who would continue
strenuous physical activity for three hours (47) or even staying "two and sometimes
three days and nights together in the chapels, agitated all the time by spasmodic
movements, and taking neither repose nor nourishment" (48-9). John White (1988, 95)
reports on a Fuller graduate “shaking violently and [who] continued to shake for two
hours”. In the context of "jerks", Dr. W.A. Hammond (cited in Mackie 1921, 115) refers
to
... young men and women exercised by ... "jerks", for two weeks at a time, during the whole of which period
the head is kept in continual motion by quick, convulsive motions of the shoulders and neck ... once saw a
young woman whose face was frightfully swollen, her eyes dilated and bloodshot, who had been exercised by
the "jerks" for three weeks.
Davenport (1905) refers to a situation in West Virginia when an individual –
without warning – “would fall upon the floor as if struck by a bullet, and would lie there
for hours, speechless and motionless “ (56), or to Cane Ridge, Kentucky where many
fell and "continued for hours together in an apparently breathless and emotional state"
(74), or where many "lay down and rolled over and over for hours at a time" (77). In
Belfast there occurred a "sleeping phenomena" in which the subject falls "into slumber
at will and waking several days afterwards" (90). On the contemporary scene, Roberts
(1994, 18) speaks of people being "struck dumb for days on end". John White (1988)
relates an occasion when a South African pastor "continued to giggle ... for several
hours" (90) whilst a seminary graduate experienced "shaking violently and continued to
shake for two hours" (95).
All these extended time periods of trance-like experience are accommodated
without concern or alarm - as if the time frame was a point of notoriety even if of no
consequence actually. There is no concern for social, family and work responsibilities -
in fact the whole scenario seems quite irresponsible and counterproductive to the
spiritual experiences claimed. Chevreau (1994, 13) relates an experience of such
irresponsibly extended time, aided and abetted by the pastor:
She was down on the floor, repeatedly, hysterical with laughter. At one point, John Arnott, the senior pastor at
the Airport Vineyard, prayed that she would stay in this state for forty-eight hours. She was that, and more – at
times unable to walk a straight line, certainly unfit to drive, or to host the guests that came for dinner the next
evening.
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,
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.
4.3.5 SEXUAL EUPHORIA.

A. INTRODUCTION
This section is particularly significant in two respects. Firstly, there is some
association with verbal utterance, even though the sexual experience is sought largely
for its own sake. Secondly, sexual euphoria is associated with invalidated ecstatic
experiences that are clearly immoral, but because the experiences are similar to those
associated with tongues, it highlights the need for objective assessment and corrective
criteria.
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,
“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
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).
F. POSSESSION AND GLOSSOLALIA

The ultimate goal of sexual euphoria (for Crowley) was possession by the god (or
devil) in a trance state, in which the god spoke through the subject (Sargant 1975, 95).
This was the same experience for Dionysian "orgiasm" (sic) in which the seer,
being possessed by the god, became the mouthpiece of the god (Clemen 1921, 191).
Similarly, in the case of charismatic tongues experience there are involuntary
utterances in a state of exaltation. This ecstasy:
accompanied by or followed by the ejaculation of irregular vocal sounds, or disconnected words, can be found
associated with alcoholic intoxication, forms of epileptic seizure, and sometimes with coitus.
(Mackie 1921, 263).
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.
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.
4.3.6 SUMMARY OF THE VARIETIES

Ecstasy is a pervasive experience, sought in a variety of cultures (see next
section, especially) and a variety of circumstances, with a variety of secular
manifestations. In each case, the climactic experience is to somehow make contact with
the spirit world – certainly to have experience "outside of oneself". The evidence of
having achieved this goal, whilst shown in changes in physical demeanour (pulse rate,
breathing) is supremely shown by the purported utterance of the god (or demon) through
the subject's vocal chords.
The symptoms and goals show little difference whether heathen, God, drug or
hypnotic induction, or whether in a secular, religious or Christian context.
More significantly, some of the associated phenomena are questionable in terms
of motivation and ethics, whilst others (especially sexual euphoria) are blatantly
heathen. That biblical glossolalia is supposedly being validly practiced in this spectrum
of experience is of great concern. Firstly, in most cases it is not differentiated by
objective criteria from the secular and religious practices that make no claim to biblical
glossolalia. There is no differentiation in terms of the source, the methodology or the
associated phenomena. Secondly, there is no attempt to validate the practice in terms of
biblical criteria of assessment, its validity per se, or its benefit to the church as a
whole.
The almost complete absence of any attempt to address these issues, is as
alarming as the failure to redress the abuses, misuses, and plain wicked and immoral
associations.
4.4 CULTURAL CASE STUDY

4.4.1 INTRODUCTION
This study is largely related to the contemporary Corinthian cultural experience of
ecstasy in the context of the Greek Mystery Religions. It is this cultural precursor that is
seen as fundamental to the understanding of Paul's treatment of the Corinthian
glossolalic experience.
Additionally, ecstasy is experienced in quite specific ways in particular cultures.
The sexual euphoria of the tantric cults of India has been noted.
This current section looks at a particular cultural group in order to show by
detailed comparison an extended range of ecstatic phenomena in an individual case that
parallels a similar range of phenomena in charismatic/Pentecostal experience. In this
way, it will become more evident that there is danger in assuming that practice is
self-validating and ipso facto derived from the Holy Spirit. Further, the need to
establish criteria to protect authentic glossolalia will be reinforced.
Paul Yonggi Cho (1979, 36-37) came to the stark realization that there was much
confusion about the source of miraculous powers:
... in Buddhism monks have also performed fantastic miracles ... one woman was dying from a case of
terminal cancer, and no doctor could cure her. She went ... to a Buddhist monk ... and she was completely
healed ...
In Korea many people involved in yoga are healing the sick by yoga meditation. When attending meetings of
the Japanese Sokagakkai, many are healed ...
"We see miracles in Buddhism, miracles in yoga, and miracles in Sokagakkai".
Cho wrote his book The Fourth Dimension (1979) to explain the source of
miraculous powers, in fact he concludes that good or evil are equally creative (45).
This highlights the need to ascertain the actual source on a given occasion. This is true
for ecstatic and subsequently glossolalic experience.
4.4.2 COAST SALISH SPIRIT DANCING

[N.B. Unless otherwise stated in this Case Study (Chapter 4.4.2), reference page
numbers are to Pamela Amoss' book, 1978, Coast Salish Spirit Dancing. The book is
based on research of the Nooksack tribal group of the Coast Salish Indians of Southern
British Columbia.].
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
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.
(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

described in two ways. "Possession" has been used to describe the experience of spirit
dancers, while others reserve "possession" for cases where it is evident that a person
has been invaded by a new personality (121). In particular (in the latter case) the victim
of possession speaks in a strange voice (121).
Quite clearly there are parallel phenomena in Pentecostalism (and other religious
groups) where there is a trance-like experience, the invasion of a personality, and some
"evidence" in the form of verbal utterance. However, neither the Nooksack nor
Pentecostals can claim self-validation.
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.
C. CHARACTERISTICS AND PHENOMENA

a. Introduction
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
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
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.
d. Trance (method of achieving possession).

As for spirit possession, there are precursors for achieving trance. Spirit
possession leads to a "song" which, after seclusion, "grabbing" and lifting, leaves him
in a very suggestible condition for the subsequent experiences (134). He must wear
limiting headgear, limit talking to his "boss", limit observations in the dance house,
restrict food and liquids, refrain from sexual intercourse, and have limited sleep (134).
This procedure creates a state of "perpetual tension" that is only discharged with the
winter dance (134). This tension is maintained over several months, resulting in a "habit
of tranceability" (134), trance being triggered by the spirit song.
Similarly Bach (1969, 151) speaks of a "mystic triggering" and also refers to
reliving "the wonder of my Pentecostal experience" (59). Hence he experienced a "habit
of tranceability" as a Pentecostal, similar to the Nooksack, and indeed his own
observation was that the nature of his experience was also similar to what he observed
in Africa and Haiti, including "intoning in an unknown tongue" (115). These trigger
responses were noted in Chapter 4.3.4 concerning trance.
Coast Salish and Pentecostals both have clearly defined expectations, as well as
clear methods of achieving those expectations, irrespective of biblical (or other)
objectivity.
Trance is described as a dissociative state in which religious ideas predominate
(Amoss 1978, 122) thus having application to Coast Salish and Pentecostals (as well as
others).
There are two models that are used to explain the trance phenomena for the Coast
Salish (122).
The first is a western theological model.
Although early missionaries rejected the “song” and winter dancing as works of
the devil, the potential for spirit possession was retained because of the belief in
possession by the Holy Spirit. This potential was aroused by the Indian Shaker Church
as previously noted, although this connection was not accepted by the Christian
missionaries. They had applied possession by the Holy Spirit more to past figures, but
within the Christian tradition there were some who contended that Holy Spirit
possession could apply to all believers (123). The charismatic revival (or "speaking in
tongues movement") of recent decades reversed the traditional approach.
Further, the irrational state of mind associated with trance had become less
socially acceptable as Indian society became more complex, and this was more easily
suppressed by identifying the possession source as exclusively evil (123). With the
"rediscovery" of possession in the Pentecostal and Shaker churches, the old patterns
were revived. Unfortunately some of the clear delineations concerning source of the
possession, were lost.
The second explanation of trance experience is the western medical model (124).
In this model, the song and dancing of the Nooksack is compared to the clinical
symptoms of hysteria (124).
The difficulty with both models is that aberrant, antisocial behaviour of western
society is compared with normal and even socially acceptable behaviour of the Indian
society (124). This observation fails to establish either that the western model is
necessarily antisocial, or that the Indian system is necessarily helpful, even if socially
normal and acceptable within that culture.
Certainly the extremes of professed possession in western theology are open to
condemnation – including the "jerks", "treeing the devil", involuntary falling, and
prolonged unconscious states, amongst other phenomena noted in the Wesleyan revivals,
the American revivals, and contemporary "Toronto blessing" experiences.
What is the significance of trance and the religious experiences for the Coast
Salish Indians? Anthropologists constantly face the religion question and conclude that
(125):
man cannot endure the anxieties of life and the eventual certainty of death without the support of some belief
system that purports to rise above the cruel realities of this life.
Beyond the religious question, trance becomes a culturally defined sacred and
special class of religious experience that validates the religious system (125). This
observation is true of contemporary western theology. "Holy" laughter, slaying in the
"Spirit", speaking in tongues, and so on, become proofs of a special and superior class
of religious experience. However, because of the subjective nature of the experience in
both systems, and the kudos attached to it, neither system is committed to scrutiny and
objective assessment.
i. Characteristics (of Coast Salish possession-trance).
-i. Pan-human capacity.
Trance (and hypnotic) states are part of a pan-human capacity to assume altered
states of consciousness (138). Consequently, the trance state can be produced
voluntarily (at will) or by association (with trigger words, drums, etc.) (Sargant 1959,
103).
The Nooksacks have learned this response and established a "habit of
tranceability" (134). Likewise, this phenomenon is of great importance to the Shaker
Church and Pentecostal Church – religious "sects" favoured by the Indians (135). In
fact, Amoss (136) notes that Pentecostalism has "institutionalised a kind of trance" after
receiving the Holy Spirit, resulting in inter alia speaking in tongues.
Spirit dancing is more restricted in its expression because there is the need for
involvement of others, especially in the song (136). By contrast, Shaker and Pentecostal
experiences allow for more expression of suppressed psychic material (cathartic
release) (139).
In spirit dancing, the dancer expresses control over the power, whereas
Pentecostal and Shaker trance emphasizes surrender to the possessing deity (136).
-ii Cultural value.
The ceremonial activity of the Nooksacks is somewhat typical of social and
cultural sensitivities of the last quarter of the twentieth century (165). Many American
ethnic groups, starting with the American blacks in the 1950's, started this emphasis on
celebrating their cultural traditions (165). Hence there is an attempt by the Coast Salish
to seek validity in their experience in identification with Shaker and Pentecostal
Churches over against the early missionary rejection.
Other groups, like the Songhay trancers in Africa, likewise emphasized specific
phenomena, including "speaking with the voices of the gods" (tongues), as part of their
trance-possession experience, a cultural equivalent to the Coast Salish situation (138).
Shakerism – being completely Indian – appeals to the Nooksacks, but it doesn't
give full expression to the social inequality that spirit dancing does (164). Hence the
truly cultural (Indian) experience is seen as superior, even if validated by comparisons
with other religious groups.
-iii Cultlike expression.
Spirit dancing seems to have many structural similarities to other cultlike
religious movements outside of Indian youth. Groups based on occult lore, groups based
on eastern mysticism (like Hare Krishna), and charismatic "speaking-in-tongues"
movements within contemporary Protestant and Catholic churches (165), all have a
cultlike following.
-iv Loss of Control.
In Western cultural traditions with its scientific connections, dissociative states
(trance) have been branded as abnormal (126). Consequently such states were termed
"hysterical", although quasi-respectability was given to hypnosis. More particularly,
because trance (and possession states – e.g. spirit dancing) involve loss of control,
many people fear it.
In the various forms, "possession" requires consent as well as auto-suggestion,
implying some form of control. However, some conditioning does seem to be involved.
Shaker dances seemed to involve loss of control:
... their dances became more disorderly, and their exercises more extravagant than ever. They were now seen
throwing their arms about, throwing themselves down, whirling like a top, tossing against one another, stamping
on each other's feet ...
(John Woods cited in Mackie 1921, 107)
By contrast, spirit dancers are able to (and are expected to) maintain clear
restriction of movement in order to avoid stumbling into other people (136), thus
maintaining some control.
Mackie (1921, 260) comments on this aspect of contagion, in which a tendency
and expectancy to trance becomes infectious leading to loss of control. This has been
noted in much Pentecostal experience, notably the Wesleyan revivals (Sargant 1959,

115). Any aversion to this "loss of control" has changed to respectability status in the
contemporary renewal movement, and in the world-wide phenomena associated with
the Toronto blessing.
-v Loss of awareness.
In the entranced state, the Indians see and hear certain things and ignore others
(136). They are aware of the location of people in the dance hall and they hear the beat
of the drum, and yet they are effectively in a trance state and unaware of their
surroundings.
Likewise, the Shakers become involved in a range of activities, that show not only
loss of control, but loss of awareness of their environment. Without any sense of shame
they yell, scream, shout, shake, speak in tongues, gyrate indecorously, writhe on the
floor, or remain motionlessly prostrate (112).
Revival movements similarly have included barks, jerks, growling, animal noises,
uncontrolled laughing, rolling on the floor – all with no sense of shame or awareness.
-vi Cathartic release.
As an Indian dancer achieves the climax of singing his song, he experiences a
change from tension to release and fulfilment. In the anticipation stage there is a feeling
of heaviness, and the disposition to groan and cry. After achieving climax, there is a
cathartic release with the sense of floating (127). The dancer "feels good" (129), and
experiences an elated condition of worth and friendliness.
There are parallels with the climax of sexual euphoria noted previously. Certainly
glossolalia has been observed by this author as the climax of cathartic release in
contrived circumstances. Mackie (cited in Mills 1985, 8) notes that glossolalia is
associated with unstable nervous systems, disturbed sex life, exhibitionism, etc.,
indicating the need for cathartic release, whether by legitimate physical means or
through quasi-religious phenomena. Vivier (1960, 358) noted in his research, that
frequent glossolalists also had "a greater need for the catharsis of ... religion".
-vii Summary.
All the characteristics of Indian possession trance are seen in parallel with
Pentecostal and some other religious groups. The phenomena themselves are clearly not
self-validating, either in guaranteeing the source of the phenomena, or in proving that the
form of the expression itself is valid.
ii. Evidence (of Coast Salish possession trance).
-i Dancing.

Spirit dancing is the climax of the quest to "have something" and thus become one
of the initiated (55). It is a controlled expression of the power that is in the dancer.
Similarly, in Pentecostalism, one of the signs of (Holy) Spirit possession is
"ecstatic dancing" (136). Shaker possession is also manifested in dancing, usually
triggered by the stimulus of rhythmic ringing of bells (136).
In each case, dancing is an essential part of the ceremonies as evidence of spirit
possession (cf. Mackie 1921, 106).
-ii Tongues/verbal utterance.
For the Nooksack, the spirit song became the precipitating stimulus and evidence
of spirit possession (134), and is immediately associated with the dance. The songs
were limited in number within the "cultural expectancy", and were affirmed and
interpreted by "initiators" (64).
For the Pentecostal, speaking in tongues was regarded as an evidence of Holy
Spirit possession (156), although an increasing number of tongues speakers can speak at
will, with no other evidence of possession. In fact, Hayford (1992, 26), as a
Pentecostal, categorically denies that "spiritual language" is consequent upon "a
mystical, trance-like trip".
Often experiences in both groups would commence with groans and mumblings
that were encouraged and interpreted by assistants (cf. 64). The presence of initial
groanings have led some to conclude that the groanings of Romans 8:26 are to be
construed as tongues – but this will be discussed later.
The Shakers spoke and sang in unknown tongues (Mackie 1921, 112) which were
highly regarded as the evidence of God's power. The early leader, Mother Ann, was
tested, and reportedly spoke in seventy-two different languages. (In the Topeka revival
of 1900, supposedly twenty-one known languages were spoken [Vinson 1971, 102]).
Other groups, including the Songhay in Africa, manifest "speaking in the voices of
the gods", as part of their expected behaviour for possession (138).
-iii Somnambulism.
This term is used here in the active sense, to describe an hypnotic trance state
(Sargant 1975, 27). In this condition the subject may be oblivious to the surroundings,
and yet subconsciously be selectively responsive.
The Nooksack, in dancing, lose contact with the surrounding stimuli, yet still
respond to the beat of the drum, and have a clear sense of spatial arrangements (127).
They always return to their proper place at the end of their song, and do not stumble
over others (136). Glossolalia has been described as a form of automatism (Vivier

1960, 159) and Carl Jung describes the phenomenon of automatism as a state of semi-
somnambulism (Vivier 1960, 159). Lapsley and Simpson (cited in Mills 1985, 10) refer
to glossolalia as "psychomotor behaviour" with similarities to automatism,
somnambulism and trance states.
Somnambulistic characteristics are evidence of possession in both systems.
-iv Visions (with parallels to Pentecostalism).
Visions - along with the dance and song, provide assurance and confidence (14)
in a similar way to tongues, which give assurance of spirituality.
Visions, although known, are a very private concern, and should not be enquired
into (47-48). Often tongues are perceived in this way, and any attempt to enquire into, or
"test" the tongue, is frowned upon. David du Plessis (1963, 82) adopts an extreme view
of glossolalia, maintaining that Paul considered all tongues to be prayer to God
(including the interpretation), and not a message to men. They were never under public
scrutiny.
Visions allowed the Nooksack to have a capacity to perceive things at a distance
(geographically) and in the future (chronologically) (15-16). The Pentecostal use of "a
word of knowledge/wisdom" approximates to this special insight.
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.
4.5 ECSTASY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT ANTECEDENTS

4.5.1 INTRODUCTION
The New Testament phenomenon that is popularly referred to as "ecstatic tongues"
is first revealed on the Day of Pentecost in a special format (unlike the gift of
glossolalia to the church, in 1 Corinthians). The special manifestation is explained by
the Apostle Peter as a fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecy of Joel. Hence the
phenomenon is more than a product of contemporary ecstasy of Hellenism, or the
Mystery Religions of Paul's world.
... the accounts of the emergence of glossolalia or related utterances of the Spirit in the first Palestinian
community [recorded in Acts] make it plain that we are concerned with an ecstatic phenomenon which is
shared by both Jewish and Gentile Christianity and for which there are analogies in the religious history of the
O.T. and Judaism.
(Behm 1964c, 724).
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
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.
4.5.2 PERSPECTIVES OF ECSTASY AND PROPHECY

A. INTRODUCTION
Abraham's experience in Genesis 15, according to Philo, is the kind of divine
possession, or frenzy that is typical of the prophetic class (Young 1952, 165). Philo
suggests that since the mortal and the immortal may not share the same home, when the
divine Spirit comes on the prophet, the mind is driven from its home. This was the
prophetic experience (Young 1952, 165). Philo was careful in his discrimination of the
facets of meaning of the word ecstasy, and it is to be lamented that subsequent scholars
– especially of the twentieth century – used the word somewhat loosely.
One of the consequences of the early studies in ecstasy (from Hölscher and
others) has been a resultant assumption of ecstasy as a prophetic prerequisite. This is
far more common in relation to the early prophets, and the purported transition from
seer to prophet. Engnell (1969, 126) states categorically that
there is no foundation for making any distinctions ... between the ancient ‘seer’ and the ancient ‘prophet’. Both
were ecstatics, even if there was some degree of difference between the intensity of their ecstatic experiences
...
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
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
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.
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
(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.
4.5.3 WORDS FOR PROPHET/PROPHECY IN SECULAR

EXPERIENCE
Etymologically, the word for prophet, nabhi derives from the Hebrew nabha
which means "to bubble up/pour forth" which is used of the flow of words resulting
from the excitement of inspiration (Brown 1979, 611). This view, going back to
Gesenius in the 1840's, had a significant influence on the meaning of "prophets" and
"prophecy", although Rowley (1945, 7) believes that the arguments are inconclusive.

Nevertheless, the sense of excitement, or the question of "ecstasy" became a focal
point of research. Rowley (1945, 1) comments:
It has been held that "ecstasy" is of the esse of prophecy, and that it provided a criterion without which neither
the prophet nor his audience would be satisfied.
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)
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.

J.W. Povah resorts to the conclusions of Freudian psychology (as opposed to
Micklem's "unconscious mind") and the subliminal field of consciousness (Hines 1928,
221). He concludes that:
Besides the dream symbols which are peculiar to the individual dreamer, the individual dreamer's
dream may also contain symbols which are found in myths and are part of the lingua franca of the
unconscious. Many of these symbols are sexual symbols.
It will not, therefore, surprise us if we find such symbols present in the visions – symbolical as they
have always been taken to be – which the prophets "saw" in dream or ecstasy. We have already noted that in
the experience of Elijah on Horeb the cave is a symbol of the womb, and that Elijah's entrance into it and re-
emergence from it symbolises rebirth. In Isaiah's vision at his call seraphim appear. The word saraph means a
serpent; and the seraphim were probably regarded as serpent-like beings. Now the serpent is a common
(male) symbol of the libido.
(Cited in Hines 1928, 222-3).
Few (Christian) scholars would be happy with Povah's conclusions. However,

Hines believes that a careful study of the mystics from a psychological point of view
may well help in understanding the prophets, especially experiences like that of Ezekiel
(1928, 223). (Broome's extreme view of Ezekiel will be noted later).
Whilst the early work of Hines (1928) was a significant contribution to the issue
of prophetic psychology, it arose in the context of an abnormal emphasis on the
presupposition of ecstasy in the prophetic role. However, unless the ecstatic
presupposition is established, this avenue is somewhat irrelevant.
H.W. Robinson (1923, 2-3) objected to the "ecstatic" emphasis, preferring to
label the prophetic behaviour as "abnormal", claiming that there were many other
behavioural elements involved and also that ecstasy corresponds more to Greek rather
than to Hebrew psychology.
All these views are seeking to address the apparent evidence of behaviour that
has ecstatic associations at least. The difficulty is to identify who specifically
manifested the behaviours and when, in relation to the recorded prophetic expressions
of the Old Testament.
Theologically, Mowinckel (1935, 264) states that the last generation (prior to
1935) had been involved in the "scientific rediscovery of religion", recognising it as a
vital experience. In a movement away from descriptive content of religious ideas in
general, now the move was towards experience of something "irrational".
This focus on irrational experience was also applied to the Old Testament
prophets, and through this enquiry an ecstatic element was discovered in the prophets
(Mowinckel 1935, 264).
Additionally, Kraus (1966, 107) raises the interesting distinction between office
and gifting indicated in Deuteronomy 18:15-18. He draws particular attention to: “The
Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet … I will raise up for them a prophet … I
will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him”. An
office implies continuity and perhaps succession, but this gifting is directly from God
and seems to support the concept of “charismatic gifting”, thus favouring a mechanism
of ecstatic reception of the gifting.
However, it must be noted that in spite of the above, there is some sense of
spiritual transference, and perhaps succession, when Moses passes on the “Spirit by
laying on of hands” (Deuteronomy 34:9) or Elijah passes on the spirit to Elisha (2 Kings
2:9-15) (Kraus 1966, 110-111). There is no evident ecstatic experience on these
occasions.
Culturally, some scholars have held the view that the prophetic movement that
developed in Israel, was the development of a phenomenon already present in the
Canaanite culture (Young 1952, 163). Hölscher held strongly to this theory, and from it
deduced that the prophets of Israel were ecstatics (164). Haldar believed that the
ecstatic precursor was far more widespread in the ancient world (noted in Young 1952,
163) than just the Canaanites, Meek (1960, 155) suggesting that it came via Asia Minor.
On the basis of this premise, Engnell (1969, 145) concludes that there are
important similarities between the earlier prophets of the Canaanite-Israelite region and
"the medicine men, thaumaturges, and charismatic leaders whom we encounter
elsewhere in the world of religion".
However, Engnell does allow that the "seers" as distinct from the "prophets", may
be of "genuine Israelite origin" even if pre-Canaanite (1969, 126). Taylor (1901-2, 223)
notes that alongside any ecstatic precursor is a "Divine element", that "the Deity's will"
is discovered through dreams in ecstasy – using the same names as are familiar in the
Semitic languages. By contrast, Payne suggests that the Canaanite belief in ecstatic and
even orgiastic communion with their deities actually reduced the appreciation of God's
sovereignty and hence His moral purpose (1962, 105).
As opposed to Engnell, Meek (1960, 150) claims that the seer was of the
shamanistic type, whilst Fohrer (1972, 224) says that the seer played an important role
in the nomadic world of the Arabs.
Fohrer then traces a number of examples that he believes supports his view of
prophetic origins, stemming originally from the patriarchs or Balaam as the counterparts
of the Arabic "kāhin" (1972, 224). There were the ecstatic prophets of Baal (1Kings
18:19ff), and Sumerian ecstatics, notably the prophets referred to in the letters from
Mari (225). In Babylonia there were priests and priestesses who supported the king
with "spoken dreams" (226, also Meek 1960, 156). In Assyria there were examples of
ecstatic prophets who could "foresee the future" (226). A particularly famous case is
that of Wen-Amon (or Un-Amun) in Egypt - about 1100 B.C. (226). Jepsen claims that in
that example there are the elements of prophecy (noted by Young 1952, 163).
The final example offered by Fohrer (1972, 226) is the inscription of Zakir, King
of Hamath (800 B.C.), speaking of seers and men who could foretell the future:
These tenuous examples, in spite of their parallels, are hardly convincing.
The ecstatic view related to prophecy from the cultural perspective, fails to
respect the initiative of God's calling and equipping of the prophets, and makes them
products of the cultures of the day. Young (1952, 613) strongly rejects the cultural
theory, asserting that the prophetic phenomenon was a revelation from God. Equally,
Wood (1966, 134) states emphatically, in referring to the early prophets, "These
prophets were not products of Canaanite influence", and further, there is no evidence for
ecstaticism.
By contrast, Lindblom (1962, 66, 97f) believes that ecstaticism was common all
over the world, and necessarily also present in Israel.
Historically, the concept of ecstasy really starts with Plato as noted earlier. It can
then be traced to Knobel in 1837 (Young 1952, 164), later being raised by Duhm in
1875 (Alden 1966, 150; Mowinckel 1935, 264). Robertson Smith, in 1876 in a lecture
on prophecy (Pederson 1946, 128-9) hesitates to acknowledge that the prophets were
ecstatic, but in fact clarifies his position, declaring that God
speaks to His prophets, not in magical processes or through the 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)
Pederson (1946, 129) suggests that Smith's view of prophetic ecstasy may have
been characteristic of his previous generation, although that was to change subsequently.
Young (1952, 164) then refers to the work of Giesebrecht in 1897, in which the ecstatic
view was advanced.
Subsequently, Taylor developed the idea of prophetic ecstasy, as a combination of
the inherent Semitic background but also including a clearly Divine element (1901-2,
223). He maintained that the Holy Spirit took the universally accepted Semitic ecstasy,
and changed its form so that the prophets could "speak religious truth to all times"
(224). Ecstasy changed from a domestic form to a patriotic form, used to rouse the
people to danger (225). Although any Semite could achieve the condition of ecstasy
(through use of music), and anyone could wear prophetic gear, there also needed to be
the "soul aflame for God", and the "burning heart to speak". This was the true line of
divine ecstasy through Elijah to Amos (226). According to Taylor, ecstasy only
appeared when it was needed, but having done its work, it gave way to something
better, the Divine element and a Divine purpose (228).
Following the work of Stade in 1905 (Young 1952, 165), the emphasis on ecstasy
in the prophets came into prominence in 1914, through the work of Hölscher (Alden
1966, 150). Buttenweiser (1914, 138) drew attention to the ecstatic element, but already
offered a corrective, especially for the literary prophets. He stated emphatically, "The
inspiration of the great literary prophets has nothing in common with the ecstasy of the
prophets of the older type" (Buttenweiser 1914, 138).
Günkel, 1923, further popularised the theory (Alden 1966, 150) and it was soon
followed by many scholars including Jacobi, Horst, Theodore Robinson, Lindblom,
Hertzberg and Lods (Rowley 1945, 2-3). He stated that the fundamental experience of
all types of prophecy is ecstasy (cited in Rowley 1945, 3).
In the extreme form, this theory held that "every prophetic oracle arose out of an
ecstatic experience" (Theodore Robinson in Rowley 1945, 3), that "ecstasy was
characteristic of all Israelite prophecy" (Hölscher in Wilson 1979, 321, emphasis his),
and that ecstasy was characteristic of the prophets from first to last (Hölscher in
Rowley 1945, 2).
Wilson (1979, 321) affirmed that the "existence of ecstasy in Israel cannot be
questioned" but that there was a tension between prophetic ecstasy and the written forms
in the Bible which are so rational and objective. Hölscher did in fact try to distinguish
between the ecstasy of the early prophets and that of the writing prophets (Wilson 1979,
321):
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:
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.
4.5.4 ECSTASY AND PROPHECY IN BIBLICAL USAGE

A. INTRODUCTION
Research for this study depends in part upon the nature of prophecy, and in
particular, whether it is essentially ecstatic.
Williams (1974, 327) notes that "those who recognize ecstatic features in Hebrew
prophecy, both pre-canonical and canonical, are probably right, but that the degree of
dissociation involved may differ from individual to individual". He notes that even
critics who wish to avoid any association of ecstatic conditions with the canonical
prophets have to concede that some abnormal features occur.
This variety of individual experience is taken up by Eliades (1964, xviii) when he
notes that the same individual can have an infinite variety of religious experiences from
"the ‘highest’ to the most underdeveloped and aberrant". Howie (1950, 69) is careful to
point out that any claim that the prophets were "normal" is defied by the fact that any
"norm" is the average of deviations from the norm, which ultimately is only a statistical
abstract. He concludes that "all great Hebrew prophets ... were not normal human
beings".
In the absence of other specific information, ecstasy has tended to become the
explanation for the means of prophetic inspiration leading to verbal utterance.
Mackenzie (1974, 94) reminds us that most of the literary prophets say nothing about the
manner of their inspiration, and hence the matter of inspiration should be treated
separately for each prophet. To that end, a brief overview of the prophetic role is
addressed, especially noting the earlier prophets where the main criteria for
identification with ecstasy are found.
B. PROPHETIC GROUPINGS

Robinson (1946, 173-4) gives a helpful overview of the Old Testament usage of
the term for prophet. He notes that the noun occurs 312 times in the Old Testament and
its use falls chronologically into three distinct groups.
Firstly, in the period prior to the eighth century, the term occurs 88 times, 78
referring to recognized prophets of Yahweh. This group includes Moses, Miriam,
Nathan, Elijah and Elisha. These were oral or non-writing prophets who were often
advisers to the kings (La Sor 1982, 302). They cover the period of the supposed
transition from Canaanite origins to the prophets of Jehovah, and are largely of the
"ecstatic" type (Robinson 1946, 173) according to some critics.
Secondly, in the period of the eighth century down to 550 B.C., there are 168
references to prophets, many referring to false prophets (especially those in antithesis to
Jeremiah and Ezekiel). This is the period of "classical and creative Hebrew prophecy",
the literary or writing prophets, the reforming prophets, and the pre-exilic prophets.
This is the most significant period of prophecy, including those subsequently canonised,
including Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, Isaiah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
Daniel. They were mostly men with strongly ethical messages, whose application was
to the people, the nation, and also foreign nations (La Sor 1980, 303). The so-called
ecstatic features, although not entirely missing, certainly move to the periphery of
prophetic experience (Robinson 1946, 174).
Thirdly, in the period after 550 B.C., there are only 56 references to the term.
This is the post-exilic period in which prophecy declined, with many references being
retrospective. Prophets lost their authority and esteem. By this stage, prophesying has no
suggestion of abnormal "psycho-physical accompaniments" (ecstatic experiences)
(Robinson 1946, 175).
Although the above grouping is very convenient, the distinction that is applicable
for this study, relates to the early period of supposed transition and significant "ecstatic"
experiences, as opposed to the later prophets and their more rational and ethical
approach.
C. EARLY PROPHETS
a. Exodus 4:15-16; 7:1-2.

The prophet was God's mouth and to that degree, he was "outside human control"
(Ellison 1969, 26). There is a very special and close relationship between the prophet
and God but there is no "necessarily ‘ecstatic’ significance" (Rowley 1945, 8).
Technically at this time Moses himself was not a prophet (Numbers 12:6-8) – Aaron
was so designated (Exodus 7:1) – and certainly there is no instance of miraculous
foreknowledge (Eichrodt 1961, 303). However, it will be noted later, that Deuteronomy
18 gives a fuller perspective on Moses' role.
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".
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

influence of Yahwism, producing Old Testament prophecy in the strict sense.
Fohrer's view seeks to accommodate the secular theories of development, but
doesn't do justice to the divinely appointed prophetic role.
Taylor (1901-2, 225) sees the change (as he perceives it) from seer to prophet,
not so much as a coalescing of two institutions, but as an ecstatic transition within the
state, when there was a change from the patriarchal to the monarchical condition. In the
early tribal condition of Israel, the seer (ecstatic) was consulted on domestic matters,
and his methods reflected an extremely simple way of life.
Subsequently, under threat of Philistine attack, the tribal groups had to be
transformed into a national entity (cf. Deborah's complaint of some tribal groups failing
to rally in time of need). Taylor argues that ecstasy was used by God to rouse the people
to a sense of danger, changing from its domestic form to patriotic. Consequently the
ecstatics and Saul saved the nation. In ecstatic bands, they roused enthusiasm to promote
the patriotic spirit.
The transition from seer to prophet was an ecstatic transition as Taylor perceives
it.
La Sor (1982, 299) comments that if there was any distinction between the terms
"seer" and "prophet", in which the former was replaced by the latter, it was indistinct by
Old Testament times. Although two different Hebrew words are used, they would seem
to be completely interchangeable.
When compared with the Septuagint text: "the people used to call a prophet a
seer", it appears that "seer" was simply a popular name for "prophet" (Rowley 1945, 8-
9). Certainly the text does not permit a distinction of types.
Aalders maintains that the two terms are fully synonymous (Rowley 1945, 9),
whilst Theodore Robinson says that the nabi functioned spontaneously (ecstatically)
whilst the seer did not (Rowley 1945, 9). Mowinckel denies any psychological
distinction between them (Rowley 1945, 9).
Rowley himself (1945, 12) concludes that there are a variety of facets of
prophetic roles that render any distinction between seer and nabi as irrelevant.
Certainly there are no grounds for assuming an ecstatic basis for the role of seer or
prophet.
f. 1 Samuel 10:1-13; 19:18-24.

These passages on the appointing and anointing of Saul, and of Saul's prophecy,
are regarded by Wood (1966, 126; 1979, 40) as the second and third principle source
passages for those seeking to establish the concept of prophetic ecstasy, and Parker

(1978, 271) regards that these passages are the foundational passages for the same
reason. Come (1959, 126) sees the experience of ecstasy, as shown by trance or
feverish dancing, as the chief evidence of the coming of the Spirit.
Most significant in the passages is the role of a group of prophets (prophetic
band).
Essentially these "sons of the prophets" were groups of zealous individuals
(Martin 1960, 74), "ecstatic prophets" (in Payne 1962, 242). They adopted hair mantles
as their dress and became a recognized institution of advisers to the court (Taylor 1901-
2, 226).
According to Martin (1960, 75) these prophets felt that they had God's Spirit, and
as a group became possessed and burst into frenzied speaking. Their irregular speech
was emotional, involuntary and quite incoherent. Martin specifically identifies this
verbal phenomenon as "speaking in tongues".
Eventually this frenzied and ecstatic speech was sought for its own glory (Martin
1960, 75) and their practice was exercised "with intent to deceive" (cf. Zech. 13:4) and
their phraseology employed to gain credence (Taylor 1901-2, 226).
The bands of prophets became an offence to honest men, and were "the progeny of
ecstasy". It was too easy to imitate the ecstatic condition and to replicate the prophetic
office (Taylor 1901-2, 226) inducing group ecstasy (Mackenzie 1974, 94) and sharing
deliberately induced ecstatic experiences (Fohrer 1972, 229).
Supposedly ecstasy was the badge of their authority, and consequently they could
move through the land with loud chanting, and fulfilling people's requests through
ecstatic enquiry (Wood 1966, 125). The picture that is painted is of these prophets going
about in bands, "fired to a dervishlike frenzy, ‘prophesying’ to the sound of music"
(Bright 1959, 166).
This connection between ecstasy and prophecy is very tenuous, and Mundle
(1976, 527) admits that the apparent connection is clouded by the presence of false
prophets for whom madness and drunkenness were of no consequence. Mundle further
clarifies, that ecstasy, visions, or claims to oracles are not infallible signs to distinguish
the false from the true prophet, "Only the message itself will do that" (527). Too much
space has been spent on the associated phenomena, often at a time and place not
associated with authentic prophecy. It is distressing to read of Parker's (1978, 275)
sweeping assertion that this passage really demonstrates possession trance "interpreted
as possession by a spirit of Yahweh". If Bourguignon's (1973b, 14-15) research has
credence, then possession trance results in behaviour that is not remembered by the
subject – and hence a prophet under possession trance would not be able to recall let
alone write down his vision or prophecy. On the other hand, Bourguignon demonstrates
a continuum of consciousness in which vision trance (like dreams) – as opposed to
possession trance – can be remembered.
Parker (1978, 272) sees the passages as expressing extreme behaviour. In the first
(1 Sam. 10:5-7) there is "a radical transformation of the personality", whilst in the
second (1 Sam. 19:20-24) it may entail stripping off one's clothes or it may result in a
coma. Taylor (1901-2, 227) believes that the bands of the prophets are not authentic, but
good imitators. Any Semite could induce ecstasy, and anyone could wear the externals
of the prophetic office. Hence he concludes that the true ecstasy was not on the "Bands"
but through Elijah to Amos. Yet this corrective involves too many presuppositions.
Eppstein (1969, 295) regards these conclusions as oversimplifications. He quotes
from Von Rad:
there is not enough source material ... to allow us to draw anything like a history of the movement [of bands of
the prophets] ... the straight line of development which once was drawn from the ecstatic bands met in 1 Sam.
10:5ff down through Samuel and Elijah to Isaiah and Jeremiah has for long now been recognized as an
inadmissible oversimplification.
Eppstein himself concludes:
Aside from these suspicious passages [1 Sam. 10, 19] there is no Biblical evidence of the existence in the
period of the judges of bands of prophets whose features harmonize readily with the atmosphere and events
ascribed to the times of Elijah and Elisha.
(Eppstein 1969, 295).
Kaufman (1960, 100) states more emphatically, "The prophetic bands at the times
of Elijah and Elisha are never characterized as ecstatic". Martin (1960, 75) claims that
the bands of prophets were not only in the times of Elijah and Elisha, but that there is
"definite proof" that ecstatic bands were in existence up to the period of the fall of
Jerusalem and the Exile. Further, that such individuals were both mad and fools, and he
cites Hosea 9:7,8 and Jeremiah 29:26 in evidence. However, neither of these verses
identifies bands of prophets, nor substantiates that they had any credibility as prophets.
In a variation from the bands, Eichrodt (1961, 302) refers to Samuel in this
period, and categorically denies that ecstasy plays any part in his work. However he
does allow that "a capacity for clairvoyance, dream-visions and auditions are the
sources of his superior knowledge".
Samuel gave directions to Saul (1 Sam. 10) about his expected experience of
prophesying with "a group of prophets", and that he would be "changed into another
man" (NASB), but this is insufficient to assume a bizarre ecstatic experience for Saul,
Samuel, or the band of prophets.
From Saul's point of view, the prophetic experience was an "unexpected ecstatic
performance" (Eppstein 1969, 297) that came "spontaneously, unanticipated and
uninvited, and took the man completely out of himself" (Meek 1960, 152). However,
this fails to substantiate an ecstatic experience for Saul, nor that he was a prophet, nor
that prophets were ecstatic. Eppstein (1969, 297) believes that the proverbial query: "Is
Saul also among the prophets?", "proves conclusively" that there is no folk tradition to
indicate that Saul was an ecstatic prophet. This was a "trivial chance exclamation" by
an anonymous bystander, and there is no other evidence to suggest that Saul participated
in "prophetic manticism" (Eppstein 1969, 297). The Saul issue is really a non-event.
In the broader sphere of the bands of the prophets, the use of the two passages (1
Samuel 10 and 1 Samuel 19) to make an historical reconstruction – about the nature of
the bands of the prophets – "is a focal source of historical distortion" (Eppstein 1969,
295). On the balance of evidence, Wood (1979, 20) seems correct in concluding, both
that the professional prophets (including the bands of prophets) were not the historic,
traditional prophets, nor that the early prophets were groups of "wild, ecstatic people
who moved about in bands".
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).
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

1979, 42). Equally, there is no proof that the message was from the Lord, as the section
concerning Micaiah makes clear. Indeed the role of Micaiah in this passage is used to
support the viewpoint that Micaiah is the pivotal prophet in the changing role from the
early to the late prophets (Wood 1979, 103). He was regarded as the start of a line of
true prophets (cf. v.14) over against the ecstatics.
Irrespective, this passage does not clarify ecstaticism or associated phenomena as
part of any true prophetic role.
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
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

Isaiah in this way.
ii. Jeremiah.
In a sweeping general statement, Pederson (1946, 129) states that Jeremiah
(together with Ezekiel) present "the most evident ecstatic features" in their speeches.
More specifically, Robinson (1921, 231) refers to Chapter 4:23-26 to make the claim
that "it is clearly the result of an ecstatic experience". It would be well nigh impossible
to substantiate that conclusion.
More commonly, the state of madness (wild, beside himself) is attributed to
prophets. Jeremiah 9:24-27 is a passage that is used by some scholars to seek to
establish this claim. The reference is to a message sent by Shemaiah, a captive Israelite
prophet in Babylon, to Zephaniah, a priest in the Jerusalem temple. He makes a derisive
remark implying that prophets are "madmen". Parker (1978, 282) points out that the
remark is an expression of prophetic conflict through an abusive remark. There is
nothing to suggest abnormal behaviour that would indicate madness. Further, the
evidence is weak in that this is only one man's single comment (not necessarily his
opinion) in opposition to Jeremiah (cf. Wood 1979, 43).
iii. Ezekiel.
The notorious extreme with regard to Ezekiel, is Broome's (1946, 291-2) radical
opinion of Ezekiel as a "paranoid schizophrenic", a "true psychotic" having a
"narcissistic-masochistic conflict with attendant phantasies of castration and
unconscious sexual regression" and so on. Broome is determined to prove that Ezekiel
has a psychotic disorder, and that using dung to cook the cakes was "an act reminiscent
of the soiling propensities of the anal-sadistic stage of regression" (281). Broome's
comments seem quite bizarre.
Howie (1950, 69-84) critiques Broome's work, pointing out that paranoid
schizophrenia is the most severe form of schizophrenia, with conflicting delusions of
grandeur and persecution. These delusions are usually illogical and grotesque (71).
Howie carefully analyses the position and concludes that Broome's position is totally
unsubstantiated.
Hölscher's view is also quite extreme. He held that Ezekiel was subject to
cataleptic fits, and he found evidence for unintelligible speech in Chapters 7 and 21
(supposedly approximating to glossolalia) – although this was rejected by Micklem
(Williams 1974, 328).
Maintaining a more moderate, yet nevertheless ecstatic view, was Pfeiffer (1948,
543), claiming that Ezekiel was the first fanatic of the Bible and that "Like most
fanatics, Ezekiel was dogmatic ... In ecstatic trance he saw visions and heard voices".

Others like Pederson (1946, 129) and Alden (1966, 152) affirm that there is
unquestioned ecstasy in the prophecy of Ezekiel. Robinson (1921, 226) states that
ecstasy is more strongly marked in Ezekiel than any other book.
Others regard Ezekiel's imagery as explanatory. Williams (1974, 329) rejects the
ecstaticism in Chapters 7 and 21 claimed by Hölscher. He sees symbolic activity rather
than a "spontaneous ecstatic outburst". Ezekiel's howling and crying (21:6,7) is an
expression of grief in prediction of the grief in Jerusalem. Further, his utterances are far
from unintelligible "as is glossolalic utterance". Mowinckel (1934, 203) sees the
ecstatic sensation of being transported from one place to another being described as a
spirit motivated principle. Ezekiel was a true ecstatic of the old type, ascribing his
experiences to Yahweh's ruach (209). Another view, was that of Payne (1962, 61) who
stated that Ezekiel experienced the new form of "rapture" by which the prophet was
transported. He also notes Ezekiel's prophetic method as containing a dramatic element
rather than simply ecstatic.
These moderating views allow space for a more deliberate and rational element
to Ezekiel's prophecy. Meek (1960) observes that after the early part of the twentieth
century in which there was the tendency to exaggerate ecstaticism, by the middle of the
century, ecstaticism was being played down. In fact in 1935, Mowinckel noted that
newer currents of theological thought are evidently setting again in the direction of increased attention to the
rational element in religion. (265)
By 1945, Rowley noted that the canonical prophets had "abnormal experiences",
especially in the case of Ezekiel, but this did not make ecstasy normative or even typical
of the greater prophets (5). Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones, instead of being
an ecstatic vision, is shown to be "precisely parallel" to the creation of man in Genesis
2:7 (H.W. Robinson 1923, 3).
Meek (1960, 177) summarizes the restoration of balance: "What used to be
interpreted as ecstasy has come to be interpreted as a literary device", and "It is
acknowledged that the early prophets were given to ecstatic experiences, but not the
canonical prophets, not even Ezekiel". Isbell (1976, 63) asserts that there must be a
sharp line drawn between early ecstasy and classical prophecy.
iv. Hosea.
Chapter 9, verse 7, has been advanced in support of an ecstatic state, because of
the use of mesugga "mad/wild/beside himself". The verse occurs in a context in which
Hosea is describing the warped thinking of the people concerning the prophets. It is
used as a derogatory term. It is not valid to take the thoughts of the people and to
therefore deduce that the prophets were ecstatics who put on mad, emotionally charged
demonstrations (Wood 1979, 43) or that they were experiencing possession trance (=

ecstasy, Parker 1978, 283).
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.
4.5.5 VIEWS AND PROPONENTS

A. INTRODUCTION
Against the background already discussed, especially the Old Testament evidence,
it would be easy to dismiss the early twentieth century emphasis on ecstatic experience
as a temporary phase. In many respects this is true, but it should not be lightly
dismissed. The number of views expressed in grappling with the issue, and the number
of scholars involved in the debate helps to show the importance given to the matter of
ecstatic experience in prophecy. This section is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
descriptive of the above observations.
In this section, Wilson's outline (1979, 322-3) is followed, although he himself
doesn't clearly state his own position. There are four broad divisions to be addressed:
(1) All prophets were ecstatic.
(2) The prophets delivered their oracles after their ecstatic experiences had ended.
(3) The prophets may have received their message by ecstatic means, but the content
must be distinguished from the means.
(4) The writing prophets (in particular) were not ecstatics.
In each section a chronological listing will be given, with pertinent quotes and
comments as deemed necessary. Sometimes the scholar is described by another scholar
as holding a particular view, and hence no personal quote may be used. Sometimes (as
in the case of Mowinckel) a particularly renown scholar may hold a view that heavily
impacts on scholastic thinking, and hence the references may vary accordingly.
B. ALL PROPHETS WERE ECSTATICS

In this first of the broad division, each scholar varies in his emphasis, but as a
whole they acknowledge that ecstasy is basic to the prophetic role.
1837 Knobel (reported by Young 1952, 164).
1897 Giesebrecht (reported by Young 1952, 164).
1901-2 Taylor: "The true line of ecstasy lay through Elijah to Amos". Ecstasy
declined finally with Jeremiah and Amos (227).
1905 Stade (reported by Young 1952, 165).
1914 Hölscher. "Hölscher analysed the abnormal factors in the prophetic
consciousness, and found ‘ecstasy’ to be characteristic of the prophets from
first to last" (Rowley 1945, 2). He maintains that every time we see "Thus
saith the LORD", we understand an ecstatic utterance (Alden 1966, 155).
1920 Jacobi: "Ecstasy is the essence of prophecy" (cited in Rowley 1945, 3).
1921 Robinson: (T.H.) "... the most notable exponent of [the ecstatic theory] in
England" (Alden 1966, 150). Like Hölscher, he maintains that "Thus saith the
LORD" is an ecstatic utterance (Alden 1966, 155). "So far from ‘no ecstatic
frenzy’ being ‘suggested’, there is no evidence to show that the reflexive forms
of the root NB' ever meant anything but ‘ecstatic frenzy’ - at least before the
time of Amos" (Robinson 1921, 224).
1922 Horst (reported by Rowley 1945, 2).
1923 Hertzberg (reported by Rowley 1945, 2).
1923 Gunkel: "The fundamental experience of all types of prophecy is ecstasy"
(cited in Rowley 1945, 3). The actions of the prophets were outward
manifestations of their inner ecstasy (Williams 1974, 325). Gunkel emphasized
(Mowinckel 1935, 264) and popularized the ecstatic theory (Alden 1966,
150).
1924 Lindblom (reported by Rowley 1945, 2).
1934 Hackman (reported by Rowley 1945, 3).
1937 Lods: "The utterances of the great prophets ... always strike the note of
intensity, abruptness, and violence, characteristic of the tranced ecstatic" (53).
Lods seeks to validate his position: "It would be necessary to disregard the
evidence of history ... in order to maintain that a tendency to ecstasy is
incompatible with a sane and vigorous mind ... what the ecstatic sees and hears
in trance is the expression of his personality" (57).
1938 Mauchline: "... we prefer to use the term in its wider connotation" (295).
Many forms tend to be "commonest among uneducated people ... ecstatic
experience can be nothing but an emotional disturbance ... in its effects is
definitely demoralizing ... ecstatic experience so induced (by a leader) may
have a noetic quality, and so have religious value" (297). In the broad sense
Mauchline describes "three types of prophetic ecstasy" (Williams 1974, 324),
giving it broad application to the prophetic role. He did make a distinction
between the physical actions and the state brought on by the actions when the
prophecies took place (Mauchline 1938, 295). This seems to border on the
next category.
1939 Cohon: She called the prophets "mad enthusiasts" (cited by Barbour 1981, 6-
7).
1945 Rowley: "That there were frenzied prophets in Israel is agreed by all ...
Especially is this agreed in the case of Ezekiel, in whom the older ‘ecstatic’
element is allowed to have become prominent again" (5). In other respects,
Rowley is a little more moderate, as he continues: "But this is far from holding
that ‘ecstasy’ was normal, or even typical, of the experiences of the greater
prophets" (5).
1946 Pederson: "Among the great prophets, whose speeches are handed down to
us, just some of the later ones, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, present the most evident
ecstatic features" (129).
1948 Pfeiffer, R. A leading exponent of the ecstatic theory in America (Alden
1966, 150).
1952 Weber. Whilst adopting an ecstatic view of prophecy, he seeks to avoid "the
influence of Canaanite orgiasticism and the irrational and emotional forms of
Magic (which) came from the North" (193).
1960 Meek: "The prophets were mystics ... they experienced the feelings of
transport, of transcendence over things material ... so carried away were they
by the experience, so surcharged by its rapturous ecstasy, that they felt
impelled to give utterance to it in prophetic oracles ... It was not the prophet
who was speaking in the oracle, but Yahweh [cf. glossolalia]" (153-4). In
some respects Meek could be classified under "(2)" because he clearly notes
that the prophets words "were only uttered after his mystic experience and as a
result of that experience" (154, emphasis his). Like Weber, Meek clarifies that
although the early prophets (specifically) were ecstatics, their "ecstaticism
was seldom, if ever, of the frenzied type and was never orgiastic" (156).
1969 Engnell: "There can be no doubt that ecstasy played an important role in (the
literary) prophets" (148). "... the great prophets were involved in ecstasy more
than most scholars have wanted to admit. In light of this, 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).
1974 Williams: "... undoubted ecstatic features of much of Ezekiel's activity. In this
writer's view the ecstatic susceptibility of the canonical prophets must be
accepted, but the extent of the suppression of normal consciousness in any
instance can only be conjectured" (324). "What we claim, then, is that those
who recognize ecstatic features in Hebrew prophecy, both pre-canonical and
canonical, are probably right ..." (327).
C. PROPHECY AFTER ECSTATIC EXPERIENCE

These scholars (second division) generally wanted to protect the writing prophets
from extremes of identification with orgiastic practices of heathen "prophets" or
mindless ravings of prophets in trance. They recognize that the writing prophets in
particular had a clear rational and moral message, and yet they want to allow for some
ecstatic association. Their conclusion is, that any ecstasy is prior to the prophecy.
1923 Robinson, H.W. He prefers to refer to "abnormal" rather than "ecstatic"
experience because ecstasy corresponds more to Greek than Hebrew psychology
(2). He includes Ezekiel's trances, Jeremiah's purchase of a field, the visions of
Amos and Zechariah as "abnormals" (6). He concurs with Skinner: "Visions and
auditions, mysterious inward promptings to speech and action, are still a part of
the prophet's experience ... The meaning of the vision passes into the prophet's
thinking ... from which spring ever fresh intuitions of truth and calls to duty" (cited
7-8).
1938 Gillaume: "... it is a mistake to lay such emphasis on the physical phenomena of
ecstasy - dancing, leaping, stabbing the body, swallowing hot coals, ... as to imply
that the physical phenomena are primary and the spiritual experience secondary. In
many cases physical excitement is prior in time ..." (291). He also strongly
emphasises the prophets' intense consciousness of himself – "an unconscious self-
consciousness" (294).
1960 Meek. See classification "(1)".
1961 Eichrodt: "The state of ecstasy enabled many to impart information in the name
of Yahweh in a way which revealed the presence of a higher kind of knowledge ...
frenzy ... an endowment with higher powers ... This constituted a further influence
raising ecstasy to a higher plane ... the man ‘in whom the word of Yahweh is’"
(312, emphasis his). "Ecstasy with all its consequences derives from a direct
irruption of divine power" (318, emphasis mine).
1962 Lindblom: "When inspiration strongly intensified, it turned to ecstasy" (4). He
adds that: "In analysing prophetic personalities it must always be kept in mind that
inspiration and ecstasy have many degrees and many manifestations" (25). He
refers to two types of ecstasy, the second, "concentration ecstasy" being
applicable to the prophets (Young 1952, 165-166). Normal consciousness, is
obscured, supposedly in a way similar to glossolalists, and yet this is clear
communication (cf. Williams 1974, 324).
1962 Johnson: "... their behaviour ... designed expressly to bring about an abnormal
(not to say ‘ecstatic’) experience which should prove to be the means of obtaining
divine guidance ..." (18-19).
D. EMPHASIS ON CONTENT, NOT EXPERIENCE

In a move more strongly away from ecstatic experience, several scholars wanted
to clearly emphasize the CONTENT of the prophecy – the ultimate outcome – as more
important than the method to receive the message especially in the case of the later
prophets (third division).
1901 Taylor: "... as ecstasy in its most pronounced form was the method by which the
God of Israel revealed himself during a great national crisis, so now, with fuller
knowledge of His nature, and under different religious and political
circumstances, the ecstatic prophet dropped out of sight ... in the time of Jeremiah
(the ecstatic prophet) had come to be a subject of ridicule (Jeremiah 29:26). The
function of ecstasy was at an end" (227). "Ecstasy as a power appeared when it
was needed; it did its work and then gave way to something better" (228).
1935 Mowinckel. Even as early as 1935, Mowinckel felt that the pendulum was
returning from the ecstatic preoccupation: "the newer currents of theological
thought are evidently setting again in the direction of increased attention to the
rational element in religion" (265, emphasis his).
He notes concerning the prophets of judgment (Isaiah and Jeremiah) that they had
"special experiences" (269) and that: "Manifestly there is an ecstatic element in
all this" (271, emphasis his). "All this, however, really represents unessentials -
the outward form of concomitant circumstances" (272, emphasis his). "In reality,
then, all that is left of the ecstatic element in the great prophets is the
psychological core both of ecstasy and of every ardent spiritual activity into
which a man throws himself heart and soul" (277). "There is really an intensive,
free-flowing but unconscious creative work in progress within them ... this may be
called ecstasy; but spiritually it is on an infinitely higher plane than the old
unbalanced enthusiasm and paralysing visions of terror" (278). "... the prophets
are directed by a clearly apprehended religious and moral idea which has
become their own with the full cogency of an experience of reality" (278,
emphasis his). "It has a content which can be apprehended by the mind: it is the
medium of a new apprehension of God: it reveals a revelational content" (279,
emphasis his). "It appears, then, that the content is the deciding factor which
makes the prophets' experience an experience of God. ... The content of an
experience makes it an experience of Yahweh, or rather, proves that it is one ... it
has a definite content, capable of being apprehended by the mind and tested by
religious and moral standards." (279-280, emphasis his). "How, then, can the
prophet be sure that the thoughts which come to him are Yahweh's word? There is
no doubt of the answer: he knows this from the clear, intelligible moral and
religious content of the word" (287, emphasis his). "The true prophet is not one
who possesses the ecstasy-producing spirit of Yahweh ... the great prophets are
very far from being passive instruments of their ecstasies and hallucinations ...
The prophets are religious and moral personalities who weigh and judge
rationally" (288-289, emphasis his).
One year earlier, Mowinckel had commented that: "We know that the great
reforming prophets had experiences of an ecstatic nature" (1934, 214), and that
"the ecstatic element is a criterion" of prophecy (215) although very subdued in
the reforming prophets (207). By 1937 Mowinckel would have reduced that
emphasis further (1937, 261-265) preferring to consign the whole matter to the
psychologists (1937, 264). No doubt Mowinckel's stature as a scholar meant that
his strong corrective had a significant impact on the whole "prophetic ecstasy"
movement, restoring balance.
1939 Obbink: "These prophets deny any relationship with the so-called nebi’im, the
ecstatic bands of Canaanite prophets" (cited in Rowley 1945, 18 fn.90). More
emphatically, he finds a distinction between the false and true prophets in that the
false are ecstatic, and the true are not (Rowley 1945, 18).
1972 Fohrer: "Often the secret experiences of even the great individual prophets were
obviously accompanied by ecstatic experiences, such as are best observed in the
case of Ezekiel. But ecstasy had no independent significance in its own right and
was not an isolated phenomenon; it merely accompanied the secret experience.
Furthermore, although it might occur in this context, it was not obligatory ... there
was added the rational processing of the experience" (239).
E. WRITING PROPHETS (AT LEAST) NOT ECSTATICS
Engnell (1969, 146) makes the curious observation (in 1969) that many scholars
in "modern" times (referring to scholars of 1926-1936) "have come to the more or less
radical position of denying that Old Testament prophetism on the whole has an ecstatic
character" (emphasis mine). Certainly this was a constant corrective being given to the
early "radical" idea of wholesale ecstasy for the prophets. (This is the fourth of the
broad divisions).
1907 Smith, R.: 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).
1914 Buttenweiser. He offers a corrective: "The inspiration of the great literary
prophets has nothing in common with the ecstasy of the prophets of the older type"
(138). "The utterances of the literary prophets ... proceed from an apperceptive
state of mind" as distinct from involuntary and unconscious utterances of persons
possessed. (138).
1926 Micklem: "Many scholars, including W.R. Smith, ... K. Cramer, A. Weiser, N.
Micklem and A. Heschel, have come to the more or less radical position of
denying that Old Testament prophetism on the whole has an ecstatic character"
(Engnell 1969, 146, emphasis mine).
1929 Weiser. See on "1926 Micklem".
1930 Cramer. See on "1926 Micklem".
1936 Heschel. See on "1926 Micklem". "It is common to characterize the prophet as a
messenger of God, thus to differentiate him from the tellers of fortune, givers of
oracles, seers, and ecstatics. Such a characterization expresses only one aspect of
his consciousness. The prophet claims to be far more than a messenger. He is a
person who stands in the presence of God" (1969, 21). The prophet is not a mere
mouthpiece involved in a "mere act of passive and unconscious receptivity". "The
prophet is not a mouthpiece, but a person; not an instrument, but a partner, an
associate of God" (1969, 25).
"It is strange that in all the discussions of prophetic ecstasy, scholars overlooked
the significant fact that in the leading prophetic figures between the time of Moses
and the time of Amos, no sign of ecstasy is reported" (1962, 354).
1936 König. "He ... emphasized again and again the mental clarity of the prophets and
the self-consciousness which they preserved even in the moment of their call, and
denied that ecstasy had any significance for the rise of prophetism" (cited in Alden

1966, 154).
1940 Albright: "... the prophets of the eighth century were in general neither diviners
nor dervishes ... there is no reason to suppose that ecstatic phenomena played a
significant role any longer, except in historical vestiges which were rarely
accompanied by true ecstaticism" (134).
1946 Gierstadt (reported by Young 1952, 166).
1952 Young. In opposition to the view of the Canaanitish origin of prophecy in
particular, "we believe that the phenomena found in the Old Testament was a
revelation from God and did not grow out of similar phenomena to be found
elsewhere" (163). The prophets "believed themselves to have been the recipients
of revelation from the God of Israel' (161), "... an objective revelation" (175).
1960 Kaufman: "In the Israelite conception ... ecstasy does not induce prophecy ... the
divine word may cause ecstasy ... Frenzy never is represented as a preliminary to
prophecy ... physical and psychical manifestations ... are described as results of
prophetic experience, rather than as preconditions to it ... the onset of ecstasy is
often described as consequent on the word of God, a striking reversal of the
pagan idea" (100, emphasis his).
1966 Wood: "... no evidence of ecstaticism among Israel's early prophets ... not
products of Canaanite influence" (134). "... we may conclude that ‘to prophesy’
meant in its full sense ‘to speak fervently’" (137). In a thorough-going treatment of
prophetism (1979) Wood carefully analyses the evidence advanced for prophetic
ecstasy, refutes the evidence and proffers counter arguments to establish his clear
view in Chapter 3, "Israel's Prophets Were Not Ecstatics" (37ff.).
1966 Alden: "When we come right down to the positive evidence, there is not one
clear instance of a true prophet of Yahweh going into ecstasy – meaning by that
term some sort of irresponsible delirium or rage" (155). "Since the word (ecstasy)
generally has derogatory overtones ... we do well not to use it to describe the
Hebrew prophets" (155). "There is no evidence whatever in the Bible for the
actions usually denoted by ecstasy. Therefore I propose the Abandonment (sic) of
the term as one to describe the true prophet of Israel" (156).
1967 Rendtorff. (reported by Parker 1978, 271).
1969 Eppstein. He argues against 1 Samuel 10 and 1 Samuel 19 being used as
evidence for prophetic ecstasy. He supports Von Rad that there is insufficient
material to produce a line of ecstatic development from Samuel and Elijah to
Isaiah and Jeremiah. It is an "inadmissible oversimplification" (295). The two
Samuel passages are irrelevant (304). He attempts to understand Israelite
prophecy without reference to ecstasy (Parker 1978, 271).
1978 Parker. Focusing on "possession trance" as referring to "states interpreted by the
societies in which they occur as due to possession by spirits" (273, using
Bourguignon's definition), Parker identifies the Samuel passages as referring to
possession trance (273) using this criterion. However, he finally rejects any
mediumistic activity in the passages, and hence to possession trance (281) and
thus summarises: "I conclude that possession trance is not an element of Israelite
prophecy" (285, emphasis his).
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.

Certainly the writing prophets are increasingly affirmed as being coherent and
rational in their prophetic ministry, and quite deliberate in their symbolic behaviour.
Negatively, there is no evidence of ecstasy being essential in any way for prophecy (cf.
Kaufman 1960, 100).
Wood (1966, 134) asserts conclusively concerning the early prophets that there is
"no evidence of ecstaticism among Israel's early prophets. These prophets were not
products of Canaanite influence". The case for the later prophets is even more clear cut
(1979, 37).
4.5.6 CORRELATION OF O.T. PROPHECY AND N.T.

GLOSSOLALIA
A. INTRODUCTION
Thomas (1978, 141) notes emphatically:
To understand tongues' basic nature requires an understanding of God's dealings more broadly ... The
foreignness of the Assyrian tongue [Isa. 28:11] is taken as analogous to the gift of tongues ...
Likewise, Williams (1974) asserts a clear correlation between Old Testament
prophecy and contemporary glossolalia:
One should not presume a priori that there is no generic connection between modern glossolalia and ecstatic
prophecy or that glossolalia can be dismissed as pathological indulgence ... (320). The question we pose is
whether ... the ecstatic features associated with Hebrew prophecy can be related to what has been observed
of the experience and behaviour of glossolalists (321).
B. PARALLELS AND CORRELATIONS
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.
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
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.
e. Role of the Prophet

Gaffin (1996, 46) suggests that we are unable to distinguish between New
Testament prophets and "inscripturated prophets" (Old Testament) on the basis of
inspiration and authority. He quotes Fee "[Paul] undoubtedly saw ‘the New Testament
prophets’ as in the succession of the ‘legitimate’ prophets of the Old Testament" (Gaffin
1996, 46). Paul's understanding of prophecy was conditioned by Judaism, but the
symbolic acts of mainstream prophetic activity had very little to do with ecstasy,
especially "frenzy" (Fee 1987, 595).
"Prophecy" – both as noun and verb - suggested to scholars in the 1940's that there
was a continuous development from early to late prophecy. Robinson (1946, 175)
believes that by the time of Amos there was a clarification of prophecy from the early
nebi'im to a more intelligible oracle (176). Likewise, Paul accepted glossolalia as
genuine and he thanked God that he possessed the gift, but like Amos, preferred to speak
intelligible words with his understanding (175).
Williams (1974, 323) notes that Hölscher distinguished between ‘sthenic’ and
‘apathetic’ ecstasy in the prophetic experience. ‘Sthenic’ ecstasy is characterized by
involuntary movements of limbs accompanied by cries leading to song and dance. The
‘apathetic’ state is an abnormal condition in which the ecstatic experiences
hallucinations and obsession paralyses the person and consciousness.
Addressing the ‘sthenic’ state, Goodman (1972b, 59ff) observes the state as
similar to that experienced by glossolalists – an ‘hyperaroused’ state of dissociation –
based on empirical studies. However, she also finds hallucinatory elements in the state.
In fact, for her the glossolalic state is one of hyperarousal, an altered state of
consciousness (96).
Fohrer (1972, 239) notes the need with prophecy to rationally process the
experience. It had to be translated into rational and comprehensible words – "it could
not remain the babbling of glossolalia". He saw the prophetic utterance as essentially
glossolalic, and needing interpretation.
Williams (1974, 325) picks up the need for interpretation. He notes that the
"physical manifestations of glossolalic ecstasy provide striking parallels to prophetic
behaviour" and that this suggests "strong psychological affinities". However, the
significant difference between glossolalia and prophecy was that prophecy had
identifiable words which could be subsequently explained in a comprehensible manner.
Glossolalic utterance, supposedly without identifiable words, needed to be
accompanied by intelligible interpretation for the edification of the community (326).
He does further elaborate, that there is no direct evidence of unintelligible glossolalic
utterance in Hebrew prophecy, yet there is no denial of ecstasy (331). Psychologically
they are akin to the glossolalists.
Over against this idea of association between the prophet and glossolalist, Mills
warns that we should not make the mistake of linking earlier appearances of ecstaticism
into a lineal descent leading ultimately to first-century glossolalia (in Williams 1974,
328).
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.
4.5.7 SUMMARY OF OLD TESTAMENT ANTECEDENTS

In the midst of all the arguments for ecstatic precursors and correlation between
Old Testament prophecy and New Testament glossolalia, it becomes evident that no
sufficient case has been made for the new ideas. The phase of interest in prophetic
ecstasy – however protracted or carefully argued – does not impinge upon the nature of
glossolalia per se. Whatever comparisons are made, they involve presuppositions -
most notably whether there is a prophetic ecstatic presupposition or a glossolalic
ecstatic presupposition. There is no question about the existence of PROPHECY and of
GLOSSOLALIA, but there is considerable doubt about a precursor of ecstasy in BOTH
cases. This is the unnecessarily confusing element.
There simply is no clear evidence to demand a prophetic ecstatic precursor, nor is
it necessary to have one if no case has been made for a glossolalic ecstatic precursor.
It is now necessary to examine religious and New Testament ecstatic precursors.
4.6 ECSTASY IN NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
4.6.1 INTRODUCTION
Against the background of ecstasy in the Old Testament antecedents, it is also
evident that ecstasy is a common phenomenon in many cultures throughout the centuries.
In many cases the ecstatic (and associated phenomena of trance and mysticism)
experience is accompanied by some form of verbal utterance. Depending on the
definition, often this utterance is claimed to be glossolalia.
This lack of definition in the use of the term “glossolalia”, and the association of
the verbal utterance with ecstasy, has been particularly associated with those
experiences in the Mystery Religions of Greece in the first century A.D. Of itself that
need not be a problem in the general plethora of non-Christian religions. The difficulty
is the association of the phenomena of the Greek Mystery Religions in Corinth with the
phenomena in the Corinthian Christian Churches of the Apostle Paul’s day.
The assumptions and presumptions of this association have great influence on how
the Corinthian Church related to the contemporary phenomena. Just as Jesus had no need
to make specific reference to Sabbath observance in a culture that was grounded in Old
Testament sabbatical practice in Palestine, so Paul had no need to give detailed
background explanation to the ecstatic experiences that were well known in
contemporary Greek society, especially at Corinth.
The absence of explanation or reference in both of these cases should not lead us
to assume that there was no significance in the respective issues. Jesus’ failure to
specifically address the Sabbath as an issue to be perpetuated or terminated (as
opposed to being exploited or avoided) does not mean that He was indifferent to the
issue, or that He condoned the Sabbath to be continued as a Jewish cultural expression.
Likewise, Paul’s absence of explicit reference to the Greek Mystery Religions per se
does not mean that there is no specific reference to them in 1 Corinthians, nor that we
should ignore any such cultural perspective then, for understanding glossolalia now.
It is precisely the failure to adequately address this connection that is the focus of
this study. It is contended that Paul did in fact make reference to the Mystery Religions –
and the fact is that they were an essential part of that culture anyway – and hence they
must be fully assessed as part of a proper exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12-14.
In this section it is necessary to look at a general overview of ecstatic phenomena
in extra-biblical references and non-Christian religions over the centuries, as part of
understanding the occurrence of linguistic phenomena in those religions. This then forms
part of the essential correlation with professed glossolalic expressions over those same
centuries, and forms part of the delineation between true and false linguistic phenomena.

It is often a failure to address (as above, the antecedent association of Mystery
Religions and the Corinthian Church) the subsequent phenomena over the centuries,
especially by Christian churches, that have led to an ipso facto assumption that verbal
utterance is automatically valid, and automatically activated by the Holy Spirit. In fact,
many have reacted with hostility to any attempt to test the phenomena as valid, under the
guise that any testing doubted the Holy Spirit. In reality, testing is essential if it is
recognized that there is a broad context of spurious expressions in the non-Christian
religious area, in order to isolate the valid expressions.
Against the general overview of non-Christian religions, this section will then
focus more specifically on the Greek Mystery Religions. They are the source of
confusion in understanding the glossolalic experience at Corinth, and consequently of
understanding the true nature of Christian glossolalia both for Corinth and for today.
Further, it will become evident that because of this background, Paul is more corrective
in his comments in 1 Corinthians 12-14 than he is prescriptive.
By earlier definition, it is to be noted that ecstasy is closely related to and
interchanged with trance. Different writers, in dealing with ecstatic phenomena, often
use different terms whilst referring to similar events. Inge (1955, 157) admits that
ecstasy is “almost equivalent” to trance, but in the wider sense, “all self-induced
excitement may be called a kind of ecstasy”. Further, that “every stage of culture” seeks
such experiences.
4.6.2 OVERVIEW OF ECSTATIC EXPERIENCES

A. INTRODUCTION
The history of religious practice, from the earliest shamans to modern Pentecostalism, shows that there has
been hardly a period in which such psycho-physical experiences were not present in some degree.
(Kelsey 1978, 36-37).
These “experiences” are enthusiastic expressions in religious practice, including
trance-like experiences.
It must be remembered that enthusiasm (ecstasy, trance) is not the only source of
verbal utterances, producing the confusing element at Corinth. It is necessary to keep the
perspective of other sources, like demons (Gromacki 1972, 5-6) that will be detailed in
a later section.
B. GENERAL RANGE OF EXPERIENCES

The kava-drinking of the Polynesians, the inhalation of tobacco smoke by the North American Indians, the use
of hashish (Indian Hemp) by some two hundred millions of Asiatics and Africans, and the use or abuse of
alcohol - the favourite medium of intoxication among the white races - and of opium by the Chinese, are all
expedients for artificially altering the state of consciousness in such a way as to produce pleasurable
sensations; and most of them are used to induce quasi-religious ecstasy.

(Inge 1955, 157).
These religious experiences in ecstasy are deliberately sought by some, or

passive (initially) and then active involvement by others. It has been noted in Chapters 2
section 3 and 4 section 2, that there are a variety of ways of achieving these
experiences. By way of recapitulation, note the following from Inge (1955, 157): “…
protracted fasts, flagellation, orgiastic dancing, whirling or jumping, and self-
hypnotisation by the mechanical repetition of words … or by gazing steadily at some
bright object … or at some part of one’s own body …”, are used to achieve ecstasy.
C. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF ECSTATIC EXPERIENCES

As early as the eighteenth century BC the Sumerians had what approximated to
a prophet (Fohrer 1972, 225), a term that designated ecstatics.
In the seventeenth century B.C., a series of letters from Mari alerts us to male
and female prophets who belonged to a class of men and women under direction of the
deity with whom were associated, inter alia, ecstatic experiences given as oracles
(Fohrer 1976, 64-5). The term for frenzied/mad/ecstatic may correlate with the Hebrew
term for a madman (cf. 1 Samuel 10:6; 18:10ff; 2 Kings 9:11; Jeremiah 29:26)
(Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971, 359). The experience may have been partly induced by
alcohol, but Huffmon doubts if there is any further significance in the ecstasy of these
prophets – a view with which Malamat agrees (cited in Isbell 1976, 64-65).
From about fifteen hundred B.C. to 332 B.C. covers a period of Phoenician
ecstatics.
Sargant (1959, 100) quotes a passage depicting the Syrian Astarte worship, which
has similarities with Dionysian ecstasy:
While the flutes played, the drums beat, and the eunuch priests slashed themselves with knives, the religious
excitement gradually spread like a wave among the crowd of onlookers, and many a one did that which he little
thought to do when he came as a holiday spectator to the festival. For man after man, his veins throbbing with
the music, his eyes fascinated by the sight of the streaming blood, flung his garments from him, leaped forth
with a shout, and seizing one of the swords which stood ready for the purpose, castrated himself on the spot …
When the tumult of emotion had subsided and the man had come to himself again, the irrevocable sacrifice
must often have been followed by passionate sorrow and life-long regret. Catullus powerfully depicts this
revulsion of natural feeling after the frenzies of a fanatical religion in a celebrated poem.
Whilst the above references indicate some aspects of ecstasy, there is not a
conclusive correlation with glossolalic expressions. The earliest report of such an
experience, is held by many commentators to be that of Wenamon in eleven hundred
and seventeen B.C., when an Egyptian travelling through Palestine and Phoenicia
observed that while the king of Byblos was sacrificing to his gods, the god seized a
youth and spoke through him. The king “deferred to this frenzied youth” thus crediting
the frenzied utterances with divine origin (Mills 1985a, 9-10; Gromacki 1972, 6; Isbell

1976, 63; Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971, 359; etc.). Nevertheless, Isbell (1976, 64) does
not believe that there is sufficient evidence to build a case for ecstasy in eleventh
century Byblos or Egypt.
Against Isbell’s conclusions, it may be noted that:
· the young man was possessed by a god,
· he spoke in an ecstatic language,
· it was a religious phenomenon (engaged in worship),
· his frenzied speech was therefore a religious phenomenon,
· his speech included some coherent words (understood),
· his speech related to his possession
(Gromacki 1972, 6; Martin 1960, 77; Mills 1985a, 10).
In the ninth century B.C., at the consummation of the burnt sacrifice under
Elijah’s direction, 400 prophets of Baal raved in ecstasy [“collective dionysiac frenzy”
(Encyclopaedia Judaica 1971, 359)], some form of ecstatic verbal utterance.
From the eighth century, certain places attained significant cult status (Daphne
near Antiocheia, Mopsuestia in Cilicia, Sura and Patara in Lycia, Telmessos in Caria)
(Burkert 1985, 114), where the gods offered a service for those seeking counsel.
Oracles were imparted by the god speaking through a medium who entered a state of
enthusiasmos (Burkert 1985, 114).
The Greeks were no strangers to ecstatic religious experience (Inge 1955, 157).
Plato (428 – 348 B.C.) knew of the gift of tongues, asserts Butler (1985, 18: and
Gromacki 1972, 16). He notes that there were speakers who had no control over their
minds, did not understand what they were saying, and needed an interpreter. Gromacki
(1972, 6) speaks of an “acquaintance with religious, ecstatic speech”.
(1) In the “Phaedrus”, Plato wrote, “It is by mania (ecstasy – due to inspiration) that
the greatest blessings come to us” (Green 1982, 57). This discussion of
“madness” (irrational experience) is discussed in terms of prophecy, Dionysian
ecstasy, poetic intuition, and love (Kildahl 1972, 11). In referring to prophecy
Plato alludes to the prophetess at Delphi, the priestess at Dodona, and the Sibyl –
all of whom benefited the Greeks through their ecstatic speaking. He seems to give
ecstatic speech a religious significance (Martin 1960, 77-78; Mills 1975, 169).
(2) In the “Ion”, Plato compared the poets with Corybantian revellers who became
ecstatic both in action and in utterance (Martin 1960, 78; Gromacki 1972, 6; Mills
1975, 169). He gave to the poets a religious significance and made comparisons
that are evidence that the ecstatic speech and associated phenomena are very

similar to Apostolic glossolalia (Martin 1960, 78).
(3) In the “Timaeus”, Plato tried to distinguish the diviner and the true prophet. The
diviner was seen as similar to ecstatic persons: their speech was due to spirit
possession, they were unable to discern their speech, and they were in an
unconscious and uncontrollable state. Thus Plato claimed for them many features
similar to those of the glossolalists (Martin 1960, 78; Gromacki 1972, 7; Mills
1975, 169). Mills (1975, 169) adds that there is a similar distinction between
prophets and glossolalics made by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14.
In the Intertestamental Period (200 B.C. - 100 A.D.), there is little evidence of
frenzied, inarticulate, ecstatic speaking amongst the Jews (Mills 1975, 169). II Esdras
gives one example of frenzied speech, according to Mills.
Within the same period, Virgil (70 – 19 B.C.) in the “Aeneid” gives an example of
frenzied speech. In reference to the Sibylline priestess on the Isle of Delos, he pictures
her attaining ecstatic speech in a haunted cave after being united with the god Apollo.
The intermittently intelligible speech is found in a religious context (Martin 1960, 78;
Gromacki 1972, 7; Mills 1975, 169).
Overlapping this period – that covers the subject of this study – is the influence of
the Pythoness at Delphi (see later). Because of her ability to produce ecstatic utterances
under divine inspiration, she was frequently worshipped (Gromacki 1972, 7).
In addition, the Mystery Religions (see below) of the Graeco-Roman world
included ecstatic speech, although there is very little direct evidence (Martin 1960, 79-
80). Nevertheless, the entire system of beliefs, initiatory rites and religious practices
were centred on spirit possession or identification (Gromacki 1972, 8). The Christian
terms pneuma and lalein glossais came from the Greek vernacular, long before they
were used by New Testament authors (Martin 1960, 80). In addition, an account by
Lucian of Samosata describes a clear case of glossolalia by the devotees of Juno, the
Syrian goddess (Gromacki 1972, 8).
During the ante-Nicene (100 – 325 A.D.) period of church history, it is claimed
that there is evidence of glossolalia. An English Pentecostal writer, Donald Gee, states:
“Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Augustine, all refer to these gifts as being in
existence in their own times” (cited in Gromacki 1972, 11). By direct contrast, Cleon
Rogers states: “it is significant that the gift is nowhere alluded to, hinted at, or found in
the Apostolic Fathers (100 – 400 A.D.)” (1965, 134). Gromacki concludes that there
are no genuine cases of glossolalia in the post-apostolic era, and that in fact tongues had
ceased (1972, 17). This includes the claims of Montanus in the second century. He had a
peculiar mix of sanctification and millenarianism – beliefs that were often associated
with trance experience (Kelsey 1978, 36). The Montanists made the greatest emphasis
on glossolalia in the early church (New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1986, 11:842)
although that did not validate it.
During the Middle Ages (590 –1517), and Reformation (1517 – 1648) there is
little helpful information on glossolalia. Various claims of glossolalia are reported for
the mendicant friars (New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1986, 11:842), Hildegaard,
Vincent Ferrer, Francis Xavier, Louis Bertrand (Gromacki 1972, 18-20). Philip Schaff
rejects these claims as unsubstantiated and certainly not claimed by these men
themselves (Schaff 1910, 1:240-241), whilst Inge (1955, 158) believes that the
fourteenth century saw a surge of spiritual activity, especially in the lower levels of
culture. Certainly there is nothing approximating to proof of glossolalic activity. Thomas
Zimmerman claimed that Martin Luther spoke in tongues (Butler 1985, 30).
In the Post-Reformation Period (1648 – 1900) there are an increasing number of
religious/quasi-Christian manifestations of verbal utterance.
Glossolalia was reported as occurring in the French Catholic Jansenists of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (New Encyclopaedia Britannica 1986, 11:842),
although the claim was rejected by Rome (Gromacki 1972, 21). Their successors, the
Convulsionnaires, spoke in tongues whilst in an unconscious state, remembering nothing
afterwards (Butler 1985, 31).
The Cevenal prophets of the latter seventeenth century supposedly spoke in
ecstatic tongue-speaking, including children as young as three (Heath 1886, 49, 117;
Kelsey 1968, 52-53). Later they were to have influence on Shakerism (Drummond 1937,
285).
Quakerism, or the Society of Friends, developed from the radical wing of English
Puritanism in the mid-seventeenth century (Petty 1974, 393), and through their “Inner
Light” experiences they spoke in tongues (compare Gromacki 1972, 21).
An early eighteenth century off shoot of Quakerism, was Shakerism. The real
founder, Ann Lee, was reputed to have shouted and danced in ecstasy, and was
examined by four clergymen to have spoken in seventy-two languages in four hours
(Drummond 1937, 285). During such ecstasy, much of her utterance was ‘unintelligible
and unheard of words’ (Dollar 1963, 320). The many false teachings put Shakerism
outside of Christian experience (Gromacki 1972, 22).
During the nineteenth century Edward Irving established a sectarian group,
breaking from the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. He held the heretical belief that
there was sinful substance in the body of Christ (Gromacki 1972, 22). Dallimore (1983,
24) concludes that “there is no evidence he had ever known … the experience of
conversion”. Isabella Campbell introduced ecstatic experiences which were further
developed by her sister Mary, resulting in the “gift of tongues” (she being the first in the
Irvingite group), automatic writing – purportedly in a foreign tongue – and a belief that
no language study would be required for her intended missionary service (Dallimore
1983, 99, 104-15). In the earlier years, there was speaking in strange sounds resembling
Hebrew (Schaff 1857, 198 fn2). Hohl spoke of the person being sunk in reflection with
his eyes closed and covered, until a violent conclusion occurred like an electric shock,
shaking him and resulting in an impetuous gush of tones sounding like Hebrew (cited in
Schaff 1857, 198 fn2). For Irving himself, tongues resulted from a highly aroused
condition and were largely an induced and cultivated skill (Dallimore 1983, 113-114).
Under great excitement they produced a “broth of meaningless syllables … (a) gibberish
of syllables” (Pratt, cited in Drummond 1937, 260). Irvingite prophecy was frequently
recorded, showing it to be shallow blasphemous nonsense (Butler 1985, 39).
The nineteenth century development of Mormonism included an article of faith
that stated a belief in the gift of tongues (Gromacki 1972, 22-23), although some of their
ecstatic utterances produced recapitulation evidence of Indian dialects (Drummond
1937, 288). They were arranged and artificial (compare Butler 1985, 40).
The Modern Period – twentieth century – has seen a resurgence of ecstatic
experience, notably in the Christian church, but also in non-Christian religions. Much of
this ecstasy is associated with some form of linguistic utterance.
The special case of Coast Salish Spirit Dancing has been addressed at Chapter
4.4.
Shamanism is a major source of ecstatic linguistic phenomena. It covers a variety
of terms including “witch”, “witchdoctor”, “medicine man”, “sorcerer”, “wizard”,
“magician” (Hunt and McMahan 1985, 120). They are separated from the rest of the
community by the intensity of their religious experience, and this elite group uses exotic
ecstatic techniques (Eliades 1964, 8). Shamanistic ecstasy is found universally amongst
most primitive peoples, based on the ability to achieve trance states (Kelsey 1978, 27).
In the Southern Highlands of New Guinea, groups from the Tari District evidenced
hysterical behaviour during revival movements (1975 – 1976) with wild dancing and
emotionalism, trances, shaking, and speaking in tongues (Robin 1981, 150, 153).
Similarly, amongst the Engas of the Western Highlands of New Guinea, there has
been evidence of a range of ecstatic expressions (yapping sounds, gyrations of arms and
legs, bodily shaking) and speaking in tongues (Cramb 1980, 2).
The Hasidim in New York (ultra-orthodox Jews) regularly experience direct
communion with God through ecstatic worship, “All were utterly absorbed in prayer,
faces adrip with mingled sweat and tears of ecstasy, lips murmuring impassioned
prayers at a furious pace, bodies rocking and swaying and trembling with emotion …”
(Arden 1975, 284, 289).
In Bali, a man or woman adopts a shamanistic role, in which the god speaks
through them whilst they are in an hysterical condition suffering convulsions and talking
obscene language (Belo 1960, 2).
Dervishes in Persia repeatedly utter the name of Allah and enter a trance state
with shaking body and foaming mouth, and during the period of ecstasy they preach
moral sermons (Stolee reported in Gromacki 1972, 9).
Eskimos in Greenland have shamanistic religious services led by a medicine man,
in which ecstatic phenomena take place and glossolalia may occur (Gromacki 1972, 9).
Stolee reports, “In ecstasy he and the girl … began to yell in a tongue I could not
understand ... and if there is such a thing as speaking in tongues I heard it then” (cited in
Gromacki 1972, 9). Norbeck (1961, 92) refers to “sacerdotal language” among the
Eskimos – learned specifically for mediumistic communication – but usually a form of
archaic or obsolete speech only preserved by specialists.
Tibetan monks in ritual dances are reported to speak in English, quoting
Shakespeare, “with profanity like drunken sailors”, or they speak in German or French
or unknown languages (Edman 1964, 16).
Parrinder (1969, 75) observes that in Dahomey in Africa, candidates to become
mediums go into trances and they adopt a new personality and a new language – a new
ritual language (1974, 103).
Couture (1986) reports ecstatic speaking (for hours) of witchdoctors in the
Marathi speaking tribe of Western India.
Among Kentucky snake handlers there is ecstatic dancing and tongue-speaking as
part of the hysteria and excitement of their dangerous religious ritual (Gerrard 1986,
217-218).
In Fiji, firewalking is a common phenomenon in which, through devotion to Kali,
the spirit idol, devotees would enter a trance-like state with much chanting before
walking on red hot embers (Crampton 1993, 6-7). Sceptics now rebut this experience
saying that they can accomplish the same feat without “any sort of trance, mass hypnosis
or hysteria” (Health and Lifestyle 1989, 10).
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

reason that any or all of the linguistic utterances should equate or approximate to
biblical glossolalia.
Further, there is little attempt to acknowledge that Satan might well replicate true
biblical glossolalia or that some linguistic utterance may be achieved purely as a result
of self-effort, an emotional response from auto-suggestion, or just plain mechanical
expression.
It is the contention of this study that genuine cases of biblical glossolalia are yet to
be unequivocally authenticated.
4.6.3 SPECIAL CASE: SLAYING IN THE “SPIRIT”

A. INTRODUCTION
“Slaying in the Spirit” seems to the author to be a trivializing term, due to the lack
of proof that this phenomenon is, in fact, a work of the Holy Spirit, nor that it has
biblical credibility. Nevertheless, for the sake of common/popular understanding the
term is used here, including “Spirit”.
Slaying in the Spirit is a phenomenon that is a special case because of similarities
in broad religious and shamanistic areas. In fact, as noted earlier, Kelsey (1978, 86)
states:
The history of religious practice, from the earliest shamans to modern Pentecostalism, shows that there has
been hardly a period in which such psycho-physical experiences were not present in some degree.
It is because of this perspective and correlation that this Special Case is
addressed in this section on “Ecstasy in Non-Christian Religions”. It has not been
conclusively demonstrated that it is in fact a work of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary,
there is very little evidence. Nevertheless, it is a clear example of ecstasy – in many
cases, as reported by various authors – often associated with glossolalia, and hence part
of the confusing element over against the reality of true Christian experience. The
correlation between ecstasy on the one hand, and slaying in the Spirit and glossolalia on
the other, is very common in charismatic and Pentecostal meetings, and thus provides a
significant area for a corrective in this study.
Kelsey (1978, 25) describes the experience this way:
There are examples all through religious history, including our Christian history, of men and women who
encountered such powerful experiences of the divine or the numinous that they seemed to become unconscious
of everything around them, sometimes falling to the ground as if in a faint. While we cannot, of course, go back
into history and question these individuals, it appears that many of them experienced a state of consciousness
remarkably similar to that of slaying. 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. (Italics his)
Quite specifically trance and ecstasy are referred to in this definition. Venable
(1988, 23) speaks of the Quakers who were persecuted for “unseemly behaviour” when
they fell into a trance or ecstasy. Alexander (1988, 789) quotes an experience of one
having been slain in the Spirit, who was subsequently “roused from what seemed like
sleep, so completely had she been … in ecstasy”.
More pointedly, the experience called “Slaying (Slain) in the Spirit” has been
identified as Possession Trance or Hypnotic Trance. Although recognized in Pentecostal
and charismatic circles as a distinct and identifiable experience from God, yet it is also
acknowledged that the experience can result from autosuggestion, peer pressure, or a
simple yearning for the experience (Alexander 1988, 789). Sociologists would refer to
the experience (occurring throughout the history of the church, indeed, common to many
religions) as possession trance (Alexander 1988, 789). Davenport (1905, 33) reports on
hypnotic trance amongst the North American Indians, in which they become rigid, but it
was not slaying in the Spirit.
Sargant refers to the collapse experience of members of John Wesley’s audience.
Instead of calling it “slaying in the Spirit”, he sees it as therapeutic collapse – part of a
possession state with altered neurophysiology (cited in Prince 1968, 127, 130).
Referring also to auto-suggestion, Kelsey (1978, 41) compares slaying in the
Spirit with hypnotic trance (compare also Sargant). He asserts that all are subject to
suggestion to varying degrees, resulting in experiences like hypnosis or slaying in the
Spirit (43).
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
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
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
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).

(7) 2 Chronicles 5:14 Coppin (1976, 25) asserts, without substantiation, that the 120
priests who could not stand to minister were “slain in the Spirit”.
(8) Ezekiel 1:28 Ezekiel “fell on his face” (Venable 1988, 22).
(9) Daniel 8:18; 10:9 Since God gave Daniel a vision, that is, that a “definite
(result) occurred”, Venable (1988, 22) accepts this as an Old Testament parallel
to slaying in the Spirit. Coppin (1976, 30) claims that the first reference (8:18)
was to “spiritual trance” – not that Daniel was slain in the Spirit, but that he was
“under the power” of God. Yet in the second reference (10:9), Coppin claims that
Daniel was “under the power” (same term as he used in the first reference) which
can apparently now be equated with slaying in the Spirit.
(10) Matthew 17:1-6 During the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration the
disciples fell face down, and supposedly this action justifies the phenomenon of
slaying (Alexander 1988, 790).
(11) Matthew 28:4 The guards at the tomb “shook and became like dead men”
(Venable 1988, 22). Alexander (1988, 790) dismisses this case as a figurative
way of saying that they were petrified.
(12) Mark 14:35 In the Garden of Gethsemane prior to His crucifixion Jesus fell to
the ground and prayed (Venable 1988, 22). Kelsey (1976, 31) saw Jesus’ action as
reflecting the symbolic meaning of being overpowered by God (= slain in the
Spirit).
(13) John 18:1-6 The soldiers in the Garden fell to the ground when Jesus identified
Himself (Venable 1988, 22). Alexander (1988, 790) comments:
There is no mention of the Spirit here, and John portrays no relationship between Spirit, power, and Jesus. The
text remains enigmatic, especially since John offers neither explanation for, nor effect of, their fall. Obviously
they were not converted, because they proceeded to arrest Jesus.
(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

man” is seen as a parallel to slaying in the Spirit (Venable 1988, 22).
(18) Other examples – often very tenuous – are noted by Kelsey (1978, 31-34).
Alexander, writing in the Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements
(1988, 790) says:
The evidence for the phenomenon of being “slain in the Spirit” is thus inclusive. From an experiential standpoint
it is unquestionable that through the centuries Christians have experienced a psychophysical phenomenon in
which people fall down; moreover, they have attributed the experience to God. It is equally unquestionable
that there is no biblical evidence for the experience as normative in Christian life (emphasis mine).
And:
Scripture plainly offers no support for the phenomenon as something to be expected in the normal Christian’s
life.
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
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

were passing by the meetings”. Coppin (1976, 16) witnessed people falling with no one
near them, and also testifies of his own experience in isolation, “I buckled at the knees
and dropped like a sack of wheat” (20). It is recorded of a Len Jones meeting at
Cessnock in South Australia “… scores were prostrated over the floor under God’s
Almighty Spirit” (cited in Chant 1984, 155).
There is no biblical basis by example let alone instruction (method) for this
uncertain phenomenon. On the contrary, Rice (1976, 169) reminds us of many biblical
examples – the man at the gate of the temple (Acts 3), Ananias praying for Saul (Acts
9:17-19), Barnabas and Paul set apart (Acts 13:1-2), etc. – that show no evidence of
falling in spite of hands being laid on them.
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”.

Although the experience normally lasts for only a few seconds, there is little
evidence of anything constructive being achieved by the experience itself, let alone if it
is for any extended period. A similar incapacitation has already been noted in regard to
the “Toronto Blessing” experience, with equally negative results for the non-Christian
community.
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

by Alexander 1988, 790).
The crowd response to the phenomenon was that both non-Christians and
Christians were affected. In Indiana (a report in 1885) speaks of infidels and scoffers
being “the first to fall under the slaying power of God” (cited in Alexander 1988, 790).
Likewise Davenport (1905, 79) speaks of the phenomena of falling, including the
“jerks”, which caused people to be thrown violently to the ground. He notes:
It became an infectious disease. It passed the bounds of normal imitation and became morbid contagion, and
many a scoffer bit the dust in the midst of his contempt and derision.
Davenport comments on the effects of partial hypnotisation that is always at work
in a crowd, especially in a state of great religious excitement, and how that under such
conditions, any hypnotist could replicate “prostrations” (1905, 228).
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.

Venable concludes that, rather than an “every-service” occurrence, slaying should
be a rare phenomenon (1988, 20).
As noted previously, Alexander (1988, 790) concludes:
From an experiential standpoint it is unquestionable that through the centuries Christians have experienced a
psychophysical phenomenon in which people fall down; moreover, they have attributed the experience to God.
It is equally unquestionable that there is no biblical evidence for the experience as normative in Christian life.
And:
Scripture plainly offers no support for the phenomenon as something to be expected in the normal Christian’s
life.
Slaying in the Spirit is an excellent example of the danger of allowing an
“ecstatic” experience to receive the status of validated doctrine leading to unquestioned
practice and assumed authenticity. It thus serves as a stern warning to the use of any such
invalidated ecstatic practice, including speaking in tongues.

A. ADEQUATE EVIDENCE FROM MYSTERY RELIGIONS
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
(Fairbanks 1910, 56-57). Thus ecstatic speech (divine madness) was essentially
religious.
b. Range Of Mystery Religions

i. Eleusian mysteries
Eleusis, 22.5 kilometres (14 miles) west of Athens, increased in importance in the
last couple of centuries B.C., with the decline of the city-states and the new emphasis on
personal religion, especially the mysteries (Vos 1988, 113). They worshipped, not the
gods of the sky, but those of the lower world (“agricultural worship” – House 1983,
137) a Triad consisting of a god and two goddesses: Pluto, Demeter and Koré or
Persephone (Jackson 1914, 187).
The Eleusian mysteries, essentially an Athenian cult, attracted devotees from all
parts of Greece – being most famous of the mysteries among the Greeks (Vos 1988,
115).
ii. Sibyl of Cumae.
In describing “prophetic madness”, Plato illustrated by reference to the
prophetess at Delphi, the priestess at Dodona, and the Sibyl – all of whom conferred
great benefits upon the Greeks through their ecstatic speaking (Mills 1975, 169). There
is no final proof that the ecstatic speaking was glossolalia, but some scholars assert that
that was the case for the Sibyl. Her acrostic verse (as it was frequently) required
interpreters, leading Lombard to conclude that her original speech must have been
unintelligible (Mills 1985a, 85), and therefore presumably glossolalic (if indeed
glossolalia must be unintelligible).
iii. Kabiri (Cabeiri, Cabiri).
The Kabiri were Phrygian deities worshipped extensively by sailors of the fourth
century B.C. (Neal 1974, 691), thought to be the oldest of the mysteries after those of
Eleusis, and remained important until the third century A.D. (Vos 1988, 115).
iv. Aphrodite – Adonis.
This cult reflected the basic characteristics of the mystery religions noted above.
Aphrodite personifies mother-life in nature, whilst Adonis (her lover) represented death
and awakening vitality in vegetation, paralleling the rhythm of nature. Devotees
expected to enjoy the favour of the awakened god both now and in the hereafter (Vos
1988, 116).
v. Diana.

In the heathen worship of Diana [a goddess at Ephesus – derived from a Greek
earth goddess who later became merged with the Roman goddess Diana (Clark 1978,
228)] the use of gibberish was common (Dillow 1975, 12). This unintelligible language
(ecstatic speech) was brought over into Corinthian worship (117).
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
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).
c. Predominant Mystery Religions

Although the foregoing variety of Mystery Religions all had their contribution to
the religious ethos of the day, and hence to Christian worship at Corinth – even as
simple as forming a basic enthusiastic (even orgiastic) framework – the following three
religions are the most likely to have affected the ecstatic phenomenon at Corinth: the
Cybele-Attis cult, the Dionysian cult, and the religion of Apollo (House 1983, 137).
At this point, an introductory overview of these three Mystery Religions shows
their relevance to the study.
i. Cybele-Attis.
Cybele (“The Great Mother”) was officially introduced to Rome from Phrygia in
205 B.C. (Neal 1974, 691). The rites of the cult were extreme:
Priests who were stirred by clashing cymbals, loud drums, and screeching flutes, would at times dance in a
frenzy of excitement, gashing their bodies. Even new devotees would emasculate themselves in worship of the
goddess.
(House 1983, 137).
Cybele, who was associated with a young male deity, Attis, whom she mourned after his death until he was
restored in the spring (compare Isis) (Vos 1988, 114) was a popular Mystery Religion in the first century.
Montanus, a second-century Christian heretic who was known for his ecstatic excesses and purported
speaking in tongues, was at one time a priest of Cybele.
(House 1983, 137).
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
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.
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.
B. GENERAL EXPERIENCE OF ECSTASY IN THE MYSTERY

RELIGIONS
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
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

receiving the “life of the god” (Kroeger 1978, 7).
(5) A variety of vapours and aromas were commonly used. There were the famous
“Mephite vapours” for the Pythia at Delphi (Pearson 1955, 128) [“poisonous gas”
– (Wood 1966, 125)], preceded by chewing laurel-leaves or being fumigated with
their smoke (Pearson 1955, 128). The Bacchic frenzy, apart from wine, was
believed to be imparted by ivy which the Bacchanals ate, or laurel leaves which
they chewed (Pearson 1955, 128). The Thriae of Mt. Parnassus were reported to
utter true prophecy when they had fed on fresh honey and “were inspired by its
intoxicating madness” (Pearson 1955, 128).
(6) Drugs (Burkert 1985, 109) or narcotics (Wood 1966, 125) were used in some
cases. (Compare Chapter 4 section 3.2 on this topic above).
(7) Rhythmic dance may also be employed (Wood 1966, 125), or whirling dances
and physical stimuli (Angus 1925, 101).
(8) Sexual intercourse was used to achieve inspiration and union with the deity
(Clemen 1931, 191; Pearson 1955, 128 – with examples; compare Chapter 4
section 3.5 above).
(9) Musical instruments. “There is reference to the clashing of bronze cymbals, a
‘maddening unison’ of the deep-tuned Phrygian flute, thunderous roars of
kettledrums, the whirling of timbrels and ringing of rattles” (Engelsen 1970, 4).
(10) In addition, natural disposition and “acquired technique” – which stemmed
from auto-suggestion – were fundamental in the acquisition of ecstasy.
Secondly, having achieved ecstatic union/possession, there were a number of
anticipated consequences.
(1) A state of anaesthesia.
Rohde (1925, 20) states:
In ecstasy, in the freeing of the soul from, the hampering confinement of the body, in its communion with the
deity, powers arise within it of which it knows nothing in the daily life hampered by the body. It now becomes
free as spirit to hold communion with spirits: also released from transiency, it is endowed with capacities to
behold what only the eyes of the spirit can behold, that which is removed beyond time and space.
(Cited in Angus 1925, 101)
The initiate sees, hears and experiences things which are not present for
others (Burkert 1985, 109). Physically, the condition was one of anaesthesia, in
which the devotee was unconscious of pain or of anything hostile or disconcerting
in the surroundings. This was true of the Bacchae – being “insensate to pain and
endued with preternatural strength” – as well as the priests of Cybele and Ma
(Angus 1925, 101-102). The devotee came into a “mystic ineffable condition” in
which normal functions of personality receded, and moral strivings relaxed, while
the emotional and intuitive were accentuated (Angus 1925, 100-101). Self-
consciousness disappeared (105), and after the experience, they cannot remember
what they have said (Burkert 1985, 114).
This anaesthesia to pain is a religious phenomenon known in all ages, especially in great revivals, and in many
forms … We may assume that this semi-physical, semi-psychic state was much coveted by the initiates, as the
‘pneumatic’ condition was among the Christians at Corinth.
(Angus 1925, 102).
(2) Union with the deity.
In all forms of enthusiasm there is the common idea that the entheos is
wholly in the power of the god and that his own self-consciousness has
disappeared (Rohde in Angus 1925, 105). He has direct contact with a higher
being and communicates with gods and spirits (Burkert 1985, 109). The literal
meaning of the enthusiasmos is the state in which “god is in man” (Nilsson 1953,
205). In fact, the union was felt to be so complete that the person possessed came
to be called by the name of the god (Kennedy n.d., 14) and often, as in the case of
Dionysus and Cybele, a state of wild delirium was produced (Nilsson 1953, 202).
It is to be noted that entering the state (the cause) of enthusiasmos was the
aim of the exercise, to invoke the presence of the god, but that this “madness” is
also the outcome (the effect) of the possession. A similar situation exists with
alcoholic intoxication – it is both the cause and the effect (compare Burkert 1985,
110) – especially as it is found in Dionysianism.
(3) The god speaks.
Under enthusiasm (possession) were included all forms of mantic,
prophecy, soothsaying, revelations, dreams and visions, these revelations being
the “direct utterances of the deity” (Angus 1925, 104; Burkert 1985, 114). To be
even more specific, Pearson (1955, 127) states that the “brief madness” is not a
time of “irresponsible unsteadiness”, but rather “the complete occupation of the
mental faculties by a sacred energy”. As a result, all the acts and words of the
devotee are not merely prompted by, but proceeded from the god himself. Dodds
(cited in Callan 1985, 129) stated that while the Pythia was in a trance, “the god
entered into her and used her vocal organs as if they were his own”.
The gibberish and obscure utterances that emanated, even taken collectively,
hardly commended the gods as responsible.
(4) Uncontrolled behaviour.
Ecstatic dancing – Bacchic frenzy – purported to demonstrate that the
devotee was under the control of the god (compare Nilsson 1953, 180, 185). By
way of contrast (in Chapter 4 section 4.2), the Coast Salish spirit dancers were
expected to maintain control.
Sexual behaviour, whilst often veiled, was at times quite specific and crude.
In the case of Dionysian initiations, pederasty and adolescent sexuality took place
(Burkert 1985, 109), as well as orgies in some contexts. As with possession and
alcohol (noted above), dancing and sexual behaviour can each be both the cause
and the effect of enthusiasm.
(5) Potential for fraud.
With the overwhelming desire to achieve union with the god, and to thus
prove one’s superior status and approval by the god (at least potentially in the
eyes of one’s peers) there was always the temptation to fake. The use of drugs
(including alcohol) made this less important, nevertheless, the desire to produce
the “evidence” of the god’s approval, by his voice speaking through them, led
some to resort to ventriloquism to delude the observers (Fairbanks 1910, 57).
In a similar way, Couture (1986) observed a witchdoctor in India, dancing
in supposedly possessed frenzy, abruptly stopping for a tourist to photograph him,
and then resuming the dancing as if nothing had happened.
c. Summary
Martin (1960, 78) concludes (as already noted):
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”.
C. PARTICULAR CASES OF MYSTERY RELIGIONS
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
setting of the first century Christian church.
b. Predominant Mystery Religions

i. Cybele-Attis
Initiates to this cult partook of a sacramental meal that early Christians viewed as
a counterfeit of the Lord’s Supper (Vos 1988, 114). Certainly Paul’s letter to the
Corinthians indicates that their agape feast was under attack and misrepresentation –
partly through fault of their own – and also because of the secular eranos meals. Any
suggestion of counterfeit further pressed the interaction with secular society, especially
the religious element.
The initiates then proceeded to wild processions (Neal 1974, 691) with
“delirious dances” that led to a state of “semi-unconsciousness” (Kennedy n.d., 91).
The processions were enhanced by musical instruments, “clashing cymbals, loud
drums, and screeching flutes” (House 1983, 137) that correlate to Paul’s comparisons in
1 Corinthians 13:1, “If I speak in (the) tongues … but have not love, I am only a
resounding gong or a clanging cymbal”. The ecstatic gibberish in this highly aroused
state too easily translated to ecstatic utterance in the emotional meetings of the
Corinthian Church.
The whole experience and celebration of Cybele climaxed in an “orgy of
universal licence” (Kennedy n.d., 91) that no doubt was compared with the secretive
love feasts of the church. In this state (seemingly fused with orgiastic Dionysian
worship) the devotees believed themselves united with the deity (89).
This climax was referred to as “the day of blood” (Kennedy n.d., 91) comprising
two aspects. One aspect was the taurobolium in which the candidates were sprinkled
with bull’s blood to achieve either national or personal salvation (Neal 1974, 691). The
other aspect was self-mutilation. Somewhat like the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:28)
the devotees of Cybele, in a state of abandonment, gashed themselves with knives and
sprinkled their blood on the altar (Kennedy n.d., 91). New devotees would even
emasculate themselves in worship of the goddess (House 1983, 137).
Worship associated with extreme emotion, loud musical instruments, and ecstatic
utterance, from the Cybele-Attis mystery religion, contributed significantly to the
Corinthian concept of worship.
ii. Dionysus
-i. Introduction.
Fairbanks (1910, 241) gives a concise overview of the nature of Dionysian
religion:
His worship was of a distinctly orgiastic character. Groups of his worshippers, mainly women, found their way
at night with torches into wild glens on the mountains; the music of drums and cymbals and flutes stirred
sensitive spirits till their whirling dances and wild summons to the god induced a religious frenzy; serpents were
fondled, the young of wild animals were now suckled by human mothers, now torn in pieces and eaten raw.
The fawnskin garment, the wand tipped with a fir cone and wreathed in ivy, sometimes horns attached to the
head, recalled the god to whose service they were devoted.
The worship of Dionysus was so extensive and influential across the Roman
world, that it was fused with many other religions. Vos (1988, 115) says that it was
perhaps the most influential religion of the Hellenistic world, and identified with many
deities: Serapis in Egypt, and Sabazios in Phrygia. Ritual dramas held in his honour led
him to be known as the god of theatre (Vos, 1988, 115).
Walter Otto (cited in Kerenji 1976, 131) declares “Dionysos” to be the mad god –
the god of ecstasy, terror and “wildness”. Likewise, Homer refers to him as “mad
Dionysos” (cited in Kerenji 1976, 131).
It was a religion developed from the worship of the god of vegetation (Pearson
1955, 127), and became identified with the pine tree, and a particular tree, from which
two images of the god were made, resulted in a command to the Corinthians to worship
that particular tree (House 1983, 137; Kroeger 1978, 6-7).
The cult was so widespread and common, that anything having to do with grapes,
wine, ivy, or any other Dionysian motif, was at once connected to Dionysus and his
worship (Rogers 1979, 253). To talk of wine and drinking immediately brought
Dionysian expressions into the conversation (253). The Corinthian abuse of the Lord’s
table, with drunkenness (1 Corinthians 11:21-22, 25-29) and the Ephesian reference to
being “drunk with wine” (Ephesians 5:18) are no doubt to be seen in the Dionysian
framework.
To live a riotous, wanton, debauched or drunken life was a “Dionysian mode of
life” (so Plutarch in Rogers 1979, 253).
The cult had spread to practically every area of the Roman Empire, but it was not
only widespread geographically, it also penetrated every level of society – from slaves
to the rich, including the nobility and the emperor (Rogers 1979, 252). In fact, it was so
widespread, it was part of common everyday life in the ancient world (253).
Of particular note for this study, was the fact that ancient Corinth was a centre of
Dionysiac worship, and that there was in Corinth a significant monument
“memorialising the savagery of female Bacchus worshippers” (Kroeger 1978, 6-7).
All who cultivated the vine or drank wine, worshipped Dionysus, because this
experience imparted inspiration and divine power. Dionysus was thus the “god of souls,
of the inner life” (Fairbanks 1979, 1300). Typical of the Mystery Religions, there was
the promise of immortality through this intoxicated initiation (compare Vos 1988, 115), a
characteristic that naturally compared to the Christian hope (compare 1 Corinthians 15
as part of the context of 1 Corinthians 12-14).
The climactic ecstasy of the whole Dionysian experience was particularly
powerful and pervasive. “No other religious movement took so powerful a hold upon
men’s minds as the Dionysiac ecstasy” (Nilsson 1964, 194). Euripedes and others have
described the accompanying “orgia” among the most detestable and heinous practices
ever known to mankind (Rudd 1986, 109).
So widespread was Dionysian practice, that Antiochus Epiphanes accused the
Jews of being worshippers of Dionysus, imposing the cult on them and compelling them
(during the feast of Dionysus) to wear wreaths of ivy and to walk in procession in
honour of Dionysus (Rogers 1979, 252). Some aspects of Jewish life, like drinking the
cup, gave ground to pagans to accuse the Jews of Dionysian worship (253).
-ii. Correlations with Christianity.
Significantly, there were specific correlations with Christianity, and some have
already been noted in passing. These correlations came largely through Orphism – a
special form of the Dionysian cult – which appealed to the human longing for salvation,
and in its ascetic rules, was regarded as a forerunner of Christianity (Clemen 1931,
191). Orphism, whilst adhering to the Dionysiac ritual, liberated it from “savage
excesses”. “The Orphic could no longer find complete satisfaction in the immediate
union with his God in orgiastic ecstasy” (Kennedy n.d., 13), and he sought a grace not
through physical intoxication, but spiritual ecstasy (15).
In addition, the name Dionysus is literally “Dios-nysos” meaning “Son of God”
(Luyster 1980, 128), and he has a unique “double-birth”. According to myth, Dionysus
is born of the god Zeus, and the mortal Semele in a quite bizarre way, thus making him a
god/man who suffered and died (Rudd 1986, 78). The parallels with, and hence
confusion within, Christianity are clear, adding weight to any confusion of Mystery
Religions in the Corinthian church.
Dionysus, known as the god of wine and ecstasy (New Encyclopaedia Britannica
1986, 110) was connected with wine miracles in which water was claimed to have
miraculously turned into wine (Broneer 1951, 86) no doubt giving the religion a status
approximating to Christianity, due to Jesus’ miracle at Cana (John 2:1-11). Further, it
has been argued that Dionysian intoxication is no doubt the contrasting element (the
“spirit” of Bacchus) with the filling (controlling) by the Spirit in Christian experience
(Ephesians 5:18) (Rogers 1979, 256).
Even in the area of morality, one can see significant influence of the culture. Paul
had to rebuke the Corinthians for countenancing an incestuous relationship (1
Corinthians 5:1-13) and for failing to understand the ramifications of promiscuity (1
Corinthians 6:12-10). In addition, he noted that the immorality of their past manner of
life was washed and cleansed by Christ, and therefore to be left behind (1 Corinthians
6:9-11).
-iii. Gross Immorality.
The Corinthians were continually subjected to the gross immorality of the
Dionysiac worship in their culture. Dionysus was represented as bi-sexual, the god of
“two forms” (Luyster 1980, 121). In processions in his honour, the men dressed like
women and adorned themselves with an enormous inflated penis (121). Sexual
promiscuity was associated with and promoted by much drinking of wine (Burkert
1985, 292). The aim was to achieve orgiastic excitement purportedly resulting in
identification with the god as “proved” by ecstatic utterance (Clemen 1931, 191).
Dionysiac festivals shared the temporary licences of drunkenness and sexual expression
– including the procession call phallophoria (Kraemer 1979, 57), accompanied by the
“Phallus song” (Rogers 1979, 254) – which indicated the unrestrained debauchery of
their “worship”, especially as the song was sung by the Ithyphalloi – the erect penises –
a chorus of men (Luyster 1980, 124). Epithets like Orthos, the erect, and Enorches, the
testicled, point to the sexual preoccupation of the festivals (Luyster 1980, 124).
Livy, in the History of Rome states (cited in Rice 1979, 200):
As a result, the rites were in a state of promiscuity: men mingled with women; the night added permissiveness;
no crime, no vice was neglected there. There was more debauchery on the part of the men among themselves
than with the women. If some were less tolerant of the shame and more reluctant to commit the crime, they
were slaughtered as sacrificial victims. To believe that nothing was illicit, among them this was the most
exalted faith.
Luyster (1980, 122) concludes that throughout the cult is sexual fusion and
confusion – and with this fusion of sexes ecstasy arises in the most literal sense – a
transcendent sexuality. This pervasive sexuality was the background practice and
contemporary culture of the Corinthian church.
The sexual corruption was not simply voluntary. The initiate, as soon as he was
inducted, was treated as a victim for the priests. Livy states (cited in Rice 1979, 199):
They would conduct him to a place which resounded with screeches, chanting, music and the crash of cymbals
and drums, so that the voice of the initiated could not be heard while the shameful act was perpetrated upon
him with violence …
-iv. Musical instruments.

A variety of musical instruments were identified with the Dionysiac festivals.
Their nocturnal dancing was accompanied by “weird music of wind instruments and the
clashing of tambourines” (Willoughby in Mills 1985a, 11), “the music of flutes,
cymbals, drums or tambourines” (Rogers 1979, 254), “Bacchic frenzy … celebration of
the sacred rites by means of war dances accompanied by uproar and noise and cymbals
and drums and also by flute …” (Strabo cited in Kroeger 1978, 7), “bass flutes …
which brings on the incitement of madness … bronze-bound hollow cymbals” (Rice
1979, 198). The correlation with 1 Corinthians 13:1 is unmistakable: “… I am only a
resounding gong or a clanging cymbal”. In addition, Paul’s reference to the need of
intelligible music in 1 Corinthians 14:7-9 underlines the emptiness of contemporary
cultural celebration and by contrast the need of intelligible words for edification.
-v. Effects on men and especially women.
The whole experience of Dionysian religion had a dramatic effect on men.
Nilsson (1964, 194) states, “No other religious movement took so powerful a hold upon
men’s minds as the Dionysiac ecstasy”. This is a very significant statement when one
considers the even greater effect it apparently had on women. Cutten (1927, 159) asserts
that, “In all forms of nervous instability females predominate, and in hysteria they are in
the proportion of twenty females to one male”. And Dionysiac frenzy and worship was
such a movement that spread in the form of a “violent psychical epidemic … more
particularly among women” (Nilsson 1964, 206).
With its sensuality and emphasis on sexual love, it presented a marked affinity to the feminine nature, and its
appeal was primarily to women; it was among women that it found its most loyal supporters, its most assiduous
servants, and their enthusiasm was the foundation of its power.
(Kerenji 1976, 130).
For many women, the frenzied Dionysian orgy provided cathartic release to
women who felt lifted above their lowly status and freed from the mundane dreariness
of life (compare Rogers 1979, 255). Livy, in his History of Rome, states that the
“majority are women” who participated in a second level of initiation in Bacchic
worship that was not available to men (cited in Kroeger 1978, 7; also note Oesterreich
1930, 336).
Perhaps the best way to gain a picture of the overall ceremony and its impact, is
to quote Rohde (1925, 9f):
The ceremony took place on mountain heights at dead of night, by the flickering light of torches. Loud music
resounded; the clashing of brazen cymbals, the deep thunder of great hand-tympani and in the intervals the
“sounds luring to madness” of the deep toned flutes whose soul was first awakened by the Phrygian Auletes.
Excited by this wild music the crowd of revellers dances with piercing cries … in a frenzied, whirling, and
violent round the ecstatic crowd hastens upwards over the mountain-sides. It is mostly women who turn to the
point of exhaustion in this giddy dance. Strangely clothed: they wear “basseren”, long flowing garments made,
it seems, from fox-skins sewn together; over these roebuck skins, and horns upon their heads. Their hair flies
wild, their hands grasp snakes, sacred to Sabazios, they brandish daggers or thyrsi with hidden lance-heads
under the ivy. So they rage until every emotion is excited to the highest pitch and in the “holy madness” they
fling themselves upon the animals destined for sacrifice, seize and dismember the assembled booty and with
their teeth tear the bloody flesh which they swallow raw.
The participants were almost exclusively women (Oesterreich 1930, 336).

Several points stand out. The mountain dancing was part of the frenzied dancing of the
whole celebration (compare Rogers 1979, 254). Many were entwined with snakes or
carried them in their hair (Luyster 1980, 121: Rudd 1986, 80). New mothers, having left
their babies at home, suckled gazelles and young wolves (Euripides’ Bacchae cited in
Rudd 1986, 81). In an increasing ecstasy, the women “swooped upon the herd of cattle
… then you could have seen a single woman with bare hands tear a fat calf, still
bellowing with fright … There were ribs and cloven hooves scattered everywhere …”
(Euripides’ Bacchae cited in Rudd 1986, 81). Having torn the young animals in pieces,
the flesh was devoured raw (Fairbanks 1910, 241). Alongside the above phenomena
was the concept of “clamour”, “noisy outbursts of religious pandemonium” which was
the specific function of the women (Kroeger 1978, 7).
Kroeger (1978, 7) addresses the concept of “clamour”, citing Euripides’
reference to Dionysiac religion and the women’s cries. The word for “cry” that he uses,
is olulugia, defined in the Etymologicum Magnum as “the sound which women make to
exult in worship”, and defined by Dodds as “the women’s ritual cry of triumph or
thanksgiving” (cited in Kroeger 1978, 7). Pausanias refers to a mountain called Eva
which was derived from the Bacchic cry “Evoe”, uttered by Dionysus and his attendant
women, on that mountain (noted by Kroeger 1978, 7).
Kroeger (1978, 7) notes that women are more vulnerable to emotional excesses,
and notes the parallel between Dionysiac worship and 1 Corinthians 12-14. God is not
the God of “confused tumult”, as was Bacchus (cf. 14:33). In their experiences in the
cult, the Corinthians had been “carried away” (12:1f) by “dumb idols”, feeling
powerless to resist, but Paul speaks of self-control under the influence of the Holy
Spirit. Likewise, simultaneous utterance (14:40) is not the work of God, and brings
confusion. In this context, women are asked to subdue themselves within the bounds of
propriety. Verse 14:35 implies that women should exercise self-control.
The excesses of women’s behaviour over that of men, was not a later recognition
by Paul, because already both Greek and Roman society had enacted legislation to curb
the cultic excesses of women (Kroeger 1978, 9). It is not surprising that Paul seeks to
address the apparent excesses of women in the culturally emotional atmosphere of
worship services, leading him to state in 1 Corinthians 14:34:
… women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak …
The word “to speak” is lalein, which has the primary reference to “utterance”,
rather than to “meaningful communication” (Kroeger 78, 10). Thayer (1979, 368) notes
that lalein is used of the prattling and chatting of animals, and it is an onomatopoeic
word meaning to go “la-la”. It is not surprising that Aristophanes’ in his Lysistrata, in
reference to Bacchus “afire with his Maenades [mad women]” includes a verse (cited in
Kroeger ’78, 10):

Allala! Lalla! Lallala; Lallala!
Whoop for victory, Lallalalee!
Evoi! Evoi! Lallala, Lallala!
Evae! Evae! Lallalalae.
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
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).
This correlation will be detailed below.

iii. Apollo
-i. Introduction.
The most widely documented accounts of tongues and heathen prophecy came
from the ancient Greeks (Butler 1985, 16). Oracles were common throughout Greece,
and the most famous of these oracles was at Delphi, and operated from 550 B.C. through
to the early years of the Christian era (Butler 1985, 16).
Delphi was thrust into prominence since the early accounts of divination at that
location. Diodorus Siculus recounts that Delphi was a city in which goats used to graze.
At the spot where the adyton of the present temple is there was once a chasm in the ground, where before
Delphi was yet a city the goats used to graze. Whenever one of them approached the chasm and looked down
into it, she would begin leaping about in an amazing fashion and bleating in a quite different voice to her normal
one.
(Cited in Rudd 1986, 94).
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
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,

315):
Of this priestess, the Pythoness, it is now said that she sat with parted thighs on the tripod of Apollo and the
evil spirit entered her from below passing through her genital organs and plunged her into a state of frenzy, so
that she began with loosened hair to foam and rage like one drunken.
Origin records a similar interpretation (cited in Oesterreich 1930, 315).

-iv. The ecstatic utterance.
Ira J. Martin (1960, 80) adds: “Priests were apparently in attendance to catch her
every utterance, and to interpret her cries and babblings whenever they ceased to be
coherent”.
Mediumship from the supernatural was widely practised (as noted in the
introduction to this section on the Mystery Religions) and the role was highly regarded.
The most influential of all Greek institutions was the oracle at Delphi, communicated
through the mediumship of the entranced woman, the Pythia, and it was accepted by both
pagans and Christians that an alien voice spoke through her in the first person (Dodds
1973, 196). Envoys of nations as well as individuals came with questions which were
answered in the form of wild ravings which were “translated” into hexameter verse for
the enquirer (Fairbanks 1979, 1301). These Envoys came from Asia Minor and the
Roman world, as well as from Greece (Fairbanks 1910, 63). And all this focus was at
Delphi, on the lower slopes of Parnassus across the Gulf of Corinth from the city of
Corinth. Paul would be thoroughly conversant with this perspective.
The ecstatic communication of the priestess was described by Plato as a type of
divine madness (so also Socrates), and only possible whilst in a trance (Callan 1985,
129). The ecstasy was self-induced (Burkert 1985, 116) and the result of an
“extraordinary amount of suggestion”, the priestess having been brought up in the
locality of the shrine, and being aware of the expectancies of the society (so Parke in
The Delphic Oracle, cited by Rudd 1986, 101). Oesterreich (1930, 321) claimed that
the Pythoness was under somnambulistic possession as she delivered her oracle. This
particularized the experience to hypnotic trance (Sargant 1975, 27) allowing the person
to behave rationally although possessed.
Erwin Rohde (cited in Oesterreich 1930, 313-314) describes the Pythoness:
… there (at Delphi) the Pythoness, a virgin priestess, prophesied under the intoxicating excitement of the
vapours issuing from a cleft in the rocks above which she sat on a tripod; she was filled with the god himself
and his spirit. The god, as was believed, entered into the earthly body, or else the priestess’ soul, “loosed” from
her body, apprehended the divine revelations with the spiritual mind. What she then “with frenzied mouth”
foretold was spoken through her by the god. When she said “I” it was Apollo who spoke to whomsoever it
concerned. That which lived, thought, and spoke in her so long as she was in frenzy, was the god himself.
-v. The necessity of ecstasy.

The Greeks could not conceive of a rational mind bringing forth an inspired
message, and hence ecstatic speech (“frenzied mouth”) was regarded as proof that the
oracle came from a god (Rudd 1986, 102). Over against this belief, is the assertion of
Joseph Fontenrose (cited in Forbes 1986, 261):
There is no reliable evidence in ancient literature or art for a frenzied or raving Pythia: the conception of the
Pythia’s madness, found in a few late writers, has its origin in Plato’s conception of prophetic mania … the
Pythia no more takes leave of her senses or enters into violent emotional outbursts than, as a rule, do poets or
lovers in the inspiration and emotion which they experience.
-vi. Rationalisation of the utterances.

Forbes (1986, 262) urges that a distinction be made between, on the one hand,
“incoherent babbling”, a phenomenon that is unintelligible linguistically, and on the
other hand, obscure Pythian oracular utterances. “The obscurity of Delphic utterances is
not a matter of linguistic unintelligibility at all” (Forbes 1986, 262, emphasis his). He
feels that there is no decisive evidence to indicate that the Pythian priestess ever spoke
in a form analogous to glossolalia (260).
Dodds (1973, 197) observes that “the entranced woman was a vocal automatist”
or a medium. Although she achieved this condition by auto-suggestion and associative
phenomena, and whilst the resulting trance could be simulated, nevertheless Plutarch
records a case of a Pythia speaking in a hoarse voice, throwing herself about as if
possessed, and rushing screaming from the sanctuary – and dying within days – that
seemed to convince him as genuine. Even so, it appeared that her communications were
spoken in “riddling symbols”, they were cryptic more than glossolalic.
Plutarch describes the oracles as “ambiguous”, “disputed words”, “hidden
thought”, “obscurity”, and “phantom” (Peck 1989, 19).
It seems clear that nearly all the evidence of the form of Pythian utterances was
obscurity of expression rather than any form of ecstatic gibberish or unknown language.
Forbes (1986, 260) declares that the Pythia “spoke in perfectly intelligible, though
sometimes ambiguous Greek”. Depending on the state of trance, the utterances could
vary in degree of coherence and intelligibility (Parks and Worrell as cited by Forbes
1986, 260).
However, there is a difficulty in the assumption that the ancients described
inspired speech using the parameters that might be expected by scholars today. Forbes
(1986, 266) notes that he is only aware of one case of inspired speech as resembling a
foreign language – the case of Mys the Carion. The most common record in the literature
of inspired speech, is the evidence at Delphi. And this was primarily to prove that it
came from the god, irrespective of its final form.
Another factor that has not figured clearly in the discussion about the nature of the
oracular utterance, is the claim that the obscurity was due to the translation from divine
languages, not from human languages (Forbes 1986, 267). “It should be noted, however,
that there is no suggestion here that the divine language in question is what the Pythia
speaks, or that anybody at all translates” (Forbes 1986, 268). The oracles became
obscure as they pass from the divine to the human realm and became human language.
There is no suggestion that the obscurity arises from the passage from the unintelligible
words of the Pythia to the normal language of the prophets (Forbes 1986, 268). This
postulation would be very difficult to substantiate.
-vii. Role of the interpreters.
Following from the general consensus of the scholars, that the words of the Pythia
were primarily cryptic, what was the role of the “interpreters”? It has been noted that
priests were in attendance to catch every cry of the priestess, especially if she lapsed
into incoherence. Fontenrose states that “in every consultation we are told that the
inquirer spoke directly to the Pythia (or to the god) and that the Pythia (or the god)
responded directly to him” (cited in Forbes 1986, 264). Usually the prophet was limited
to an overseer role during an oracular session. However, Kleinkneckt (1968, 348) is
more specific, that the “burbled out … ecstasy” needed to be “taken up, supplemented,
clarified and made into valid oracles” by the prophets.
Rudd (1986, 102) urges the view that the Pythia spoke in ecstatic speech – the
proof that the oracle came from the god – but that “an ecstatic, uninterpreted oracle
would have been of little use to the clients, so prophets were employed at the temple to
put the oracle into its official form”. Dunn (1975, 228) suggests that the Pythia was
inspired, “speaking under divine constraint”, whereas the prophet used rational
discernment.
If this is true, why did the prophets often produce cryptic and ambiguous
“official” versions? (Forbes 1986, 263). Or worse, did they in fact interfere with the
interpretation on account of the ambiguity of the Pythias’ utterance? (Oesterreich 1930,
322). Perhaps they were seeking to maintain the supposed integrity of the whole
procedure, or were trying to gain some personal kudos. Certainly Stengel did not doubt
the genuineness of the Pythian ecstasy, but allowed that if she “found herself in a state
which rendered her incapable of reasoning … it was then the duty of the priests to see
what they could make of her words and outcries” (cited in Oesterreich 1930, 313).
Mills (1985, 83-84) likewise affirms that the trance was genuine, quoting an
incident that was related by Plutarch, presumably from first hand experience from the
prophet Nicander, Mills deducing that the evidence seemed to imply “possession”. In
addition, Plutarch was himself one of the priests of the oracle, and hence aware of the
nature of the whole phenomenon (Oesterreich 1930, 314).
Oesterreich (1930, 320), Rohde (cited in Oesterreich 1930, 314) and Dunn (1975,
305) all agree that the fact that the prophecies were always given in the first person,
never the third, indicates that the Pythia was possessed as the god spoke through her.
Dodds (1973, 196) more emphatically states:
The belief almost universally held by pagans and Christians alike, over a period of more than a millennium, that
through the lips of the Pythia an alien voice spoke in the first person, cannot be dismissed as a simple product
of conscious fraud or even as a fable convenue.
-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.
More particularly, what is the conclusion concerning the relationship to

Corinthian glossolalia and interpretation?
Martin (1960, 80) does not hesitate to affirm that “the phenomenon of tongues akin
to Apostolic glossolalia is to be found in the case of the Pythoness of Delphi …”.
Likewise, Bruce (1977, 260) clearly asserts that the utterances of the Pythian prophetess
(and “the enthusiastic invocations of the votaries of Dionysus”) made glossolalia a
phenomenon wider than Christianity. However, Oesterreich (1930, 314) finds that there
is no clear evidence from which to make deductions due to the “poverty of ancient
documentary sources”.
Forbes (1986, 268) concludes that to draw any parallel between early Christian
inspired speech from the Pythian oracle ought to be abandoned as highly misleading
because the terminologies are different, and there is little in common between the two
phenomena. Mills (1975, 170) seems to concur, admitting that there is no question of
allowing the existence of ecstatic, frenzied speech from the records, but that it is too
tenuous to conclude that this speech is the same as 1 Corinthians (and Acts).
A similar conclusion can be made with regard to the interpretation of languages.
Forbes (1986, 258) asserts that Paul saw the role of prophet as inspired, whereas the
prophetes of the Delphic situation were never expected to be inspired. He was the
rational interpreter. By contrast, Dunn (1975, 228) argues that Paul goes out of his way
to “distinguish and distance prophecy from ecstatic inspiration”. As with glossolalia, so
too with interpretation, one must conclude that there is inadequate evidence to draw
clear conclusions.
It must also be admitted, that in fact we do not know what Corinthian glossolalia
was. There is no actual record. We are as impoverished in this regard as with Delphic
evidence. It therefore follows that we do no know precisely what the role of interpreter
was.

What are more significant, are the apparent similarities between the two cultures.
These similarities cause the Corinthians to acquire a cultural correlation to heathen
phenomena that is downright misleading, if not thoroughly confusing, causing ambiguity
for scholars 2000 years removed from the events. Rudd (1986, 110) attempts to draw
some similarities to show the relevance.
(1) Divine inspiration is the biblical basis for glossolalia, as was the claim that the
Delphic priestess was inspired by the god Apollo.
(2) The need for interpretation is fundamental to the Pauline passage in 1
Corinthians 14, and was purportedly essential to the Delphic experience through
the prophets.
(3) Both situations (according to Rudd) involved frenzied or ecstatic speech.
(4) In both situations the utterance was produced by persons whose minds were
passive to either the Spirit of God or the god Apollo.
For the moment, the similarities are generally acknowledged as valid. Some
aspects need to be examined more critically later.
D. CORRELATION OF UTTERANCES OF THE MYSTERY RELIGIONS

AND 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
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.
He further notes (80-81):

Varied cultures, races, religions and philosophies mingled at Corinth. Pausanias’ vivid description of the
multiplicity of temples and religious statues is most impressive. Since the Christians in Corinth were converts
from Judaism and paganism, the background of rivalry was potentially dangerous to the Corinthian church.
Following from Mills’ observation, the following self-explanatory quotes indicate
something of the extent both of time and scholastic talent – of the acceptance of this
correlation.
n.d. Kennedy.
These associations of initiates formed an integral part of St. Paul’s environment as he laboured in great centres
of population like Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. There is nothing far-fetched in the hypothesis that
many of the Pagans who were attracted to his preaching, many even of those who were already God-fearers
(sebomenoi ton qeon), had belonged to mystic brotherhoods. (79).
Now it is abundantly clear that parallel phenomena existed in the ethnic religions. There also the pneumatiko~,
by whatever name he might be called, was a familiar figure. … he too burst forth into mysterious ejaculations
and rapt utterances of the kind described in the New Testament as glwssai~ lalein. (160).
The relation of the Mystery-Religions to Paul’s environment requires no discussion … throughout the sphere of
his missionary operations he would be in touch with many who had been initiated into Pagan Mysteries, and
had finally entered the Christian Church. (280).
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).

… the gift of tongues and of their interpretation was not peculiar to the Christian Church, but was a repetition in
it of a phase common in ancient religions. The very phrase glwssai~ lalein, “to speak with tongues”, was not
invented by the New Testament writers, but borrowed from ordinary speech. (10).
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).
1952 Bauer, et al.

… there is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy. The
phenomenon, as found in Hellenistic religion, is described by … E. Rohde and Reitzenstein. (cited in Mills
1985a, 81).
NOTE: Mills (1985a, 81-82) notes that many scholars follow the line of Baur, et
al, thus underlining this view of the direct link.
1960 Martin.
interpretation, explanation and significance. (78).
… the terms pneuma and lalein glossais which the Christian writers used came, after all, out of the Greek
vernacular which existed long before the New Testament authors used it. (80).
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

in various forms and at various periods and places in religious history. (722).
The unintelligible lists of magical names and letters in the magic pap. (voces mysticae), which are used in the
invoking and conjuring of gods and spirits, may also be analogous to this obscure and meaningless speaking
with tongues. (723).
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.
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).

1985a Mills.
Varied cultures, races, religions and philosophies mingled at Corinth. Pausanias’ vivid description of the
multiplicity of temples and religious statues is most impressive. Since the Christians in Corinth were converts
from Judaism and paganism, the background of rivalry was potentially dangerous to the Corinthian church. (80-
81).
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).
1986 New Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Glossolalia occurred in some of the ancient Greek religions and in various primitive religions. (11.842).
In SUMMARY it should be noted that the overwhelming number of scholars allow

for some correlation between an ecstatic type of secular phenomenon that is seen to be
similar to a supposedly ecstatic phenomenon in the first century Corinthian church. In
making this assumption, Roberts (1979, 202) comments:
The problems arose at Corinth, not because they used ecstatic phenomena, but because, in a Christian context,
they adopted a pagan attitude towards them.
However, the problem is more complex than to allow such a superficial
conclusion. It is true that there was the transfer of a pagan attitude, but the question is
not clearly decided whether there was a valid ecstatic experience at Corinth that was
debased by the pagan attitude, or whether the pagan attitude dictated the nature of the
Corinthian experience, making it ecstatic and foreign to any true glossolalic gift. If the
early Christian community was truly and essentially ecstatic in its experience contrary
to a true glossolalic experience, why does Luke not question this erroneous ecstatic
experience and note the aberration in writing the book of Acts? This is especially
pertinent since Acts was written after 1 Corinthians was written, and as an apologetic
about the Christian faith. It would appear that the Corinthian experience was an isolated
aberration, and did not require a specific corrective by Luke. Certainly the Acts
accounts of glossolalic phenomena show no evidence of ecstasy, and are different from
the Corinthian ecclesiastical gift, as will be detailed later.
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:

… there is nothing to be found in either Hebrew or Greek antecedents comparable to the experience described
by Paul’s letters and the Book of Acts as speaking in tongues.
Whilst one can agree with Kelsey, his view is not the common conception, but
more significantly, it does not obviate the apparent correlation. Bruner (1970, 286) is
quite dismissive, “Kelsey’s remark ignores history”.
Engelsen (1970, 20) clarifies that there is a significant difference between
intelligible and unintelligible ejaculations. The frenzied utterances of mantics and
priestesses were often unintelligible, and inarticulate or unintelligible speech was only
seen as a feature of ecstatic speech not of the specific term γλωσσαις λαλειν. In fact,
The term γλωσσαις (γλωσσῃ/) λαλειν, or any similar expression particularly referring to inarticulate speech,
does not occur in any of the texts. So far it has not been evidenced in Greek literature outside the New
Testament.
(Engelsen 1970, 20).
Pruemm (1967, 163-164) and Schweitzer (1912, 189) both argue that the Mystery
Religions had no influence on Christianity. Kennedy (n.d., 160-161) whilst recognizing
the widespread experience of “mysterious ejaculations and rapt utterances” and clear
references to the experiences of the pagan environment (in 1 Corinthians 12:1-3),
nevertheless firmly asserts that “we have no right to find the origin of the experience
(γλωσσα in particular) … ‘in the soil of Hellenistic ecstasy and mysticism’”.
It is unfortunate that there has been a widespread assumption that “ecstatic
gibberish”/“frenzied utterance”/“inarticulate speech deliriums” can be correlated to the
Corinthian experience of glossolalia. There is no direct link in fact, in similarity of
actual experience, and there is certainly no link in terms of derivation of biblical
glossolalia.
There is, however, a strong confusing correlation in terms of some form of
ecstatic, unintelligible utterance and subsequent interpretation in the Mystery Religious
experience, and an aberrant expression of ecstatic utterance and “interpretation” in
Corinth, that led to Paul giving a strong corrective. That misconception and aberration
continues today.
True glossolalia as a Trinitarian gift of God has no precursor in secular
experience (Mystery Religions or otherwise) nor in auto-suggestive ecstatic behaviour.
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,
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

Religions and early Christianity.
Dunn (1975, 147) certainly holds this view:
… the more we recognize Hellenistic influence on Corinthian glossolalia, the more seriously we have to
consider the basic meaning of the word in wider Greek thought – viz., ‘to interpret, expound, explain’. In
particular, the relation between ‘glossolalia’ and ‘interpretation’ so closely parallels that between what we
distinguished above as the ‘prophecy of inspiration’ and the ‘prophecy of interpretation’ that it becomes difficult
to deny a close equivalence of function between, for example, the prophet who interpreted the utterances of
the Pythia at Delphi and the interpreter of tongues at Corinth.
Likewise, Kleinknecht (1968, 348) holds a similar view, but recognizes a
spiritual component, as he alludes to Plato’s approach:
Plato is alluding to the historically developed cultic usage as a result of which the words of the Pythia, burbled
out in ecstasy, are normally taken up, supplemented, clarified and made into valid oracles only by the Delphic
priests or prophets.
Kleinknecht adds, that the νους must have a part in the ecstatic spiritual utterance
in tongues (348).
Again, two factors emerge. One is the general correlation of the apparent ecstatic
phenomena (in this case including the interpretation), the other is that whatever
happened at Corinth had a separate spiritual component.
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.
(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
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
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).
4.6.5 CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING ECSTASY IN NON-

CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
Whilst Mills has noted that glossolalia has only a parallelism of form in Greek
religions, he argues that the primary background for Corinthian glossolalia is “Hebraic
and not Hellenistic” (1985a, 94). However, Mills allows this position for the same
reason that most scholars allow a correlation between pagan and Christian phenomena.
He sees the “divine possession” of Plato as a parallel to the “possession by the Spirit”
(95) and he assumes that this better suits a parallel with the Old Testament prophets
(97). However, he does this on the assumption that there was an unexpected “ecstasy”
and “true spirit possession” in Israel’s prophetism that caused a confusing link with
pagan practices in Corinth, thus a confusing link with pagan practices in Corinth, thus
leading to confusion in the church. He further assumes that there is an ecstatic element in
both Hebrew prophecy and Corinthian glossolalia.
It has already been shown that ecstasy is not a precursor to Hebrew prophecy, and
certainly spirit-possession has no external manifestation comparable to true Spirit-
possession, except in the fact of a behavioural evidence, as for example in Ephesians
5:18, which some scholars have shown to be related to Greek religious (especially
Dionysian) backgrounds (e.g. Rogers 1979, 249-257).
Mills (1985a, 11) is probably right in noting that glossolalia in the Corinthian
church probably “evolved” out of the desire of religious converts to have some specific
“objective” proof of being possessed by the Spirit of God. The charismata then became
ends in themselves as signs of superiority over other Christians (110). That observation
is also true of the twentieth century resurgence of Pentecostal experience. This “sign”
became the standard, “par-excellence” for having achieved divine favour (Mills 1985a,
110). This being the case, there was a certain compulsion to produce some evidence,
leading to more obviously spurious or counterfeit phenomena (cf. Mills 1985a, 110-
111). As early as the end of the first century there was a need to be able to distinguish
the true from the false, resulting in the text of 1 John 4:1-2.
By contrast, McDonald (1934, 32) states that early worship was not hospitable to
emotionalism. In contrast to the Mystery Religions that offered proof of divine favour in
terms of a number of sensations and emotions, he says that Christianity did not seek
assurance through subjective feelings. McDonald is probably correct, both ideally and
also in true practice, but the reality in experience tends to be very subjective, as just
noted.
Carson (1988, 81) would agree with Mills that the parallels between pagan
religions and the Corinthian Christians’ experience – once thought appropriate – are not
really suitable. He is correct. There really are no parallels of any substance. True
tongues has no precursor in ecstatic experience, nor is itself ecstatic. The cultural milieu
caused confusion at Corinth resulting in Paul’s correctives.
If one needs any precursor to experience by the Spirit, as indicated at Pentecost or
in 1 Corinthians 12:11, one need look no further than the experiences of Zechariah,
Elizabeth and Mary in Luke 1. Certainly there is no need to look at Hellenistic sources
for precursors, but it is precisely in these pagan sources that the basis of the abuses and
corruptions are found, because the correlations in their society were persuasive and
hence the transfer to Christian experience is understandable. It is part of the thesis of
this study, that that correlation is the underlying confusing element in the Corinthian
correspondence that leads Paul to so clearly assert his correctives for abuse, rather
than instructions for use.
4.7 ECSTASY IN CHARISMATIC AND PENTECOSTAL

EXPERIENCE
4.7.1 INTRODUCTION
It has been noted that ecstasy is not a part of the true Old Testament prophetic
background, nor is ecstatic behaviour a pre-requisite to the true charismatic gifts of 1
Corinthians 12-14, in spite of the Mystery Religious experiences of the day.
Nevertheless it has been a tendency for scholars to make an unquestioned assumption
that ecstasy is an antecedent necessity for the gift of glossolalia in charismatic and
Pentecostal experience. It is part of this study, that no true gift for the church has a
necessary ecstatic antecedent or accompanying ecstatic experience.
Wright (1982,19) notes that sometimes writers are looking for antecedents for the
twentieth century charismatic and Pentecostal movements, and that they go back to the
Montanist movement of the later second century. This was a religious movement of
“abnormal ecstasy” (23) and “at worst fanatical rather than heretical” (29). Coats
(1955, 745) saw the ecstatic experience as part of an ascetic discipline in protesting the
secularisation of the church, while Conn (1955, 24) records that the ecstatic experience
of Montanus was a passive role, as if the Holy Spirit played on him with a plectron.
Larry Christenson claims the Montanist movement as part of the charismatic tradition
(noted in MacArthur 1978, 28) whilst MacArthur states that it is fair to call the present
charismatic movement “neo-Montanism” (1978, 28).
Even if scholars do not go back to the second century for an appeal to ecstatic
antecedents, nevertheless, the majority of twentieth century scholars certainly assume
that glossolalia occurred in an environment of ecstatic experience.
Watson Mills states that “ecstatic speaking” was a clearly attested phenomenon of
prophets of the ancient Near Eastern religions (1972a, 949) as well as a phenomenon of
the New Testament and church history (1970, 1217). He further devotes a whole article
to “Ecstaticism as a Background for Glossolalia” (1975, 167). On the assumption that
glossolalia is ecstatic speaking, Mills explains neo-Pentecostalism as developing
through men like Dennis J. Bennett, Harold Bredensen, Larry Christenson and Chandler
Sterling, who described their own experience in terms of ecstatic speech (1970, 1218).
However, Mills does warn against a too ready comparison between “glossolalia” of
religions of the first century, and that reported in Acts and 1 Corinthians (Mills 1975,
170).
Millikan (1973, 25) asserts that the “great majority of scholars today hold that the
Corinthian tongues undoubtedly took the form of ecstatic speech”. These assertions will
be challenged.
As ecstasy is examined in the light of charismatic and Pentecostal experience, it is
important to recall the wide definition of ecstasy as various scholars view it. Hertweck
(1981, 18) quotes Webster’s New International Dictionary in defining ecstasy as:
A state of being beside oneself; a state of being beyond all reason and self-control, or
in mystical language, a psychological state in which intense mental absorption in divine things is accompanied
by loss of sense perception and voluntary control.
In addition, James Dunn’s (1975, 237) definition:
an unusually exalted state of feeling, a condition of such total absorption or concentration that the individual
becomes oblivious to all attendant circumstances and other stimuli, and experience of intense rapture or a
trancelike state in which normal faculties are suspended for a shorter or longer period and the subject sees
visions or experiences ‘automatic speech’, as in some forms of glossolalia.
These definitions bring back to focus the similarity between ecstasy, trance,
mysticism and altered states of consciousness, as used by various scholars in relation to
ecstasy and glossolalia.
These aspects will be seen in the historic antecedents as well as in the large range
of authors and scholars through history – especially the twentieth century – who make
the assumption that ecstasy (or its variations) is a precursor to glossolalic utterance in
charismatic and Pentecostal experience.
From the historic overview, a number of observations will be made that highlight
the significance of this section, and which help to show the need for a strong corrective
to be given.
4.7.2 HISTORIC ANTECEDENTS

In the early twentieth century it was common to assume that economic and social
deprivation caused people to be vulnerable to emotional insecurity, and that these were
the people who succumbed to an assumed glossolalia through ecstasy (an emotional
excess). However, Best (1975, 52) notes that by 1975 some psychologists had shown
that glossolalics were not mentally unstable; sociologists were stating that glossolalics
were not from the poorer classes; nor do glossolalics belong to the uneducated; nor are
they young (immature) converts; nor are they people lacking liturgical interest; nor are
they necessarily fundamentalist. Against these assertions, it is significant to note that in
1971 (a similar period to Best) a noted Pentecostal historian stated: “(the fact that) the
Pentecostal movement is essentially a religion of the socially disinherited and the
economically underprivileged. For the most part, Pentecostals come from the lower
socio-economic levels of society” (Synan 1971, 176).
Nevertheless, there were other observations that linked glossolalia with
emotionalism and ecstasy. Early in the twentieth century, Cutten (1927, 159) noted that
there was a significant involvement of women:
In all forms of nervous instability females predominate, and in hysteria they are in the proportion of twenty
females to one male. In modern [1927] speaking with tongues women are more numerous.
This observation concerning women is true in many of the reports of the Wesleyan
revival (for example in Davenport 1905, 150-162), and among the Irvingites (cf.
Dallimore 1983, 99-122) as well as passing comments by later authors, and also by
observation of this studyer. White (1988b, 1279) comments, “the number of women
leaders in this tradition is significant”. The correlation with the greater emotionalism of
women is clear – with significant precursors going back to the Dionysian cult of the
Greek Mystery Religions, noted earlier (Chapter 4.6.4).
More objectively, the twentieth century charismatic and Pentecostal movements
arose from the seed-bed of the emotionalism of the earlier revival movements. Two
examples can be noted. Unger (1972, 8) notes that early Pentecostal believers were
influenced by their connections with the Holiness movement, a movement that was
characterized by “high enthusiasm and often ecstasy”. Hollenweger, author of the
classic work The Pentecostals (English trans. 1972), notes in a later research paper
(1984, 404) that “Classical Pentecostalism … originated in the encounter of a specific
Catholic spirituality … [which] was represented by the Holiness movement of the
nineteenth century”.
More significantly, several scholars have argued for a greater recognition of the
origins of the charismatic and Pentecostal experience in black worship. White (1988b,

1279) states, “The black style of worship in [Free Church and Methodist] traditions was
crucial in the formative years of Pentecostalism”. Hollenweger (1984, 404) noted that
classical Pentecostalism was derived from “the black spirituality of the former slaves in
the United States”, and that “black spirituality was represented by scores of black hymn-
writers and evangelists in early Pentecostalism and above all by William James
Seymour”. Noted Pentecostal historian of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, Harold
Synan (1971, 176) observes that “the emotional nature of Pentecostal worship has
always held a strong appeal to the Negro”. However, it is James Tinney (1971, 4) who
argues most strongly for the black origins of the Pentecostal movement. He states, “the
origins of the movement … are distinctively African and Afro-American”, and that
without the important role of blacks, the Pentecostal movement might be of no great
magnitude in the United States or the world. Tinney (6) further notes that “the drum is
the indispensable Africanism in Pentecostal worship … along with highly
emotionalised motor reactions, including ecstatic tongues” (emphasis added).
From these black origins, Tinney (1971, 4) makes an emphatic statement relating
to the black involvement at Azusa Street:
Both black and white Pentecostalism in America can be traced back to the little band of black believers who
met in a storefront church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906. Nearly every charismatic denomination in
this country can trace its beginnings back to that black church setting. Whatever its biblical base or lack of it,
Pentecostalism derives from black people in an immediate, although not exclusive, sense.
Synan (1971, 114) affirms this position:
The Azusa Street revival is commonly regarded as the beginning of the modern pentecostal movement.
Directly or indirectly, practically all of the pentecostal groups in existence can trace their lineage to the Azusa
Mission.
It is worth noting, that Parham, who ran the Topeka bible school that spawned the
tongues-speaking of Agnes Ozman in 1900, also trained William Seymour who
originally accepted xenoglossia, before becoming the “apostle of Azusa Street”,
resulting in Parham denouncing the Azusa Street work (Synan 1971, 101-112). Hence
Parham, who produced Seymour, the “father” of the twentieth century Pentecostal
movement, denounced his own progeny, calling it a case of “spiritual power
prostituted” (112).
These historic antecedents all show the attempt to recognize the emotional and
ecstatic precursors of charismatic and Pentecostal experience. Further examples of the
same arguments are found in the next section.
4.7.3 ECSTASY IN HISTORICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL

PERSPECTIVE
It is somewhat difficult to convey the picture of the overwhelming volume of
material from scholars, demonstrating their assumption of the ecstatic nature of
charismatic and Pentecostal experience, and by extension, the assumption that ecstasy is
a precursor to glossolalia.
The following is a chronological listing of a sample of authors holding the
assumption of the ecstatic precursor (the majority) or in some cases alluding to the fact
that that was the prevailing opinion. Hence it is significant to note this expectancy was
prior to the twentieth century with its resurgence of Pentecostal experience, and also the
expectancy early in the twentieth century.
N.B. A number of entries are marked by a single asterisk (*) to draw attention to
the author’s broadly inclusive claim (eg. 1889 Weinel).
1374 Schofield (1965, 52) reports:
“ … there was an astonishing religious dancing mania which began at Aix. There were hundreds of dancing
men and women, screaming and foaming at the mouth, and all this coupled with wonderful visions of Christ …
and yet there can be no doubt that multitudes carried away by [this emotional excess] were earnest and true
Christians”.
1520’s Amongst the radical wing of the Reformation, the Anabaptists emphasized
personal experience. Culpepper (1977, 41) comments:
Thomas Muntzer cherished such experiences and gifts as visions, dreams, ecstatic utterance, and inspired
exegesis.
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.

(Synan 1971, 24).
1852 Alford (1976, 579 italics his):

The prophet differs from the speaker with tongues … in that he speaks with the understanding, not
ecstatically …
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
(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
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).

1927 Cutten makes some sweeping statements:
Whatever may be predicated of the psychological conditions of speaking with tongues in the New Testament, it
is evident that the experience since then may be classed as ecstasy or allied phenomena. In ecstasy there is a
condition of emotional exaltation, in which the one who experiences it is more or less oblivious of the external
world, and loses to some extent his self-consciousness and his power of rational thought and self-control.
(157).
There has been scarcely a religious leader of whom we have record who did not have his moments of ecstasy.
(157).
We may classify speaking with tongues as hysteria, catalepsy, or ecstasy. (159).
1927 Taylor (301):
… in all other cases where the phrase ‘speaking with tongues’ occurs, it appears to mean utter inarticulate
cries under the stress of great emotion.
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
… 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
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).

1969 Bach unashamedly speaks of ecstasy as “deep within the collective mind … of
the children of God” (116).
[Ecstasy] was a universal encounter … a universal link in the chain of spiritual understanding (116),
and also basic to the experience of glossolalia (15-17). He deduced that “the
Baptism” was to provide “the ecstasy of faith” (184, italics his).
Ecstasy was the Holy Spirit’s postulate. Ecstasy was the soul’s honeymoon with God (184, italics his).
1969? The evangelical Press Association is reported by Hillis (15):
When a Christian speaks in tongues, he makes ecstatic utterances that cannot be identified as human language,
except through the gift of interpretation.
1970 Bruner reports on the Pentecostal experience as being “utter abandon”, ecstasy
(and agony) characterize Pentecostal meetings (134). Prayer too, constantly
borders on ecstasy (134). Further, the extent of excitement is shown in the ratios of
prophecy to tongues:
In the more subdued atmospheres, prophecy predominates; in the more surcharged, tongues (142).
Tarrying meetings become “quite charged and warm”, until the enquirer
approximates to ecstasy and speaking in tongues (101).
1971 Tenney (6) reports from James Baldwin that
the drum is the indispensable Africanism of Pentecostal worship … along with highly emotionalised motor
reactions, including ecstatic tongues.
1971 Pentecostal meetings were charged with emotion, according to the observations
of Gaver, with “Amens” and “Praise the Lords”, rapid rhythm in the music, the
stress on emotion in the sermon, resulting in the audience being “into near frenzy,
that would be most conducive to the ritual of speaking in tongues” (27).
1971 Horner acknowledges the claim by many Christians of a “spontaneous utterance
of unintelligible ecstatic sounds” (3), and then himself claims that the references
in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 indicate that speaking in tongues are ecstatic utterances
(7).
1971 Felicitas Goodman’s research leads her to the conclusion that glossolalia is not a
linguistic phenomenon, but rather “an artifact of an altered state of consciousness
usually termed trance” (77), which is a learned behaviour (79).
A person speaking in tongues behaves differently from ordinary-language speakers … eyes tightly closed …
subject to motor automatisms, such as jerking a shoulder, face twitching, very rapid head shaking … The
glossolalist achieves this state by voluntarily relinquishing a measure of cortical control (79).
1971 Pinnock and Osborne make the unquestioned assumption that First Corinthians
points to ecstatic speech (7).
1972 Gromacki asserts that ecstatic utterance is an acceptable opinion of tongue-
speaking:
The most dominant opinion among both tongue-speakers and non-tongue speakers is that the Biblical
phenomenon of speaking in tongues could consist of either ecstatic speech, or foreign languages.
1972a Robinson asserts:
It is my opinion that ta pneumatika is their term for speaking with tongues or other ecstatic utterance (6,
emphasis his).
1973 In the official report of an Anglican Commission on the neo-Pentecostal
movement (Both Sides To The Question) the unequivocal statement is made:
The practice of speaking in ecstatic speech is one of the distinctive marks of the Charismatic Movement (23).
1973 Edwards states that Paul not only knew of ecstatic-speech, but even practiced it
himself (112).
1973 * Following Gundry (1963), Milikan makes the broad assertion:
The great majority of biblical scholars today [1973] hold that the Corinthian tongues undoubtedly took the form
of ecstatic speech (25).
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).
1975 * Williams, like Montague (1973, and others) states:

The Corinthian phenomenon has been most frequently interpreted as ecstatic utterance (16, italics mine).
The most widely accepted view (emphasis mine) “ … seems to have been rapt ecstatic utterance …”
(quoting D. Walker) (16).
1975 Whilst seeking to avoid both correlation with the Mystery Religions of Corinth,
and also the attempts of higher critics to deny the supernatural, yet Dillow affirms:
1 Corinthians 12-14 clearly refers to ecstatic utterances … Some Pentecostals and some non-Pentecostals
believe that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and the ones in Acts 2 are ecstatic gibberish (15).
1975 Speaking from a secular perspective, Sargant refers to Paul’s experience:
He made it clear to the Corinthians that he himself had the gift of tongues … in other words, he still had
recurrent bouts of ecstatic hysterical trance (63).
1975 Williams and Waldvogel state that:
[Speaking in tongues] embraces every ecstatic oral-auditory phenomenon from speaking a language not
generally known … to speaking in forceful declarations, incantations, and other verbal effusions that are more
likely to be psychological-spiritual projections of inner speech than some authentic language itself. (Cited by
Spittler 1988, 340).
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

Pentecostal who says: “Then I began to speak in tongues – I was conscious, but I
was in ecstasy” (107).
1988 In a study of psychological characteristics of Pentecostals, Gritzmacher,
accepting the apparent fact of speaking in tongues and its association with
religious excesses and emotionalism, reviews a range of studies on the
psychology of Pentecostals. Without questioning the unsubstantiated premise, he
looks at the behavioural results, especially noting the cathartic benefits (236):
… sublimation or suppression of frustrated drives and emotions …
… glossolalia as a vehicle for releasing these suppressions …
… an acceptable outlet for inhibited impulses …
… therapeutic functions of church [Pentecostal] services …
… glossolalia is a means of discharging personal emotions …
He further reports on the close correlation of glossolalia and hypnotism (see
Chapter 4.3.3) (236) as well as the pattern of emotional release which “can
border on the hysterical in appearance” (237). He cites Pattison’s conclusion that
“glossolalia is hysterical behaviour exhibited by normal people” (237).
Granted that the study is a review and synthesis of previous research,
nevertheless there is no attempt to correlate the origin of the gift of tongues –
isolating the true from spurious phenomena – and its purpose, namely edification
of the church as opposed to the purported therapeutic benefits of catharsis.
1991 * In referring to studies that comment on tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, Hasel says:
there is no doubt about the thing referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy (47).
This summarizes the majority view of modern scholars today [1991].
He further notes that the common view of Pentecostal and charismatic Christians,
basing glossolalia on 1 Corinthians 14, suggests:
What Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is some form of ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind, produced
by the Holy Spirit, which remained unintelligible to both speaker and listeners (109).
1994-- As noted in sections 2.3 and 4.3.4, the transitory phenomena associated with the
“Toronto Blessing” perpetuate the idea of ecstatic and uncontrolled behaviour as
fundamental to charismatic and Pentecostal experience. There is little attempt to
genuinely validate the phenomena and equally little attempt to establish the benefit
for the church alongside the spiritual gifts.
OVERALL, cited above there are about eighty scholars, giving evidence to the
“fact” of ecstasy in charismatic and Pentecostal experience, and showing ecstasy as the
presumed precursor to glossolalic expression.
4.7.4 OBSERVATIONS ON THE ECSTATIC ASSUMPTION

A. WEIGHT OF OPINION
In spite of the broadly held view with regard to the ecstatic prerequisite and/or
accompaniment of ecstasy with glossolalia, the case is not proven. This was true
concerning the presumption of ecstasy in the Old Testament antecedents in prophecy. It
was true of the assumption that ecstasy in the Mystery Religions automatically formed
the precursor to Corinthian ecstatic experience and utterance. These cases were not
proven.
In the historical overview, it was noted that as early as 1889, Weinel asserted that
ecstatic glossolalia was “not only the prevailing but the only correct definition”
(Harrisville 1974, 11). Similar assertions followed the neo-Pentecostal phenomenon as
noted in 1963 (Farrell), 1966 (Gundry), 1973 (Milikan, Montague), 1975 (Williams),
1991 (Williams). These assertions applied to scholars inside and outside of the
charismatic/Pentecostal stream.
Apart from the opinions held, the escalating numbers in the
charismatic/Pentecostal tradition has tended to give weight to their experience without
recourse to objective criteria or any attempts at validation. Wacker (1988, 933) gives a
rough figure of Pentecostal adherents at several million in the United States, and
perhaps a hundred million worldwide. Barrett (1988, 812-3) gave global figures of 360
million in 1988, and a projected figure of 619 million in 2,000. However, numbers
don’t establish cases.
B. SIGNIFICANT ECUMENICAL FACTOR

The same uncritical approach as noted previously, has also prevailed in the
context of the ecumenical issue of the unity of experience as opposed to doctrine. Bach
(1969) epitomizes this unquestioned appeal to ecstatic experience:
Deep within the collective mind that linked me with the total family of the children of God was ecstasy, the
common ground of faith, and whether one found it on the sophisticated level of his culture in front of altars and
statues or another discovered it in a printery, and still another on the damp floor of God’s good earth, it was all
the same. It was a universal encounter and who was to say who had experienced the highest joy? Ecstasy was
a universal link in the chain of spiritual understanding (116).
The all-encompassing unity was explained by Dr. Leary (cited in Bach 1969):
The way of rapture had finally been charted for modern man; it ran straight from chemicals to Christ, and not
to Christ only but to the Buddha, and to every other illumined avatar (156).
You can find God everywhere. Even in dirty clothes (157).
It doesn’t seem to matter how one achieves the experience of “self induced inner
speech” (111), “my own rapturous flood of glossolalia” (116):
“tongues” were emanations from the celestial sphere, not necessarily from the Holy Spirit but from an angel
hierarchy or from some undifferentiated spirit force (112).

All it needed was a mystic triggering (151).
Consequently, the overwhelming sense of unity of experience could easily by-pass

doctrinal truths, as expressed by David du Plessis: “tongues could form the basis for a
new ecumenicity” (in Bach 1969, 159). Masters and Whitcomb (1988, 72) indicate that
evangelical conversion is being discarded by charismatic leaders, stating that Roman
Catholics and liberals are truly converted and may receive the gifts “without changing
their beliefs”. Further, that Roman Catholic charismatics account for half the total
charismatics world-wide.
With disregard for the source of ecstasy and/or glossolalia, any attempts to
validate a professed gift in order to maintain integrity, has been scorned.
C. ELEVATION OF NON-RATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The whole aspect of ecstasy betrays a willingness of humans to uncritically
pursue non-rational (ecstatic, mystical, trance) experiences as an end in themselves,
then to protest against any attempts to validate or test these experiences with any sense
of objectivity.
Bach (1969) reports on his and other experiences with total disregard for any
objectivity.
I cursed my ungullible mind for hanging on to reason … I was feeling light, relaxed, trancelike. I was aware
that my lips were moving and that I was mumbling incoherently … My body was shaking. I was hot and cold.
An ecstatically pleasant, thrilling surge of passion swept through me as if the Holy Ghost, whatever it was, had
finally found an entry and was rushing in to take control (15-16).
Bach expresses not only a failure to identify the work of the Holy Spirit, but is
quite indifferent, as if it were of no consequence. He speaks of a fantasy in which
cylinders turned in “a wild, whirligig way” transferring the word “baptism” onto white
sheets of paper raining from the sky. His response was:
A rush of gibberish welling up from deep inside me, I burst into hysterical laughter and weeping and sprawled
to the floor in freedom and delight (16).
My words were drowned in a flood of ecstatic laughter (17).
He spoke in what he assumed was glossolalia:
The phrase escaped me while an electrical impulse of joy shook my body. I was in tune with everything, earth,
sky, air, and life itself, a life for which there was no name except in an unknown tongue (31).
And he assumed it was from the Holy Spirit:
The outpour of heavenish (sic) words, the volleys of Spirit-loaded phrases washed out every frustration and
barrier … I was saying it now in a “language of the Spirit” of which I understood not a single word. Mine was
a feeling, a feeling that I was being spoken through (17, emphasis his).
I was again being spoken through. Words spewed out of me so thick and fast that in the midst of them I heard
myself cry out, “I am Ishmael’s spring!” The expression came from the same source from which I was getting
all my “wisdom and power”. From the Holy Spirit. Straight from the Holy Spirit, the paraclete, Third Person of

the Trinity (17).
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
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
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.
4.7.5 CORRECTIVES CONCERNING ECSTASY IN

CHARISMATIC AND PENTECOSTAL EXPERIENCE
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).

The problem with tongues-speaking at Corinth was not ecstasy, but confusion (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).

Because of his stature in gaining acceptance of the charismatic/Pentecostal stream
in the ecumenical movement, it is very significant, that early in the rise of neo-
Pentecostalism, David du Plessis spoke strongly against any overt emotional actions:
I consider it heresy to speak of shaking, trembling, falling, dancing, clapping, shouting, and such actions as
manifestations of the Holy Spirit. These are purely human reactions to the power of the Holy Spirit and
frequently hinder more than help to bring forth genuine manifestations (1963, 93).
He also speaks of his own experience of tongues as being somewhat perfunctory,
certainly without emotion:
I have learned to pray with tongues any time, anywhere, to receive assurance, power, and wisdom or whatever
is needed for my edification (87).
Over against the unsubstantiated majority opinion, these correctives are very
significant, especially when they come from within the charismatic/Pentecostal
movement.
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

6. having the acceptance that this same experience (as urged by the majority of
early proponents), which was common among non-Christian ecstatic religions, as
a purely subjective experience, should be urged upon all Christians without
differentiation or testing, or validation,
subsequently locks the Holy Spirit into a phenomenon dictated by human parameters and
expectancies, which achieves pitifully little for the benefit of the church (that couldn’t
equally be achieved by some other cathartic experience – like a session of vigorous
exercise – without blaming the Holy Spirit or purporting to be a “spiritual gift”) and
then only seems to result in voluminous writing and argumentation in attempts to
validate a straw man of man’s own making.
By contrast, the true gift and its concomitant experience has NONE of these
precursors, it is contested in this study. The members of the trinity were free to move at
Pentecost as they wished, and subsequently in the church at Corinth, or in any other
church, as they determine.
4.8 ECSTASY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
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.
4.8.2 JESUS AND ECSTASY

The dearth of material on this subject, compared to the enormous volume of
material on “ecstatic glossolalia” is powerful testimony against any presupposition that
ecstasy was part of Jesus’ experience, and therefore ought to be part of ours.
Mundle (1976, 528) refers to the statement by Jesus’ relatives in Mark 3:21: “He
is out of his mind”, noting that some scholars could imply that this meant that Jesus was
ecstatic, but it is extremely minimal evidence on which to base any conclusions. Mundle
prefers the interpretation that they were simply saying (in their opinion) that he was
mad. Mundle then asserts, “there are no ecstatic traits in Jesus’ life of faith and prayer
as depicted by the evangelists”.
Hay (n.d. 18) reflecting on the emotions in religious experience notes that Jesus’
emotions were always under control. Even in the loss of Lazarus, His compassion did
not overwhelm Him. Jesus was filled with the Spirit, but it is clear that He was always
personally and fully responsible for everything He said and did. Certainly there is no
evidence of even slightly clouded faculties, let alone any ecstatic abdication.
Dunn (1975, 85) reflects on the studies of Weiss and others, and concludes that
any evidence is minimal. He refers to two “visionary” experiences: Luke 10:18 – “I
saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven”, and the assumption that His baptismal
experience at the Jordan was visionary. Perhaps Jesus’ temptations and His
transfiguration are rooted in visionary experiences. However, there is no adequate
evidence to equate Jesus’ experience with the definition of ecstasy commonly used to
imply an exalted state causing the devotee to become oblivious to his circumstances
(see at Chapter 2:3 and Chapter 4:2). Certainly there was no attempt to artificially
induce a state of ecstasy (Dunn 1975, 85).
Even if one allows for some sayings of Jesus as exalted (e.g. Luke 10:21 – “…
Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit …”), they are totally inadequate evidence to
conclude that He is ecstatic. On the contrary, Beare (1964, 229) suggests that Jesus may
in fact “deprecate any kind of unintelligible utterance in prayer”, referring to His
comment in the Sermon on the Mount, “do not keep on babbling like pagans” (Matthew
6:7). The verb is unusual, and is onomatopoeic, with a similar verb, bαττιζω, meaning
“to stammer”.
Dunn concludes (1975, 87):
Was Jesus ecstatic? The answer appears to be No! … he did not attempt to stimulate ecstasy or work up
inspiration.
4.8.3 THE APOSTLES AND ECSTASY

While the literature is somewhat scant, there is more presumption in regard to the
Apostles’ experience as equating to ecstasy, than there is evidence.
Referring to the Pentecost experience of Acts 2, Martin comments that the
movement from the tongue-speaking of the Upper Room to the Temple courtyard, was
not a deliberate transference, “but the intense emotionalism and contagious frenzy
unwittingly transporting the participants from one place to another” (1960, 20). This
does not demonstrate that the source of the tongue-speaking was ecstasy – in fact the
tongue-speaking started before the movement from the Upper Room, irrespective of any
emotional impetus for the transfer. Behm tends to confuse the issue by stating that the
events of Pentecost can be explained as “a mass ecstasy on the part of the disciples
which includes outbreaks of glossolalia” (1976, 725), as if the glossolalia resulted from
ecstasy, rather than as an enabling by the Holy Spirit – cf. Acts 2:4. The biblical
evidence is that the Holy Spirit “enabled” the disciples to speak, with no dependence
placed on auto-suggestion or circumstances – ecstatic or otherwise. Mundle (1976, 528)
dismisses Behm’s suggestion as “purely a hypothesis” – there is no substance in the
ecstatic presupposition.

A. APOSTLE PETER
Martin claims that Jesus’ renaming of Peter is clear evidence of “his unstable
personality and intense emotional character (1960, 20). Further, Martin refers to Peter’s
rebuke of Jesus (Mark 8:32-33) and of Peter’s denial of Christ (Luke 22:54-62) as
evidence of the “emotional tenseness” of Peter. However, this does not prove that Peter
was an ecstatic, or that his tongue-speaking derived from ecstasy.
Mundle refers to Peter’s vision at Joppa (Acts 10:10, and recounted in Acts 11:5)
in which he was in a trance (ejkstasei), but clearly Peter was in a balanced and coherently
communicative state, and certainly tongues were not included.
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.
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.
4.8.4 SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND ECSTASY

The term “spiritual gifts” is used (or “gifts of God” – in the Trinitarian sense) to
more accurately reflect the biblical position, when referring to the χαρισματα, even if
the term itself means “gifts (of grace)”, rather than “gifts of the Spirit”. The frequently
used term “gifts of the Spirit” has an exotic connotation which is similar to the more
exotic connotation of (unknown) “tongues” instead of the more mundane “languages”,
but it is misleading as to the source of the gifts. The gifts for the church are Trinitarian –
they derive from the godhead.
God the Father takes the initiative:
But in fact God [the Father] has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them just as he wanted them to
be (1 Corinthians 12:18).
And in the church God [the Father] has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then
workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of
administration, and those speaking different kinds of tongues (1 Corinthians 12:28).
God the Son gives the gifts:

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it … It was he who gave some to be
apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:7, 11).
God the Holy Spirit energizes the gifts:

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. … All these are the work
[ENERGIZING] of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each man, just as he determines (1

Corinthians 12:7,11).
The fact that God gives/initiates/energizes these gifts should be sufficient to

indicate that there is no human prerequisite or emotional/ecstatic state that is essential to
the operation of the gifts.
It has already been demonstrated that it is erroneous to assume an ecstatic
precursor to prophecy in the Old Testament prophets. It is erroneous to assume that the
ecstatic states of non-Christian religions or the Greek Mystery Religions and the
accompanying unintelligible gibberish have any correlation with Corinthian glossolalia.
More immediately, it has been shown that there is an absence of evidence for the
assumption that ecstasy is part of charismatic and Pentecostal experience, especially
speaking in tongues.
Further, it has been noted, that as distinct from the valiant attempts to
demonstrate that ecstasy must necessarily be a precursor, there has simply been a
wave of mimics building on each other’s assumption with virtually no attempt at
scientific analysis of the precursor. Even the behavioural scientists seem only to
address the presenting phenomena and seek to analyse the characteristics of the tongue.
Those looking for ‘causes’ may look at socio-economic deprivation or psychological
auto-suggestion, but it still remains to be demonstrated that these causes are the factors
aiding the state of presumed ecstasy.
In 1911, Conybeare asserted that glossolalia was “abnormal and inarticulate
vocal utterance, under stress of religious excitement” (9). The gift was premised on
stress in religious excitement. This hardly does justice to the gift being of God.
Many authors adopt the same view on pure assumption.
Behm (1964c, 722) asserts that Corinthian glossolalia is “unintelligible ecstatic
utterance”.
Renown authorities Arndt and Gingrich, state in their lexicon that the tongue of 1
Corinthians is “the broken speech of persons in religious ecstasy” (cited in Baker 1974,
229 fn.22).
Mowinckle unequivocally states that “… glossolalia … was ecstasy” (1937,
263). He further suggests that the whole issue is one for the psychologist, not the
theologian! (264).
Dillow maintains that “the ecstatic utterance view” came as a result of the denial
of the supernatural by higher criticism in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Certainly
that event possibly gave currency to the view, but many scholars looked for roots back
in Old Testament prophetic utterance and non-Christian religious phenomena, especially
the Greek Mystery Religions.
MacArthur, whilst not holding an ecstatic precursor view, nevertheless clearly
believes that the Corinthian church, having grown up in a culture of ecstasy and
enthusiasm, no doubt produced a religion of “ecstatic, orgiastic frenzy” (1983, 20).
Engelsen sees a difficulty in equating speaking in tongues at Corinth with the
Greek mystery utterances, because although he sees them as all “ecstatic speech”,
nevertheless there is no distinguishing term to show that one type might be inarticulate
or unintelligible (1970, 20-21). Hence prophecy could also be “inspired speech” but be
quite intelligible (189), but intelligible and unintelligible inspired speech was not
distinguished in pre-Christian times (139-140).
However, Callan believes that Paul’s position is different from Engelsen’s view
of a common ecstasy (or trance) with differentiation by intelligibility, and states that
Paul defined prophecy as without trance (cf. ecstasy) but that tongues were a trance
phenomenon (1985, 137). Further, he argues that Paul (like Philo) sees the prophet, not
as an interpreter of the inspired speech of another, but the interpreter of “an inner voice,
i.e. the Spirit” (138).
Cutten says that both prophet and glossolalist delivered their messages in ecstasy,
and that psychologically their states were the same (1927, 2). The big difference was
that prophecy was delivered in understandable words, but tongues consisted of
meaningless syllables (3).
There is no attempt to validate the presumed ecstatic basis.
Over against the majority assumption of an ecstatic precursor, some scholars
do either question or reject ecstasy.
Baker observes that much of the disagreement about the nature of glossolalia and
its understanding in 1 Corinthians 12-14, is based on a “wrong impression that speaking
in tongues is ecstatic in nature” (1974, 229).
MacArthur quite pointedly rejects any ecstatic premise, which he nevertheless
accepts as the Corinthian position, stating that “God would never give a gift that is the
same as Satan uses” (1983, 21).
Kelsey states categorically, “tongue-speech is not a frenzy” noting that it can
usually be controlled, and that loss of consciousness (refer to the definition of ecstasy
and trance) is not a part of the experience (1968, 141-2).
It is sufficient to say, that since no case has been made to establish the concept of
an ecstatic precursor for the operation of the gifts of God, and in particular glossolalia,
there is no case to answer.
Ecstasy has no part in the spiritual gifts. A gift of God is not premised upon some
subjective emotional precursor.

4.9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
It has been progressively noted throughout this Chapter, that ecstasy forms no pre-
requisite basis for any true biblical experience. It is not established for Old Testament
prophecy, nor for New Testament experience.
By contrast, a variety of ecstatic or euphoric experiences are manifest in drugs,
hypnosis, trance, sexual euphoria, as well as in the general panorama of non-Christian
religions or the specific case of the Coast Salish spirit dancers. More specifically, there
is no doubt about the ecstatic experiences of the Greek Mystery Religions.
In all of these cases there are associated ecstatic phenomena, and in particular,
some form of ecstatic utterance, mostly completely unintelligible.
Although there is no established correlation between the ecstatic precursor and its
verbal expression, nevertheless this has been a confusing issue in understanding the
Corinthian experience, whether the Authorized Version’s reference to “unknown
tongues” or more particularly, the N.E.B. translation of “ecstatic language/speech/
utterance”. Consequently this has led to much confusion in charismatic and Pentecostal
experience.
Ecstasy is not necessary for prophets and prophecy.
Ecstasy is not the experience of the true biblical gift for the Corinthians.
Ecstasy is not necessary for charismatic experience.
Ecstasy is not necessary for the giving or operation of the gifts of God.
In fact, ecstasy is irrelevant.
Ecstasy is the confusing element. Tongues: confused by ecstasy.
*****

CHAPTER 5
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
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
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
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.
5.2 REDEFINING THE TERM

5.2.1 INTRODUCTION.
In general literature on glossolalia, glossolalia is treated in singularly uncritical
terms. The mere mention of the term immediately leads to various considerations that in
no way question the source or validity of the purported utterance. Very little comparison
is entertained between verbal utterances that may be of purely psychological (at best) or
Satanic (at worst) origin. There is virtually no attempt to validate any claim that God is
the source of the gift, indeed there is a wholesale assumption in Christian contexts, that
God is the source of any incomprehensible verbal utterance without any substantiation,
and to suggest otherwise is to quench the Spirit or to insult God. And yet the Bible
clearly enjoins the imperative to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1
John 4:1). As a result, the true gift of glossolalia is completely lost in a mass of
worthless verbal utterances that have no established parameters or veracity, and yet the
Holy Spirit is erroneously credited (blamed?) for what at best is banal nonsense. It must
be noted, that the sum total of all the verbal utterances (supposed glossolalia) and all the
books, articles and sermons in favour of these unsubstantiated utterances, amounts to
virtually nothing.
All this current research has shown is that there is plenty of talk about an assumed
gift, but there is demonstrably no content and no benefit from the professed verbal nature
of the gift. At very best, there is some personal cathartic release that is purely incidental
whether to the true gift or to any counterfeits, and certainly that catharsis has nothing to
do with God’s intended purpose as a means of edifying the Church – as opposed to self-
aggrandising the individual. As noted previously concerning the accumulated value of
purported tongues, “It is like the Himalayan Mountain in obstetrical labour and
producing a mouse!” (Bergsma 1965, 13). Much ado about nothing.
It is essential to clarify the use of the term “glossolalia”, and to distinguish it from
other verbal utterances, some of which are of no consequence, whilst others may be
valid alternative verbal utterances – some being given by God (but they must be
clearly distinguished from true glossolalia) – whilst still others may be quite spurious
phenomena.
By this differentiation, the true gift can be identified and protected, and the Holy
Spirit can be credited for what is validly His, and the triune God properly glorified. At
the moment, the Christian Church is in serious disarray, some claiming a gift is from
God, whilst others are equally claiming that the same gift is from the devil.
In addition, valid utterances – other than glossolalia – can also be identified, and
where appropriate, God might well be glorified, without confusing the identification
with glossolalia.
Further, and most significantly, the whole range of spurious, childish and Satanic
nonsense can be identified and rejected, instead of being uncritically and shamefully
attributed to God.
5.2.2 UPGRADING THE DEFINITIONS

A. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
From an historical perspective, it is helpful to note the understanding of
glossolalia early in the modern resurgence of glossolalia since 1900, in the context of
mental illness. In these cases, the utterance is assumed to be glossolalia.
In 1900, Flourney examined the “spiritistic” glossolalia of the medium Hélène
Smith who claimed to speak in the Martian language” (cited in Malony and Lovekin
1985, 3. It is instructive to note that Malony and Lovekin assume that this supposed
Martian utterance should be given equal status with true biblical glossolalia).
In 1902, Carl Jung (a Swiss psychiatrist) studied tongue speaking in an adolescent
girl (in addition to her visions, prophecies and automatic writing), noting her fluency,
charm and the naturalness of her performance (cited in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 3-4).
Lombard, 1907, suggested that speaking in tongues was “a speech automatism
induced by hypnosis, and thus outside conscious control” (in Malony and Lovekin 1985,
3).
Mackie (in 1921) understood glossolalia as “a pathological ecstatic utterance in
which language fragments were released from the subconscious mind” (reported by
Malony and Lovekin 1985, 3).
Consequently, from these studies from the social/behavioural scientists’ point of
view, Malony and Lovekin conclude that there is a correlation between the “words” of
glossolalics and the word salads and neologisms of psychotics and others with brain
disorders as distinct from any recognizable language (Malony and Lovekin 1985, 4).
They are all treated equally.
This is an awful indictment on the researchers, and an insult to true glossolalia,
but it highlights the influence of secular thinking on the area of true biblical glossolalia.
B. RECENT CONSIDERATIONS
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).
The renowned linguist, William Samarin, gives a more critical definition:

A meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but
bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead.
(Samarin 1968, 51).
Samarin has a concern to limit the range of definitions, citing two from the
psychological literature that are very open-ended and all-inclusive.
(Glossolalia) is a fabricated language or speech in an unknown tongue, occurring in religious ecstasy, in
hypnosis, in mediumistic trances, and in certain pathological mental states.
(Drever, cited in Samarin 1973, 79).
(Glossolalia is) the entranced submission to some obsessive gibberish under the illusion of being inspired by
mystical ‘tongues’, which are thought to come from heaven.
(Luchsinger and Arnold, cited in Samarin 1973, 79).
Samarin, as a linguist, tries to isolate glossolalia from real language, as much as
possible, noting that it only has “similarities” with true language. Hence he adds to the
above concept of “meaningless”, by using the term “unintelligible” in another definition
of glossolalia:
Unintelligible post-babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language without having
consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known languages.
(Cited in Hasel 1991, 28).
The danger is that glossolalia becomes all-inclusive for any “verbal” utterance.
One anthropologist says that glossolalic utterances vary “all the way from a series of
gurgles and grunts to deviant forms of normal language” (Burling, cited in Samarin
1973, 79).
In an article on Regressive Speech, Samarin adds that glossolalia can be
represented by pseudo-linguistic utterances, thus modifying his above definition by
adding a “play” aspect that is extemporaneous, hence “Unintelligible extemporaneous
post-babbling speech …” (Samarin 1973, 78). However, not everything “unintelligible”
should be included. He excluded wheezing, gasps, groans, (“gurgles and grunts”),
schizophrenic “word-salads”, etc., warning that glossolalia should not refer to
everything that is “meaningless” or “gibberish” (Samarin 1973, 79). And yet, he states
that glossolalia “is continuous with other marginal linguistic phenomena” (dialects,
exotic languages, pidgins) (77).
Samarin then concludes that glossolalia is a “pseudo-language”.
When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a façade

language – although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must
conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is
neither internally organised nor systematically related to the world man perceives.
(Samarin 1972d, 127-28).
Being “meaningless”, “unintelligible” and a “façade-language”, Samarin notes
that glossolalia is “fundamentally not a language” (1972c, 4, emphasis his). There is no
communicative system. Samarin goes further, stating that “Glossolalia is not a
supernatural phenomenon” (1972c, 4) thus denying what he elsewhere (1973, 77)
acknowledges as the claim of practitioners, that it is God-inspired speech. Glossolalia
is “normal, not supernatural as the Pentecostal believes” (1972c, 5). As distinct from
what Pentecostals believe in regard to tongues, one would have to acknowledge that
what Pentecostals generally practice is banal, inconsequential, easily replicated by
anyone, and an insult to God. But that is precisely why true glossolalia must be
delineated. At least Samarin recognises that the “speaking in tongues” as practised by
the Pentecostals, is something that “anybody can do” (1972c, 5).
Analysing tape-recorded samples of purported glossolalia, Samarin concludes
that they are always:
… strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from among all those that the speaker knows, put together
more or less haphazardly but which nevertheless emerge as word-like and sentence-like units because of
realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.
(Samarin, 1972c, 4).
In the midst of these definitions, it becomes clear that strong inroads have been
made by secular definitions, with no reference to God as the source, or of the church as
the recipient/beneficiary of the true glossolalic gift.
As a pseudo-language, according to Samarin’s definition, the field is left open to
other pseudo-languages ranging from “spiritism, Haitian Voodoo, Santeria cult, spells,
incantations, verbal charms” (all claiming to be communicative and supernatural), or it
can be childish communication, or be an in-group signal, or have ludic function (Danny
Kaye or Charlie Chaplin imitating a language) (Meuller 1981, 186).
Many of these comparisons and definitions are hardly flattering, when compared
(or included) with God’s gift specifically to edify the Church.
Catholic scholar, George Montague, says that glossolalia is primarily non-rational
prayer, not through a miraculous lingual mechanism, but as simple as singing in the
shower or humming a line of nonsense (cited in Sullivan 1976, 161). There is therefore
no distinctly “Christian” aspect to this form of utterance. It is at best only a spontaneous
catharsis.
From the broad spectrum of phenomena as noted above, Samarian seeks to be
accommodating in claiming that
A causative explanation of glossolalia must account for (1) religious glossolalic behaviour that is not
demonstrably pathological or dissociative and (2) other spontaneous, ephemeral, and “meaningless” utterances
in non-religious contexts.
(Samarin 1973, 77).
Although this is a very charitable consideration on the one hand, in allowing for a
variety of expressions, on the other hand it confuses the true glossolalic gift and its
distinct divine source, by allowing that a “causative” explanation may be common to
both religious and non-religious contexts. Further, it does not explicitly allow for
meaningless utterances in a religious context, nor does it distinguish between true
biblical “religious” contexts and other religious contexts that are not Christian (as
distinct from “non-religious”).
Hence, Samarin’s conclusion that “there is a broad spectrum of anomalous speech
of which religious glossolalia is only one manifestation” (1973, 77) tends to trivialise
true biblical glossolalia as only religious at best. However, it must be noted that he
allows that “the most typical form of glossolalia is ‘speaking in tongues’ in the Christian
church” (1973, 78). And yet he chooses to put true biblical glossolalia alongside non-
Christian non-religious utterances (he calls it “glossolalia”) – like Albert Le Baron –
claiming that “they are so much alike that we must accept all as manifestations of the
same linguistic phenomenon” (Samarin 1968, 50), although they are still not true
language.
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

Testaments, unless referring to the physical tongue.
(2) In the context of Pentecost, the phenomenon of speaking in tongues (Acts 2:6,8) is
related to διαλεκτος (dialect). This correlation indicates a language base, not
ecstatic utterance. (Stagg 1967a, 22, notes that different manuscripts for Acts 2:6
use “dialect” and “tongues” interchangeably, confirming the idea of “native
language”).
(3) The same term for language is used in both Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14, and the
term is used in the plural, indicating a “multiple of languages”. If the term meant
“gibberish” in the singular, then “gibberish” makes no different sense in the plural.
There are no “gibberishes”. Gibberish is not distinguishable into more than one.
(4) In 1 Corinthians 12:10, γλωσσα is used in the context of “interpretation of
languages”. The word “ἑρμηνευω” means “translation”. Ecstatic speech or babble
cannot be translated.
(5) Further in 1 Corinthians 12:10, different “kinds” of languages are mentioned. The
plural and the classification into groups (kinds) of languages are only used in
reference to normal human speech. (Interestingly, B.L. Smith 1973, 287, advances
the idea that “kinds of tongues” may be a term to explain a variety of unintelligible
sounds, due to unfamiliarity, non-language, or delivery with spontaneity,
excitement and incoherence! This is hardly a credible deduction).
(6) 1 Corinthians 14:21 uses an example from Isaiah 28:11-12, which correlates
languages to the real foreign language, Assyrian. Tongues were a real foreign
language.
(7) 1 Corinthians 14:27 requires translation of the language, and therefore
presupposes a genuine language.
Smith (K.M. 1971, 1-2) identifies tongues in two types: known human languages
as indicated above, but non-human languages in 1 Corinthians, because of the
assumption of unintelligibility. Certainly Nida (like Samarin’s pseudo-language, 1972d,
127-128) concludes that glossolalia was not a real language (in Lovekin 1974, 19),
having addressed a variety of phonetic, allophonic, linguistic and other characteristics.
However, this analysis is done on glossolalic utterances that are only assumed to be
valid.
However, it is not valid to draw conclusions on linguistic characteristics, etc. if
the foundational utterance is not established as genuine.
Alternatively, one can only lump all “verbal” utterances into a bundle and make
some general, although necessarily inconsequential observations.
One is forced back to the earlier observation that in the midst of a variety of

verbal utterances, true glossolalia must be identified and validated. This Chapter will
attempt to show more definitively that glossolalia is genuine language.
To this end, Smith (as noted above) claims that the biblical position from the
Book of Acts is xenoglossia. Xenoglossia is the use of actual foreign language by a
person with no conscious knowledge of that language (Malony and Lovekin 1985, 15).
Bloch-Hoell (1964, 143) uses the term xenolalia in the same sense (“glossolalia in a
real language, previously unknown to the person who speaks with tongues”). In the
Book of Acts, the clear indication is of the disciples speaking a real language, unlearned
by them, but known to the hearers.
In First Corinthians, the same term for glossolalia is used, and there is no
difficulty in understanding this as xenoglossia, except that, in application, the recipients
did not understand the language. However, that in no way reflects on the nature of the
actual utterance.
The distinction between xenoglossia in the Book of Acts and First Corinthians is
very significant, and will be addressed below.
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
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
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

Christian context. However, as Samarin rightly observes, some gibberish uttered by a
Pentecostal in a Zionist meeting doesn’t become true glossolalia because he uttered it,
especially when there is evidence of trance behaviour (Samarin, following Sundkler,
1968, 51). Perhaps inadvertently, Samarin is admitting that there is in fact a true
glossolalia but that it is distinct from spurious utterances.
As far as objective analysis of verbal utterances is concerned, there is
considerable difficulty, especially because “glossolalia is primarily an extemporaneous,
unreflected, and spoken phenomenon” (Samarin 1968, 58), and hence Samarin claims
that there is a need to depend on tape recordings.
Malony and Lovekin (referring to research using tape recordings) (1985, 26) raise
the question of whether glossolalia is a known language. Their research shows frequent
claims to the use of known languages – including Harold Bredesen, a friend of the
Pentecostal writer John L. Sherrill – but which don’t stand up to objective analysis.
Anderson (1979) reports that a group of government linguists listened to a tape recording of the glossolalia of
Harold Bredesen, the neo-Pentecostal friend of Sherrill noted above, and found no resemblance to any
language, even though he claimed to speak in Coptic Egyptian in addition to Polish. His tongue speech was also
analysed by a conference of linguists in Toronto who had studied over 150 languages. They concluded that it
was “highly improbable” that his glossolalia resembled any human language.
(Malony and Lovekin 1985, 28).
Malony and Lovekin summarize some other significant analytical work on verbal
utterances (also using tape recordings).
A native French person reached the same conclusion after studying the tape recording of tongue speaking by a
Southern California glossolalist who claimed to speak in French through her tongue, even though she had never
studied the language. The French woman to whom we submitted the tape said that the speech did indeed
contain some French words but that the syntax was confused and meaningless.
Sherrill (1964) played over forty recordings of glossolalia to six linguists from graduate institutions in New York
City. No one of them professed to hear a language that could be identified. Interestingly enough, however, they
easily spotted two recordings of “made-up gibberish” that Sherrill had slipped into the presentation and one
linguist reported that a given recording had the structure of a poem, a structure that he understood, even though
the actual meaning of the words eluded him.
Again, no validation of xenoglossia was found by the psychiatrist Paul Qualben (Kildahl and Qualben, 1971). In
a study of the recorded speeches of over sixty persons, there was no evidence of words from any known
language. Similar conclusions were reached by the anthropological linguist William Samarin (1972c). He found
that not one of the many tapes of glossolalia he analysed contained more than an occasional word or phrase
from a foreign language.
(Malony and Lovekin 1985, 28).
Samarin (1973, 79) tries to objectify the research, carefully delineating
characteristics of tongues, in order to compare them with true language. He delineates:
(1) echoism (repetition of vocal sequence)
(2) tendency towards regularity of cadence
(3) reduced inventory of sounds
(4) preference for open syllables.
After all his research, Samarin concludes that glossolalia is always meaningless
linguistically (1968, 58) although it may have phonological structure and has value as
language to the speaker (1968, 51-52). Even if meaningless, it doesn’t mean it is
gibberish (Samarin 1968, 60), but it is not a true language.
However, Samarin’s conclusions are based on verbal utterances (including
purported glossolalia) but not on true biblical glossolalia, especially since he has
excluded xenoglossia and a supernatural source for glossolalia (as noted previously). A
faulty premise will always produce faulty conclusions.
The question must be raised, “Why is a distinct gift from God, given specifically
for building up the church, so hard to clarify and validate? Why are linguistic experts so
nebulous and completely at a loss to identify such a valuable gift?” It is the premise of
this study that the true gift has not been identified nor the biblical criteria adequately
enunciated.
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).

Along with Bloch-Hoell, Gaede also uses the normal definition of xenoglossia,
and then seeks to show that historically this was the position held by Pentecostals at the
beginning of the modern Pentecostal revival from 1900 (1989, 77-81).
In December 1906, a headline in a New York newspaper announced: “FAITH
GIVES QUAINT SECT NEW LANGUAGES TO CONVERT AFRICA” (cited in
Bloch-Hoell 1964, 87). The article goes on to describe Pentecostals on their way to
Africa (and other fields) because they believed that glossolalia (being xenoglossia)
would be the means to proclaim the Gospel. Bloch-Hoell notes that this claim was not
unique, stating that many reports from the early Pentecostal Movement claimed that
many immigrants were converted when xenoglossia was used (“spoke with tongues” the
native language of the immigrant) (1964, 87). He adds,
As far as we know, the first missionary activity of the Pentecostal Movement was a consequence of the
xenolalia theory [“xenolalia”, Bloch-Hoell’s term].
However, the euphoria was short-lived, and by 1908 there were reports from
eighteen cases in China, Japan and India that were all unsuccessful (Bloch-Hoell 1964,
87). Subsequently, there were admissions by the Pentecostal Movement that the
supposed gift of “xenolalia” resulted from self-deception (87).
Gaede (1989) also reports on the early Pentecostal claims. Using the term
“xenoglossolalia”, Gaede notes that after the initial claim that the evidence of baptism
in the Holy Spirit was speaking in tongues, there followed the belief and reported
practice of xenoglossia (82). The Azusa Street headquarters published a journal, The
Apostolic Faith, and each issue of the journal contains at least one report of xenoglossia
(82).
The first issue of The Apostolic Faith (September 1906) betrayed the initial
enthusiasm:
The Lord has given languages to the unlearned Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French, German, Italian, Chinese,
Japanese, Zulu and languages of Africa, Hindu and Bengali and dialects of India, Chippewa and other
languages of the Indians, Esquimaux, the deaf mute language and, in fact the Holy Ghost speaks all languages
of the world through His children.
(Cited in Gaede 1989, 82).
Historically, the specific roots of the modern Pentecostal Movement go back to
1900. On December 31, at Topeka, Agnes Ozman was “baptised in the Holy Ghost”, and
began speaking in the Chinese language (Synan 1971, 101), and unable to speak in
English for three days, she wrote in Chinese characters. Pentecostal writer A.C. Valdez
confirms the reports claiming that Ozman, Parham (who first claimed glossolalia as
evidence of baptism with the Holy Ghost [Synan 1971, 99]) and others were “speaking
identifiable languages” as verified by Government and university language experts who
visited Parham’s Bethel House (1980, 129). Later, during some meetings in Galena, the
students spoke in twenty-one known languages, including French, German, Swedish,
Bohemian, Chinese, Japanese, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Russian, Italian, Spanish and
Norwegian (Synan 1971, 102).
Parham not only claimed that the languages had been verified by natives of the
countries involved, but that missionaries would no longer be compelled to study foreign
languages for missionary service (Synan 1971, 102). The first white man to receive the
experience of tongues at Azusa Street went to India with his wife, expecting to preach to
the natives in their own language. It ended in failure. He then went to Hong Kong and
learned Chinese in the conventional manner. The Parham experiment had failed (Synan
1971, 111).
In 1904 it was claimed that tongues was prevalent in the Welsh revival (Synan
1971, 99).
Two important issues must be noted immediately:
(1) the fact that xenoglossia was widely reported and sincerely believed, and
(2) the fact that no interpretation was given or required.
Hence, an interim conclusion must be drawn, that whilst the phenomena are
similar to the Book of Acts (one-stage communication), they lack a distinguishing
requirement for the “gift of tongues” found in First Corinthians (two-stage), where
interpretation (translation) was essential.
In 1906, the work of Azusa Street grew rapidly, but soon emotionalism and
enthusiasm characterised the service, with physical demonstrations like the “jerks” and
“treeing the devil” in evidence. Many of the “stunts” from the old camp meetings were
occurring (Synan 1971, 110). Parham was asked to visit Azusa Street, which he did in
October 1906, but he was disgusted with the “chattering, jabbering and sputtering,
speaking in no language at all” denouncing it as a case of “spiritual power prostituted”
(Synan 1971, 112).
In 1907, in Birmingham, Alabama, M.M. Pinson, a former Methodist minister,
along with others, claims to have spoken in foreign languages (Synan 1971, 134).
In 1908, A.J. Tomlinson “according to his own testimony, spoke in ten different
languages” (Synan 1971, 134, emphasis mine).
Compare T.B. Barratt’s self-evidence when he states:
… at least eight languages I spoke that night. How could I know that they were different languages? The
positions of my mouth, I felt, were different. The Power took my jawbone and my tongue and expelled the
languages, clearly and distinctly, while nothing in myself held back the Power. Once I felt a pain in my throat,
then I believe it was Welsh I spoke, a language I know of. Another time there were nasal sounds, probably
French. Italian I definitely believe I spoke.
(Cited in Williams 1981, 86).
Williams (1981, 182) cites several other examples of purported xenoglossia as
they were related to Sherrill in particular, who admitted that much “evidence” was
second and often third-hand.
Clearly xenoglossia was the original and subsequent expectation of the
Pentecostal movement, although it is hard to be convinced of the validation of the
languages spoken. In a best-case scenario, assuming that genuine languages were
spoken, one would acknowledge a valid linguistic phenomenon (one-stage), but it is
not to be equated with the gift to the church in First Corinthians (two-stage).
Evidently, with the uncertainty of the reports, and the disillusionment from many
failures, as noted above in 1908, the belief in xenoglossia was discarded by the 1920’s
(Gaede 1989, 83).
However, what may have happened at Azusa Street did not reflect the voluminous
examples of subsequent claims to xenoglossia all over the Pentecostal world. It will be
instructive to look at some of these in the next section concerning “Valid Linguistic
Phenomena”.
Concerning this matter of “Genuine Languages” it is appropriate to note the
comments of Samarin. His exclusion of xenoglossia has been noted, but he further states,
“If glossolalia were identical with xenoglossia, there would be nothing of special
interest to the linguist (unless it was extinct)” (Samarin 1968, 52). Certainly he
categorically denies that glossolalia and xenoglossia are identical. Xenoglossia may
reveal a natural language, but never glossolalia (52). The result is, he is left with
“untold thousands of cases of unintelligible verbal utterances” (Samarin 1968, 55).
However, the issue of whether xenoglossia is to be equated with glossolalia does
not rest on whether it is of interest to the linguist. The important questions are, “What is
its source?”, “What is the nature of true biblical glossolalia (as distinct from
unidentified verbal utterances)?”, and “What is its purpose?”.
Samarin’s comments are significant in so far as he is a well-respected researcher
as an anthropological linguist, having used a large number of examples and therefore his
conclusions are regarded as more reliable (Gritzmacher 1988, 235). However, if his
premise is wrong, then his conclusions will be wrong irrespective of the number of
examples. He has no basis for excluding xenoglossia from glossolalia.
Samarin does note, however, “it has never been scientifically demonstrated that
xenoglossia occurs among Pentecostals” (Samarin 1972c, 4). Whilst that may be true, it
must also be noted that no form of true biblical glossolalia has ever been established,
let alone scientifically demonstrated or validated (see the delineating characteristics
below).
For the moment, it is noted that the Book of Acts certainly demonstrates
xenoglossia (one-stage), although there is a distinction from the gift to the church in First
Corinthians (two-stage). This concept is now to be developed a little further.
H. VALID LINGUISTIC PHENOMENA

An important clarification must be made within the ambit of xenoglossia. There
may be a valid linguistic expression that is not unknown to both speaker and hearer. A
most significant occasion is the occurrence on the Day of Pentecost, as also the other
occasions recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 2:6-8 states:
When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking
in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then
how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? …”
This phenomenon was the result of the specific purpose of God for those
occasions in the Book of Acts. It is not the phenomenon associated with the speaker that
differentiates the Book of Acts and First Corinthians (see later) – indeed the speaker’s
utterance could easily be identical (in other words, a speaker in Acts and Corinthians
might each be speaking in “Bithynian”) – but the fact that in Acts the hearer
understands the utterance (without interpretation/translation) whereas in Corinthians,
the hearer requires interpretation. The phenomenon in Acts can be seen to be a ONE-
STAGE event, whilst Corinthians has a TWO-STAGE event.
Harrisville (1974, 11) attempts to distinguish the two sources (Acts and
Corinthians) not on the basis of the nature of the events (as above) but on the assumption
that Acts refers to bona fide language whereas Paul refers to ecstatic utterance. It has
been shown that ecstasy is not a prerequisite to glossolalic utterance. Corinthians
indicates that the speaker does not understand the utterance (1 Corinthians 14:2,14) nor
does the recipient (1 Corinthians 14:2,5, 9,17).
It is instructive that books, both Pentecostal and otherwise, abound with examples
of xenoglossia, but in the “one-stage” sense of Acts, not in the two-stage sense of
Corinthians. No doubt many of these one-stage cases are “Valid Linguistic Phenomena”
– as was the case on the Day of Pentecost – but that does not make them equivalent to
the two-stage event of the true glossolalic gift to the church in Corinth.
The examples recounted tend to elevate the “fact of utterance”, exalting the
recounting of the event, often for no apparently good reason, and certainly not in the
context of the church. Nevertheless, they should not be summarily dismissed, because
among the examples appear to be many “valid linguistic events”. An immediate example
to illustrate this point, is the case of H.B. Groulock in Africa in 1922. When confronted
by “aggressive cannibals in Pahn territory he was miraculously enabled to speak their
language” (Williams 1981, 182). One assumes that this was a “one-off” event with one-
stage communication that resulted in his life being spared. This is a reasonable case of
xenoglossia and God is to be praised, but that does not mean that the event should be
equated with Corinthian glossolalia. It is valid in its own right.
a. Inconsequential Events.
Frequently in literature, xenoglossolalic events are reported in a way that seems
to glory in the event per se. There is no reference to the content, no reference to the
benefit, no reference to the source, and no reference to the nature of the true gift of
glossolalia for the church. Several examples follow to illustrate this point.
1941 Frodsham (213) reports the testimony of a Mrs. Corrie Judd Montgomery:
Soon after receiving the fullness of the Holy Spirit in June, 1908, I was filled with a remarkable love for the
Chinese people. There had been in my heart a great interest in them for many years, but this was something
different – an outgoing of the spirit in divine love toward them, and intercession which was wonderful. I had
been speaking in several different ‘tongues’, some of which sounded like the languages of India, but about this
time I was conscious of speaking another language, which seemed like Chinese. As time went on a number of
different Chinese people who heard me speaking assured me that I was talking in Chinese.
There seems to be no point in the exercise. The mere recounting of an apparent

event is elevated to celebrity status for no reason, no benefit, and without any
validation.
1971 Synan, as the Assistant General Superintendent of the Pentecostal Holiness
Church and Research Professor at Oklahoma City South-western College,
surprisingly recounts linguistic events in an inconsequential way.
…a woman named Anna Hall had gone to a Russian church in Los Angeles and preached to its communicants
in their own language, although it was unknown to her. It was reported that the hearers were “so glad to hear
the truth that they wept and even kissed her hands.”(110).
While [at Azusa Street], an ignorant woman rose to her feet, looked straight at him and spoke in his native
tongue, telling him secrets that only he could have known. He left convinced of the authenticity of the
“tongues” experience. (111).
Under the direction of one Pandita Ramabai, the inmates of a girls’ orphanage spoke and prayed in English,
Greek, Hebrew, and Sanskrit in the years 1905-1908. Indeed, the years following the 1894 break with
Methodism reached a climax in Los Angeles in 1906, and from there the holiness-pentecostal movement
spread to the farthest reaches of the world. (115).
1975 Dennis Bennett as rector of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, Van Nuys, California,
claimed “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and became an early leader of the neo-
Pentecostal movement.
He reports that, “My wife has spoken in the Portuguese language” (28).
There is no attempt at validation that it was Portuguese, what purpose it served or
what the content was. Even if it is assumed to be true, it is presented as of no
consequence, only the fact of utterance seeming to be of value.
Similarly he reports, “Another physician in New Orleans, a good friend of
ours, prayed for an Episcopal priest in Latin. The doctor knows no Latin” (28).
Likewise he reports a variety of languages that were spoken, which in themselves
seem more important than any message/content:

We have known people to have spoken in tongues in Latin, Spanish, French. Hebrew, Old Basque, Japanese,
Aramaic, Mandarin Chinese, German, Indonesian, Chinese Foochow dialect. N.T. Greek, English … and
Polish.
(Bennett 1971, 91-92).
1980 Valdez reports an event involving his Aunt Mary Bertin (130).
All eyes focused upon her. Speaking eloquently, she walked up and down the aisle, arms crossed in front of her.
After the service the manager, smiling warmly, approached and shook her hand.
“You speak the most beautiful and purest French I have ever heard”, he said. “You quoted the second Chapter
of the Book of Acts about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire, explaining that speaking in tongues is a
definite sign to the unbeliever”.
Why did she not simply read from the Book of Acts and make the
explanation? What did French add to this event? Was it simply “grandstanding”?
Tongues contributes nothing.
1981 Williams (182) reports several events that were relayed to John Sherrill:
… in a letter sent to Sherrill in 1934 concerning a Mr. L.B. Richardson. In this example a Chinese Christian,
Brother Ko, claimed he heard Brother Richardson not only speaking in Chinese but about things in China which
Brother Ko was familiar with.
Another letter from a Mr. W.C. Pickthorn refers to an incident in 1932 in which a Swedish lady, Mrs. Erickson,
heard a young boy of twelve pray in Swedish, a language he had never learned.
He then reports the story told by Dr. T.J. McCrossan of Minneapolis of nine Filippino U.S. marines who were
amazed to hear an American woman whom they knew give a message in tongues in ‘an obscure Filippino
dialect’ which she could not possibly know.
A similar experience was reported in Indiana, when a group of Italians were amazed to find themselves
addressed in perfect Italian by a member of a small Pentecostal congregation whom they knew, and who had
no previous knowledge of Italian.
(Williams 1981, 182).
Williams (181) also reports an event that flowed from the Azusa Street
revival.
At Mukbi in India, it was claimed that over a period of three years 1905-1908, illiterate girls at an orphanage
spoke and prayed in English, Greek, Hebrew and Sanskrit, all languages which they had never learnt.
(Williams 1981, 181).
In none of these examples (all clearly xenoglossolalic) is there any attempt
to see the benefit or validity of the phenomenon, it seems to be a cause of
amazement only.
1989 Gaede (83) reports two occasions of linguistic utterance that may well have been
valid, and may well have served a useful purpose. However, the fact of the event
seems to be of greater significance in the reporting, than any content.
After being jailed, one person reported reading Isaiah 55 in the Mexican language to the Mexican inmates. He
says, “… I did not know the Chapter, nor that I had read it until they told me.” A lady in Pueblo, Colorado,
reported that she spoke in tongues to a man she invited to a mission meeting “in a language which he
understood, the wicked life he was living and crimes he had committed.”

(Gaede 1989, 83).
b. Special Unique Events

These events show a special purpose in a linguistic utterance that seems perfectly
valid, although having nothing to do with the church (as the body of Christ) being
ministered to.
1981 Williams recounts the case of H.B. Groulock (noted previously) in Africa in
1922. He was confronted by aggressive cannibals in Pahn territory and
miraculously enabled to speak their language (182). It is assumed that this
occurred to a Christian who was aware of God’s enabling and preservation,
constituting this a “valid linguistic utterance”.
This current researcher has likewise heard of such a provision to a
missionary in New Guinea. One applauds God’s grace and acknowledges another
“valid linguistic utterance”. In different circumstances in Guatemala, it was
reported that a native Christian confronted a wild tribe to whom he spoke, only
discovering later that his utterance had led to the establishment of a Christian
work among them. There is no quarrel with God’s use of such a valid linguistic
utterance.
1981 Fraser relates an interesting event that may be more a miracle of hearing than of
speaking. Irrespective, it appears to be a provision of God for which it is
appropriate to give due praise without feeling obliged to in any way identify the
occasion with true glossolalia (xenoglossia):
The late Dr. Morgan, founder of the Queensland Bible Institute, (now the Bible College of Queensland), was
visiting Norway and was asked to preach to a group of non-English-speaking Norwegians through an
interpreter, who did not arrive for the meeting. Dr. Morgan said that God had laid this message on his heart. He
decided to give it and they heard it clearly preached in their own language and were greatly encouraged.
(Fraser 1987, 66).
1993 Hummel reports the encouragement a missionary received through a “one-stage”
valid linguistic utterance.
A missionary to Indonesia was on furlough, visiting Episcopal churches to report on his church-planting ministry
and gain additional support. At the end of a service several church members came forward for prayer. One
woman unexpectedly gave a brief message in tongues. Afterward the missionary asked the rector when she
had been in Borneo. The answer was “Never”. The missionary was amazed, since she had spoken fluently in
the local dialect of his mission. Her message was a word of encouragement from the Lord to continue
courageously in his difficult pioneering ministry.
(Hummel 1993, 128).
All of these cases, although not independently authenticated, nevertheless have
sufficient credibility, because of the outcome, to be accepted as having essential
validity, but they should not be confused with biblical glossolalia for the church. They
are valid linguistic phenomena.
c. Salvation Events.
In the range of “valid linguistic phenomena”, there are evidently a number of
cases where the Gospel has been shared and people saved.
Such events have led Duewel (1974, 58) to conclude:
This is the true biblical role of the gift of tongues today: Personal witness and evangelism to those of other
language backgrounds in their own language without having previously learned that language and without need
of interpreters.
However, the good end served must not be predicated upon a wrong premise.
There is no need to question that the use of a linguistic utterance to lead to salvation is
most commendable, as the following examples show. But that does not demonstrate that
this is glossolalia, only that at best, it is a valid linguistic utterance.
1941 Frodsham reports in some detail about an Austrian Jew who went to America and
in Washington happened to enter a mission to avoid some rain. He heard several
people speak in Hebrew, which he recognized, although the speakers did not,
ultimately leading to his salvation. (208-210).
In another example, a Dr. Florence Murcutt of Manhattan Beach, California,
was saved through a valid linguistic utterance of “the purest Parisian French” (a
ministry of “speaking in tongues” according to Frodsham) (210-212).
1974 Duewel indicates that Oral Roberts, Carl Brumback and Donald Gee, all hold the
opinion of tongues being used evangelistically, and claim reliable accounts of that
happening (31-32).
He also refers to Ralph Harris (for about twenty-five years a departmental
secretary at the international headquarters of the Assemblies of God) who
authored a book detailing research by 49 district superintendents (of the AOG),
150 pastors throughout the United States, and 225,000 people surveyed, from
which He found about 75 cases where a person spoke in a known language (from
Arabic to Zulu). These primarily illustrate the evangelistic use of tongues (32).
1975 Bennett recounts the case of a young Japanese Buddhist bride who went to the
altar of the church where her husband (a Christian) began praying. A woman
kneeling next to the Japanese girl began to “speak in tongues”.
Undoubtedly she thought that she was just expressing herself to the Lord and telling of her needs and
offering him praise. But as soon as she began to speak the Japanese girl grasped her husband’s arm and said,
“Listen! This woman is speaking to me! She has just addressed me by my entire Japanese name, and she says
to me: ‘You’ve tried Buddha and he hasn’t helped you; why don’t you try Jesus Christ?” The Japanese wife
received Jesus that night.
(Bennett 1975, 28).
Bennett also states:
We know of a physician who spoke Hebrew, a language he did not know, to a Jewish woman and led her to

Christ. (28).
(Bennett 1975, 28).
1987 Fraser provides an interesting event of linguistic utterance, and although there
seems no compelling reason to employ such a method, yet if God chooses to do
that, then it must be acknowledged as valid, although it should not be confused
with the “two-stage” event of glossolalia, the gift for the church.
An American Pastor, preaching in his own Church, suddenly started to preach in perfect German which he had
never learned. At the end of the sermon he gave an appeal and two German ladies came forward to be saved.
At the end of his message the gift was withdrawn, but a young woman present could speak both languages and
counselled them to receive Christ.
(Fraser 1987, 67.)
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.
5.3 BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA

5.3.1 OLD TESTAMENT
In an earlier Chapter (4.5), from the perspective of ecstasy in the Old Testament
antecedents, coincidentally the issue of purported glossolalia has largely been
addressed. For example, Martin (1960, 74) commented that “the first clear picture of
frenzied, involuntary, and ecstatic utterance is the account concerning Eldad and
Medad”. In dealing with ecstasy, the association with utterance was unavoidably raised.
Meeks (1977, 74) admits that:
In the Old Testament it is difficult to find clear references to glossolalia. Glossolalic-type speech occurs in the
ecstatic babblings spoken by some of the early Hebrew prophets …
However, the assumption that glossolalia has an ecstatic precursor was shown to
be false.
Apart from these ecstatic utterances, there are a few passages of the Old
Testament that are supposed to be cases of tongues. Palmer Robertson states that,
“‘Tongues’ are mentioned explicitly in the Old Testament no less than three times”
(1993, 43). He notes that three different authors in three different Old Testament books
refer to tongues, and that each case indicates that “tongues are a sign of covenantal curse
for Israel” (43).
Palmer refers to Deuteronomy 28:49;
The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping
down, a nation whose language you will not understand.
And Isaiah 28:11:
Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people.
And also Jeremiah 5:15:
O house of Israel, declares the Lord, “I am bringing a distant nation against you – an ancient and enduring
nation, a people whose language you do not know, whose speech you do not understand”.
It must be immediately countered that these are examples of national peoples
speaking in their normal languages that coincidentally happen to not be understood by
Israel, or indeed any other nation.
Fundamentally this is not a problem of communication since there is no attempt to
understand through interpretation.
In each case, the problem is the failure of God’s people, Israel, to be convinced
or persuaded of the import of God’s message through the normal means of
communication in the Hebrew language through His prophets. Israel does not hear any
message per se from these foreign nations, but rather God is causing them to “hear”
through the medium of punishment. The Assyrians didn’t actually speak a word!
God is using “interrupted communication” to communicate to His people that He

is serious about the message He wants them to hear, because He loves them. The fact
that Israel does not understand the genuine language of its oppressor is immaterial to the
message of rebuke that they need to hear.
Particularly significant to the issue of glossolalia is the passage in Isaiah 28. This
significance is because Paul refers to it in 1 Corinthians 14:21. Paul is making the point
that Israel refused the prophet’s urging to enter into rest (historically at Kadesh Barnea
as well as contemporaneously) and on past performance, even the rebuke of the
oppressing nation will still be ineffectual in terms of communication: “I will speak to
this people, but even then they will not listen to me” (1 Corinthians 14:21).
Whatever role the Assyrians played, God is claiming to be the author of the
communication, “I will speak”, but because of their hardness of heart they still will not
be “persuaded” of Him.
In both contexts, the issue of immaturity is a connecting link. In 1 Corinthians
14:20, Paul has rebuked the superficiality of the Corinthians, and their failure to hear
God speak, accusing them of “thinking like children”. In Isaiah, the question is asked,
… To whom is he explaining his message? To children weaned from their milk …
In both situations God’s people are involved – Israel and the Church. In both
situations there is a refusal to hear God’s Word through normal familiar language. In
both situations God wants to impress upon His people that He has in fact spoken –
through His messenger – and that His people should listen carefully to Him. In both
cases God uses an interrupted language communication to achieve this (see further in the
exegesis section on 1 Corinthians, in volume 2).
It should be noted that the application by Paul, that tongues is a sign to
unbelievers, is not necessarily a reference to non-Christians. The example that Paul is
using in Isaiah, is to show that God’s people (Israel, as opposed to Gentiles) are
refusing to believe (although they are “believers”) the immediate message. In
Corinthians, Paul is rebuking God’s people (Christians in the church – already
believers) who are refusing to hear God speak. They are not persuaded (πειθω) of
God’s message through His messenger. God’s rebuke comes to the church, not through a
foreign nation (whose language they do not understand) by way of rebuke, but through a
message in a genuine language (unknown to the speaker – foreign) and translated by an
interpreter (who does not know the language) in order to rebuke “unpersuaded
believers” that God is in fact speaking through His messenger.
Another passage that “Glossolalists like to quote” (Meyer 1975, 138) is Joel
2:28-29. Robertson seeks to argue that since the expression of tongues at Pentecost is
the result of Joel’s prediction that “Your sons and daughters will prophesy” (Joel 2:28),
then tongues must be regarded as a subset of prophecy (1993, 43). In fact he goes
further, taking Joel’s prophecy to be “that sons and daughters would speak in tongues”
(43, italics his).
Nevertheless, Joel does not make such a specific expectation of the nature of the
prophetic manifestation. And in particular, the prophecy in Joel is not an example of
glossolalia at all. It is simply predictive of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. It is Peter,
in his speech recorded in the Book of Acts, who declares that the “valid linguistic
utterance” at Pentecost – a “one-stage linguistic communication” – was to be understood
inter alia as fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy.
By way of corrective, it should be noted that a study of 114 uses of the Hebrew
word for tongue, gives no evidence of the Pentecostal concept of tongues (Kitson 1983,
1). Further lāshôn – tongue – has the primary meaning of the tongue, an organ of the
body. Its major extension of use is in “speech” or “language” – that which proceeds
from the tongue, and occasionally as a “bay” (a tongue of water extending in from the
sea) or a “wedge” (tongue-shaped) of gold (Kitson 1983, 1).
In the Septuagint, the term γλωσσα appears together with the verb λαλειν seven
times (Harrisville 1976, 38) but none of these can be identified with the New Testament
concept, especially in 1 Corinthians. In fact Harrisville concludes, “the Septuagint
translator appears to have known nothing of a technical term for speaking in tongues”
(1976, 39).
Dillon (1975, 20) notes that γλωσσα occurs thirty times in the Septuagint, and in
every instance it refers to a “known language spoken on earth”.
Gundry, using the erroneous assumption that γλωσσα involves “unintelligible
speech”, says that there are only two passages outside of Acts and 1 Corinthians that
have that characteristic (1966, 300-301). He identifies them as Isaiah 29:24 and 32:4
(in the LXX), and explains that “in neither instance is ecstasy involved” (301). The
reference in Isaiah 29:24 using the word ragan (to murmur); seems inconsistent with the
argument (it means to murmur, be contumacious, rebel) whilst Isaiah 32:4 does not stand
alone in using ‘alag (to speak in a barbarous or foreign tongue, to mock or deride,
stammer), so it is not clear why that reference is singled out. Neither of the references
correlates with biblical glossolalia. The closest one can allow, is that there is a
communication problem due to a language barrier.
By way of significant comparison to the New Testament outpouring of the Holy
Spirit, Pfitzner notes that the “charismatic gifts and … charismatic leaders” in the Old
Testament (1976, 30) were recipients of the Holy Spirit’s outpouring. The leadership
gifts to Moses and Aaron, and especially in the time of the Judges when each Judge was
equipped with a gift of the Spirit, then later Saul and David were transformed by the
visitation of the Holy Spirit, and this was accompanied by signs, but no glossolalia.
It is notable that “Gradually, frenzied and ecstatic speaking appears to have grown
into quite general disrepute” (Martin 1960, 76). In fact frenzied and ecstatic speech
never had any cogency in real terms, and certainly not in comparison to true biblical
glossolalia.
Moving on into the inter-testamental period, “we soon discover a shortage of
extant literary evidence for the frenzied, inarticulate, ecstatic speaking among the Jews”
(Martin 1960, 76). Such phenomena are at best only transitory. They do not establish
any background to the existence of glossolalia, nor do they threaten the validity of the
true gift.
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).
5.3.2 NEW TESTAMENT

A. INTRODUCTION
It should be noted by way of perspective, that “lalein glossais which the Christian
writers used came … out of the Greek vernacular which existed long before the New
Testament authors used it” (Martin 1960, 80). Hence the understanding of speaking in
tongues in the New Testament could be prejudiced according to the secular precursors.
In addition, the understanding of speaking in tongues in the New Testament may be
confused, not only with invalid ecstatic utterances and demon-inspired ejaculations, but
also with valid linguistic utterances that may have occurred before the New Testament.
Although the number of valid references in the New Testament appear very few in
number, a variety of authors refer to a variety of tentative references in an attempt to
bolster their own views. A range of suggested references will be examined, quickly
dismissing those with little substantiation, and focusing on those receiving more
attention or having greater validity.
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.
c. Mark 7:34; 8:12

Although these two verses refer to “sigh deeply”, and therefore may be used to

point to the remote possibility that Jesus spoke in tongues, it “cannot be proven by
Scripture” (Scheunemann 1984, 97), or as Dunn (1975, 86) admits, “the argument …
falls a good way short of proof”.
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.
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
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
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.

The closest one can come to any evidence for speaking in tongues in the Gospels,
is the spurious section of Mark 16. And the best that this can provide is a comparison
with the Acts references, and it will be shown that these are valid linguistic utterances
that all focus on the phenomenon of Pentecost.
Pentecost precedes “the church” in terms of its formation and unique identity, and
hence there is no conflict between the phenomenon at Pentecost and the gifts given
specifically for the church (see the Appendix: “The Foundation of the Church”). The gift
of tongues for the church, uniquely affects that body, as subsequent sections will show.
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
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).
b. Three valid references noted.

Against the view of Maurice Goguel and others, that the Pentecost passage is
invalid (Mills 1972, 33) are a majority of scholars who hold that not only Pentecost, but
also references to tongues in Caesarea (Acts 10) and Ephesus (Acts 19) are not only
valid but in fact are the only true references to tongues in the Book of Acts.
Banks and Moon (1966, 280) state that there are only three explicit references to
speaking in tongues in Acts: 2:1-4; 10:44-46; 19:1-6. Whilst not explaining the
significance, Robinson (1972b, 6) describes these three instances as special categories:
“the first group of Jewish believers at Jerusalem, the first group of Gentile believers at
Caesarea, and a problematical group of disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus.”
Although of interest, Robinson explains nothing by this division. Jones (n.d., 1) adds
that Jerusalem was the heart of Jewish culture, Caesarea the heart of Roman culture, and
Ephesus the heart of Greek and pagan culture. Here were three significant locations for
the outpouring of this new phenomenon. Meeks (1977, 75) is more specific, following
Stagg, et al in concluding that the three passages are associated with the pioneering
work of the Holy Spirit in introducing the Gospel to new groups of people in order to
fulfil the missionary zeal of the church. This may be true of the initial impetus of
identifying the arrival of the Holy Spirit by the sign of tongues, but tongues is not the
means of effecting this mission (contrast Musvosvi 1989, 15).
Zodhiates (1974, 35) clarifies that these three references are the only historical
instances of speaking in tongues, not only in Acts, but in the whole of Scripture. This is
a significant comment because it highlights the fact that the only other references to
tongues (viz. 1 Corinthians) are discussions about, not records of fact or historical
occurrence.
Bellshaw (1963, 145-146) refers to these references (along with 1 Corinthians
12-14) as the only specific references to the “gift of tongues” in the New Testament. In
so doing, Bellshaw clouds the issue, because the “gift” of tongues is more accurately
related to the list of gifts to the church in 1 Corinthians. The references in Acts refer to
evidences of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Add this comment of Bellshaw to the historical comment by Zodhiates, and it
becomes clear that the biblical record gives no historical account of an actual
occurrence of the gift of tongues (true biblical glossolalia).
c. Clarification of “Tongues.”
It is anticipated that the discussion of tongues in Acts, will show three particular
findings.
Firstly, that tongues is a genuine language spoken by a person who has never
learned it, and to whom it is unknown.
Secondly, that tongues in Acts is more correctly referred to as a valid linguistic
utterance in order to recognize this phenomenon as distinct from the gift in 1
Corinthians.
Thirdly, it will be shown that this valid linguistic utterance is a “one-stage”
phenomenon, not a “two-stage” phenomenon as is the case with the gift of 1 Corinthians.
This means that a genuine language is spoken by a speaker, to whom the language is
unknown, to a hearer who knows the language – one stage.
d. Elimination of doubtful passages.

i. Acts 4:31.
Some scholars, following Harnack, believe that this passage is an abbreviated
“doublet” of the Pentecost experience (Martin 1944, 124). Although there is no
reference to glossolalia, Martin admits this but nevertheless says, “we may assume that
some of the speaking was ecstatic” (1944, 124-125). Almost twenty years later she
shifts her position stating that “the scriptural texts [including 4:31] are altogether too
meagre to call forth speculation” (1960, 20). A further six years later, and Martin has
again shifted position, stating that the several accounts in Acts, including 4:31, indicate
that “in the beginning of the Christian Church the phenomenon [of tongues-speaking]
reappeared wherever conversion and commitment to Christianity occurred” (1966,
288). “Too meagre to speculate” is now replaced by “assumed regular reoccurrence”. In
fact there is no evidence to conclude that this is an abbreviated doublet or that
glossolalia occurred – and even if it did, it certainly tells us nothing prescriptive about
the nature or purpose of tongues.
ii. Acts 8:14-19.
The pivotal argument for the inclusion of this passage as one that involves
tongues, is based on verse 18. The fact that “Simon saw that the Spirit was given”, has
led scholars to believe that there was a manifestation of some kind, and that most likely
this would include tongues. Banks and Moon (1966, 284) comment:
The majority of commentators not only favour a manifestation of some kind, but on the principle of interpreting
scripture by scripture, a manifestation of speaking in tongues.
Both Bruner (1970, 80) and Dillow (1975, 143) admit that Pentecostals urge this
position, which, although not definitive, is nevertheless not unreasonable according to
Dillow. F.F. Bruce and Calvin are quoted by Banks and Moon (1966, 284) as supporting
this conclusion. Martin (1944, 284) believes that some form of objective proof of the
reception of the Holy Spirit was expected, but lacking, and that tongues may have been
that proof.
Whilst Bruner admits the Pentecostal position, nevertheless he adopts a more
cautious approach, noting that tongues is not mentioned in the text, and that because the
reception of the Holy Spirit was so important and was testified to by tongues, then why
does Luke fail to mention this sine qua non? (1970, 179). Further, the fact of some
visible evidence could equally be a dramatic moral change as much as a verbal
utterance (179).
On a different argument, some Pentecostals have assumed that tongues is an initial
evidence of the reception of the Holy Spirit, and therefore this must be true in Acts 8,
thus deducing that the visible sign is tongues (cf. Edwards 1973, 110). However,
Griffiths (1969, 17) argues against the idea of a “double experience” interpretation.
Somewhat similar to Edwards’ comments, is Banks and Moon’s suggestion that
Acts gives four accounts of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost, Samaritans,
Caesarea, and Ephesus) and these are associated with spiritual gifts and particularly
speaking in tongues. Hence tongues could be expected with the Samaritans (Banks and
Moon 1966, 284). However, it is debatable whether the manifestations should be
referred to as “spiritual gifts”, since the gifts were associated with the church rather
than the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Again, in spite of all the arguments advanced, none is definitive as to the presence
of tongues, and even less are they descriptive concerning the nature and purpose of
tongues.
e. Three Explicit Passages examined.

i. Acts 2:1-13.
In spite of Goguel’s claim (noted earlier) that the record of Pentecost is invalid,
few scholars are deterred from exploring the passage.
-i. Preliminary considerations.
(1) ἄποφθεγγομαι (Acts 2:4,14; 26:25).
This word only occurs three times in the New Testament, and they are all used by
Luke in Acts (2:4; 2:14; 26:25). In the LXX and classical Greek, it is used to
indicate solemn or inspired speech, but not ecstatic utterance (Hasel 1991, 45),
although Behm (1964a, 447) and Musvosvi (1989, 14) both suggest there is
reference to being “ecstatically transported” or making ecstatic utterance, that
seems to be a vague reference to “inspired speech” that is not necessarily
unintelligible. Thomson (1927, 285) clarifies that ἄποφθεγγομαι in the LXX has
special usage for oracular expressions whether true or false. They were short,
pithy, forceful expressions – held to be the immediate voice of God – but
evidently understood.
Taking the Acts references in reverse order to their appearance, Acts 26:25 reports
Paul’s appearance before Festus. Paul says “What I am saying (ἄποφθεγγομαι) is
true and reasonable” – there is no ecstatic utterance. Acts 2:14 reports Peter’s
words to the crowd on the Day of Pentecost: “Peter … addressed (ἄποφθεγγομαι)
the crowd” – and it was perfectly understood by the multitude, it was not ecstatic
gibberish.
Against Hasel’s reported usage in the LXX and classical Greek, together with the two
references from Acts thus far, it would be expected that the usage in Acts 2:4
would also be a reference to intelligible, discernible language. The verse contains
the phrase, “as the Spirit gave them utterance (ἄποφθεγγομαι)”, and the utterance
is reported in 2:6, 8, 11 as discernible language.
Hence ἄποφθεγγομαι, in its three occurrences in the New Testament, are clear
references to discernible language.
(2) διαλεκτῳ/ (Acts 2:6,8).
Dunn (1975, 149) refers to the view that the lingua franca of all the hearers was
Greek or Aramaic. Hence no diversity of languages was required, but a diversity
of dialect was in evidence. The hearers were surprised that they could understand
the Galilean speakers, despite their accent, or even that the disciples had been
“suddenly delivered from the peculiarities of their Galilean speech”. Such a
conclusion Dunn judges as deficient. Certainly the use of διαλεκτω (2:6, 8) is
qualified by γλωσσαις in 2:11. The dialects are in fact languages.
(3) ἑτεραις (Acts 2:4).
Cutten (1927, 16) suggests that the “other” tongues of Acts 2:4 parallels the “new”
tongues of Mark 16:17, and that the events of Acts 2:4 refer to illiterate Galileans
speaking in many different foreign languages without previous training.
Weaver (1973, 13) draws attention to the distinctive nature of ἑτεραις, which means
“another of a different, or strange kind”, and hence the languages spoken were
different from the natural languages of the speakers – but normal languages
nevertheless. In this case the language is controlled by God (Mackie 1921, 21-
22).
From the perspective of 1898, before the modern rise of Pentecostalism, Clemen
could assert that the other tongues of Acts 2:4 are “undoubtedly intended to mean
speaking in foreign languages” (344). He does note, however, that there are
theories, based on a Jewish tradition, that the incident has been added to the text
after the occasion of Pentecost.
Whilst not contesting the view of foreign languages, Pope (1918, 598) makes the
rather extraordinary comment, that the speakers (“in languages other than their
own”), “under the stress of spiritual emotion … lapsed into a foreign tongue” – a
special phenomenon on a special occasion.
There is no doubt that “other” tongues are genuine languages.
(4) γλωσσαις (Acts 2:4, 11).
Burdick (1969, 22) asserts that it would be expected that Luke, in writing Acts,
would use γλωσσα in the same way as Paul did. Certainly this would be expected
in that Luke was writing after Paul’s visits to Corinth, and Luke clearly reports on
Paul’s ministry in Corinth. Because there is no distinction made, one could
conclude that all valid glossolalia in the New Testament church was “foreign-
language speaking” (Burdick 1969, 22).
Davies (1953, 228) raises the commonplace assumption that tongues discussed by
Paul in 1 Corinthians is incoherent ecstatic utterance, but that commonly tongues
of Acts 2 are foreign languages, and hence it could be concluded that the Pentecost
account was not written by a companion of Paul, or by someone unacquainted with
the phenomenon firsthand.
However, it appears that the “commonplace assumption” is wrong, and that both Acts
and Corinthians report the same type of γλωσσα, foreign languages.
(5) Babel theory. (ἑτεραις γλωσσαις - Acts 2:4).
Davies (1952, 228) has no doubt that the account of Pentecost is dependent on the
account of Babel. He asserts that the record in Genesis 11:1-9 describes the
scattering of mankind over the face of the earth, together with the division into
different nations and languages. By contrast, Acts 2:1-13 is the reunification of
mankind with a common message, and Davies urges that this is with foreign
languages (229). Bruce (1954, 86) concludes, “The reversal of the curse of Babel
is surely in the writer’s mind.”
Stagg (1966, 145) follows the same idea as Davies, noting specifically that the “other
tongues” are intelligible, and stand in contrast to the confusion of tongues at
Babel.
The correlation nevertheless seems tenuous and unnecessary. Indeed, Sleeper (1965,
390) points to a rabbinic tradition in Midrash Tanhuma 26c about the gift of the

Torah for all nations, but it is too late to influence Luke’s writing. In any case,
Luke clearly understands Acts 2 as a period of the Spirit in contrast to the period
of Israel as that of “the law and the prophets”.
Whilst not conclusive, the Babel theory is referred to in support of the intelligibility
of foreign languages as the expression of tongues at Pentecost.
(6) Sinai Tradition.
Following from Sleepers’ reference (above) to Israel as a period of “the law and the
prophets” in connection with the Babel theory, others make a more specific
connection with the law and Sinai. Stemming from nineteenth century scholarship,
Clemen (1898, 345) refers to Herder and other theologians, claiming that in
Pentecost there is “an imitation of the Jewish tradition of the promulgation of the
law on Sinai”. He refers to a ninth century Midrash that suggests that the ten
commandments were announced with a single voice, and yet all the people heard,
on the rationale that when the voice was uttered, it was divided into seven voices
and then changed into seventy tongues, and hence every nation heard the law in its
mother tongue. Apparently this was the method by which the first Christian sermon
was heard by each man in his native language.
Sullivan (1976) reports that Kremer supports this theory, saying that in some
contemporary Jewish circles Pentecost was being celebrated as the feast of the
covenant, based on the rabbinic legend mentioned by Clemen. Musvosvi (1989,
14) generalizes this concept further, suggesting that “whenever Israel celebrated
Pentecost, they relived the whole drama of the giving of the law”.
Whatever the theories or traditions, there is no such suggestion in the historical
account of Pentecost that correlates with Sinai, and any use of languages to spread
the message is contrary to the fact that it was Peter’s one voice that proclaimed the
“sermon”. Tongues served a different purpose on that occasion.
(7) Mechanism of the tongues.
There is general agreement that “God controls the tongue directly” (Mackie 1921, 22)
and that “the disciples used no conceptual forethought of their own in the
vocalization” (Hoy 1968, 11). Well before the twentieth century Pentecostal
phenomenon, Hodge (1857, 248) stated emphatically:
It is impossible to deny that the miracle recorded in Acts consisted in enabling the apostles to speak in
languages which they had never learnt.
This is not a psychological phenomenon, nor is it the result of any other mechanism,
but is simply a clear act of God (see later discussion concerning “sources”).

(8) Valid linguistic utterance.
It has already been noted (5.2.2) that the speaking in tongues in Acts is a valid
linguistic utterance, but that it is a “one-stage” phenomenon in that the speaker
uses a foreign language, unknown to him, but known to the hearer (cf. Hasel 1991,
83) and does not need an interpreter. It is this “one-stage” characteristic that
differentiates the phenomenon in Acts, from the phenomenon in 1 Corinthians.
Corinthians requires a two-stage phenomenon: the speaker speaks in a foreign
language, not only unknown to himself, but also unknown to the hearer. The
primary mechanism as such is exactly the same, but to operate as a gift to the
church, it is the second-stage, the requirement of interpretation, that differentiates
the two phenomena.
-ii. Historic Views – Church Fathers.
Relating to Acts 2 (and Mark 16:17), the church fathers held to the view that
illiterate Galileans spoke in many different foreign languages without previous training
(Cutten 1927, 16). Clemens makes a general statement, that, “From the second and third
centuries on, the customary interpretation has been: to speak in foreign languages”
(1898, 344, italics his). Irenaeus is quoted as saying that there are “many brethren in the
Church … who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages” (Mills 1972b, 30).
Cutten (1927, 16-17) relates several examples:
· St. Cyril affirmed that “they spoke with language which they had never learnt”.
· Gregory Naziansen said, “So they spoke with foreign tongues and not with their
native tongues”.
· Jerome explained the miracle as given, “In order that being about to preach to
many nations, they might receive different kinds of tongues”.
· St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine and Gregory of Nyassa related the event of
Pentecost to the confusion of tongues at Babel, showing the unifying effect of
Pentecostal languages, as real languages.
Additionally, Augustine observed, “Everyone of them spoke in tongues of all
nations” (Mills 1972b, 30).
Subsequently, Mills (1972b, 30) observes that “the greater number of interpreters
have understood the tongues to refer to foreign languages”.
-iii. Xenoglossia/xenolalia/glossolalia.
Hasel (1991, 55) states definitively:
There is but one clear and definitive passage in the New Testament which unambiguously defines “speaking in
tongues” and that is Acts 2 … “tongues are known, intelligible languages … ”.
Others are less certain. Dillow (1975, 15) allows that Acts 2, as distinct from 1
Corinthians 12-14 (which “clearly refers to ecstatic utterances”) possibly refers to
known languages. Behm (1964c, 725) states that, as distinct from Paul (1 Corinthians)
and Acts 10 and 19, Pentecost (Acts 2) depicts speaking in foreign tongues, even if he
doesn’t adhere to this position himself. Similarly, Beare (1964, 237) allows speaking in
tongues in Acts 2 to be “speaking foreign languages”, but elsewhere it means “some
kind of unintelligible utterance”.
Williams (1975, 23), whilst holding to xenoglossia, does not follow through to
other passages of Luke (Acts 10, 19) or Paul, nor indeed modern glossolalia.
Nevertheless, on Acts 2 he is emphatic: “it is clear that the author intends the Pentecost
happening to be understood as a miracle of xenoglossia”.
Carson (1988, 138) is also emphatic:
It must be insisted that in Luke’s description of the utterances on the day of Pentecost we are dealing with
xenoglossia – real, human languages never learned by the speakers.
Acts 2 stands out as the one passage that attracts almost unanimous agreement
concerning xenoglossia. Even tardy commentators cannot deny the obvious expectation
that speaking in tongues is clearly speaking in foreign languages. As far back as 1857,
Hodge asserts that “the facts narrated in Acts necessitate the interpretation … to speak
with foreign languages” (248).
-iv. Multiplicity of languages.
Having established that Acts 2 involves foreign languages, the question arises,
“how many?”.
(1) One language.
Behm (1964c, 725) expresses great difficulty with the depiction of Acts 2
tongues as a multiplicity of languages. Using the Sinai tradition (above) he
reduces the event to a single language for the prophetic witness of Peter. Tongues
is perceived as a “mass ecstasy … which includes outbreaks of glossolalia”. He
says that the idea of foreign tongues is impossible.
Sleeper (1965, 390) believes that Luke (again, purportedly using the Sinai
Tradition as well as the Babel theory) presents the linguistic miracle as a
“supernatural Esperanto”. It is a single prophetic voice, in which Luke
supposedly thought that speaking in tongues is prophecy.
Personal theories are hardly cogent arguments to reject the biblical
account of multiplicity of languages.
(2) Two languages.
Barclay (1960, 56) discounts the clear concept of foreign languages on the
basis that foreign languages (in his opinion) were unnecessary. Since those
present at Pentecost were Jews of the Dispersion, only two languages were
necessary to communicate to all – Aramaic and Greek.
Maclean (1909, 943) advances the same two languages as being all that
was required in Acts 2.
This view fails to recognize that the purpose of the tongues at Pentecost was
not for communication (see below, re “Purpose”).
Beare (1964, 237) names the two languages, because; “there was no need
for so many different languages” and “how could such a multitude distinguish one
language from another if so many were speaking different languages at the same
time?” These are hardly cogent arguments in view of the historical account that
states that such differentiation did in fact occur.
(3) Three languages.
McCone (1971, 85) asserts that the list of nations in Acts 2:9-11 does not
give a list of languages. That fails to recognize, that irrespective of the list, the
people claimed to hear the languages from the countries in which they were born.
McCone (1971, 85) further suggests that the languages used would be:
* Hebrew/Aramaic – the language shared in the first five or six geographical
areas mentioned in Acts 2:9-11;
* Greek – the official language in urban trade centres of the Egyptian delta, also
Libya and Cyrene and several areas of Asia;
* Latin – possibly due to strangers from Rome, even though many Romans spoke
Greek also.
Gundry notes (1964, 405) that these three languages were commonly used
by Jesus in first century Palestine. That may be true, but it is not the point.
McCone seeks to explain his theory in terms of a modern equivalent (1971,
85). If Jews gathered from countries like Peru, Brazil, Honduras, United States
and Canada (etc.), these locations do not define languages. The native languages
would be Spanish, Portugese, French and English. Of itself, this is a fair point,
although it fails to address the observations of Acts 2.
He seeks to further give cogency to his theory by reference to the inscription
on the Cross. It was written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin (85). Additionally,
documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written in Hebrew (Aramaic) and Greek,
giving weight to a limited number of languages needed to service the cross-
section of Jews at the time (86).

As noted above, as worthy as the arguments are in themselves, they are
somewhat isolated from the text of Acts 2:9-11.
(4) Fourteen languages.
Bergsma (1965, 6) states clearly the position held most commonly by
scholars:
Pentecost was an amazing event with only one possible interpretation, namely, that unlearned men spoke
miraculously in some fourteen different languages not their own, unknown to themselves yet clearly understood
as authentic language by foreigners who spoke that language.
Kitson (1983, 6) notes that the disciples spoke with no Galilean accent, as
if they were locally born Parthians, Medes, Egyptians, etc. There would be no
surprise if a Galilean spoke Greek, but Acts 2:7 notes a surprise only consistent
with a Galilean speaking in the local languages of the countries from which the
visitors originated.
(5) Summary.
Irrespective of whether there were 1, 2, 3, or 14 languages, there is almost
universal agreement that genuine languages are used in the tongues of Acts 2. The
number of languages is not so important per se, but the purpose of this one-stage
miracle as a sign of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit (see below) must be
noted.
-v. Intelligibility of the languages.
The comments on “xenoglossia” and “multiplicity of languages” have already
anticipated that being genuine languages, the tongues of Acts 2 are perfectly intelligible.
Blaney concludes (looking at Acts 10, 19 and Joel 2:28-32 as well) that “tongues
speaking in the Acts was intelligible and understood” (1973, 52). This is the majority
position (Bellshaw 1963, 147; Bergsma 1965, 6; Walvoord 1966, 115; Williams 1964,
63).
Looking specifically at several verses in Acts 2, there are several clear pointers
to intelligibility.
Acts 2:6, 8, 11, indicate that the speech was clearly intelligible. To dismiss the
passage as unhistorical, a miracle of hearing, or a mixture of intelligible and
unintelligible utterances is quite inadequate. The assertion of “the full-blooded nature of
the linguistic miracle” is the only adequate explanation of the events (Banks and Moon
1966, 281).
Acts 2:13 may well reflect that the disciples were “spiritually uplifted”, but there
are no grounds to assert that the frivolous comments of some mockers should be taken
seriously. More particularly, the expression of the activity as an act of the Holy Spirit

(2:4) should be respected. His inspiration does not require suspension of the will (as
also the prophets experienced – 2 Peter 1:20-21) or confusion of utterance. On the
contrary, He is the Spirit of truth and a sound mind. (See Banks and Moon 1966, 281).
Acts 2:17-20 is evidence advanced by Peter to reject the notion of drunkenness
(2:15) and to give the Holy-Spirit-inspired interpretation of the event. The phenomena
observed are a fulfilment of prophecy, and in turn, intelligibility is fundamental to
prophecy (see below, re “Purpose”) (Carson 1988, 141).
Acts 2:7,8 (as well as 6,11) quite specifically highlight the fact of intelligibility
over against the necessity of interpretation. “All understood without the provision of an
interpreter” (Both Sides of the Question, 1973, 24).
-vi. Durability of the phenomenon.
Acts 2:17-20 is very significant as to the period of applicability of the
phenomenon associated with the “outpouring of the Spirit” (v.17). It is to occur in “the
last days” (v.17). And the “last days” is a period bounded by the particular events of
Pentecost (vv. 17-18) continuing to the climactic events associated with the end of this
age (vv. 19-20).
Although the events of Pentecost (2:2-4) were unique historically, and are not to
be replicated, nevertheless the phenomenon of the outpouring of the Spirit in the
manifestation of the one-stage phenomenon of tongues (as distinct from tongues of fire
and sound of wind) is seen in verses 15, 16 as something for this age.
Later, this same one-stage phenomenon is associated with the necessity of
interpretation in a two-stage phenomenon constituting a couplet in the gifts for the
edification of the church. Coincidentally, the age of the outpouring of the Spirit and the
operation of the church overlap, or almost coincide.
-vii. Unintelligible languages.
In spite of all the evidence and scholarly agreement, Barclay (1960, 57) rejects
the idea of intelligible utterance, and opts for “the pouring forth of a flood and torrent of
sounds in no known language, sounds which are quite unintelligible …”.
On some unsubstantiated assumption, Stagg (1967a, 23) alludes to a theory that
deliberately or unknowingly observed an older tradition that Pentecost tongues were
unintelligible and ecstatic. Equally untenable is D.M. Smith’s conclusion (1974, 313)
that
Exegetes have long suspected that Luke has put his own interpretation upon glossolalia and … rationalized it in
terms of speaking foreign languages.
This would be a most peculiar approach for a systematic person, like Dr. Luke,
committed to an accurate account of his close friend and associate, Paul, who is central
to the glossolalic issue. Were Luke to depart from an established position, one would
expect a reasoned departure, whereas in fact he appears to establish a clear historical
position with no fear of contradiction.
-viii. Enthusiastic/ecstatic utterance.
Dunn (1975, 194) declares that the earliest Christian community was essentially
charismatic and enthusiastic in nature. He therefore easily concludes that tongues at
Pentecost was “clearly … an ecstatic phenomenon” (148), and yet he rejects Herder’s
view that tongues was a Hebrew idiom meaning “to speak with excitement,
enthusiastically, vigorously”.
Thomson (1927, 284) takes the idea of enthusiasm, or “religious exaltation” to a
new level, passing “through ecstasy and frenzy, to a state of complete trance”. He
concludes that tongues at Pentecost is ecstatic. But this is an assumption.
Assuming an intensity of emotional background for Peter and Paul in particular,
Martin (1960, 20) takes this “intense emotional character” to explain the events of
Pentecost as the result of “intense emotionalism and … contagious frenzy”. That hardly
does justice to the objective reporting of Luke, the explanation by Peter, and the
understanding of the visiting Jews.
Mills (1972b, 38) seeks to accommodate the evidence of excitement alongside of
the objective languages, explaining that in the “effort to express the inexpressible”,
intelligible words and phrases perhaps punctuated the ecstatic speech.
In seeking to restore some balance, Mallone (1983, 80) points out that it was the
multitudes that were ecstatic, amazed and marvelling, whereas the one hundred and
twenty (speaking in tongues) were “fully in their right mind” as they praised God.
In a most interesting twist, Behm (1964, 725) sees the tongues of Pentecost as
ecstatic, yet acknowledges that the event depicts speaking in foreign languages, and
rejects the notion that glwssa became a technical term for ecstatic utterance.
Against the clear indications of foreign languages, no amount of enthusiasm can
detract from that objective understanding.
-ix. Gibberish.
Acts 2:13 indicates an accusation that the languages spoken were being
understood by some as the gibberish of those who were drunk.
Beare (1964, 237) observes that Acts 2:5 refers to “those staying in Jerusalem”,
but that the word used is katoikounte~, not paroikounte~. This (former) suggests
permanent residents, but that they are not native-born Jerusalemites. Their variegated
backgrounds enable them to identify the languages in “his own native language” (v.8).

As distinct from the alien-born Jews, who are now residents in Jerusalem, are the
eJteroi – others of a different kind (Dillow 1975, 19) – others who are not non-
Palestinian Jews as in the immediate context, but native-born Palestinian Jews. They
don’t recognise any of the languages, and Peter specifically addresses them in Acts 2:14
as needing clarification. The non-Palestinian Jews were amazed and perplexed (Acts
2:12).
In the culture of the day, the obvious background of Bacchic frenzy would easily
explain the charge of drunkenness (μεθυσκω) and the associated gibberish (Mackie
1921, 23, Carson 1988, 139). However this does not affect the nature of the
phenomenon since it is only a misunderstanding of the phenomenon. The true picture is
reflected by the non-Palestinian Jews who actually know the real (native) languages.
-x. Erroneous concepts of tongues at Pentecost.
There are several suggested purposes (at Pentecost) that need to be corrected in
order to see the true purpose of tongues and to thus note its relevance or otherwise for
today.
(1) Not for communication.
On the day of Pentecost, this “one-stage” phenomenon certainly achieved
effective communication, but it was not necessary for communication per se as
witnessed by Peter’s address to the whole crowd in one language (so Griffiths
1969, 12; Gundry 1966, 303-304; Montague 1973, 353; Pinnock 1977, 31).
Further, it must be noted that any communication via translation always
loses some of the content, since no translation is between two word-for-word
languages. All languages differ in word meaning, grammar, verb form, etc. Hence,
in a mono-lingual community – that is, they all speak a common language – to use
a second language with translation is a deficient way to communicate. On the day
of Pentecost, all could understand Peter’s message in a common language.
Tongues therefore served another, but very significant purpose.
(2) Not evangelistic.
The generally accepted view of Acts 2 (as reported by Banks and Moon
1966, 282) up till the beginning of the nineteenth century, was that the tongues and
also Peter’s speech (likewise supposedly spoken in a tongue) have an
evangelistic intent. Banks and Moon rightly reject that view.
Nevertheless, from the context of 1 Corinthians (especially 14:22), Smith
(1973, 42) makes the general observation that
The most common view among evangelicals is that tongues were intended as a means to get the gospel to
foreigners in their own language

A similar view is held by Stibbs (1966, 297). He states that the different
languages and dialects constituted a God-given indication that this Gospel was
meant to be preached to the whole world. Rice (1949, 215) believes that on the
Day of Pentecost, languages were used to preach the Gospel to non-Palestinian
Jews (so also Musvosvi 1989, 14). Musvosvi extrapolates that Pentecost tongues
was a gift, supplied for a “practical evangelistic purpose”, and that subsequently
the apostles always had this “facility for foreign languages” (1989, 14).
These views cannot stand the scrutiny of the text.
Against the view that there was an evangelistic purpose “up till the
beginning of the nineteenth century”, Thomson, in 1927, clearly states that the
belief “of evangelisation has long been abandoned” (285). Likewise, Mackie, in
1921, rejects the view of gospel proclamation (19), because the words are
directed to God (cf. Carson 1988, 143).
Banks and Moon (1966, 282) conclude emphatically that the tongues are
directed to God in praise, and hence “all modern [1966] commentators” take the
tongues to be addressed to God in praise, not to men in evangelism. It is not
established that the tongues are addressed to God (see below), but clearly there is
not an evangelistic purpose.
Interestingly, Rackham (1925, first edition 1901, 21) holds the belief of
glorifying God, “not preaching the Gospel”, but significantly adds, “[preaching
the gospel] was reserved for S. Peter”. Bruce (1954, 82) notes that Peter did not
use a tongue unknown to himself.
The tongues at Pentecost were used to proclaim the praise of God, not to
preach the Gospel.
NOTE: Although the tongues were used to proclaim the wonderful works of God,
they were not directed to God. God does not need any message in a multiplicity of
languages. These messages of praise about God were not directed to God. They
were used to command the attention of religious Jews who needed to hear a
Gospel message of repentance, that Peter subsequently preached in the common
language.
(3) Not for replication.
The phenomenon of tongues, as a one-stage communication was not given as
a normative experience for all Christians. It has already been noted that one-stage
communication in the sense of valid linguistic utterance may occur from time to
time at God’s direction. But that is not a “normative” experience.
The concern here, is the context of tongues at Pentecost, and hence the
validity of any replication of the tongues for proclaiming the praises of God in
order to gain attention with the view of preaching the Gospel.
The context involves three evidential signs: tongues, fire, wind. Why should
only tongues be selected as a sign and not also fire and wind? (Griffiths 1969,
14). These three evidences of the coming of the gift of the Holy Spirit were for a
special point in history (Meyer 1975, 143).
This is not a communal vision (Dunn 1975, 147) or a case of poetic imagery
rather than matter-of-fact reporting (Beare 1964, 236). This is a unique event in
history – the initial outpouring of the Holy Spirit – accompanied by “unique and
unrepeatable phenomena” (Bruner 1970, 79). The danger, according to McCone
(1971, 85), is to make “phenomena out of that which is pneumatika”, and vice
versa. An historical event relating to the coming of the Holy Spirit, is turned into a
repeatable curiosity for personal experience.
Oss (1966, 89) wants to separate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit from the
event of Pentecost. As such, the Holy Spirit is available to all believers, and in
that sense, he argues that “Pentecost is repeatable”. However, Gaffin clarifies that
Pentecost (as an event) is finished, as a nonrepeatable part of the history of
salvation (1996, 31, 33).
If the historical event is to be replicated for some valid reason, then there
should not be selective replication (cf. Bruner 1970, 79). If Acts 2:4 is made
normative for all Christian experience, “it seems extraordinarily arbitrary not to
see verses 2-3 as equally normative” (Carson 1988, 142, emphasis his).
Jones states emphatically: “This type of tongues has apparently not
reappeared … People have come to India hoping to be able to evangelise the
people of India without learning the language … The wreckage of those hopes is
strewn across India. It simply hasn’t happened … The Pentecost type of tongues is
not available” (n.d., 1).
(4) Not a gift for the church.
Jack Hayford (1992, 137-140) speaks of tongues as associated with the
church’s beginning (“birth”, “origins”, “inception”), indicating his belief that the
church was founded on the day of Pentecost. It is a premise of this study that that
position cannot be sustained (see Appendix “The Founding of the Church”). The
basic confusion relevant to this discussion is twofold: firstly, that the gift of the
Holy Spirit (at Pentecost) is confused with the spiritual gifts given to the church
(for an entirely different purpose – and at a later date) and secondly, that the gifts
to the church are Trinitarian as distinct from the singular manifestation of the
Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:4). Additionally, the purpose of each is different (see
below).

Functionally, the one-stage tongues of Pentecost bore testimony to the initial
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, whereas the Trinitarian gift to the church is for the
edification of an already existing group.
(5) Not expected.
Tongues is not an anticipated event in any of the Acts occurrences. It was
totally spontaneous – unpremeditated. It was a completely involuntary act – not a
matter of choice nor auto-suggestion nor private personal agenda.
If the Book of Acts is to provide any guideline on the expectancy (or
frequency of occurrence) of tongues, then Pentecostals and charismatics have not
listened.
(6) Not for edification.
The tongues in Acts is a dramatic way of drawing attention to the outpouring
of the Holy Spirit whilst exalting God, as distinct from the gift to the church (in 1
Corinthians) for edification (as were all the gifts).
-xi. The biblical purpose of tongues at Pentecost.
Pentecost is prior to the foundation of the church (see Appendix “The Founding of
the Church”) and the purpose of tongues at Pentecost is distinctly different from tongues
in the church. It has already been noted, in brief, that tongues at Pentecost was a “one-
stage” phenomenon attributed to the Holy Spirit, whilst the tongues for the church are
part of a “two-stage” phenomenon that is Trinitarian.
The specific purpose of tongues at Pentecost was a sign to the Jews of God’s
promise to send the Holy Spirit. At the end of Luke’s Gospel (Luke 24:48) Jesus assures
His disciples that He is sending “what My Father has promised”, and they are charged
to remain in the city until “you have been clothed with power from on high”. This
promise is in the Book of Acts (Acts 1:5) identified with the baptism into the Holy
Spirit, resulting in their empowering for witness (Acts 1:8), and an anticipated
fulfilment of Jesus’ earlier promise (Acts 1:4). The day of Pentecost is the fulfilment of
the promise concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit.
This fact is further emphasized in Peter’s speech by his reference to Joel’s
prophecy (Acts 2:17-21), thus explaining the nature and content of the phenomenon
being observed at Pentecost. Hence tongues at Pentecost has become to many, a
“normative description of the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Edwards 1973, 110).
The tongues of Pentecost were easily understood by unbelievers (Carson 1988,
143) which is clearly not the case for the church (believers). They were understood by
non-Galilean Jews in order to gain attention, even amazement, by the declaration of
God’s mighty deeds, preparing them for the proclamation of the Gospel by Peter.
Although Edwards (1973, 112) argues that tongues are not the initial evidence of
the Holy Spirit, this is not the most common view. Many argue that tongues at Pentecost
is the initial evidence of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit (further affirmed in
different contexts in Acts 10 and 19) but not the initial evidence of the coming of the
Holy Spirit to each individual subsequently. However, on the Day of Pentecost, the
tongues were only on the disciples, not the three thousand who were subsequently
converted. Nevertheless, many charismatic and Pentecostal groups cite this event of
Pentecost as essential for replication (Bach 1964, 11). It is central to their claim to the
baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent and “initial evidence” for each believer
(Brunner 1970, 56-57, 61, 77, 79). Pat Robertson believes that this is the New
Testament norm for each candidate for baptism in the Holy Spirit – speaking in tongues
(cited in Carson 1988, 141). However, what is true of the 120 is not affirmed as
normative beyond that to either the 3,000 on that day, or to any group since. It is not the
normative New Testament position (cf. Carson 1988, 142). Interestingly, Gordon Fee,
himself a charismatic, raised the question of the hermeneutical difficulties posed by
accepting the common interpretation of Acts given by charismatics and Pentecostals
(cited in an article in Spittler 1976, 123).
ii. Acts 10:44-47; 11:15-18.
These events occurred at Caesarea some 8 (Zodhiates 1974, 38) to 12
(Christenson 1968, 31) years after Pentecost.
-i. Absence of ἑτεραις.
Whilst ἑτεραις in Acts 2:4 allows for correlation with Mark 16:17 (“new
tongues”) such an identifier is absent in Acts 10, 11. Pope (1918, 258) amazingly
concludes that this absence opens the way to correlate Acts 10, 11 (and 19) with 1
Corinthians 14 “and as indicating a phenomenon other than Pentecostal”. Smith (B.L.
1973, 285) admits that a strong case can be made out for there to be a consistent
interpretation of the same nature of tongues (“other tongues”) “throughout the Acts (and
1 Corinthians)”, and in spite of scholastic opinion (that he notes) in favour of that
position, he believes that it would be more natural to accept that the speakers were
using their own language “however unusually”! Banks and Moon (1966, 283) are
emphatic, even if without substantiation, that there is “no evidence here (Acts 10) for
tongues being utterances in a foreign language … and the majority of commentators
compare this instance unhesitatingly with that in 1 Corinthians”.
These comments are hardly tenable – even as personal opinion – in face of the
clear evidence of Acts 10:47; 11:15,17. The record indicates that tongues were being
spoken as a result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (now on the Gentiles – Acts
10:45-46, as previously upon the Jews – Acts 2:4), and that this phenomenon was
specifically explained as a like phenomenon as at Pentecost (“the Holy Spirit came on
them as he had come on us at the beginning” – Acts 11:17). Van Gorder (1972, 11),
Walvoord (1986, 115), and Hasel (1991, 92), along with others, affirm the clear
biblical position. Carson (1988, 147) notes: “The explicit references to Acts 2 are
obvious”. Specifically, Acts 10 is correlated with Acts 2 and not 1 Corinthians,
although the Book of Acts is written after the events of 1 Corinthians, and any such
correlation might have been expected to be explicit, as it is with Acts 2.
-ii. Intelligible speech.
Dunn (1972, 15) allows that Acts 10 (and 19) “probably” refers to intelligible
speech. Whilst the passage is not explicit, yet the correlation with the events of Acts 2
and the intelligible speech there, certainly makes a strong case for a similar
intelligibility here, even if there is no indication of the particular language (Zodhiates
1974, 41), or if Peter himself necessarily understood the language (Kitson 1983, 7;
Carson 1988, 147).
-iii. The purpose of tongues at Caesarea.
(1) Not for evangelism.
Clearly the context of the phenomenon of tongues at Caesarea, is related to
Gentiles coming to share what had previously been a Jewish experience.
However, it is an entirely different matter to conclude that the Gospel is “breaking
through the Gentile barrier” (Mills 1972b, 39), or, in the absence of specific
information, that tongues occurred “in the context of the proclamation of Christ
and of faith” (Dunn 1972, 12). Nor can we conclude that at Caesarea and
elsewhere, “Witnessing is the purpose of speaking in any tongue” (Zodhiates
1974, 41). Further, it is coincidental that the tongues at Caesarea are in the
significant location of Caesarea and the “person and the position of Cornelius”
(Carter 1973, 150) as if these factors constituted an evangelistic purpose.
No doubt there were significant ramifications of an evangelistic nature that
flowed from this event. However, the event itself was premised upon the
affirmation to the Gentiles of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on them also.
Banks and Moon (1966, 283) conclude, together with Calvin, that “no
evangelistic purpose is in view”.
(2) Not for communication.
As for the day of Pentecost, there was no need for tongues to serve for
communication (Carson 1988, 148). The proclamation of God’s wonderful works
was a sign attesting both to the Jerusalem church and also to the Gentiles, that the
Holy Spirit was being poured out on “all flesh”, without distinction.
(3) A sign of attestation.
The proclamation of God’s wonderful works was (as for Pentecost) not to
God, but about God (cf. Banks and Moon 1966, 283). It was a clear sign to the
Jewish believers from Jerusalem, that the same Holy Spirit poured out on the
Jews at Pentecost, was also poured out on the Gentiles. The Gentiles were to be
accepted along with the Jews – hence the “astonishment” (Acts 10:45) – a new
concept to the Jews (cf. Carson 1988, 148; Griffiths 1969, 19).
This was a “one-off”, landmark sign to herald a clear step in God’s plan,
not a further occasion to be replicated as a “normative Pentecostal experience”
(Bruner 1970, 80).
iii. Acts 19: 1-7.
These events occurred at Ephesus approximately 24 years after Pentecost
(Christensen 1968, 31), about 52-55 AD (Bruce 1954, 356). Hasel (1991, 100) claims
that it is a significant next step in the Acts 1:8 expansion: Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria,
and the “ends of the earth” (Ephesus), although this is not suggesting that the events are
evangelistic in the expansion programme, so much as evidence to a broader and
problematic group of the universal outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
-i. Absence of ἑτεραις.
The same arguments are advanced by commentators as for Acts 10, but are
equally unsubstantiated. There is no case to identify the tongues of Acts 19 with 1
Corinthians (Pope 1918, 598) or personal native languages (Smith B.L. 1973, 283). The
reference to tongues in Acts 19 has no clear correlation back to Pentecost, whereas Acts
10 (verse 47) and 11 (verses 15, 17) have clear correlation to the experience at
Pentecost.
However, Acts 19:4 does suggest some similarity with the precursor to Pentecost
in Acts 1:5 concerning John’s baptism and the subsequent baptism into the Holy Spirit
(Burdick 1969, 17).
Further, Mackie (1921, 22) maintains that only “very arbitrary and artificial
exegesis” would make Acts 19:6 mean something different from Acts 10:46 in regard to
tongues. More generally, Mackie urges that the concept of tongues described in the New
Testament should be substantially the same “everywhere” (22), which really only means
1 Corinthians 12-14 beyond the references in Acts. As a “one-stage” phenomenon, this
can be readily acceded to.
One must admit that there is no explicit correlation to Acts 2, but Dr. Luke uses
the same terminology (re tongues) for three events (Acts 2, 10, 19) without
differentiation.
-ii. Tongues not evangelistic or prophetic.
The statement in Acts 19:6 clearly dissociates tongues from prophecy (as a
phenomenon) (Banks and Moon 1966, 283). However, Dunn (72, 15) draws the parallel
between tongues and prophecy implying that since prophecy is thought of as intelligible
speech, so tongues would be intelligible.
Further, there is nothing in the passage to imply an evangelistic purpose (Banks
and Moon 1966, 283).
-iii. The purpose of tongues at Ephesus.
As indicated above, tongues at Ephesus is related to the other two occasions
(Acts 2, 10) of tongues, demonstrating the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Whilst the
purpose for this particular case – relating to John’s disciples – is not so clear, it does
show that John’s baptism is inadequate as a conversion experience; also, that the coming
of the Holy Spirit – as evidenced by tongues – is not a “second blessing” after
conversion, but that the baptism into the Holy Spirit is part of conversion (cf. Carson
1988, 149-150). Griffiths (1969, 21) points to the significance of the NIV translation of
verse 2: “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” as confirming this
conclusion. Further, that the coming of the Holy Spirit is universal in application
(Bruner 1970, 80).
By contrast, the experience is not for replication per se. It is not normative, as if
people today had the same background of the disciples of John (Carson 1988, 150).
Like the previous two occasions, this is a “one-off” experience demonstrating a
particular point, and even Paul, writing a whole epistle to the Ephesians later, doesn’t
mention the experience at all (Zodhiates 1974, 42).
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”),

(5) not ecstatic utterance – it was perfectly intelligible speech,
(6) not a message to God, but about God – God needs no linguistic variation for
communication,
(7) not a prophetic utterance – although a prophetic fulfilment (Acts 2) and associated
with prophecy (Acts 19),
(8) not a frequent event – in fact , only three reported occurrences in about 30 years!
ii. Affirmation of the purpose of tongues in Acts, positively.
Tongues is a sign of the outpouring of God’s promised Holy Spirit – by a one-
stage phenomenon to establish that fact, with intelligible speech, and universal in its
application. Tongues is a genuine and valid linguistic phenomenon, given
supernaturally to fulfil that specific purpose of highlighting the outpouring, and to
thereby dramatically obtain the attention of the crowd for the preaching of the Gospel
and laying the foundations for the church.
The tongues of Acts should not be confused with the tongues-plus-interpretation of
1 Corinthians.
Of particular note is the fact that it was only because of the intelligibility of the
tongues that the purpose was achieved and validated. Historically in Acts, tongues
actually occurred as valid human languages, and whatever the linguistic phenomenon,
“It was not … babbling of soothsayers” (Lightner 1978, 18).
D. DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES
a. Romans 8:26 (and 8:15 in brief)

i. Introduction
In order to draw any conclusions from any verse or passage, it is necessary to
undertake a thorough exegesis. The research of this verse as used by many authors in the
context of glossolalia, is to draw very superficial and self-serving conclusions, without
reference to context or exegesis.
ii. Brief exegetical comments in the context.
Verse 18. “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the
glory that will be revealed in us.” This verse sets the context of the passage – a
comparison between present sufferings and future glory (at the consummation of
the age with the return of Christ and the redemption of our bodies).
Verse 19. “The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be

revealed.” The relevant issue is the correlation between the present hope of the
whole of creation, and the future expectation of the revelation of the sons of God
(and hence the redemptive reversal/restoration of all things).
Verse 20. “For the creation was subject to frustration, not by its own choice, but by
the will of the one who subjected it in hope …”. The hope of all the creation in
verse 19 is premised upon the fact that the whole creation was subjected to decay
(frustration). This result (decay) is the almost universally held position of science,
the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This decay was not part of the natural created order, nor a matter of its own
choice, but according to a determination (“the will”) by the One Who also has
provided hope. This One is God.
Being “subjected to frustration” [ματαιοτης - devoid of truth and
appropriateness, depravation, frailty (Thayer 1979, 393), emptiness as to results,
as failing of the results designed, owing to sin (Vine 1997, 1195)] was the result
of God’s curse on the creation after the Fall due to Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17-19).
The whole creation is in a state of decay with loss of harmony and balance that
affects the whole created order.
The nature of the original harmony of creation is partly indicated by the
nature of the restored creation as noted in Isaiah 11:6-9:
And the wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the
yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down
together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young
child put his hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the
earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
And Isaiah 65:25:
The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent’s
food.
The creation is yearning for this restoration – returning to harmony and
balance.
Verse 21. “that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and
brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” The hope of the
creation is not a vain hope or an irrational fond expectation. On the basis of the
redemptive work of Christ on the cross, the bondage that resulted from the Fall
will be broken. This has already been accomplished on the cross, but as for
mankind, the final outworking awaits the return of Christ leading to the
resurrection body (1 Corinthians 15:20-23, 50-53) which will be accompanied by
the “period of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21).
The whole creation has been affected by the Fall, and the whole creation
will be affected by God’s redemptive programme, notably at the return of Christ.
The creation will be “liberated from its bondage to decay” (verse 21), and share
in “the glorious freedom of the children of God”. This is not annihilation – but
restoration. As the children of God will receive restored (resurrection) bodies, so
the creation will be restored to harmony and balance (compare above: Isaiah
11:6-9; 65:25).
Verse 22. “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of
childbirth right up to the present time.” In this context of “eager expectation”
(verse 19) and desire for liberation, the deep yearning is described as “groaning
in the pains of childbirth”. This groaning (συστεναζω) in childbirth, is not
necessarily clearly verbalized, but in the context indicates a strong desire to
move through the present distress to the fruit of the labour. In the context of the
creation, there is the strong desire of the corporate creation (“travails together”,
“groans together”) to move through the present distress and to be liberated and
restored.
This “groaning” of creation – like birth pangs – is not verbalized (let alone
clearly verbalized), because it expresses a deep desire for an anticipated event
that is beyond comprehension. There never has been a previous “restoration of all
things”, and although there may be some indicators (as noted), it is not definitive.
Verse 23. “Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit,
groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as the sons, the redemption
of our bodies.” This deep yearning, although general to all creation, is also
particular (and special) to Christians – those defined as the ones “who have the
firstfruits of the Spirit”. Christians are eagerly waiting for the fulfilment of the
redemptive programme – “our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies”.
They have never experienced this before, and hence it is impossible to verbalise
the deep yearning. Compare 1 Peter 1:5: “… the salvation that is ready to be
revealed in the last time” (emphasis mine).
Verse 26. “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know
what we ought to pray, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that
words cannot express.” Just as the whole creation “groans”, deeply yearning for
the future realization of its redemptive hope, so also Christians eagerly wait for
the redemptive transformation of their bodies. But they don’t know exactly what to
hope for or when. With Paul they acknowledge that “as long as we are at home in
the body we are away form the Lord … and would prefer to be away from the
body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:6, 8). Nevertheless, for the sake
of the Gospel, the Christians labour on in the body (Philippians 1:23-24).
However, the hope is still there and constantly beckoning. In 2 Corinthians
5:2, 4 Paul refers to this groaning (στεναζω):
Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling …
For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be
clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.
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).
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
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.
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
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.
b. Ephesians 5:18-19 (and 6:18).

i. Introduction
Like Romans 8:26, authors alluding to Ephesians 5:18-19 as evidence of
glossolalia, do so with no regard for sound exegetical considerations. They make the
most tenuous associations.
ii. Categories
-i. Very doubtful reference.
Banks and Moon (1966, 293) openly admit that Ephesians 5:18-19 is a “more
doubtful allusion”, noting several translator’s reference to “speaking to one another”
which would not be a reference to tongues. However, they note that Bultmann urges a
charismatic context simply because of the reference to the Spirit. Stanley refers to the
reflexive pronoun “in yourselves” (rather than “to one another”) and Banks and Moon
therefore correlate this to Paul’s description of tongues in “2 Cor. 14:27” (sic – 1 Cor.
14:27) (noted by Banks and Moon 1966, 293-294). The latter further admit that there
may be a stronger reference to general worship (293).
-ii. Possible allusion.
In passing, Dunn (1975, 245) simply notes that Ephesians 5:19 (and 6:18) are
possible allusions to glossolalia, however, they are more likely to be more general,
including glossolalia but not confined to it (246).
Bridge a Phypers (1973, 77) make the most superficial mention that the “spiritual
songs” of Ephesians 5 may be a reference to the gift of tongues, simply because of the
activity of the Holy Spirit. Robeck (1988a, 872) and D.M. Smith (1974, 315) make the
same superficial comment.
-iii. Assumed reference.
Cutten (1927, 20) simply assumes the presence of tongues in Ephesians 5:18-19,
whilst Robertson (1909, 796) states (without substantiation) that in Ephesians 5:18-19
“we watch … the last echoes of glossolalic speech”.
-iv. Claimed reference.
On the basis that “spiritual songs” might be “unpremeditated words sung ‘in the
spirit’” (Bruce 1957, 284-5), Bruce correlates this with 1 Corinthians 14:15. Hurtado
(1971, 9) uses this springboard to claim that “singing in the Spirit” could be exactly the
same as “spiritual song” which is in the context of rapturous worship, and if 1
Corinthians 14:15 makes room for such “singing at the Spirit’s prompting and in other
tongues” then the same claim can possibly be made for Ephesians 5:18-19.
Hurtado attempts to bolster his conclusion by suggesting that the reference to
“spiritual” in 1 Corinthians 14:15 has a “weighty meaning involved in the term” (10) -
namely the work of the Holy Spirit. However, this proves nothing with regard to the
operation of tongues. It is a most tenuous and circuitous argument.
Westlake (1970, 16) follows a similar argument in trying to establish tongues for
Ephesians 6:18, by correlating it with 1 Corinthians 14:14-15.
-v. Summary.
None of the arguments surveyed are the slightest bit convincing. They are not
definitive or compelling in any way, and hence they are neither descriptive or
conclusive. Tongues is not demonstrated in Ephesians 5:18-19 (and 6:18).
c. Colossians 3:16.
The fact that most commentators make no mention of any glossolalic (or
charismatic) association in this verse, bears testimony to the absence of any exegetical
evidence for tongues in Colossians 3:16.
Cutten (1927, 19) allows for the association, whilst Dunn allows for a possible
allusion (1975, 245), also raising the possibility in his commentary in the New
International Greek Testament series (1996, 239) although raising no evidence whilst
suggesting a “lively, spontaneous, charismatic worship”.
There is not the slightest exegetical evidence to suggest tongues in Colossians
3:16.
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
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.
E. SUMMARY OF NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES

Excluding 1 Corinthians 12-14, there are only three explicit references to
speaking in tongues in the remainder of the New Testament – and indeed, the rest of the
bible. The three explicit references are in Acts (2:1-13; 10:44-47 and 11:15-18; 19:1-7)
and they are all one-stage expressions as demonstration of the outpouring of the Holy
Spirit, and they do not necessitate interpretation. They are not for replication in the
sense of the context in which they are given.
The only other reference to true biblical glossolalia is in 1 Corinthians 12-14. In
that context it is a two-stage phenomenon and is one of the gifts to the church, and
therefore applicable while the church is in existence. This section on 1 Corinthians is
pivotal to this study, and stands alone in the New Testament. It will be addressed in a
separate volume.
5.4 EXTRA-BIBLICAL REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA

5.4.1 INTRODUCTION.
Thus far it has been shown 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.
Further, it has been noted that when referring to “glossolalia”, it is generally
understood as some form of verbal utterance ranging from wheezing, gasps and groans,
incoherent ejaculations, neologisms, sacerdotal language, phonations frustes, foreign
idioms, schizophrenic “word salads”, pseudo-language, ecstatic unintelligible babble,
to xenoglossia, and more. This lack of definition, and in particular, almost complete
isolation of the discussion from true biblical glossolalia, has broadened the scope to an
almost meaningless degree. Hence Métraux could conclude that “Glossolalia is not per
se a religious phenomenon … it appears … from mental disorders such as
schizophrenia and hysteria” (cited in Sadler 1964, 87). Goodman’s extensive studies
led her to conclude that “when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration
… they seemed cross-linguistically and cross-culturally identical” (1972b, 563-4). She
also states, “There is no distinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia”
(reported in Hasel 1991, 30). As a Christian and a charismatic, Spittler (1988, 336)
states, “Whatever its origin, glossolalia is a human phenomenon, not limited to
Christianity nor even to religious behaviour among humankind”.
Such a nebulous range of meanings, and especially the exclusion of biblical and
Christian perspectives, almost reduces glossolalia to an absurdity. It could be
concluded that this is a satanic confusion to completely emasculate a gift of God given
to the church for its edification.
This section is almost an exercise in futility! It shows how far Christian authors
(largely influenced by the behavioural scientists) have neglected their biblical roots and
allowed any inconsequential gurgle and grunt to be placed alongside many
inconsequential verbal utterances in a religious or Christian context with no respect for
God’s Word. At least the futility of failing to be definitive on the one hand, and the
desire to not offend any baseless theories on the other, will become manifest.
Ignoring the concept of biblical glossolalia, Cutten (1927, 2) suggests that if
projections were made back to the past, then it could be shown that speaking in tongues
would be clearly indicated “long before the days of Christianity”. This conclusion is
based on the idea of tongues as a “primitive experience, a reverberation of very early
days in the history of the race” (2). However, such an exercise is fraught with
difficulties that even apply to far more recent accounts (e.g. re Francis Xavier) due to
the “tendency of legends to increase in their miraculous features, the further they are
removed in time from the writer” (Cutten 1927, 40-41).
As opposed to those who want an open continuum of experiences for
“glossolalia”, Edgar is one who wants to take exception with Goodman’s (non-
Christian) all-inclusive presuppositions. He accepts her identification of glossolalia in
Pentecostal groups with that of pagan religion, but rejects her “unverified assumption”
that this similarity includes the New Testament gift of tongues (Edgar 1983, 257). Edgar
is correct on both counts. Likewise Bergsma (1965, 7) correctly states that modern
glossolalia is in an entirely different category to the true glossolalia of (the original)
Pentecost and the Pauline age.

This section will attempt to show the extraordinary range of unsubstantiated
utterances that have been advanced as some sort of evidence of “glossolalia”. Because
many authors assume an ecstatic association with purported glossolalia, this section
should be read in conjunction with section 4.6.2 “Overview of Ecstatic Experiences”,
since that area was examined in the context of resultant “glossolalic” experience.
However, since many cases of purported glossolalia are not associated with ecstasy,
this section attempts to give a more comprehensive overview.
5.4.2 ANCIENT PRE-BIBLICAL EXAMPLES

The earliest example of a clear ecstatic expression that can be correlated with
“glossolalic” utterance is about 1100 B.C. in the case of Wenamon. A youth is credited
with frenzied/ecstatic utterances, supposedly “inspired” by his god (Albright 1940, 181;
Butler 1985, 16; Gromacki 1972, 6; Martin 1960, 77; Mills 1985a, 9-10; Smith C.R.
1973, 15; etc.).
At very best there were a few coherent words in the midst of some frenzied
utterances supposedly under inspiration, hence they were the result of possession.
Mills claims that the roots of glossolalia go back to ancient Mesopotamian
religion (2000-1500 B.C.), in Egyptian practices in the 12th century B.C., among the
Canaanites and Hittites during Old Testament times, and also among the Arabs and
Greeks (reported by Meyer 1975, 138). There is no substantiation given.
5.4.3 THE CENTURIES BEFORE BIBLICAL TIMES

The Greeks were no strangers to ecstatic religious experience (Inge 1955, 157).
Plato (428-348 B.C.) knew of the gift of tongues, asserts Butler (1985, 18; and
Gromacki 1972, 16). He notes that there were speakers who had no control over their
minds, did not understand what they were saying, and needed an interpreter. Gromacki
(1972, 6) speaks of an “acquaintance with religious, ecstatic speech” (also Butler1985,
18-19; Gromacki 1972, 7-6; Martin 1960, 77-78).
Reports from Plato’s writings give no illumination about the nature and purpose of
tongues, except that they supposedly had a religious significance and were believed to
be similar to Apostolic glossolalia (Martin 1960, 78).
5.4.4 THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD

In the Intertestamental Period (200 B.C.-100 A.D.), there is little evidence of
frenzied, inarticulate, ecstatic speaking amongst the Jews (Mills 1975, 169). II Esdras
gives one example of frenzied speech, according to Mills.
Within the same period, Virgil (70-19 B.C.) in the “Aeneid” gives an example of
frenzied speech. In reference to the Sibylline priestess on the Isle of Delos, he pictures
her attaining ecstatic speech in a haunted cave after being united with the god Apollo.
The intermittently intelligible speech is found in a religious context (Martin 1960, 78;
Gromacki 1972, 7; Mills 1975, 169). However, this is not glossolalia.

The Greek Mystery Religions overlap the previous two periods (especially
references to Dionysian ecstasy, the prophetess at Delphi and the Sibyl) and into the
Christian era. This area has been noted in extended detail in the section on ecstasy at
4.6.4 and relates ecstasy to purported glossolalia. The common view is that on the
assumption of an ecstatic precursor and resultant unintelligible utterance, the range of
utterances in the Mystery Religions is assumed to be the same as Apostolic glossolalia.
It has been shown that there is no ecstatic precursor for true biblical glossolalia.
One of the few writers to question the common view is Forbes, and concerning
the pivotal case of the Delphian priestess he states (1986, 260):
More fundamentally, there is no decisive evidence to indicate that the Pythian priestess ever spoke her oracles
in a form analogous to glossolalia. On the contrary, all our evidence suggests that she spoke in perfectly
intelligible, though sometimes ambiguous Greek. This point is not at all clear in the standard treatment of the
matter.
Likewise Martin (1960, 81), whilst assuming an ecstatic type of glossolalia,
makes the strong disclaimer:
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.
Finally, Morton Kelsey makes the astute observations (1968, 141-143):
Thus, if we look with a cold historical eye at the material as fact, 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.
The Christian experience was one which was quite different both in kind and in quality from other
contemporary experiences to which it has been compared and this is the best knowledge we have, based on
sound, scholarly work.
The linking of tongues with violent religious emotionalism and trance states does persist, however, continuing to
confound the actual meanings, and so it is essential to examine the sources of this identification in people’s
minds.
5.4.6 EXTENDED NEW TESTAMENT TIMES

Kelsey believes that there are only four parallels to biblical glossolalia found in
the “ancient literature” (1968, 142). Referring to the non-canonical writings, the Book
of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Ascension of Assiah and the Testament of

Job, Kelsey observes the “language of angels” or “superhuman language”.
He notes that the writings do not refer to history, but they do indicate an
acquaintance with a current phenomenon (142). They reflect the true experience of
tongues, but are not themselves examples of biblical tongues.
5.4.7 ANTE-NICENE PERIOD (100-325 A.D.)

(1) Marcionites (Marcion to Rome 140, excommunicated 144).
Although Tertullian in a statement “Against Marcion” seems to imply that
there may have been instances of tongues (Dollar 1963, 317), it is in fact only a
reference to speaking in a rapture (Hoekema 1966, 16). There is no identification
of any verbal utterance, and certainly no reference to biblical glossolalia.
(2) Justin Martyr (110-165).
In his “Dialogue with Trypho”, Martyr refers to gifts “formerly among your
nation have been transferred to us”, and later, those who possess “gifts of the
Spirit of God” (Gromacki 1972, 12). The immediate implication seems to be to
the spiritual gifts including tongues, but the gifts he referred to were the
“prophetical” gifts to Solomon, Daniel, Moses, Elijah and Isaiah (Butler 1985,
23; Gromacki 1972, 12). He does not specifically mention tongues (Dollar 1963,
317) and certainly not biblical glossolalia.
(3) Montanists (Montanus 126-180).
Montanus had a peculiar mix of sanctification and millennarianism – beliefs
that were often associated with trance experience (Kelsey 1978, 36). The
Montanists made the greatest emphasis on glossolalia in the early church (New
Encyclopaedia Britannica 1986, 11:842) although that did not validate it.
Bruner (1970, 36) reports on the “striking similarity” between Montanism
and modern Pentecostalism, in a study by Professor Seeberg. Significantly, the
“most characteristic feature of this movement” is ecstasy (Mosiman’s estimation,
in Bruner 1970, 36). Nevertheless, Robinson (1972b, 2-3) states that Montanism
was “not characterized by glossolalia, although Montanus may have spoken in
tongues in his first frenzy”. Montanus made the claim, “Behold, a man is like a
lyre, and I [God] strike like the plectron” (reported by Epiphanius and cited in
Currie 1965, 288-9). In spite of this claim to be God’s instrument, Montanus acted
irregularly, as did his two female companions, Prisca and Maximilla, who were
also reported to have spoken in a “kind of ecstatic frenzy” (Hoekema 1966, 11).
Butler (1985, 24) quotes from Eusebius:
Through his unquenchable desire for leadership [Montanus] gave the adversary opportunity against him. And
he became beside himself and, being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved and began to babble
and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the church handed down
by tradition from the beginning.
Montanus was excommunicated, not because of a doctrinal issue, but due to

a matter of behaviour. He claimed to be a vehicle of the Holy Spirit whilst not in
command of himself (Currie 1965, 288). In the second century the church held a
deep-seated mistrust of messages delivered in ecstasy, like Montanus had (Currie
1965, 289).
The characterization of speaking in ecstasy was often (erroneously)
attributed to prophets, leading Cutten (1927, 35) to conclude that Montanus and
his followers “neither attempted to speak in tongues nor the unintelligible prattle
in the Corinthian Church”. Robinson (1972b, 3) concludes that Montanism was a
“new prophecy” movement, not a tongues movement.
There is no evidence for even a “valid linguistic utterance” within
Montanism, let alone true biblical glossolalia.
(4) Irenaeus (130-202).
Without a clear definition of glossolalia, it is difficult to draw conclusions
from the statements of the commentators.
Robeck (1988, 874) simply notes that Irenaeus reported the presence of
tongues “among those who lived according to the precepts of the gospel”. Currie
(1965, 277) is a little more specific, stating that Irenaeus was the only other
writer (besides Chrysostom) earlier than the fourth century to speak of tongues as
human language that one has not learned. However, Irenaeus’ position has not
been substantiated.
Clemen (1898, 344) makes the general (unsubstantiated) observation that
from the second and third centuries on, the customary understanding of tongues,
was “to speak in foreign languages”, as was “undoubtedly” the case in Acts. He
maintains that Irenaeus probably held that opinion, as also present day (1898! –
note) theologians and “the majority of the laity”.
The most significant reference to Irenaeus is a statement he made in
refutation of Gnosticism, in Against Heresies. Following a comment on 1
Corinthians 2:6 he says:
… terming those persons “perfect” 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. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the
church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light
for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God …
(Cited in Gromacki 1972, 12 – 13)
In this passage there is a reference to speaking in all languages “through the
Spirit of God”, followed by the phrase: “as he used Himself to speak” (“he …
Himself”, as quoted by Gromacki). Hoekema (1966, 12) and Robinson (1972, 8),
quote “he … himself”; Mackie (1921, 26) as “He … Himself”’ whilst Hinson
(1967a, 48) completely omits the phrase (and more) with no acknowledgement. Is
the “he” and “himself” a reference to the Holy Spirit or to Paul? The
capitalization (He … Himself) can be misleading or confusing. However, the
Holy Spirit does not use tongues, and so the reference can only be to Paul in the
context of 1 Corinthians 2:6 (so Robinson 1972b, 8; and Hoekema 1966, 12fn).
Wayne (1979, 12) simply makes the statement that those who speak “through
the Spirit of God” associate tongues with the “complete” reception of the Holy
Spirit, something that Irenaeus has not said.
It should also be noted that “all kinds of languages” is not clearly
prescriptive. It is not clear whether Irenaeus is speaking of foreign languages or
of ecstatic utterances which were not in a known language (Cutten 1927, 33;
Hoekema 1966, 13). Clemen (1898, 346) implies that because Irenaeus refers to
“many brethren in the church, who possess prophetic gifts” (see quote above from
Gromacki) and “explained the secrets of God”, that this meant the possibility of
something other than “foreign languages”. He concludes that Irenaeus therefore
had “absolutely no personal observation” of the phenomenon, and that therefore
the “prophetic gifts” of Corinthians (346) were different from the “foreign
languages” of Acts (344) but that the statements of the two references were “not
mutually inconsistent” (346)!
Clemen’s statement that Irenaeus had “absolutely no personal observation”
comes without substantiation, and seems contrary to Irenaeus’ own statement that
“we do also hear … ”, although whether this is reported or by first hand
observation is not clear – and perhaps of no great consequence.
One other reference in Irenaeus is to a certain Marcus who had such a
prophetic gift which he abused in pursuit of seducing gullible women, causing one
to “impudently utter(s) some nonsense” which seems to have been identified with
ecstatic-type tongues perhaps leading to their disrepute and the disappearance of
tongues about a century later (Hinson 1967a, 48-49).
In summary, Irenaeus adds nothing definitive to the issue of glossolalia.
There is no clarity about his supposed differentiation between Corinthian
“ecstatic utterances” and Acts “foreign languages”. At very best one could
charitably allow for xenoglossia (although not proven) – but it serves no purpose
and is a one-stage communication – and it is still not the two-stage communication
of the gift of God for the church in 1 Corinthians, true biblical glossolalia.
(5) Tertullian (160-220).
Hummel (1993, 124) states that Tertullian commented “specifically on

speaking in tongues”. That is a misleading statement, because Tertullian does not
speak about glossolalia, but about a prayer spoken “in an ecstasy”, “in a rapture”
(Hoekema 1966, 15-16). Again, there is the problem of a lack of definition of
glossolalia. In fact, Tertullian seems to express a distrust of ecstasy (Currie 1965,
289fn).
However, this prayer spoken in an ecstasy, is described by Clemen to be “in
unconsciousness” (1898, 346), but it required that an “interpretation of tongues”
occur, as a supernatural attestation of Marcion’s mission (Mackie 1921, 27. The
authors are referring to Tertullian’s treatise Against Marcion).
Gromacki observes that Tertullian certainly makes no claim to have spoken
in tongues (1972, 14), whilst Robeck (1988a, 874) claims that Tertullian enlisted
tongues as “an apologetic argument for the validity of orthodoxy”, and Wayne
(1979, 12) asserts that Tertullian’s writings reveal indications that glossolalia
was considered “evidence of full enduement of the Spirit”.
It seems that Tertullian is most commonly quoted in support of personal
agendas regarding tongues. However, there is no clear statement about the nature
or purpose of tongues, and certainly no suggestion that Tertullian spoke in anything
even remotely resembling tongues.
At best there is some form of ecstatic utterance that has no credence
alongside the one-stage communication of Acts or the two-stage gift to the
Corinthian church.
(6) Origen.
Clemen (1898, 344) states that Origen’s view of tongues was “to speak in
foreign languages” (xenoglossia).
On one occasion Origen wrote a refutation of Celsus in his attacks on
Christianity. Inter alia he said (cited in Gromacki 1972, 15.):
To those promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can
find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all …
Some authors have used these words to show the presence of tongues-
speaking at that time, but the “unintelligible words” do not refer to ecstatic
tongues-speaking, but to the difficult prophecies of the Old Testament (Gromacki
1972, 15).
Further, Origen doesn’t see the “strange, fanatical” words as meaningless or
nonsensical, but asserts that what was spoken was merely “riddles, allegories,
parables and proverbs” which could be understood by study and applied as
necessary (Robinson 1972b, 7). Further, there is nothing in Origen’s explanation
to suggest glossolalia at all (Robinson 1972b, 8). The utterances indicate
prophetic utterances rather than the use of other languages (Dollar 1963, 317).
Certainly Origen seemed to be clear that tongues was an expression of
genuine language (see above in Clemen), even if not present in his day. In
commenting on Paul’s statement, “I speak in tongues more than you all”, Origen
says “ … [Paul] had received the gift of speaking in the languages of all nations”
(cited in Hinson 1967a, 50-51). Robeck (1988a, 874) makes a quantum leap from
Origen’s understanding of Paul’s view, to conclude that Origen’s view of tongues
was “a bridge to cross-cultural preaching”. That is hardly a valid deduction.
Meyer (1975, 139; and compare Butler 1985, 25) states that Origen spoke
of tongues in a negative way, and declared that if it had been part of the Christian
experience, it was no longer valid.
There is no evidence of glossolalia in Origen’s day, only the view that Paul
held to a xenoglossolalic view as opposed to “unintelligible ecstatic utterance”.
(7) Summary of the Ante-Nicene Period.
Pentecostal and charismatic writers (in particular) seem to uncritically find
evidence supportive of their position (e.g. Donald Gee in Gromacki 1972, 11;
Robeck 1988a, 874).
George Cutten (1965, 32) concluded that in the ancient church of the church
fathers, there was not one well-attested instance of any person who exercised
speaking in tongues or even pretended to exercise it.
Cleon Rogers is equally emphatic: “ … it is significant that the gift is
nowhere alluded to, hinted at, or found in the Apostolic Fathers” (1965, 134).
Gromacki (1972, 17) concludes that the only two references to tongues-
speaking are by discredited Montanus and also an obscene reference by
Tertullian. He concludes:
There are no genuine cases of glossolalia in the post-apostolic era. Speaking in tongues had definitely ceased.
[Related to the 3 centuries after the Apostolic era].
5.4.8 NICENE AND POST-NICENE PERIOD (311-600)

(1) Eusebius. (264-340).
Eusebius connected prophecy (in the charismatic sense) and tongues, not
with the true church, but with heresy and error (Butler 1985, 25).
(2) St. Pachomius. (292-348).
Schaff (1910, III – 197) notes that
Tradition ascribes to [Pachomius] all sorts of miracles, even the gift of tongues and perfect dominion over
nature, so that he trod without harm on serpents and scorpions, and crossed the Nile on the backs of

crocodiles!
This is hardly credible evidence of tongues or the supposed miracles.

Cutten is a little more specific, reporting that Pachomius, wishing to speak
to a brother who only knew the Roman language (which he himself did not)
prayed for three hours to receive the ability to so speak (1927, 38). Cutten adds
that Pachomius only had the gift to speak Greek and Latin, which he occasionally
spoke miraculously, although having never learned them (1927, 41).
The evidence is scant, but at best it is a case of xenoglossia, a one-stage
communication that could be classified as a “valid linguistic utterance”, but not
the two-stage gift for the church.
(3) Groups.
Without advancing any evidence, Meyer (1975, 139) states that “There is
also evidence that a similar practice [speaking in tongues] was prevalent among
the Donatists, Arians, Nestorians, and the Pelagians”. There is no definition or
additional information.
(4) Chrysostom. (c.344-407).
He is widely credited with being a significant and gifted commentator and a
most eloquent preacher. His contribution to the issue of tongues seems to reflect a
clear understanding of tongues as being unlearned human languages, occurring in
Paul’s day, but no longer in existence.
His comments on 1 Corinthians 12:1ff. are frequently quoted (e.g. Butler
1985, 25; Criswell 1973, 124; Dillow 1975, 157; Gromacki 1972, 16; Hinson
1967a, 51; Hoekema 1966, 16):
This whole place is very obscure, but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by
their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place.
In addition, Currie (1965, 276), Dollar (1963, 317), Lake (1927, 245) and
Meyer (1975, 139), although not quoting, also concur with the evidence advanced,
with Hinson adding a comment that Chrysostom strongly underlined (in 1
Corinthians 12:27) Paul’s subordination of tongues to other gifts; whilst Dollar
adds that the cessation of tongues in the fourth century was also absent from fringe
groups where there had been suspicion of continuing occurrence.
Clearly Chrysostom believed that tongues no longer existed, certainly in the
xenoglossolalic form that he understood to be the experience of the Apostles and
1 Corinthians.
(5) Augustine. (353-430).
In his commentary on 1 John 3:24 he states:
In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake with tongues”, which they
had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance”. These were signs adapted to the time. For there
behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to shew that the Gospel of God was to run
through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the
laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with
tongues? Or when we laid the hand on these infants [neophytes], did each one of you look to see whether they
would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so wrong-
minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with
tongues as was the case in those times?
(Cited in Hoekema 1966, 17).
Likewise Butler (1985, 25), Dillow (1975, 157), Edgar (1983, 233),
Gromacki (1972, 17) and Hinson (1967a, 52) all quote part of Augustine’s
comments on 1 John 3:24. Meyer (1975, 139) simply affirms the same
observation that tongues had passed away.
Butler makes an additional reference from Augustine’s Retractions in
which Augustine says, “Those that are baptised do not now receive the Spirit on
the imposition of hands, so as to speak in the tongues of all the peoples … and
other such things as were then done are now manifestly ceased” (1985, 25).
In later times (the above quote from 1 John 3:24 was about 390 A.D.)
Augustine cites miracles of the most incredible nature, seeming to contradict
himself (Dillow 1975, 158). And yet in his Retractions, which were written
towards the end of his life, he affirms the passing of miracles (Butler 1985, 25).
In contradiction of the statements in the Homilies on 1 John 3:24 and the
Retractions, Brumback (1947, 91) cites a reference purportedly from Augustine,
claiming that it was expected that “converts should speak with new tongues”. Both
Frodsham (1941, 254) and Sherrill (1964, 83) also refer to this quote, but no
documentation is given. In view of the documentation above, it does not seem
likely that the opposite is true (cf. Butler 1985, 26). In the unlikely event that the
contradictory statement was true, then in the context of Augustine’s expectations, it
would still be a xenoglossolalic expression.
Two things are clear from Augustine, firstly, that his understanding of
Apostolic tongues was that it was xenoglossolalic, and secondly, that by his time
it had “passed away”/“manifestly ceased”.
(6) Summary of Nicene and Post-Nicene Period.
Beyond the New Testament era, from Justin Martyr to Augustine, Butler
(1985, 26) concludes, “it is very clear that ‘the gifts of the Spirit’, as recorded in
the New Testament, had died out”. Hoekema (1966, 17) concludes, “… by the
time of Chrysostom there is no evidence of glossolalia in the Eastern Church, and
… by the time of Augustine there is no trace of tongue-speaking in the Western
Church”.
Gromacki (1972, 17) concludes emphatically, “there are no genuine cases
of glossolalia in the post-apostolic era. Speaking in tongues had definitely
ceased”.
And it could be added, that the understanding of tongues was generally
xenoglossolalic as it related to the Apostolic era, but it was not the two-stage gift
to the church.
5.4.9 MIDDLE AGES/RENAISSANCE

During the Dark Ages, there is no mention of tongues. Overall, the Middle Ages
“constituted a long millennium of darkness … here we are, dealing with so much that is
superstitious, mystical, inexplainable, awesome, weird, and monastic that one must be
extremely careful in ferreting out instances of deep-rooted New Testament spirituality,
and especially would that be true in the case of gifts” (Dollar 1963, 317). Cutten (1927,
40-41) comments on “the tendency of legends to increase in their miraculous features,
the further they are removed in time from the writer”. This seems to characterise the
reports of tongues-speaking, especially in this period.
(1) St. Hildegard (1098-1179).
A German abbess, Hildegard reportedly spoke in tongues, and although
uneducated, she could understand and interpret the (Vulgate) Scriptures without
having a grammatical knowledge of the Latin language (Cutten 1927, 41).
She supposedly spoke in a strange language, an unknown tongue, one record
being found in “Lingua Ignota” (Gromacki 1972, 18).
She not only spoke and wrote in this strange language, but also made a
German translation. Baring-Gould says of this effort, “She also pretended to
speak in an unknown tongue, and to be able to interpret this language. … It
presents an amusing jumble of words, German, Latin, and misunderstood
Hebrew” (cited in Cutten 1927, 41).
The reports are not authenticated, and the utterances are seen as “pretend”.
(2) St. Dominic (1170-1221).
Both Butler (1985, 28) and Dollar (1963, 317) simply comment in passing
that St. Dominic reportedly spoke in tongues, Dollar clarifying that this meant
“another language”.
(3) St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231).
He purportedly had a gift of languages to utilize in missionary work (Kaasa
1963, 157). Cutten (1927, 39) is more specific, suggesting that St. Anthony was
preaching in Rome, and all his audience heard in their own language, and many
testified to that. Evidently there was some miracle of hearing rather than of
languages.
At best, this was a case of “valid (one-stage) linguistic utterance” – but this
is not verified. Certainly it is not the two-stage gift to the church. More likely, it
was another “gift” altogether.
(4) St. Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274).
As opposed to using tongues or supporting its use, St. Thomas believed that
tongues had ceased and that anyone who spoke in tongues was demon-possessed
(Butler 1985, 28).
(5) Ange Clarénus.
Cutten (1927, 38-39) reports that during Christmas night in 1300, Clarénus
received knowledge of the Greek language, but he goes on to illustrate that
Clarénus prayed to be able to speak to some Germans in German “to the great
astonishment of these strangers”. This continued for four days.
This same thing happened to Clarénus at another time under similar
circumstances.
At best this is a case of a “valid linguistic utterance” – a one-stage
communication in a genuine language – but it is neither unintelligible
gobbledegook nor the two-stage gift to the church.
(6) St. Vincent Ferrier (1357-1419).
Like St. Anthony of Padua, some evidence is advanced that Ferrier was
involved in a miracle of hearing. One authority states:
While he always spoke the dialect of Valentia, his native place, all understood him as if he had spoken to each
in his own dialect. At Genoa he had for auditors Greeks, Germans, Sardes, Hungarians, and others who
understood only their mother tongue, and who, nevertheless, at the end of the sermon affirmed that they had
not lost a single word of it.
(Cited in Cutten 1927, 42)
Apparently this miracle of hearing was reciprocated when he
comprehended the Bretons who knew no language but their own (Cutten 1927,
42).
In addition, there are reports of his preaching in Latin, French, Spanish and
Italian (Cutten 1927, 42). The Catholic Encyclopaedia records that he was
“endowed with the gift of tongues”.
At best, Ferrier used xenoglossia as a “valid linguistic utterance” but not
the two-stage glossolalic gift to the church.
(7) St. Collette. (d. 1447).
Citing J.J. Görres, Hinson (1967a, 56) mentions that St. Collette was one of
several recipients of “the gift of (foreign) tongues”. No substantiation is given.
Assuming the report is accurate, it is at best xenoglossolalia in a one-stage
communication.
(8) General observations and summary.
Hinson (1967a, 56-7) refers to a list of recipients of the “gift of (foreign)
tongues” by Görres, and in addition to the above, adds St. Stephen (a missionary
to Georgia) and Jeanne of the Cross. The claim is for xenoglossia.
It has been noted that St. Thomas Aquinas attributed tongues-speaking to
demon-possession. Mackie (1921, 27-28) makes the observation:
Those who spoke in other tongues are eminent in the common mind of the Middle Ages for their saintly lives,
or for the fact of their servitude to the devil.
He adds, that scientists of the Renaissance were regarded as “being under a
special compact with the devil” (28). Fluency of speech was often seen as a sign
of possession by an evil spirit (29). Sometimes the ability to speak other
languages (not unintelligible utterances) was also seen as possession “analogous
to distemper” which could sometimes be remedied by the use of drugs (Mackie
1921, 29). Mackie cites the cases of Francis Maigret who was cured by drugs
from speaking “divers languages”, and an Italian who was medicinally cured from
speaking German (29).
Overall, Mackie (1921, 27) notes:
From patristic times until the power of the reformation had made itself distinctly felt the gift of tongues is an
almost forgotten phenomenon.
According to Knox, glossolalia was not a feature of any revival of
evangelical enthusiasm from Montanus to the end of the 17th century (noted in
Robinson 1972b, 3).
Hinson (1967a, 56) summarizes:
From the early fifth century through the entire medieval era, evidences for tongue speaking are scanty at best.
… The surprising thing, in view of the general credulity of the medieval era, is that there are so few reports
(italics his).
Of those few reports, it is clear that the expectancy was always
xenoglossolalic, and hence there is no conflict with either the possibility of
unintelligible utterance or the true two-stage gift to the church.
5.4.10 THE REFORMATION (1517-1648)

(1) Martin Luther (1483-1546).
Both Gromacki (1972, 19) and Butler (1985, 30) quote a statement from
Eric Sauer, cited by Thomas Zimmerman, general superintendent of the
Assemblies of God, in which Sauer says,
Dr. Martin Luther was a prophet, evangelist, speaker in tongues and interpreter, in one person, endowed with
all the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
However, there is no substantiation of this claim either from independent

evidence or from Luther’s own writings. Both Gromacki and Butler explain that
Sauer may have been referring to Luther’s ability to read and to speak German,
Latin, Greek and Hebrew.
It is instructive that Brumback (1947, 92), although an advocate of speaking
in tongues, hesitates to accept Sauer’s quotation as “conclusive evidence”
concerning Luther’s position on tongues.
There is nothing prescriptive or descriptive from Luther.
(2) Francis Xavier (1506-1552).
Cutten (1927, 39) quotes (without acknowledgment) from a source claiming
that Xavier “spoke the languages of people to whom he announced the Gospel as
easily as if he was born among them”. In addition, it was claimed that Xavier
simultaneously spoke to men of different nations, who each understood in his own
language – a miracle of hearing (Cutten 1927, 39).
Another reference (from A. Butler) claims that Xavier
spoke very well the language of those barbarians without having learned it, and had no need of an interpreter
… God restored to St. Francis the gift of tongues; for he preached often to Chinese merchants … in their
mother-tongue, which he had never learned.
(Cutten 1927, 43).
Overall Xavier is claimed to have widely used tongues, especially to
Indians, Chinese and Japanese (cf. Hoekema 1966, 18). Supposedly Xavier
himself claimed the ability to speak to the people of India (Dollar 1963, 318).
Against this, other reports stress the difficulty he had in learning the
languages (Butler 1985, 30). Gromacki (1972, 19) points out that he devoted his
entire first year of service to learning the Japanese language.
Xavier himself refers to his difficulties in an article quoted by Cutten
(1927, 43-44):
Throughout his letters, from first to last, Xavier constantly dwells upon his difficulties with the various
languages of the different tribes among whom he went. He tells us how he surmounted these difficulties:
sometimes by learning just enough of a language to translate into it some of the main Church formulas;
sometimes by getting the help of others to patch together some pious teachings to be learned by rote;
sometimes by employing interpreters; and sometimes by mixture of various dialects, and even by signs. On one
occasion he tells us that a very serious difficulty arose, and that his voyage to China was delayed because,
among other things, the interpreter he had engaged had failed to meet him.

Historian Joseph Acosta states that Xavier had to work very hard to master
the Japanese language (and others) (noted in Hoekema 1966, 19).
Evidently, the example of Xavier is a clear case of embellishment of the
history of the saints (Hoekema 1966, 19), an example of “the growth of a legend
without any basis of fact in life experience” (Cutten 1927, 43).
One legend was given by papal declaration, and “solemnly ordered the
world, under pain of damnation, to believe in Xavier’s miracles, including his
‘gift of tongues’” (cited in Cutten 1927, 44).
Later Roman Catholic leaders maintained the legend. Further Bouhours
says:
He preached in the afternoon to the Japanese in their language, but so naturally and with so much ease that he
could not be taken for a foreigner.
(Cited in Cutten 1927, 45).
In 1872, Father Coleridge wrote:
He spoke freely, flowingly, elegantly, as if he had lived in Japan all his life.
(Cited in Cutten 1927, 45).
At best, one can allow the observation of Kaasa (1963, 157) that this was a
case of “valid linguistic utterance” – the gift of languages to be utilized in
missionary work. This may be charitable, but Edgar concludes bluntly that Xavier
“had no miraculous ability to speak other languages” (1983, 235).
Even if St. Francis Xavier experienced xenoglossia, it was a one-stage
communication. He knew nothing of the two-stage gift for the church.
(3) St. Louis Bertrand (1526-81).
Hoekema (1966, 18) reports that Bertrand was supposedly used to achieve
the conversion of 30,000 South American Indians (of various tribes and dialects)
through the gift of tongues.
Even if this could be substantiated, it is still only a xenoglossolalic
experience, certainly not unintelligible gibberish, or the two-stage gift for the
church.
(4) Carmelites of Loudun. (1626).
Mackie (1921, 58) gives extensive treatment to the claims of tongues
amongst the “Devils of Loudun” noting that “the ability to speak in other languages
is much in evidence as a sign of demon possession”.
At least one can note that the expectancy of tongues was xenoglossolalic,
even if it had no correlation with any gift of God.
(5) Summary of the Reformation Period.
Hoekema (1966, 19) is quite sweeping in his conclusion:
At the time of the Reformation some of the best minds of Europe searched the Scriptures diligently to
rediscover the New Testament patterns of doctrine and life. No one of the Reformers, however, found that
tongue-speaking belonged to the normal gifts God had permanently bestowed on the church.
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.
5.4.11 POST-REFORMATION PERIOD (1648-1900)

Following the Reformation, and partly as an extension of the protestant attitude,
more new denominations and sectarian groups developed. One of the marks of
professed authenticity was the claim to speak in tongues – hence tongues became a
hallmark of many post-Reformation movements.
The paucity of evidence makes any conclusion very difficult in regard to many of
the groups in the Post-Reformation period.
(1) Quakers (from 1640’s).
Gromacki (1972, 21) simply notes that speaking in tongues was “reported”
as occurring among the Quakers. They promoted the supremacy of the Holy Spirit
over the Bible leading to a position in which experience sat in judgement on the
Bible (Gromacki 1972, 21). Such a position left them open to subjective
experience, including tongues.
Butler (1985, 31) reports that the Quaker movement experienced
charismatic phenomena, and this “probably” included tongues.
Hinson (1967a, 63) makes a similar comment to Butler, enlarging on the
range of phenomena, but going beyond anything “charismatic”. He includes
groaning, quaking or trembling, weeping, foaming at the mouth, fainting, and
jerking spasms. However, he notes that the Quakers themselves “minimized
glossolalia” putting a greater emphasis on intelligible prophecy (64). At least that
suggests an acknowledgement by the Quakers of the existence of tongues among
them.
However, Cutten states that the early Quakers (at least) made no claim to
tongues.
There is no certainty that tongues occurred, and certainly there is even less
clarity about the nature of tongues.
(2) Ranters (from 1650’s).
This group was not Christian in any sense of the word (Edgar 1985, 248).
Writers from the Ranter movement give evidence of their being pantheistic and
antinomian, resulting in moral problems, and they exalted their own inner light
above the Scriptures (Edgar 1985, 247). They also made open professions of
lewdness and irreligion (247).
There is no clear evidence of any phenomena akin to tongues, and certainly
nothing related to the biblical gift of tongues.
(3) Camisards (1685-1710).
Following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV in 1685, there
was a fresh persecution of the French Huguenots (Hinson 1967a, 59). They
resisted, at first quietly and then violently, and this generated further suppression
and counter violence (Hinson 1967a. 59-60).
Some of the strongest resistance came from among the peasants of
Languedoc province in the Cévennes Mountains, who maintained their right to
worship according to the dictates of conscience (Hinson 1967a, 60).
Under the stressful conditions of poverty and terror, they had the nervous
condition to experience the “well-known phenomenon of psychic contagion”
(Cutten 1927, 54). This religious hysteria resulted in Cévenol peasants hearing the
singing of psalms in the air (Hinson 1967a, 60). Other miracles reported were
lights in the sky, voices singing to them, shedding tears of blood, harps in the sky,
stars guiding people to worship (Edgar 1983, 236-7).
In support of these experiences came more tangible evidence in the form of
prophetic inspiration.
Among the first to make this boast was a young girl Isabeau Vincent, who, in
1688, was seized by an ecstatic trance in which she prophesied for hours in
perfectly cultivated French, whereas she was only familiar with native patois
(Hinson 1967a, 60). Kelsey claims that Vincent was 10 years old (cited in
Gromacki 1972, 20) whilst Kidahl states she was 12 (cited in Meyer 1975, 139).
This precipitated the appearance of no less than a thousand prophets before
the end of the first year after Vincent’s utterances, in Languedoc alone (Cutten
1927, 54). Another example states that “an entire city, in which all the women and
girls, without exception, appeared possessed by the devil; they quaked and
prophesied in the streets” (cited in Cutten 1927, 55). Other reports suggested eight

thousand persons in one province had the inspiration, and five or six hundred
prophets (of both sexes) in another area (Cutten 1927, 55).
Edgar (1983, 236) points out that it is doubtful that the movement was
spontaneous, since a book by Pierre Jurieus stimulated people to expect it, and it
was communicated to the young by such men as DuSerre. DuSerre is credited with
starting the contagion that produced the eight thousand prophets of Languedoc,
mentioned above (Mackie 1921, 71).
There was evidence of extreme youth involvement, including “a Child in the
Cradle of about fourteen or fifteen months old” (cited in Mackie 1921, 71). Soon
children all over the Cévennes were seized by the “Spirit”, with children as
young as three exhorting the people in religious discourses (Gromacki 1972, 21).
Supposedly the gift of tongues took place while the speaker was in a trance
(Butler 1985, 32) as the prophecy was uttered.
The typical modus operandi of this induced contagion is described in a
quote by Mackie (1921, 71-2).
They turn’d round with great Violence, till being quite giddy they fell upon the Floor. When so fallen, they roll’d
their Eyes frightfully, look’d wild and ghastly, work’d their lips in divers Figures, drivel’d and foam’d at the
Mouth, held their Breaths, heav’d their Breasts, puff’d and swell’d their Throats, and sometimes lay as if they
were in a Trance. Then on a sudden they would start up, shake their Heads, Gulp, and Hiccup Stangely, clap
their Hands, move their Feet oddly, shake their whole Bodies into Contortions, in the nature of Convulsions.
Then they would quake, groan, laugh, belch, sigh, sing, shriek hideously; and at last, stretching their Mouths
open, in a yawning, distorted, dreadful manner, in a doleful Tone, and as loud as they were able, would utter
their Prophecies.
These bizarre contortions hardly portrayed Holy Spirit inspiration.
In addition, the emotional excesses resulted in much immorality – “the
vagaries in the vita sexualis … an invariable associate of the tongues movement”
(Mackie 1921, 80). One Romish writer referred to the meetings as “being no
better than Stews or Public Places of Prostitution, as manifestly appear’d by their
Incests, Adulteries, Fornications” (cited in Mackie 1921, 80-1).
Supposedly the glossolalia of the Camisards was in “unusually clear
speech” (Lake 1927, 245). Isabeau Vincent spoke in “perfectly cultivated French”
(Hinson 1967a, 60). Others spoke in French and Latin (Mackie 1921, 78), as well
as Hebrew and native languages (Edgar 1983, 236).
Over against this Mackie (1921, 79) speaks of “unintelligible vociferation”
citing a study giving a transliterated message that was sometimes mixed with poor
French. Clemen (1898, 350) notes that the utterances were often inarticulate
sounds or newly created words supposedly belonging to unknown languages.
Overall, “the testimony is consistent that the so-called glossolalia was
reputed to be in normal languages and connected with prophecy rather than the gift
of tongues” (Edgar 1983, 237). Mackie (1921, 75) agrees that the issue was more
a matter of prophecies, even if they were unfulfilled!
The resistance stopped in 1709 (Norman 1974, 184), 1710 (Hinson 1967a,
61) or 1711 (Kildahl in Meyer 1975, 139).
Psychiatrist A.T. Schofield in a landmark book in 1908 concludes that the
Camisards were “earnest Christians, deceived and deluded by lying spirits, which
they firmly believed was the Holy Spirit of God” (1965 edn, 53). Perhaps he is
being very charitable, and Edgar (1983, 238) notes that they are “non-biblical” in
many aspects, raising doubt about any claim to biblical glossolalia.
At best, it can be concluded that there were some cases of xenoglossia,
even if it served no clear purpose.
At worst, there was much “devilish delusion”.
In the middle there was a large amount of psychic contagion of some
cathartic benefit.
Overall, unintelligible utterance was not equated with tongues (Edgar 1983,
238), but the experience (even if xenoglossia) did not equate to Corinthian
glossolalia – a gift for the church.
(4) Salem Witch Trials (1692-3).
The hysteria associated with the execution of thirty-two witches in 1692-3
resulted in children shouting hysterically and singing glossolalically (Bergsma
1965, 8). No evidence is given or purpose served, and certainly the context
precludes any two-stage Corinthian gift.
(5) Jansenists (1730’s).
The Jansenists were a fanatical reform movement within the Roman
Catholic Church in France, arising in 1731 (Clemen 1898, 350; Gromacki 1972,
21).
They were the first sect of modern times to exhibit Pentecostal behaviour in
the sense of ecstatic unintelligible utterances (cf. Bergsma 1965, 8). They
believed (like the Camisards) that their organs of speech were controlled
externally, so that they were not conscious of their words until they heard
themselves speak (Clemen 1898, 350). Clemen continues, noting that at times they
retained full consciousness, and after the ecstasies were finished they could
correct and complete the speeches recorded by the hearers, remembering exactly
what they had said and done. He then adds, that after the paroxysms were over, in
most cases they were in absolute ignorance, or had only incomplete knowledge of
what they had spoken. The distinction is not particularly clear. Finally, Clemen
says that they also made use of entirely senseless sound-combinations, supposedly
words from foreign languages.
The picture is not at all clear or complete. There appears to be a mixture of
xenoglossia and also unintelligible utterance.
Other authors report the purported occurrence of glossolalia variously:
Meyer (1975, 139) reports it as a fact; Gromacki (1972, 21) says that glossolalia
has been “attributed” to them; whilst Robinson (1972b, 3) states that it has been
“authenticated” among them.
Irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the utterances, the movement
itself was condemned by Rome (Butler 1985, 31).
Overall, the Jansenists give no clear picture of their verbal utterances.
Some type of xenoglossia seems to be revealed by Clemen’s report, and certainly
some unintelligible utterance. Nothing more.
(6) Convulsionaires.
They were the successors of the Jansenists who reportedly spoke in tongues
in an unconscious state, but who remembered nothing afterwards in their normal
state (Butler 1985, 31). Nothing more is reported about the nature and purpose of
the utterances.
The movement ended in discredit (Douglas 1974, 260).
(7) Wesley and the Methodists.
Citing Schaff, Gromacki simply states that speaking in tongues was reported
to have taken place, inter alia, among the early Methodists (1972, 23).
On the contrary, Criswell (1973, 123-4) notes that although John Wesley
might describe his Aldersgate experience, yet he will never approach “such a
thing as speaking in tongues”. Equally Wesley might report that adults and
children fell under the power of the Spirit, and “shrieked, swooned, fell to the
floor as if dead, babbled senselessly …” (Hinson 1967a, 64). However, there is
no reference to tongues-speaking, and Wesley doubted that the phenomena were
genuine (Edgar 1983, 249). There was no glossolalia involved, nor were the
utterances edifying.
Like Wesley, Whitefield also denied tongues: “I never did pretend to these
extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking in tongues” (cited in
Chantry 1976, 142).
More specifically, Wesley denied the operation of spiritual gifts generally,
in his day:
The cause of their decline was not, as has been vulgarly supposed, because there is no more need of them,
because all the world were become Christians … the real cause was: the love of many, almost all Christians so
called, was waxed cold … this was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no
longer to be found in the Christian Church: because the Christians were turned heathen again and had only a
dead form left.
(Cited in Butler 1985, 33)
Forster (1972, 7) notes that there may be some allusions to glossolalia in

Wesley’s Journal, but it is doubtful, partly because he did not have the vocabulary
of modern (1972) Pentecostalism to describe it, nor the expectation of that
experience. Even reports of strong cries (and tears) or cries of anguish from those
under conviction, does not equate to tongues.
Among Methodists at large, there was the expectation of God’s blessing in
greater devotion to Him, and in this context the “baptism of the Spirit” was used
(Forster 1972, 7), but not tongues.
“Wesley did not know of glossolalia, he neither encouraged nor taught it”
(Forster 1972, 7).
(8) Shakers. (From 1747).
The Shakers mixed “ecstatic dancing, stamping, jumping, turning and
shaking with speaking in tongues” and worshipped amid a “scene of awful riot
and confusion” (Bergsma 1965, 8). Mother Lee, the founder, was supposedly the
“female principle in Christ” leading to sexual connotations. She was reportedly
an angel of light or a grossly immoral woman (Mackie 1921, 89). Certainly there
were accounts of a series of charges of drunkenness, unnatural sexual practices
and obscenities – that Mother Ann was a prostitute and suffered venereal disease
(Mackie 1921, 89, 94). In the context indicated, any claim to speaking in tongues
is suspect, and hardly biblical. Yet it was among the first of the charismata to be
claimed by the Shakers (Mackie 1921, 116). Like the Irvingites, tongues found the
“most patronage among the sisters, and those brethren who are distinguished for
their garrulity” (Cutten 1927, 79).
There were claims that the languages spoken were a mixture of Hebrew,
Greek and Latin (Mackie 1921, 121) or the singing and dancing of a departed
Indian chief (Cutten 1927, 81). Mary Hocknell recalls an occasion when Mother
Lee spoke in twelve different languages (including French, Hebrew, Greek and
Latin) many of them reportedly understood by those present (Mackie 1921, 86).
Mother Lee claimed to speak in seventy-two languages (Dollar 1963, 320).
All this occurred in a group that was encouraged to practice bathing naked
(claimed as a gift), indiscreet touching, naked flagellation, sodomy, bestiality and
other immoral behaviour (Mackie 1921, 97-102). In addition there were a range
of uncontrolled emotional excesses: “yelling, screaming, shouting, shaking …
thumping … a perfect bedlam” (Mackie 1921, 112), as well as the “jerks” (115),
the “laughing gift” (116), and “gifts of mortification, to bark like a dog, and crow
like a cock, make a noise like a squirrel, and mew like a cat” (121), or even to be
struck dumb for up to two weeks (115). These latter are reminiscent of the modern
phenomena of the “Toronto Blessing” (e.g. Roberts 1994, 13, 15, 18, etc.).
Doctrinally the Shakers were astray, Ann Lee teaching that Jesus was not the
incarnate God-man and that she herself was the fulfilment of Christ’s second
coming (Butler 1985, 35), and that Christ’s kingdom on earth began with the
Shaker church (Gromacki 1972, 22).
This was not a Christian group, although much of their phenomena are
similar to today’s charismatic movement (Edgar 1983, 246-7). They ended up as a
small band of eccentrics with no power or influence (Butler 1985, 35).
Even if one allows for some xenoglossolalic type of experience, there is no
parallel with the spiritual gifts of the New Testament in a two-stage operation for
the church.
(9) Irvingites (from the 1820’s).
The common view is that Irving himself never spoke in tongues. Butler
(1985, 38) states that when he died at the age of forty-two, he had “never
experienced the satisfaction of speaking in tongues”. Likewise Cutten (1927, 168)
and Robinson (1972b, 3) confirm this position. Dallimore (1983, 116) goes a
little further to indicate that Irving had received no charismatic gift of any kind.
Robinson (1972b, 3) suggests that the Irvingites were the first to
demonstrate glossolalia in modern times – unless the claims of the Jansenists are
allowed.
Irving himself had no doubt that tongues were actual languages (Dallimore
1983, 111, 115, 116). Lake (1927, 245) dismisses Irvingite “glossolalia” as
“purely unintelligible”.
The position is a little confusing, since they apparently made a distinction
between Pentecostal glossolalia (in foreign languages) and Corinthian glossolalia
(in ecstatic, unknown languages) – but they only practiced the latter (Gromacki
1972, 22).
The theory was that real languages were expected. Glossolalia was
supposedly a demonstration of the Spirit as a sign of the imminent end of the
world (Dallimore 1983, 69, 85, 115). The message of Christianity would be
hastened throughout the world through unlearned foreign languages, consequently
Mary Campbell was certain that she needed no language study (along with other
missionary candidates) but only needed to “step into the field” depending on God
(Dallimore 1983, 115). She made some incomprehensible sounds which she
announced were a language from the South Pacific, but this was never proven and
she never became a missionary (cf. Butler 1985, 37).
Some examples of people speaking in tongues are reported, but they are not
well attested (Dallimore 1983, 111, 112, 114).
However, there are more questions than answers about the reported
occurrences. Dallimore (1983, 113) notes that the ability was preceded by a
“highly roused condition”. They were unintelligible sounds (contrary to the
theoretical expectancy) and were followed by “interpretations” in English (114).
According to Irving himself, they were “largely an induced and cultivated skill”
(114). Clemen (1898, 350) says that the phenomenon was very artificial from the
beginning.
Supposedly the Holy Spirit took possession of their vocal organs and used
them (Bergsma 1965, 8) making them speak in a tongue or sometimes sing in a
tongue (Dallimore 1983, 113). However, George Pilkington who had been
involved in the Irvingite work, doubted the veracity of the experience and branded
it a delusion and left the movement. Others believed the tongues were of a merely
human origin (Dallimore 1983, 121). Clemen (1898, 35) concludes that there
were no “unknown languages” but “senseless combinations of sounds”. Citing
several banal examples of purported tongues, Butler (1985, 37, 39) concludes: “It
is blasphemous nonsense”.
In part the whole experience was discredited by the swoons, shrieks, groans
and bedlam in the frequent references to “silly women” (Cutten 1927, 98-9).
Cutten also notes that in all forms of nervous instability females predominate, and
in hysteria they are in a proportion of twenty females to one male (159). In
modern tongues women are also more numerous (159). In his historical account
Dallimore coincidently reports the extensive involvement of women in ecstatic
experiences and purported tongues in the movement (1983, 99-122) and that a
certain Mary Campbell was the first tongues-speaker, claiming it to be a known
language although it was incomprehensible (104).
Overall, there is nothing decisive about the claims for tongues amongst the
Irvingites.
(10) Charles Finney (1792–825), D.L. Moody (1837–1899), R.A. Torrey (1956–
1928).
Without any substantiation, Forster (1972a, 7) states that “There is good
evidence that the American evangelists Finney, Moody and Torrey spoke in
tongues”. Gromacki counters this claim, stating that the evidence is poor
(referring to Moody and Finney), and that there is no record that Moody or Finney
engaged in tongues-speaking (1972, 23). Significantly, Pentecostal writer Carl
Brumback denies “the evidential value of such claims” (Gromacki 1972, 23fn.).
Criswell (1973, 124) states quite emphatically:
Charles G. Finney will write in his famous Autobiography the fillings of the Holy Spirit that came in waves
over his soul, but never will he intimate that he spoke in tongues. Dwight L. Moody will describe his marvellous
infilling of love that swept his very being, but never does he suggest that he spoke in tongues. R.A. Torrey will
write in a book on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but his words of experience are pointedly directed against
glossolalia.
In the absence of clear evidence, there is no case for tongues by these
evangelists, and hence there is no information about the nature and purpose of
tongues.
(11) Mormons (Joseph Smith 1805-1844).
Article 7 of Smith’s summary of doctrine states, “We believe in the gift of
tongues … and … the interpretation of tongues” (cited in Butler 1985, 40).
Their practice was completely artificial and organized, someone being
detailed to speak: “Father so-and-so, rise in the name of Jesus Christ. Make some
sound without thought, continue to make sounds and the Lord will make a language
from them” (cited in Butler 1985, 40). There would be no excitement, and the
person would arise and in a perfectly cool manner speak syllables which had no
meaning in English, although they were English syllables (Cutten 1927, 174).
Bach (1969, 112), from a distinctly Pentecostal position, cites a telling negation
of any Holy Spirit involvement in tongues, in recounting the perfunctory
experience of one Mormon student. The student claimed that when he spoke in
tongues he was completely conscious of what he was doing and he did not believe
the Holy Spirit had anything to do with it. He added, “It is just a way of
expressing something I feel that can’t be put into words” (Bach 1969, 112).
Bergsma (1965, 8) refers to the extensive treatment of Mormons by Mackie
(1921) to conclude with Cutten (1927, 73) that those who spoke in the purported
tongues were the most illiterate and ignorant “among the saints”. They used
inarticulate sounds in place of words because of their inadequacy in speech
(Cutten 1927, 74) and the purported interpretation is a most “haphazard affair”
(75).
There is nothing of substance to commend the reports of tongues as reliable
or instructive.
(12) Miscellaneous.
There are many references to groups who supposedly experienced tongues,
but they are usually very vague reports, they are not substantiated, and they do not
give any definition and description of the nature or purpose of tongues. Among
those groups or sects are the Campbellites (Bergsma 1965, 8); revivals in
Norway and Sweden in 1841-43 in which children from four to twelve years
spoke in tongues (Bergsma 1965, 8); the Irish revival (1859), experiences in
England (1873), Switzerland, Estonia and Germany (1885), and among Seventh
Day Adventists (1975) (Butler 1985, 41); as well as the Jamaican revival of 1860
(Wedenoja 1980, 29).
(13) Summary of Post Reformation Period.
Reports of this period are very sketchy and inadequate. However, it must be
allowed that there is some ground for allowing a mixture of xenoglossia and also,
for the first time, unintelligible utterances among the Camisards, Jansenists,
Shakers and Irvingites. Nevertheless there is nothing clearly instructive about the
nature of the experiences, except that xenoglossia is purportedly speaking in
foreign languages as a one-stage utterance.
There is no conflict with or evidence of the Corinthian two-stage gift for the
church.
5.4.12 MODERN PERIOD (1900-)

(1) Introduction.
The modern period is premised upon two particular events, the Topeka
experience and the Azusa Street Mission. In turn these events have precursors
back into the nineteenth century as noted in the “Definitions” at Chapter 2.6, as
well as in the “Historic Antecedents” in Chapter 4.7.2.
The two events blossom into the clearly identifiable Pentecostal, neo-
Pentecostal/Charismatic, and Third Wave movements. Alongside these
mainstream movements are a myriad of other groups and sects claiming some sort
of verbal utterance experience that has often been assumed to be glossolalic.
Hence it is only possible to give a broad overview of this period.
(2) Bethel Bible College – Topeka, Kansas (1900).
Charles Parham (1873-1929), called the “father of the modern Pentecostal
movement”, established the Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, in 1900
(Gaede 1989, 77; Gromacki 1972, 25). The students were set the task of
researching the question, “What is the Bible evidence of the baptism of the Holy
Ghost?” The unanimous agreement was that speaking in tongues was that evidence
(Gromacki 1972, 25). Subsequently the students gave a concerted effort to
achieve the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues (25).
On New Year’s Eve, Parham returned from a speaking engagement to find
the students and some visitors in “the top room” praying. He was surprised to see
tongues of fire dancing above the heads of the students (Valdez 1980, 15). Agnes
Ozman asked Parham to lay hands on her so that she could receive the Holy Spirit,
which he did reluctantly, since he himself had not received the baptism (15). A
halo of light formed around her head and a “stream of exotic words poured out of
her mouth” (Valdez 1980, 15). She was not the first person to speak in tongues in
modern times, but she was the first person to speak in tongues after specifically
seeking the baptism of the Holy Spirit with tongues as evidence (Gromacki 1972,
25). This became the premise for the Pentecostal movement (25-26).
After the initial utterances, Ozman spoke only Chinese for three days
(Valdez 1980, 15). Parham also sought the blessing, and claims to have spoken in
a foreign language (15). Most of the students soon followed, speaking in
languages they had not learned (15).
The verbal utterance of Ozman was accompanied by writing, in which she
reportedly produced Chinese characters – which was verified by experts, as was
Parham’s language – namely Swedish (Valdez 1980, 16).
In addition, Ozman claimed to talk in several languages, being able to
discern when she was speaking a new dialect (her own testimony cited in Bruner
1970, 120). Collectively, the students claimed to speak twenty-one known
languages, including French, German, Swedish, Bohemian, Chinese, Japanese,
Hungarian, Bulgarian, Russian, Italian, Spanish and Norwegian (Synan 1971,
102).
Clearly these experiences under the teaching of Parham “laid the
doctrinal and experimental foundations of the modern Pentecostal movement”
(claimed by Synan 1971, 99, Assistant General Superintendent of the Pentecostal
Holiness Church).
The foundational expectancy was clearly xenoglossia, and Parham
immediately began to teach that missionaries would no longer be compelled to
study foreign languages to preach on mission fields (Synan 1971, 102).
In an unprecedented way, this new movement made an elitist claim that
The only biblical evidence that one had received the “baptism” was the act of speaking with other tongues as
the 120 disciples had done on the day of Pentecost.
(Synan 1971, 104).
According to that claim, for 1900 years there had been no true believers!
Without regard for the gift of tongues as a specific two-stage communication
for the church, the Topeka experience established a clear claim for
xenoglossolalic experience, even if it was not effectual for missionary service
(see Chapter 5.2.2 re “Genuine Language”) nor did it evidently serve a purpose

for the church, except to purportedly give individual believers a personal
assurance of baptism in the Holy Spirit.
(3) Azusa Street.
Charles Parham closed his bible school at Topeka, Kansas, and by 1905
moved his headquarters to Houston, Texas, where he opened another bible school
(Synan 1971, 103). At this school W.J. Seymour learned of the new holiness
teaching concerning sanctification as a “third experience” and the baptism as a
“second blessing” (Synan 1971, 103-4).
By personal invitation, Seymour, “dirty and collarless”, preached in Los
Angeles, finally moving to larger quarters at 312 Azusa Street (Synan 1971, 105-
6). Seymour pursued a typical holiness teaching, forecasting “awful destruction”
unless the city turned to his teaching (107). Soon all manner of phenomena
appeared: shouting, weeping, dancing, falling into trances, speaking and singing in
tongues with interpretation into English (Synan 1971, 108).
Initially the expectancy of tongues was xenoglossolalic. Synan (1971, 110)
reports that an Anna Hall spoke in Russian in a Russian church, to which the
hearers responded.
Subsequently much emotionalism and enthusiasm infiltrated the meetings,
resulting in physical demonstrations like the “jerks” and “treeing the devil” (from
the old Cane Ridge revivals) (Synan 1971, 110). Parham received reports that
“all the stunts common in old camp meetings among coloured folks” were being
replicated at Azusa Street; “white people [were] imitating [the] unintelligent,
crude negroisms of the Southland, and laying it on the Holy Ghost” (Synan 1971,
110).
Meanwhile, Parham’s expectancy of xenoglossia for missionary experience
had met with failure in India (Synan 1971, 111). This failure seemed to open the
way for a change in experience, and when Parham visited Azusa Street he found
“chattering, jabbering and sputtering, speaking in no language at all” (Synan 1971,
112).
Parham denounced this change (and Seymour’s leadership) as a case of
“spiritual power prostituted” to the “awful fits and spasms” of the “holy rollers
and hypnotists” (Synan 1971, 112).
Interestingly, in 1905, A.T. Schofield reported on futile attempts at
xenoglossolalic missionary experience expected from the Irvingites (Schofield
1965, 56). That experiment had already failed, only to be repeated by A.G. Garr
from Azusa Street, who was also in India, and he was also met by failure (Synan
1971, 111).
Clearly the original expectation at Azusa Street was the same as the Bethel
College experience: xenoglossia. However, at Azusa Street there was a change,
leading to unintelligible ecstatic utterance, which soon became the “norm”.
Such a change caused the concept of speaking in tongues to fall into
disrepute. By 1927 Cutten commented, “None of the large Christian
denominations now attempts to cultivate this experience” (1927, 7). Two years
later, the Expository Times (1929, 4) reported that
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 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.
Against these developments, it is significant to recall the statements made
earlier concerning Azusa Street:
Both black and white Pentecostalism in America can be traced back to the little band of black believers who
met in a storefront church on Azusa Street in Los Angeles in 1906. Nearly every charismatic denomination in
this country can trace its beginnings back to that black church setting. Whatever its biblical base or lack of it,
Pentecostalism derives from black people in an immediate, although not exclusive, sense.
(Tinney 1871, 4).
Synan (1971, 114) affirms this position:
The Azusa Street revival is commonly regarded as the beginning of the modern pentecostal movement. …
Directly or indirectly, practically all of the pentecostal groups in existence can trace their lineage to the Azusa
Mission.
Overall, Azusa Street provides a background of broadly documented
examples of xenoglossia, but a movement towards unintelligible utterance that has
marked subsequent Pentecostal and charismatic experience.
However, there is nothing that approximates to the two-stage composite gift
given to the Corinthian church.
(4) Variegated Experiences.

With the lack of any adequate definition of glossolalia, and without regard
to the true source and biblical purpose of tongues, a wide variety of experiences
are advanced as evidence of “glossolalia”. The following lists some reported
examples. Some cases have already been noted in Chapter 5.2.2.
· Welsh revivalists (1904).
Bruner (1970, 46) sees the Welsh revival more from the perspective of a bridging
gap between holiness groups in many countries and the Pentecostal movement,
rather than for any significance in tongues. Bergsma (1965, 8) notes that the Welsh
revivalists, like several other groups, believed that the Holy Spirit took
possession of their vocal chords, Synan (1971, 99) adding that they practised
xenoglossia (Old Welsh).
· Apostolic Faith Movement (1910) – stressed glossolalia (Bergsma 1965, 8).
· Snake Handlers of Kentucky and Tennessee – heard by Bach using “glossolalia”
(1969, 112).
· Spiritualistic centres in Lily Dale, New York and Chesterfield , Indiana. Psychic
influences were claimed by the leaders enabling them to speak in known and
unknown languages during séances (Bach 1969, 112).
· Colombian revival – resulting in spontaneous tongues followed by the gift of
interpretation (Wagner 1973, 153-4).
· Hindu priests in Bali – often practise tongues in an unconscious state
(Scheumemann (1984, 134).
· Fon and Yoruba convicts – when possessed spoke in foreign languages,
subsequently having to relearn their own language (Tippet 1976, 163).
· Haitian voodoo. Consulting psychologist, Henri Yaker, notes the evidence of
group psychopathology manifest in the “cultural schizophrenia” of Pentecostal
experience and also displayed in voodoo which elevates the satanic (Yaker 1963,
17). Personality traits may be manifest in this form of “glossolalia” (Hasel 1991,
25) as xenoglossia occurs using a “syncretistic speech of African, Indian and
Spanish” (Tippett 1976, 156), or as Bourguignon discovered, in “English, French
and Spanish as well as phonations frustes” (noted by Tippett 1976, 163).
· Spiritualism – displays a range of charismatic phenomena including speaking in
tongues, using languages of ancient and modern societies and also “Martian and
Saturnian” (presumably from inhabitants of Mars and Saturn) (Butler 1985, 45).
Mackie (1921, 53) notes that the same phenomena are present with spiritualism
and tongues-speakers enabling both to be classed together.
· Trance preaching (c.f. automatic writing). Mackie (1921, 354-5) gives a typical
example of Rachel Baker, who in a state of ill-health would preach in ecstasy. Her
sermons were reported by a stenographer and published.
· Mediumistic utterances – have occurred in Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, Spanish,
French, Latin and Hebrew (Mackie 1921, 55).
· Coast Salish spirit dancers – can speak a foreign language in a trance or hypnotic
state (Amoss 1978, 137).
· Cultic groups in Hokkaido (Japan) – use “glossolalia” in “sorcerous séances”
(Hasel 1991, 25).

· The zar cult of Ethiopia – uses a “secret language” in spirit-worship (Hasel
1991,25).
· Dervishes of Persia (within Mohammedanism). Stolee reports the preaching of
moral sermons in an ecstatic state (noted in Gromacki 1972, 9).
· Eskimos in Greenland – reported to have engaged in glossolalia (Gromacki
1972, 9) during services conducted with drum beating, singing, dancing, nudity of
both sexes, and with attempts to contact the nether world.
· Tibetan monks – in their ritual dances “speak in English with quotations from
Shakespeare, with profanity like drunken sailors, or in German or French, or in
languages unknown” (cited in Gromacki 1972, 9).
· Tungus of Manchuria. Eliade reports babbling in “incoherent words” at the
initiation of shamans (reported in Edgar 1983, 255).
· Semang Pygmy – the hala talk with the Cenoi (celestial spirits) in their language
(cited in Edgar 1983, 255).
· Batak shaman – use the “language of the spirits” during séances (cited in Edgar
1983, 255).
· Primitive Baptists of Nacogdoches, Texas. Tongues were recorded during foot-
washing ceremonies (Bach 1969, 112).
· Frobiand Islanders. Goodman reports tongues (“similar to the Pentecostal type”)
uttered in a loud and high-pitched tone when speaking to the spirits (reported in
Edgar 1983, 255-6).
· Sufi of Islam. They continued a “tradition of God’s unintelligible speech”,
comparable to tongues (Kelsey 1968, 143).
(5) Pentecostal, neo-Pentecostal, Third Wave.
Blossoming from the Bethel Bible College and Azusa Street experiences
noted above, the full range of modern Pentecostal experience has occurred. It has
broadened from the holiness churches to new Pentecostal churches, and then
infiltrated all the denominations and interdenominational groups (c.f. Hitt 1963,
11).
Having already addressed these three phases previously, there is no further
need for development here, except to note the widespread expectancy and
occurrence of speaking in tongues as a most significant part of this historic
scenario, and with a large increase in unintelligible utterance, with or without
some form of ecstasy (see Chapter 4.7).
(6) Summary of the Modern Period.

Generally speaking, it is clear that the majority expectancy, from early
Pentecostalism even to spirit-possessed utterances, was for some form of
xenoglossolalic utterance. In the modern period there has been an increase in
unintelligible utterance, especially in the Pentecostal and charismatic experience.
This is a telling commentary on the lack (or complete absence) of adequate
definition of true biblical glossolalia. One of the charismata – speaking in tongues
– has been lost in a morass of secular and heathen experience.
5.4.13 SUMMARY OF EXTRA-BIBLICAL GLOSSOLALIA

In the introduction for this section (at 5.4.1 Introduction) the definition thus far for
true biblical glossolalia was reiterated to highlight the divergence of views and
accommodating arguments that are advanced for a broad continuum of utterances.
Overall, the “paucity of references to glossolalia in both the Bible and church
history, along with the devaluation of glossolalia by Paul, indicates that speaking in
tongues is not a primary gift of the Holy Spirit and is not an essential part of the
Christian life” (Meeks 1977, 77). Ronald Knox, in his significant book entitled
Enthusiasm stated: “perhaps the most striking thing about the claim to speak with
tongues is its infrequency” (cited in Robinson 1973, 2), or as Meyer (1975, 133) notes,
tongues “has never held a major place in the broad scope of religious life”.
In seeking to validate his own Pentecostal experience, Hayford asserts that
earnest students have found continuity throughout church history (1992, 50). On the
contrary, Edgar asserts that contrary to the expectancy of continuity from apostolic times
to the present, tongues “ceased” and did not occur for almost 1900 years (1988, 372).
However, the real issue is not the continuity of some phenomenon, but “What is the
phenomenon?”, “Is it valid?”, “Is it biblical?”. If tongues is not needed and therefore is
not supplied by the Holy Spirit, that is not a difficulty.
In spite of purported tongues over the centuries, Dollar (1963, 321) notes that the
histories of tongues movements really only goes back to around 1875, and hence tongues
cannot be based on church history. Robinson is even more definitive: “tongues seems to
belong only to Pentecostalism, and, with few exceptions, only to the 20th century”
(1973, 2).
Part of the difficulty of researching the history of utterances (apart from the lack of
definition) has been the lack of parameters for description. Associated with this has
been the lack of documentation to primary sources (c.f. Nichol in Edgar 1983, 224).
Likewise Knox, seeking to be careful about facts, notes:
If you consult the works of reference, you will find a long litany, copied from one encyclopaedia into another,
purporting to show that all the enthusiastic movements have in fact given rise to glossolaly.
(Cited in Kelsey 1968, 146).

Allowing for precisely that weakness in this current study, nevertheless some
observations are in order concerning the periods studies, using the definition as
indicated above.
In the Ancient pre-biblical period, there is only minimal evidence of frenzied
utterance under possession.
In the Immediate Centuries Before Biblical Times, a variety of frenzied and
ecstatic experiences occurred, especially among the Greeks, but there is nothing
comparable to New Testament glossolalia.
During the Inter-testamental Period, there is no illumination.
The Greek Mystery Religions provided no definitive material, but most
significantly, as seen in Chapter 4.6, helped to explain the confusing element of ecstasy
in the contemporary experience of Corinthian glossolalia. This will be clarified further
in the exegesis section on 1 Corinthians 12-14 in the second volume.
In the Extended New Testament Times, there were no examples of biblical
glossolalia. In fact, there is no actual record of tongues specifically occurring even at
Corinth. There is no report with detail and description, only the reported fact that such a
gift had been given and that there was some practice of it, but especially that there was
abuse that required correction.
During the Ante-Nicene Period there were no genuine cases of tongues –
including Montanus.
In the Nicene and Post-Nicene Periods, in spite of the xenoglossolalic
understanding of tongues as it related to Corinth, there were no valid cases found.
Coming to the Middle Ages/Renaissance there is a xenoglossolalic expectancy
and possibly a permissible “valid linguistic utterance” or two, but there is not
unintelligible utterance or true Corinthian glossolalia.
A similar position obtained during the Reformation, with some occurrences
being attributed to the devil, but there is still no evidence of the two-stage gift to the
church.
In the Post-Reformation Period with a variety of “revival” movements,
xenoglossolalic expectancy gave way to unintelligible utterances in several groups (e.g.
Camisards, Jansenists, Shakers and Irvingites). There is evidence that experience
occasionally dominated New Testament exegesis, as in the cases of the Irvingites and
Jansenists.
In the Modern Period the xenoglossolalic expectancy continued but has been
increasingly by-passed for unintelligible utterance. And yet significantly most examples
in the literature are of xenoglossia, even if no purpose or source is determined.
Overall it is notable that there has generally been an expectancy of xenoglossia
through church history, and a reaction against unintelligible utterance until the twentieth
century in particular. Particularly notable, is the complete absence of an expectancy for
a biblical two-stage communication that was a specific dual gift for the church. In spite
of some spurious cases to validate interpretation of tongues (see later, as a type of two-
stage communication) there are no authenticated cases of true biblical tongues for the
benefit of the church (c.f. Hay n.d., 40, Williams 1975, 23). Nowhere is there evidence
that xenoglossia would benefit the church in a mono-lingual society.
If the validity of tongues were to be established by the historical record, then it
would fail miserably for lack of clear corroborating witness, and for lack of definition
of the nature of the phenomena or the objective use of identifying criteria to establish the
veracity of occurrences. If there is little attempt to establish the validity of the purported
occurrences, there is even less to establish the purpose that necessitated the operation.
At best there may be some “valid linguistic utterances” associated with the church or
even xenoglossia of a spiritistic nature, at worst some purely demonic nonsense, and in
between a large range of psychological prattle and inconsequential gibberish.
After 2000 years, there is no definitive evident or enduring benefit for the church.
Criswell (1973, 124) comments that “wherever the phenomenon of glossolalia
has appeared it has been looked upon as heresy”. It might be more accurate to say that
without an adequate definition of true biblical glossolalia, no phenomenon per se can be
accepted as self-validating. If there was an adequate definition, any aberration could
then be exposed and condemned as heresy. In particular, any utterance of satanic origin
should be clearly demonstrated and eliminated from the discussion. A gift from God
cannot be found operating through shamans, pagan priests, witch doctors and “mediums
of sorcerous séances” (Hasal 1991, 32), and yet the phenomenon of speaking in tongues
(as a one-stage operation or verbal ejaculations) is usually found in areas where spirit
possession is commonplace (Carlisle Mary reported in Mills 1986a, 427).
Edgar (1983) gives an excellent corrective to the tongues movement through
history, and assists to summarise the study so far:
Several things need to be clarified. It is clear that glossolalia or tongues-speaking has occurred among many
non-Christian groups. This, however, is not proof for the spiritual gift of tongues given by the Holy Spirit but is
evidence that ecstatic utterance has occurred under other influences. The average investigator has too
frequently equated all glossolalia with the spiritual gift of tongues. There is no reason to make such an
equation.
Goodman takes theologians to task because they do not discuss the question with the same presuppositions and
beliefs that she has. She assumes that glossolalia of the Pentecostal movement are the same as those of the
New Testament. Apparently it has not occurred to her, as it has not to so many others, that the tongues-
speaking (glossolalia) as seen in the modern tongues movement is not the same phenomenon as the spiritual
gift of tongues in the New Testament. Therefore her demonstration that the glossolalia of the Pentecostal
groups is similar to that of pagan religion is valid, but her unverified assumption that this similarity includes the

New Testament gift of tongues is contrary to the New Testament.
Today’s tongue-speaking is similar to pagan ecstasy and speaking in trances, but it is not like the Biblical gift of
tongues. (257)
It is plain from the foregoing that the modern-day tongues phenomena are similar to practices common in false
religions. The modern-day phenomena are not similar to the Biblical gift of tongues. (258).
There is no definite evidence in church history for any manifestation of the genuine gift of tongues since the
time of the original apostles. (259)
History refutes the idea that modern tongues phenomena are the gift of tongues given by the Holy Spirit. (259)
5.5 CURSORY ANALYSIS OF RECORDED GLOSSOLALIA

5.5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the absence of authenticated cases based on clear definitions, a brief look at
some purported cases of tongues together with transliterations and evaluations will help
to show the absurdity of the pursuit or endorsement of a phenomenon that is claimed as a
gift of God but is studied in isolation from adequate parameters. Many examples are
found in print, but a sample will be taken in order to make general observations and
draw broad conclusions, since most are particularly banal and inconsequential.
5.5.2 PURPORTED EXAMPLES OF TONGUES.

George Pilkington claimed to understand tongues in the Irvingite circle, seeking
to translate the words spoken in tongues, into English (Dallimore 1983, 119):
Hearing a woman utter the sounds gthis dil emma sumo, he stated they meant ‘I will assume this dilemma’.
Another woman’s utterance sounded like Hozequin alta stare, Hozehamenanostra, and this he translated as
‘Jesus in the highest will take care of this house’. A third woman’s utterance, Casa sera hastha caro, he said
was Spanish and that it meant ‘The house will be in my care’, Yeo cogo nomo was for him ‘I know the law’
but he dismissed the utterance Holimoth holif awthaw as merely ‘Holy, most holy father’ in poorly enunciated
English.
Pilkington believed that the tongues were in three languages, Latin, Spanish and
Italian, and that in showing therefore that they were not unintelligible, he was proving
that they were truly supernatural (Dallimore 1983, 120). Whilst his zeal is to be
commended, the fruit of his efforts is to show something very banal and insulting to God
Himself. Irving himself recorded tongues and encouraged their use. At a public meeting
in London on 16 October 1831, a Mr. Taplin delivered a tongues message, ending in
English: “Oh, Britain, thou anointed of the Lord! Thy destruction is at hand! Fear not, ye
people of God” (cited in Butler 1985, 37). Butler concludes emphatically, “It is
blasphemous nonsense” (39). He gives some other examples (1985, 39):
‘Oh! You do grieve the Spirit – you do grieve the Spirit! Oh! The Body of Jesus is to be sorrowful in Spirit!
You are to cry to your Father – to cry, to cry, in the bitterness of your souls! Oh! It is a mourning before the
Lord – a sighing and crying unto God because of the desolations of Zion – because of the desolations of Zion –

because of the desolations of Zion!’
‘Oh! Grieve Him not! Oh! Grieve not your Father! Rest in His love! Oh! Rejoice in your Father’s love! Oh!
Rejoice in the love of Jesus! In the love of Jesus! Oh! For it passeth knowledge! Oh! The length! Oh! The
breadth! Oh! The height! Oh! The depths of the love of Jesus! Oh! It passeth knowledge! Oh! Rejoice in the
love of Jesus! Oh! Sinner! For what, for what, what, oh! sinner can separate, separate from the love of Jesus!
Oh! Nothing, nothing, nothing! Oh! None shall be able to pluck you out of your Father’s hands’.
‘Ah! Be ye warned! Be ye warned! Ye have been warned! The Lord hath prepared you a table, but it is a
table in the presence of your enemies. Ah! Look you well to it! the city shall be building – ah! every jot, every
piece of the edifice. Be faithful each under his load; but see that ye build with one hand, and with a weapon in
the other. Look to it! Ye have been warned. Ah! Sanballat! Sanballat! Sanballat! The Horonite! The Moabite!
The Ammonite! Ah! confederate! confederate! confederate! with the Horonite! Ah! look ye to it! look ye to it!
This is banal nonsense. If tongues is truly a gift of God, why does it achieve so
little? This observation is true of the following examples.
Hawthornthwaite, cited in Cutten (1927, 74) says:
At a meeting in Manchester an elder shuts his eyes and at the top of his voice exclaims: ‘O me, sontra von te,
par las a te se, ter mon te roy ke; ran passan par du mon te! O me, sontrote krush krammon palassate Mount
Zion kron cow che and America pa palassate pa pau pu pe! Sontro von teli terattate taw!!!’ This was
interpreted as follows: ‘Yea, beloved sister, thus saith the Lord unto thee, be thou humble and obedient to the
priesthood that is placed over thee, and thou shalt be gathered unto the land of Zion, and see the temple of the
Lord; yea, thou shalt have thy washings and thine anointings, and thou shalt receive thy blessings! Yea, beloved
sister, be thou faithful and obedient, and thou shalt have the desire of thine heart; yea, beloved sister, thou shalt
be a mother in Israel, and thou shalt be great, yea, if thou art only humble and faithful, thou shalt be a savior on
Mount Zion, and receive thy exaltation in the kingdom of God! Be humble and obedient, dear sister, and these
are thy blessings in the name of Jesus Christ.
It is patently obvious that there is no possible correlation between the
transliteration and the interpretation. It is doubtful if any sensible person would state
such nonsense in the course of any address or sermon, and yet it seems to be proudly
asserted as “tongues” which are attributed to the all-knowing God of the universe.
These are shameful assertions.
Cutten (1927, 80) reports tongues resulting from mountain meetings in which the
speakers would “labor for days and weeks until they broke into … songs in unknown
tongues”. Two examples are given. The first is “in a wholly unknown and unknowable
tongue”:
O calivin Christe I no vole,
Calivin Christe liste um,
I no vole vinin ne viste,
I no vole virte vum.
The second is partly in English:
Selera vane van vo canera van re lava,

Dilera van se lange cinera van so vo,
’Tis Mother’s holy love, love she sent it by her dove, dove, dove,
’Twas vene van se vane, ’twill ever more endure.
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?

Wolfram (cited in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 32) reports a case of tongues at a
Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International meeting in the mid-1960’s:
’vasta ’loito//’rakiri’ ’memto, stela’toro//, ’tantala, vasaito, la’porto//, mos’toro ’kantolo, be’loro// ’hordo, la’sai,
do// ’marta, lebn’tentantala, bala’sato ’loito// ’hordo, la’sito ma’kito//, mes’to prosu, dula’ no//, pro’sutula ’pa,
tuno//zebele’ko tuz’rusutu//, la’pa, un’kea ’zivolo koto’na// ’ropele ’sitola// Ro’su ’tela ’raiz, soko’sitala’me//
’nufa’ro ’tuloe, pe’tinoba ’sito//, la, pora’ su ’dolo// Residila’mo ’tinema, tovosi’ta// le’po, Ro’si// ’rotela,
sotu’no//,Res’ti, pa’lapa//
The speech took eight lines in the report, but the translation (by a second person)
took forty-three lines! The first and last segments of the translation are recorded (cited
in Malony and Lovekin 1985, 32):
The whole world; liveth in darkness, and yea, men in the darkness search for truth and light. But the light is
come and shined in the hearts of men. And yea, ye are the light of the world. Go therefore into the world of
darkness and shine ye as light. Speak ye the words of truth so shall ye see that ye beget truth in the hearts of
those who sit in the darkness … And in the days that are ahead ye shall see that no man shall stay the hand of
the Lord, but that which He has proclaimed, and that which He has ordained shall surely be fulfilled for the
Lord is at work among those who are His.
It is significant that Malony and Lovekin, both sympathetic to the uncritical
research of behavioural scientists, clearly state “… there is obviously no correlation
between words in the speech and words in the interpretation” (1985, 32). One wonders
what is the point of the exercise. Why was the message, if indeed that is accepted, not
simply given in the common language of the group? Direct communication is more
effective. How does this two-stage communication relate to the gift to the church in 1
Corinthians?
In a secular situation, a journalist attended an American Spiritualistic camp
meeting finally being enabled to “speak in tongues” and to give a translation (Sargant
1975, 39). He recorded some of the fragments himself, and others were spoken into a
phonograph and witnessed. The result is as follows (recorded in Sargant 1975, 39).
The Unknown Tongue. Te rumete tau. Ilee lete leele luto scele. Impe re scele lee luto. Onko keere scete
tere luto. Ombo te scele to bere to kure. Sinte lute sinte Kuru. Orumbo imbo impe rute scelete. Singe, singe,
singe, eru. Imba, Imba, Imba.
Translation. The old word! I love the old word of the heavens! The love of the heavens is emperor! The love
of the darkness is slavery! The heavens are wide, the heavens are wide, the heavens are true, the heavens are
sure. The love of the earth is past! The King now rules in the heavens!”
Clearly there is no possible correlation between the tongue and the translation.
And what do the words contribute to anyone in any context?
Sundkler reports shamanistic claims to speak the “language of angels” (Williams
1981, 195). He gives two examples:
1. De de de de de de de de ………………………………
Hlo hlo hlo hlo hlo hlo ………………………………
Blood river sign. Blood river sign. Blood river sign. Amen.

2. Z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Hhayi hhayi hhayi hhayi
Sorry Jesu Sorry Jesu Sorry Jesu
Spy spy spy spy spy, Naughty boy naughty boy
Hhayi hhayi hhayi, - Hallelujah, Hallelujah. Amen.
Clearly there is no merit in this exercise, even though it is recorded and

presumably regarded as significant. Williams comments that it is “senseless utterance”
(1981, 196).
Following from the reference to “the language of angels”, let it be clearly stated
that any suggestion that glossolalia can be construed as angelic language must be treated
with caution. In 1 Corinthians 13:1 Paul is speaking hypothetically. Further, it is to be
noted that every biblical reference to angelic communication was perfectly
understood in the context and language of the people in which it was given, and
without translation. There is no foundation for some esoteric “angelic language”.
Finally, there is a claim that verbal utterance was actually God’s voice. As noted
in part previously, Bach ambiguously lays claim to God as a source of his tongues
experience (1969, 15-16):
Joseph’s voice. My voice. God’s voice. It was all one. “Koina, lamani karana!” Not my words. Not my
language. It was by no means I who was speaking into my nestled arms. This was what the Pentecostals
called the unknown tongue or glossolalia.
… My body was shaking. I was hot and cold. An ecstatically pleasant, thrilling surge of passion swept through
me as if the Holy Ghost, whatever it was, had finally found an entry and was rushing in to take control.
… a rush of gibberish welling up from deep inside me, I burst into hysterical laughter and weeping and
sprawled to the floor in freedom and delight. “Ishana el erra modana! Gurashi! Gurashi!” It was insanely
wonderful.
Bach claims that he entered a new experience of liberty that obliterated all
barriers:
… for once there was no separation between us, no quarrel, no quibbling about what is good or bad, true or
false, white or black, pure or sinful, knowing only that whatever is, is right, that must have been what I was
talking about in my “unkown tongue”.
“Sona machina lanah, jura, lura, manakilira!”
In addition to this undiscerning existentialism, Bach seems to express ego-centric
childish excitement with delusions of grandeur and selfish pride (17):
Mine was a feeling, a feeling that I was being spoken through . … My words were drowned in a flood of
ecstatic laughter. It was the silliest thing. I was again being spoken through … From the Holy Spirit. Straight
from the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete … (italics his).
… How I wanted to be a public speaker. How I had studied public speaking. How I had tried to learn and
memorize a speech and now, my body trembling under the Baptismal power, I was explosive with the oratory
of the prophets and I was voicing the language of the seers. “Areada monoseena! Gurashi! Llama ni sana!
Mooranus, mooranus!”.

It was all mine. Everything to know was mine. Anything I ever wanted to be was mine, even to being as great
a violinist as my dear friend Joseph. All mine.
It is difficult to see how Bach correlates the inconsequential childish nonsense of
his utterances with some form of revelation from God, utterances which provide nothing
for the church but provide a means of self-aggrandisement.
Bergsma (1965, 10) states:
True glossolalia, in which the use of an identifiable language occurs, a language previously not spoken by the
person who is now “with tongues”, is extremely rare.
Mosiman and Robert Dean are more specific, concluding after much research that
not one purported case of tongues was authentic (noted in Bergsma 1965, 10).
5.5.3 A PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTIC OF RECORDED

TONGUES
The most common characteristic of supposed tongues is a simplistic tendency to
alliteration and repetition, which only exacerbates the meaninglessness of it all when a
“translation” gives a diversity of ideas from repeated words and phrases.
Kildahl (1972, 1) reports a certain Mrs. Rogers standing at her kitchen sink
washing the breakfast dishes and saying:
Iana, kanna, saree saree kanai, karai akanna kanai karai yahai, oh saramai, saramoiyai iana kanna.
It is particularly instructive, that a clinical psychologist like Kildahl, who is well
respected for his wide sampling research, should conclude – seemingly quite casually –
on what appears to be the flimsiest of evidence: “Mrs. Rogers was speaking in tongues
– technically called glossolalia” (Kildahl 1972, 1).
Burdick (1969, 7) reports a transcription of “glossolalic speech” which the
transcriber could not identify. It shows repetition that seems to reveal a mind-set by the
speaker:
// ’yamana ’kita ,sia’naya,si // ’yamana ’kita ,sia’naya,si // ,ana’kiana ’tiasa,naya ,ana’kia ’tana ’sia,naya,si //
Cutten notes a strong tendency to alliteration and repetition in purported tongues.
Hitt (1963, 12) records several of Cutten’s examples:
“Prou pray praddy”
“Pa palassate pa pau pu pe”
“Teli teratte taw”
“Terrei te te-te-te”
“Vole virte vum”
“Elee lete leele luto”
“Sine sirge singe”
“Imba imba imba”
Alliteration and repetition leads to an evaluation of the utterances that suggests
regression to childish speech and also shows speech patterns, but there is no message,
and the only evident purpose is some form of catharsis which is only personal. This in
no way relates to the gift of God for the mutual benefit of the church.
5.5.4 EVALUATION OF RECORDED TONGUES.

Dr. E.A. Nida of the American Bible Society has performed significant research
that is widely reported and respected by many researchers. The following report was
recorded by Edman (1964, 16) and gives an excellent overview of the research:
Dr. Eugene A. Nida of the American Bible Society, and certainly one of the outstanding linguists of this
day [1964], conducted an analysis of “tongues” which were recorded on tape, at the Toronto Institute of
Linguistics. The linguists represented more than 150 aboriginal languages in more than 25 countries with the
result there was a very good cross section of language experience involved in those who made the study. Dr.
Nida reported in part:
1. Each breath group had the resemblance of a “chanted phrase”.
2. The vowels used were almost exclusively “i”, “a”, and “o”.
3. The consonants showed a “remarkable lack of symmetry”.
4. There was a “very high repetition of individual sounds and syllables … a pronounced tendency toward
recurring sequences … This type of distribution is entirely abnormal in linguistic structure”.
5. The complete lack of “paralinguistic” features, e.g., pauses, hesitations, “stumbling” in speech, obvious
mistakes, and corrective repetitions, is interesting, for this shows quite conclusively that the production
of this speech is not under any conscious control, except in matters of beginning, stopping, speed of
utterance and loudness.
From this careful analysis, Dr. Nida came to this conclusion: “The types of inventory and distributions
would indicate clearly that this recording bears no resemblance to any actual language which has ever been
treated by linguists. It is, therefore, so highly improbable that this is a human language, that one can say with
almost complete confidence that we must rule out any possibility of Dr. X’s having acquired the actual speech
of any people. If then, it is not a human language, what is it? One can only say that it is a form of ‘ecstatic
speech’ … On the basis of what I have learned about this type of phenomena of ‘tongues’ in other parts of the
world, apparently there is the same tendency to employ one’s own inventory of sounds, in nonsense
combinations, but with simulated ‘foreign’ features. At least in West Africa and Latin America, the types of
glossolalia employed seemed to fit into this description”.
I concur in Dr. Nida’s observation that such “tongues” must be distinguished from the known languages
used and understood on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).
In addition to the characteristics recorded by Edman, Lovekin (1974, 18) notes
several additional characteristics from Nida’s research (plus reinforcing some of
Edman’s observations).
(1) Phonetic transcriptions from tapes of “glossolalia” have a restricted number of
sounds.
(2) The allophonic characteristics of the consonants and vowels were essentially
those of the mother tongue of the speakers.
(3) One or two allophones were repeated with great frequency.
(4) Practically all syllables tended to be open, that is they ended in a vowel.
(5) There was a marked tendency for almost every breath group to end in the same
syllable or vowel (especially “a”).
(6) There were few diphthongs and consonant clusters.
(7) Intonation had no other elements than those of the mother tongue.
(8) There was no semantic structure or meaning level.
These additional characteristics reinforce the conclusion already noted:
Glossolalia (as practiced) is not a real language, it is ecstatic utterance (or a
psychological function, etc.).
Wolfram built on Nida’s research and studied 17 texts of glossolalia from eight
subjects, and finally concluded that although there were some structured similarities
with language, glossolalia could not be considered to be an “unlearned non-native
language” (noted in Lovekin 1974, 19).
Jaqueth analysed the “within sample frequency and relative frequency of the
phones of a sample” of glossolalia from two different glossolalists. He also concluded
that he was not dealing with genuine language material (noted in Lovekin 1974, 20).
Bryant and O’Connell took samples of glossolalia and computed the “relative
frequency of phonemes” and then compared and correlated them with tables of
phonemic probabilities in English (noted in Lovekin 1974, 20-21). [A phoneme is the
smallest segmental unit of sound employed to form meaningful contrasts between
utterances]. They found that the inventory of phonemes in glossolalia occur in the
normal repertoire of the speaker’s native language, but that the relative frequency of
specific phonemes differed significantly from English. For example, vowels are
significantly more prominent in glossolalia than in English.
Lovekin (1968, 77) after analysing several studies (including the above),
concluded that “Linguistically, glossolalia was demonstrated to be language-like but not
to be a genuine language”.
Pattison (1968, 77) affirming some of the comparable findings of Nida, notes that
glossolalia (at least in English-speaking subjects) is composed of the basic speech
elements of English (“mother-tongue” – Nida). The para-linguistic elements (pauses,
breaths, intonations, etc.) are markedly reduced and modified, resulting in the speech
resembling the “early speech qualities of young children (Pattison 1968, 77). A
comparison of George Deveraux’s outline of children’s speech and the qualities of
glossolalic speech is striking (noted in Pattison 1968, 77). Pattison concludes that
glossolalic speech appears to be a “regression to an early mode of speech in which
vocalization is used for purposes other than just the communication of rational thought”

(77). Samarin (1973) wrote a paper specifically on “Glossolalia as Regressive
Speech” concluding that the basic component of regression is “a stream of speech
produced unconsciously with early acquired rules of phonation” but socially modified
(77).
It is significant to note that glossolalia is thus perceived as not “just for
communication” and that “other purposes” include catharsis.
Another line of research on recorded glossolalia, relates to “contrived/artificial”
glossolalia. Two examples are reported by Pattison (1968, 78):
Al Carlson, at the University of California, recorded two types of glossolalia, one type was recorded
from glossolalists during spiritual exercises, and the other type was recorded by volunteers who were asked to
spontaneously speak in unknown language without having ever heard glossolalia. These speech samples were
then rated by glossolalists. The two types of glossolalia were not distinguished from each other. In fact, the
“contrived” glossolalia received better ratings as “good glossolalia” than the actual glossolalia.
Werner Cohn, at the University of British Columbia, took naïve students to Pentecostal churches to
hear glossolalia and then asked the students to speak in glossolalia in the laboratory. They were able to
successfully do so. Their recordings were then played to glossolalists who described the glossolalia as beautiful
examples.
Pattison concluded that glossolalia does not appear to be a “strange language”,
but rather the “aborted formation of familiar language” (168, 78).
The experiments in contrived language serve to show the ease of replication of
other-than true glossolalia. In fact, Samarin (1972, 4) states that anybody can produce
glossolalia if he is uninhibited and if he discovers the “trick”. He then gives an example
of “tongues” produced spontaneously. In another experiment (10) he recorded 12
syllables on slips of paper, threw them in the air, then assembled them randomly,
dividing them into words at will and thus produced glossolalia, proving that it is
“linguistically meaningless”.
Kildahl reports that glossolalia can be taught by getting the subject to repeat
nonsense syllables. “Say whatever the Lord gives you to say, and I will move your
mouth”. The result was, “Abadaba avadaba rehbadaba ramanama …” (cited by W.A.
Robinson 1973, 81). Such an exercise makes a mockery of true glossolalia.
Likewise, Larry Christensen teaches tongues, instructing that one must first stop
praying in English. In an instructional leaflet he admits that there is correlation with a
baby learning to talk and the doubt of feeling that the exercise is a hoax, but if it is
continued the Spirit will take over (cited in Bess 1963, 174). The potential for
contrived utterances is both obvious and shameful.
In a somewhat technical study from a behavioural science perspective, Pattison
(1968, 77-70) makes many observations about the nature of glossolalia, including the
following:

· Glossolalic speech varies in degree of organization.
· Glossolalists develop their speech from ill-formed structure to “practiced” and
“polished” speech.
· Glossolalia is composed of the basic speech elements of English (at least for
English-speaking subjects).
· Para-linguistic elements are markedly reduced and modified.
· There is a reduction in the distribution of phonemes.
· The phonemes are closely associated with the language background of the
speaker.
· The phonemes have a higher frequency of vowels, especially “a”, than in
standard English. (It is noted that 80% of infant’s vocalization are vowels, but at
30 months this has reduced to 50%).
· Study of the morphemic stratum of glossolalia reveals that the phonemes are
combined in primarily “open” syllables (i.e. they begin and end with vowels) – a
characteristic prevalent in early speech development.
(9) Pattison concludes (from the linguists he cites) that: Glossolalia presents the
characteristics of partially formed language without the formal characteristics of
language.
In addition to the formal characteristics, Pattison notes some functional aspects of
glossolalia that indicate an initiatory stage (the process of “learning” how to reproduce
it) and the habitual stage (where stored memory fragments are used) (1968, 80). These
utterances become expressive of the personality and behaviour of the speaker, thus
demonstrating that much of this form of glossolalia is not a spiritual gift for the church at
all.
Pattison also notes idiosyncratic vocal segments (1968, 80) including a variety of
neologisms (including curses or slang) that give individual style to the expression (81).
The observation leads further to the use of this individual expression in playful activity,
including giggling whilst speaking in tongues, and clowning, demonstrating an
egocentric absorption in their own utterances and taking some delight from listening to
themselves. This playful category is produced volitionally (81). Such activity is little
different to singing in the shower or humming whilst driving, and is perfectly innocent,
but it is far removed from a Holy Spirit energized spiritual gift for the church.
In a review article, A Linguistic Analysis of Glossolalia, Mueller (1981)
examines the work of well-respected anthropological linguist William J. Samarin.
Based on extensive research and a wide distribution of a large sample of recorded
glossolalia, Samarin makes many significant observations (many reinforcing the work of
Pattison, above) including the following (as reported by Mueller 1981, 185-187):
· Glossolalia is “learned behaviour”, yet not learned as foreign languages are
learned. It is the product of much instruction (as commonly practised) and
therefore not a “supernaturally acquired skill”.
· The speech consists of syllables made up of consonants and vowels taken from
the speaker’s native language or a foreign language known to him, using much
repetition, alliteration and rhyme, although this does not result in words.
· In real language there is a systematic relationship between the segments of
speech and concepts, but this does not occur in glossolalia. The resemblance to
real language is superficial, and hence it is “only a façade language, although at
times a very good one indeed”.
· Meaning in glossolalia is personal, and relates to the emotions.
· Glossolalia serves psychological functions including an initiation rite, baptism
of the Spirit, yieldedness to God, pride in an admired proficiency, the therapeutic
benefit as a catharsis to reduce stress and to help resolve emotional problems.
· Glossolalia serves some sociological functions, including identification of
“membership”, precipitating a feeling of superiority, contributing to the ethos of
an occasion and enhancing leadership.
Samarin concludes that glossolalia is not a supernatural phenomenon, nor is there
any mystery in it.
It is essential to clearly assert some correctives to Samarin’s work. Irrespective
of the number of cases analysed, unless there is a clear definition that relates to
scripture, the study becomes meaningless. As noted previously, Samarin defines
glossolalia (variously) as “meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance
believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to
any natural language, living or dead” (Samarin 1968, 51). Hence, instead of a biblical
definition as a starting point to eliminate much spurious utterance, the starting point is a
variety of cases of purported utterances leading to a definition. This approach
jeopardizes true biblical glossolalia in a sea of gurgles, grunts, neologisms, etc. as
noted previously.
In fairness, it must be allowed that Samarin is not “all-inclusive” in his base
definition, seeking to give an emphasis on meaning in language (see the definitions in
Chapter 5:2). Samarin (1968, 51) takes an utterance like:
Dji-dji-dji-dji-dji-dji,
Hallelujah, Hallelujah,
Do-do-do-do-d [sic] –do-do-do,
Zzzzzzzzzz,
Amen
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.
5.5.5 SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSES.

Positively, in the examples where there is attempted translation, at least
unwittingly there is the recognition of a two-stage communication, and in the contexts,
hopefully a desire to be consistent with the Word of God. And yet the evident
conclusion is an impossible correlation between a purported tongue and a purported
translation. As noted, Butler commented in a particular case, “It is blasphemous
nonsense”. There is no demonstrated correlation, and there is no message or edification.
The church is not served.
Negatively, the biggest problem is the evident failure to start from a clear biblical
foundation before examining and analysing a range of utterances. In the absence of a
bench-mark, there are virtually no delimiting features.
John Sherrill, who had experienced tongues, then records a very telling appraisal
(cited in Rice 1976, 170):
I have described the first flush of joy and wholeness following the Baptism as lasting three months. I’m not
sure of the exact period, but after about that length of time, I had a sudden, violent reaction. It centered chiefly
on tongues: I became suspicious that I was generating the whole thing. Indeed I often did mouth nonsense
syllables in an effort to start the flow of prayer-in-tongues. But sometimes the easy, effortless flow never
came. I’d be left listening to the sound of my own foolishness. It was obvious to me that the Holy Spirit was no
part of these noises: the ridiculousness of it would sweep over me, and from there it was not far to wondering
if the Holy Spirit had ever been a part of tongues.
He found that other Pentecostals went through the same experience of doubt and
yet sought to reassure themselves, not being certain that they had a gift from God. Many
realized that they only had a contrived tongue (compare Rice 1976, 170-1).
The solid evidence for a genuine biblical tongue is sadly lacking.
A most telling conclusion is found in an article by W.E. Welmers, Professor of
African Languages at the University of California at Los Angeles (1963, 19-20):
We do know something about representative languages of every known language family in the world. I am by
no means unique among descriptive linguists in having had direct, personal contact with well over a hundred
languages representing a majority of the world’s language families, and in having studied descriptions of
languages of virtually every reported type. If a glossolalic were speaking in any of the thousand languages of
Africa, there is about a 90 per cent chance that I would know it in a minute. Now, I have also had the

opportunity of making a sympathetic study of an alleged instance of speaking in tongues. And I must report
without reservation that my sample does not sound like a language structurally. There can be no more than two
contrasting vowel sounds, and a most peculiarly restricted set of consonant sounds; these combine into a very
few syllable clusters which recur many times in various orders. The consonants and vowels do not all sound
like English (the glossolalic’s native language), but the intonation patterns are so completely American English
that the total effect is a bit ludicrous. My sample includes an “interpretation”. At the most generous estimate,
the glossolalic utterance includes ten or eleven “sentences” or stretches of possibly meaningful speech. But the
“interpretation” involves no less than fourteen distinct and independent ideas. There simply can be no match
between the “tongue” and the “interpretation”. … Our evidence is still admittedly limited, but from the
viewpoint of a Christian linguist the modern phenomenon of glossolalia would appear to be a linguistic fraud
and monstrosity, given even the most generous interpretation of First Corinthians 12-14.
One looks in vain for any reported reference to a purported tongue that even
remotely gives any significant truth, let alone anything that could be construed as a new
revelation from God. There seems to be no shame in reporting banal nonsense and then
attributing it to the Holy Spirit. This is a disgrace to the Christian church.
*****

CHAPTER 6
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.
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
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.
*****

BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
Alford, H. 1877. Alford's Greek Testament - An Exegetical and Critical Commentary.

2, 7th ed'n. Guardian Press, 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.

Anonymous. 1989. Walking the fire. Health and Lifestyle. Winter. 7-10. (Blue Cross
Magazine, Australia).
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.
Aune, D.E. 1983. Prophecy in Early Christianity. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
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.

Bagster. n.d. The Analytical Greek Lexicon. Samuel Bagster and Sons Ltd, London.
Baker, D. L. 1974. The interpretation of 1 Corinthians 12-14. The Evangelical

Quarterly. 46, 224-234.
Banks, R. 1976. Paul and women's liberation. Interchange. 18, 81-105.
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.
Barclay, W. 1960. The Promise of the Spirit. Epworth, London.
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, C.K. 1971. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed’n. A
& C Black, London.
Barrett, D.B. 1988. Global statistics. S.M. Burgess, and G.B. McGee, (eds.).
810-830.
Bartling, W.J. 1969. The congregation of Christ - A charismatic body. Concordia

Theological Monthly. 40, 67-80.
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.
Behm, J. 1964a. ἀποφθεγγομαι. G. Kittel. (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament, trans. and ed. G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 1, 447.
Behm, J. 1964b. ἑρμηνευω. Kittel, G. (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament, trans. and ed. G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 2, 661-
666.
Behm, J. 1964c. γλωσσα, ἑτερογλωσσα. Kittel, G. (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament, trans. and ed. G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 1,
719-727.

Bellshaw, W.G. 1963. The confusion of tongues. Bibliotheca Sacra. 120, (April-June).
145-153.
Belo, J. 1960. Trance in Bali. Columbia University Press, New York.
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.

Blaney, H.J.S. 1973. St. Paul's posture of speaking in unknown tongues. Wesleyan
Theological Journal. 8, 52-60.
Bloch-Hoell, N. 1964. The Pentecostal Movement: It's Origin, Development and

Distinctive Character. Allen and Unwin Ltd., London.
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.
Bourguignon, E. 1968. World distribution and patterns of possession states. R. Prince

(ed). Trance and Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society, Montreal, Canada.
3-34.
Bourguignon, E. 1973a. An assessment of some comparisons and implications. E.

Bourguignon, (ed.). Religion, Altered States of Consciousness, and Social Change.
Ohio State University Press, Columbus. 321-339.
Bourguignon, E. (ed.). 1973b. Religion, Altered States of Consciousness, and Social

Change. Ohio State University Press, Columbus.
Bradfield, C.D. 1979. Neo-pentecostalism: A sociological assessment. University

Press of America, Washington, D.C.
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.
Bright, J. 1959. A History of Israel. The Westminster Press, Philadelphia.
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. 1951. Corinth. The Biblical Archaeologist. 14, 79-96.
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.
Bruce, F.F. 1963. Romans. Tyndale Press, London.
Bruce, F.F. 1971. 1 & 2 Corinthians. Oliphants, London.

Bruce, F.F. 1977. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Brumback, C. 1947. "What Meaneth This?" A Pentecostal Answer to a Pentecostal

Question. Gospel Publishing Co., Springfield, MO.
Brumback, C. 1961. Suddenly from Heaven; A History of the Assemblies of God.

Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, MO.
Bruner, F.D. 1970. A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the
New Testament Witness. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Bryant, C. 1974. Psychology and prayer. Theology. 77, 181-186.
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.
Buttenweiser, M. 1914. The Prophets of Israel. MacMillan, New York.
Callan, T. 1985. Prophecy and ecstasy in Greco-Roman religion and in 1 Corinthians.

Novum Testamentum. 27(2), 125-140.
Calley, M. 1964. Pentecostalism among the Bandjalong. M. Reay (ed.). Aborigines

Now: New Perspectives in the Study of Aboriginal Communities. Angus & Robertson,
Sydney.
Campbell, D.K. (ed.) 1982. Walvoord: A Tribute. Moody Press, Chicago.
Campolo, T. 1991. How to be Pentecostal Without Speaking in Tongues. Word,

England.
Carson, D.A. 1984. Exegetical Fallacies. Baker, Grand Rapids.
Carson, D.A. 1988. Showing the Spirit. Anzea Publishers, Sydney.
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.

Chadwick, H. 1955. All things to all men. New Testament Studies. 1, 261-275.
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.
Charismatic Movement, The. 1975. An evaluation by the Executive Committee of the

Baptist Union of New South Wales, Australia.
“Charismatics on Evangelism”, 1991. Christianity Today. Sept. 16. 52.
Chevreau, G. 1994. Catch The Fire. Marshall Pickering, London.
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.
Clark, W.H. 1958. The Psychology of Religion. MacMillan, New York.

Clemen, C. 1898. The ‘Speaking with tongues’ of the early Christians. The Expository
Times. 10, 344-352.
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.
Conybeare, F.C. 1911. Gift of tongues. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.
Coppes, L.J. 1977. Whatever Happened to Biblical Tongues? Pilgrim Publishing Co,
New Jersey.
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).
Creme, B. 1980. Messages from Maitreya the Christ. 1. Tara, London.
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
Forge.
Currie, S.D. 1965. Speaking in tongues: Early evidence outside the New Testament on
glossais lalein. Interpretation. 19, (July). 274-94.
Cutten, G.B. 1927. Speaking with Tongues: Historically and Psychologically

Considered. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Dallimore, A. 1983. The Life of Edward Irving: Forerunner of the Charismatic

Movement. Banner of Truth, Edinburgh.
Davenport, F.M. 1905. Primitive Traits in Religious Revivals. Macmillan, New York.
Davies, B.D. 1984. Speaking in tongues: a philosophical comment. D. Martin and P.

Mullen (eds.). Strange Gifts? A Guide to Charismatic Renewal. Blackwell, Oxford.
220-229.
Davies, J.G. 1952. Pentecost and glossolalia. Journal of Theological Studies. 3, 228-
231.
de Pressense, E.D. 1890. The Early Years of Christianity. 1. trans. A. Harwood-

Holmden. Hodder and Stoughton, London. (6th ed’n.)
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
Health. 13(4), 285-288.
Dialog. 1963. Spring. 2.
Dillow, J. 1975. Speaking in Tongues: Seven Crucial Questions. Zondervan, Grand

Rapids.
Dimond, S.G. 1926. The Psychology of the Methodist Revival. O.U.P., London.
Dionysus. 1986. NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. 15th. ed’n. 4, 110.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago.
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.
Douglas, J.D. 1974. New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.

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.

Duewel, W.L. 1974. The Holy Spirit and Tongues. Light & Life Press, Winona Lake,
Indiana.
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. 1976. Pentecost. C. Brown, (ed.). Dictionary of New Testament

Theology. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 2, 783-788.
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.

Easton, B.S. 1939. Gift of tongues. J. Orr (ed.), The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia. 5, 2995-2997. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Ecstasy. 1971. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Keter, Jerusalem.
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.
Edman, V.R. 1964. Divine or devilish? Christian Herald. (May). 14-17.
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.
Eichrodt, W. 1961. Theology of the Old Testament, 1. SCM, London.
Eliade, M. 1964. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Trans. W.R. Trask.

Pantheon Books, New York.
Ellis, E.E. 1974. Spiritual gifts in the Pauline community. New Testament Studies. 20,
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. 1911. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1966. Gift of tongues. 14th ed’n. 22, 288. Encyclopaedia
Britannica Inc., Chicago.
Encyclopaedia Judaica. 1971. Keter, Jerusalem.
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.

Eppstein, V. 1969. Was paul among the prophets? Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft. 81, 287-304.
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.
Expository Times. 1929. 40 (1), (October). 4-5.
Fairbanks, A. 1910. A Handbook of Greek Religion. American Book Company, New

York.
Fairbanks, A. 1979. Religion in Ancient Greece. The International Standard Bible

Encyclopedia 2. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Fallaize, E.N. 1955. Possession: introductory and primitive. J. Hastings (ed.).

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 10, 122-
127.
Farnell, F.D. 1993. When will the gift of prophecy cease? Bibliotheca Sacra, 150.
(April-June). 171-202.
Farrell, F. 1963. Outburst of tongues: the new penetration. Christianity Today.

(September) 13. 7(24), 3-7.

Fasold, R.W. 1972. Are tongues languages? Christianity Today, 26.
Fee, G.D. 1976. Hermeneutics and historical precedent – a major problem in

Pentecostal hermeneutics. R.P. Spittler, (ed.). 1976. Perspectives on the New
Pentecostalism. Baker, Grand Rapids.
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.
Ferguson, M. 1976. The Aquarian Conspiracy: Personal and Social Transformation in

the 1980's. J.P. Tarcher, Los Angeles.
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.

Fohrer, G. 1972. History of Israelite Religion. trans. David E. Green. S.P.C.K.,
London.
Forbes, C. 1986. Early Christian inspired speech and Hellenistic popular religion.
Novum Testamentum. (July). 28(3), 257-270.
Ford, J.M. 1971. Toward a theology of ‘Speaking in Tongues’. Theological Studies.

32(1), 3-29.
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.
Freeman, D.A. 1972. A zetetic response. Crux. (May). 9(3), 25-28.
Friedrich, G. 1964. Προφητης κτλ. G. Kittel, (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New
861.

Friedrich, G. (ed.) 1968. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, trans. and ed.
G.W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
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.
Gaede, C.S. 1989. Glossolalia at Azusa Street: A hidden presupposition? Westminster

Theological Journal. 51(1), 77-92.
Gaffin, R.B. 1996. A cessationist view. W.A. Grudem, (gen. ed.). Are Miraculous Gifts
For Today? Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 23-64.
Gardiner, G.E. 1974. The Corinthian Catastrophe. Kregel, Grand Rapids.
Gaver, J.R. 1971. Pentecostalism. Award Books, new York.
Geisler, N. 1988. Signs and Wonders. Tyndale, Wheaton, Illinois.

Gerlach, L. and Hine, V. 1968. Five factors crucial to the growth and spread of a
modern religious movement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 7(1), 23-40.
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.
Gerlicher, J.S. 1966. An Exegetical Approach to First Corinthians Twelve to Fourteen.

Unpublished Th.M. thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary. Microfiche.
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.
Glazier, S.D. 1980. (ed.). Perspectives on Pentecostalism. University Press of

America, Washington, D.C.
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.

Glock, C.Y. (ed.) 1973b. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, California.
Gooch, S. 1979. The Paranormal. Fontana, Glasgow.
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. 1971. The acquisition of glossolalia behaviour. Semiotica. 7-82.
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. 1972b. Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study of Glossolalia.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Goodman, F.D. 1973. Apostolics of Yucatan: A case study of a religious movement. E.

Goodman, F.D., Henney, J.H. and Pressol, E. 1974. Trance, Healing and
Hallucination: Three Field Studies in Religious Experience. Wiley, New York.

Graham, P.E. 1990. Do the deaf speak in tongues? Paraclete. Fall. 24(4), 21-27.
Graves, R.W. 1983. Tongues shall cease. Paraclete. Fall. 17(4), 20-28.
Graves, R.W. 1987. Documenting xenoglossy. Paraclete. Spring. 21(2), 27-30.
Green, M. 1975. I Believe in The Holy Spirit. Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Green, M. 1982. To Corinth With Love. Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Greenbaum, L. 1973a. Societal correlates of possession trance in sub-Saharan Africa.

E. Bourguignon, (ed.). Religion, Altered States of Consciousness, and Social Change.
Greenbaum, L. 1973b. Possession trance in sub-Saharan Africa: A descriptive analysis

of fourteen societies. E. Bourguignon, (ed.). Religion, Altered States of Consciousness,
and Social Change. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. 58-87.
Greene, D. 1865. The gift of tongues. Bibliotheca Sacra. 22, 99-126.
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.

Gritzmacher, S.A. et al. 1988. Psychological characteristics of Pentecostals: A
literature review and psychodynamic synthesis. Journal of Psychology and Theology.
Fall. 16(3), 233-245.
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.
Gundry, R.H. 1966. `Ecstatic Utterance' (NEB)? Journal of Theological Studies.

(October). 17(2), 299-307.
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.

Hadden, A.G. 1990. Gifts of the Spirit in the Assemblies of God writings: a survey.
Paraclete. Winter. 24(1), 20-32.
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.
Hanegraaf, H. 1995. Christianity in Crisis. Word Books, Great Britain.
Hanson, J.H. 1963. A personal experience in "A Symposium on Speaking in Tongues".

Dialog. Spring. 2, 152-153.
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.

Harrisville, R.A. 1974. Speaking in tongues – proof of transcendence? Dialog. Winter.
13(1), 11-18.
Harrisville, R.A. 1976. Speaking in tongues: A lexicographical study. Catholic Biblical

Quarterly. 38(1), 35-48.
Hart, M.E. 1975. Speaking in Tongues and Prophecy as Understood by Paul at

Corinth, with Reference to Early Church Usage. University of Durham, Durham.
Hartin, B. 1987. Today's Tongues: Spiritual Renewal or Spiritism Made Respectable?

Jollen Press, Brisbane, Australia.
Hasel, G.F. 1991. Speaking in Tongues. Adventist Theological Society Publications,

Berrien Springs, Michigan.
Hastings J. (ed.). 1909. Dictionary of the Bible. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
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.

Hawthorne, G.F. (ed.). 1975. Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation.
Hay, A.R. n.d. What is Wrong in the Church? Vol. 2. Counterfeit Speaking in
Tongues. New Testament Missionary Union, Audubon, N.J.
Hayford, J. 1992. The Beauty of Spiritual Language. Word, Great Britain.
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.
Hertweck, G.F. 1984. Psychological factors in glossolalia. Paraclete. Winter. 18(1),

27-30.
Heschel, A.J. 1962. The Prophets. Jewish Publication Society of America, New York.

Heschel, A.J. 1969. The Prophets. Harper & Row, New York.
Hiebert, D.E. 1971. The Thessalonian Epistles. Moody Press, Chicago.
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.
Hine, V.H. 1969. Pentecostal glossolalia: Toward a functional interpretation. Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion. Fall. 8, 211-226.
Hines, H.W. 1928. The development of the psychology of prophecy. Journal of

Religion. 8, 212-224.
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.
Hocken, P.D. 1988. Charismatic movement. S.M. Burgess, and G.B. McGee, (eds.).
130-160.
Hodge, C. 1857. Commentary on the First Epistle of the Corinthians. Eerdmans,

Grand Rapids.
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.
Hoekema, A.A. 1966. What About Tongue-Speaking? Paternoster, Exeter.
Holdcroft, L.T. 1983. Tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Paraclete. Summer.
17(3), 7-12.
Hollenweger, W. 1972. The Pentecostals. S.C.M., London.
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
mission. Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research. (April). 4(2), 68-75.
Hollenweger, W.J. 1984. After twenty years research on Pentecostalism. Theology.

Nov. 87(720), 403-412.
Holm, N.G. 1978. Functions of glossolalia in the Pentecostal movement. T. Kallstad.

(ed.). Psychological Studies on Religious Man. Almqvist & Wicksell, Uppsala,
Sweden. 141-158.
Holt, J.B. 1940. Holiness religion; cultural shock and social reorganization. American
Sociological Review. 5, 740-747.
Holy Bible (Authorised Version). n.d. CUP, Great Britain.
Holy Bible – New International Version. 1979. Hodder & Stoughton, London.
Horn, W.M. 1965. Speaking in tongues; a retrospective appraisal. Lutheran Quarterly.

(November). 17, 316-29.
Horner, J. 1971. Tongue-Speaking: a Biblical Evaluation. Baptist Union of N.S.W.,

Sydney.
Horton, S.M. 1979. 25 years after Pentecost: An exposition of 1 Corinthians 12:1-7.

Paraclete. 13(1), 5-8.

Horton, W.H. (ed.). 1966. The Glossolalia Phenomenon. Pathway Press, Cleveland,
Tennessee.
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.
Hoyle, P. 1967. Delphi. Cassel & Co., London.
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.

Hunt, D. and McMahon, T.A. 1985. Seduction of Christianity. Harvest House, Eugene,
Oregon.
Hurd, J.C. 1965. The Origins of 1 Corinthians. S.P.C.K., London.
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. 1975. Glossolalia and propheteilalia: A study of I Corinthians 14.

Wesleyan Theological Journal. 10, 15-22.
Isbell, C.D. 1976. Origins of prophetic frenzy and ecstatic utterance in the Old
Testament world. Wesleyan Theological Journal. Spring. 11, 62-80.
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.
James, W. 1961. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Macmillan, New York.
Jennings, G.J. 1968. An ethnological study of glossolalia. Journal of the American

Scientific Affiliation. 20, 5-16.
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,
reprinted from The Herald.
Judisch, D. 1978. An Evaluation of Claims to the Charismatic Gifts. Baker, Grand

Rapids.
Kaasa, H. 1963. An historical evaluation in "A symposium of speaking in tongues".

Kallstad, T. (ed.). 1978. Psychological Studies on Religious Man. Almqvist &

Wicksell, Uppsala, Sweden.
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. 1968. Tongue speaking: An Experiment in Spiritual Experience. Hodder

& Stoughton, London.
Kelsey, M.T. 1978. Discernment: A Study in Ecstasy and Evil. Paulist Press, New
York.
Kendall, E.L. 1967. Speaking with tongues. The Church Quarterly Review. 168, 11-19.
Kendrick, K. 1961. The Promise Fulfilled: A History of the Modern Pentecostal

Movement. Gospel Publishing House, Springfield, MO.
Kennedy, H.A.A. n.d. St. Paul and the Mystery Religions. Hodder & Stoughton,
London.
Kerenyi, K. 1976. Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life. Routlege &

Kegan Paul, London.
Kiev, A. 1968. The psychotherapeutic value of spirit-possession in Haiti. R. Prince

(ed). Trance and Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society, Montreal, Canada.
143-148.
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.
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.
Knox, R.A. 1950. Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion. Clarendon,

Oxford.
Knudsen, R.E. 1966. Speaking in tongues. Foundations. 9, 43-57.
Koch, K.E. n.d. The Devil’s Alphabet. Evangelization Publishers, Western Germany.
Koch, K.E. 1970. Occult Bondage and Deliverance. Evangelization Publishers,

Western Germany.
Koch, K.E. 1971. The Strife of Tongues. Kregel, Grand Rapids.

Kraemer, R.S. 1979. Ecstasy and possession: the attraction of women to the cult of
Dionysus. Harvard Theological Review. (June-August). 72, 55-80.
Kraus, H-J. 1966. Worship in Israel. Blackwell, Oxford.
Krodel, G. 1963. An exegetical examination. Dialog. Spring. 2, 154-156.
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.
Lake, K. 1927. Earlier Epistles of St. Paul. Rivingstons, London.
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.

LaSor, W.S. et al. 1982. Old Testament Survey. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
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.
Leonard, A.P. 1973. Spirit medium in Palau: transformations in a traditional system. E.

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.
Lindblom, J. 1962. Prophecy in Ancient Israel. Blackwell, Oxford.
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.

Lohse, E. 1974. The New Testament Environment. SCM, London.
Lovekin, A.A. 1962. Glossolalia, A Critical Study of Alleged Origins, The New
Testament and the Early Church. Micro film, Sewanee, Tenn.
Lovekin, A.A. 1974. Religious Glossolalia: A Longitudinal Study of Personality

Changes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Fuller Theological Seminary.
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.
MacArthur, J.F. 1978. The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective. Zondervan, Grand

Rapids.
MacArthur, J.F. 1983. Spiritual Gifts. Moody Press, Chicago.
MacArthur, J.F. 1992. Charismatic Chaos. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
McCone, R.C. 1971. The phenomena of Pentecost. Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation. 23, 83-88.

MacDonald, A.B. 1934. Christian Worship in the Primitive Church. T & T Clark,
Edinburgh.
MacDonald, W.G. 1964. Glossolalia in the New Testament. Bulletin of the Evangelical
Theological Society. Spring. 7, 59-68.
McGonigle, H. 1973. Pneumatological nomenclature in early Methodism. Wesleyan

Theological Journal. 8, Spring. 61-72.
MacGorman, J.W. 1974. The Gifts of the Spirit. Broadman, Nashville.
MacGorman, J.W. 1983. Glossolalic error and its correction: 1 Cor. 12-14. Review and
Expositor. Summer. 80(3), 389-400.
MacGregor, G. 1947. Aesthetic Experience in Religion. MacMillan, London.
MacKenzie, J.L. 1974. A Theology of the Old Testament. G. Chapman, London.
Mackie, A. 1921. The Gift of Tongues, A Study of Pathologic Aspects of Christianity.

Doran, New York.
Maclean, A.J. 1909. Gift of tongues. J. Hastings (ed.). Dictionary of the Bible. T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh. 943-944.

Mallone, G. (ed.). 1983. Those Controversial Gifts: Prophecy, Dreams, Visions,
Tongues, Interpretation, Healing. IVP, Downers Grove, Ill.
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.
Margolies, L. 1980.The paradoxical growth of Pentecostalism. S.D. Glazier (ed.).

Perspectives on Pentecostalism. University Press of America, Washington, D.C. 1-5.
Marston, G.W. 1983. Tongues, Then and Now. Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co.,
Phillipsburg, N.J.
Martin, D. and Mullen, P. (eds.). 1984. Strange Gifts? A Guide to Charismatic

Renewal. Blackwell, Oxford.
Martin, I.J. 1944. Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church. Journal of Biblical Literature.
63, 123-130.

Martin, I.J. 1960. Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church. Berea College Press, Berea,
Ky.
Martin, I.J. 1966. Gift of tongues. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 14th ed’n. 22, 288.
Martin, R.P. 1984. The Spirit and the Congregation. Eerdmans, Michigan.
Maskrey, C.H. 1987. The Pentecostal Error. Evangelistic Literature Enterprise,

Queensland, Australia. 3rd ed’n.
Masters, P. 1988. The Healing Epidemic. Wakeman Trust, London.
Masters, P and Whitcomb, J.C. 1988. The Charismatic Phenomenon. Wakeman Trust,
London.
Mauchline, J. 1938. Ecstasy. The Expository Times. 49(7), 295-299.
May, L.C. 1956. A Survey of glossolalia and related phenomena in non-Christian

religions. American Anthropologist. (February). 58, 75-96.
Mayers, M.H. 1971. The behaviour of tongues. Journal of the American Scientific
Affiliation. 23, 89-95.

Meek, T.J. 1960. Hebrew Origins. Harper, New York.
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.)
Millikan, J.A. 1973. Testing Tongues by The Word. Broadman, Nashville.
Mills, W.E. 1970. Reassessing glossolalia. Christian Century. 87, 1217-1219.
Mills, W.E. 1972a. Glossolalia. Christian Century. Sept. 27. 89(34), 949-951.
Mills, W.E. 1972b. Understanding Speaking in Tongues. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Mills, W.E. 1974a. Literature on glossolalia. Journal of the American Scientific

Affiliation. (December). 26(4), 169-173.

Mills, W.E. 1975. Ecstaticism as a background for glossolalia. Journal of the American
Scientific Affiliation. (December). 27(4), 167-171.
Mills, W.E. 1985a. A Theological/Exegetical Approach to Glossolalia. University

Press of America, Lanham.
Mills, W.E. 1985b. Glossolalia: A Bibliography. Edward Mellen Press , New York.
Mills, W.E. 1986a. Glossolalia as a sociopsychological experience. W.E. Mills (ed.).

Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
425-437.
Mills, W.E. (ed.). 1986b. Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia.

Montague, G.T. 1973. Baptism in the Spirit and speaking in tongues: a Biblical
appraisal. Theology Digest. 21, 342-360.
Montgomery, J.W. (ed.). 1976. Demon Possession. Bethany Fellowship, Minneapolis.
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.

Morris, L. 1959. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. The New
International Commentary on the New Testament. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
Morris, L. 1960. Spirit of the Living God. I.V.F., London.
Morris, W. (ed.) 1969. Heritage Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language.

International edition. American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
Moulton, J.H. and Milligan, G. 1930. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
Mowinckel, S. 1934. `The Spirit' and the `Word' in the pre-exilic reforming Prophets.
Journal of Biblical Literature. 53, 199-227.
Mowinckel, S. 1935. Ecstatic experience and rational elaboration in Old Testament

prophecy. Acta Orientalia. 13, 264-291.
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.

Mueller, T. 1981. A linguistic analysis of glossolalia. (A review article). Concordia
Theological Quarterly. (July). 45(3), 185-191.
Mundle, W. 1976. Ecstasy. C. Brown, (ed.). Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 1, 527-528.
Musvosvi, J.N. 1989. The function of the gift of tongues in the book of Acts. Ministry.
(November). 13-15.
Napier, J. 1991. Charismatic Challenge. Four Key Questions. Lancer, Australia.
Neal, G.C. 1974. Mystery Religions. J.D. Douglas (gen. ed.). New International
Dictionary of the Christian Church. Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 691.
NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA. (15th. ed’n.). 1986. Encyclopaedia Britannica

Inc., Chicago.
NEW ENGLISH BIBLE. 1961. New Testament. OUP, CUP. England.
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.

Nilsson, M.P. 1964. A History of Greek Religion. 2nd. ed’n. W.W. Norton & Co., New
York.
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.
Oates, W.E. 1967. A socio-psychological study of glossolalia. F. Stagg, et al.

Glossolalia. Tongue Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and Psychological Perspective.
Abingdon, Nashville. 76-99.
O'Connor, M. 1979. 1 Corinthians. M. Glazier, Wilmington, Delaware.
Oesterley, W.O.E. 1923. The Sacred Dance. C.U.P., Cambridge.
Oesterreich, T.K. 1930. Possession: Demonical and Other. Kegan Paul, London.
Oman, J.B. 1963. On `Speaking in Tongues': A psychological analysis. Pastoral

Psychology. (December). 14, 48-51.
Oss, D.A. 1996. A Pentecostal/charismatic response to Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. W.

Grudem (gen. ed.) Are Miraculous Gifts For Today? Zondervan, Grand Rapids. 86-93.

Packer, J.I. 1984. Keep in Step With the Spirit. IVP, Great Britain.
Parker, S.B. 1978. Possession trance and prophecy in pre-exilic Israel. Vetus
Testamentum. 28, fasc. 3, 271-285.
Parrinder, G. 1969. Religion in Africa. Pall Mall Press, London.
Parrinder, G. 1974. African Traditional Religion. Sheldon Press, London.
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.
Peck, T.J. 1989. The Interpretation of Tongues in 1 Corinthians. Unpublished M. Div.

paper, Talbot School of Theology. TREN microfiche, The Masters' Seminary.

Pedersen, J. 1946. The role played by inspired persons among the Israelites and Arabs.
H.H. Rowley (ed.), Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. 127-
142.
Pentecost, J.D. 1963. The Divine Comforter. Moody, Chicago.
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. 1977. An evangelical theology of the Charismatic Renewal. Theological

Renewal. 7, 28-35.
Pinnock, C.H. and Osborne, G.R. 1971. A truce proposal for the tongues controversy.
Christianity Today. October 8. 16(11), 6-9.

Pope, R.M. 1918. Gift of tongues. J. Hastings (ed.). Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. 2, 598-599.
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.
Poythress, V.S. 1980. Linguistic and sociological analysis of modern tongues-speaking:

their contributions and limitations. The Westminster Theological Journal. Spring. 42,
367-388.
Pratt, J.B. 1920. The Religious Consciousness: A Psychological Study. Macmillan,

New York.
Preus, K. 1982. Tongues: an evaluation from a scientific perspective. Concordia

Theological Quarterly. (October). 46(4), 277-293.
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.

Prince, R. (ed). 1968b. Trance and Possession States. R.M. Bucke Memorial Society,
Montreal, Canada.
Proctor, R.F. 1990. The rhetorical functions of Christian glossolalia. Journal of

Psychology and Christianity. Fall. 9(3), 27-34.
Pruemm, K. 1967. Mystery religions, Greco-Oriental. New Catholic Encyclopedia.

McGraw-Hill, New York. 10, 153-164.
Quebedeaux, R. 1988. Conservative and charismatic developments of the later twentieth

century. C.H. Lippy and P.W. William (eds.). Encyclopaedia of the American Religious
Experience. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 963-976.
Rackham, R.B. 1925. The Acts of the Apostles. 10th edn. Methuen & Co. Ltd., London.
Raskopf, R.W. 1972 Recent literature on the Pentecostal Movement. Anglican

Theological Review. Supplement Series #2, 113-118.
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.

Rendal, G.F. 1987. I Speak in Tongues More Than You All, trans. K. Benson & V.
Dinsmore. Believers' Bookshelf, Ontario.
Rendtorff, R. 1968. Prophetes. G. Kittel (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New

Testament. 6, 796-812.
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.
Rice, R. 1963. Charismatic revival. Christian Life. (November). 25, 30-32.
Richards, J. 1980. Laying on of hands. Theological Renewal. 15, 9-19.
Richardson, J.T. 1973. Psychological interpretations of glossolalia: a reexamination of

research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 12(2), 199-207.

Robeck, C.M. Jr. 1975a. The gift of prophecy in Acts and Paul, Part I. Studia Biblica et
Theologica. 5(1), 15-38.
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. 1983. The decade (1973-1982) in Pentecostal-Charismatic literature: a

bibliographic essay. Theology, News and Notes. March. 24-34.
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.)
809.
Roberts, D. 1994. The "Toronto" Blessing. Kingsway Publications, Eastbourne.
Roberts, P. 1979. A sign – Christian or Pagan. Expository Times. (April). 90(7), 199-
202.
Robertson, A. 1909. Gift of tongues. J. Hastings (ed.). Dictionary of the Bible. T. & T.
Clark, Edinburgh. 4, 793-796.
Robertson, A. and Plummer, A. 1986. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the

First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. T & T Clark, Edinburgh.
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. 1972b. Neo-Pentecostalism: Is the New Testament Relevant?

Unpublished lecture notes, Brisbane, Australia.
Robinson, D.W.B. 1973. Charismatic Christianity. Text of talk on ABC radio,

Australia, (March) 16.
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.

Robinson, W.A. 1973. I Once Spoke in Tongues. Forum House, Atlanta.
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.
Ruble, R.L. 1964. A Scriptural Evaluation of Tongues in Contemporary Theology.

Unpublished Th.D. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary.
Rudd, D.G. 1986. A Historical-Critical Study of Tongues and Prophecy at Corinth:

the Possible Influence of the Dionysian Cult and Worship of Apollo (1 Cor 12-14).
Unpublished B.A. Dissertation, Oral Roberts University.

Ruthven, J. 1968. Is glossolalia languages? A survey of biblical data. Paraclete. 2(2),
27-30.
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. 1968. The linguisticality of glossolalia. Hartford Quarterly. Summer. 8,

49-75.
Samarin, W.J. 1969. Glossolalia as learned behaviour. Canadian Journal of Theology.

15(1), 60-64.
Samarin, W.J. 1972a. Sociolinguistic versus neurophysiological explanation of

glossolalia: comment on Goodman's paper. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion. 11(3). September. 293-296.
Samarin, W.J. 1972b. Response. Crux. (May). 9(3), 29-31.
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.

Samarin, W.J. 1973. Glossolalia as regressive speech. Language and Speech. 16, 77-
89.
Sargant, W. 1959. Battle for the Mind. Pan, London (rev'd).
Sargant, W. 1975. The Mind Possessed. Penguin, 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.
Schaff, P. 1931. The Pentecostal and Corinthian glossolalia. Journal of Biblical

Literature. 50, xxvii-xxxii.
Scheunemann, D. 1984. The Ministries of the Holy Spirit. Studies against the
Background of the Indonesian Revival. Indonesian Missionary Fellowship, Malang,
Indonesia.
Schlier, H. 1964. ἰδιωτης. G. Kittel (ed.). Theological Dictionary of the New

217.

Schofield, A.T. 1965. Christian Sanity. Oliphants, Great Britain.
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.
Siirala, A. 1963. A methodological proposal in "A Symposium of Speaking in Tongues".

Simon, G. 1969. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. SCM Press, London.

Sirks, G.J. 1957. The Cinderella of theology: The doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Harvard
Theological Review. 50, 77-89.
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.M. 1975. The limits of ecstasy: an exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12: 1-10. G.F.
Hawthorne (ed.). Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids. 259-266.
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.
Stagg, F. et al. 1967b. Glossolalia. Tongue Speaking in Biblical, Historical, and

Psychological Perspective. Abingdon, Nashville.
Stanley, G. et. al. 1978. Some characteristics of charismatic experience: glossolalia in

Australia. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. (September). 17, 269-277.
Stendahl, K. 1975. The New Testament evidence. M. P. Hamilton (ed.). The

Charismatic Movement. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 49-60.
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.
Sullivan, F.A. 1976. Speaking in tongues. Lumen Vitae. 31, 145-170.
Sweet, J.P.M. 1967. A sign for unbelievers: Paul's attitude to glossolalia. New
Testament Studies. 13, 240-57.
Synan, V. 1971. The Holiness-Pentecostal Movement in the United States. Eerdmans,

Grand Rapids.
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.B. 1901-2. Prophetic ecstasy. Expository Times. 13, 223-228.
Taylor, R.O.P. 1929. The tongues of Pentecost. The Expository Times. 40(7), 300-303.

Thayer, J.H. 1979. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
Lafayette, Indiana.
Thee, F.C.R. 1969. Wherefore tongues ...? Paraclete. 3(1), 14-20.
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. 1978. Understanding Spiritual Gifts. Moody Press, Chicago.
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.
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.
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.
Tylor, E.B. 1873. Primitive Culture, 2. J. Murray, London.
Underhill, E. 1920. The Essentials of Mysticism. J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London.
Underhill, E. 1955. Mysticism : A Study in the Nature and Development of man's

Spiritual Consciousness. Meridian Books, New York.
Unger, M.F. 1972. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Kregel, Grand Rapids.

Valdez, A.C. (Sen.). 1980. Fire on Azusa Street. Gift Publications, Costa Mesa,
California.
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.
Vivier, L.M.V.E. 1960. Glossolalia. Unpublished Doctors' dissertation, University of

Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. (Microfilm, Dallas Theological Seminary).
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.

Wacker, G. 1988. Pentecostalism. C.H. Lippy and P.W. Williams (eds). Encyclopedia of
the American Religious Experience. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 933-945.
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.
Walker, D. 1906. The Gift of Tongues. Clark, Edinburgh.
Walker, W. 1959. A History of the Christian Church. T & T Clark, Edinburgh.
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.

Warfield, B.B. 1972. Counterfeit Miracles. Banner of Truth, London.
Wayne, S.M. 1979. Glossolalia as evidence. Paraclete. Fall. 13(4), 11-13.
Weaver, G.B. 1973. Tongues shall cease. Grace Journal. Winter. 14(1), 12-24.
Weber, M. 1952. Ancient Judaism. The Free Press, New York.
Wedderburn, A.J.M. 1975. Romans 8:26 – Towards a theology of glossolalia? Scottish

Journal of Theology. 28(4), 369-377.
Wedenoja, W. 1980. Modernization and the Pentecostal movement in Jamaica. S.D.

Glazier (ed). Perspectives on Pentecostalism. University Press of America,
Washington, D.C. 27-48.
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).

Encyclopaedia of the American Religious Experience. Charles Scribner's Sons, New
York. 1269-1283.
Williams, C.G. 1974. Ecstaticism in Hebrew prophecy and Christian glossolalia.

Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses. 3(4), 320-338.
Williams, C.G. 1975. Glossolalia as a religious phenomenon: ‘Tongues’ at Corinth and

Pentecost. Religion. 5, 16-32.
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.
Wilson, R.R. 1979. Prophecy and ecstasy: A reexamination. Journal of Biblical

Literature. (September). 98(3), 321-387.

Womack, S.A. 1982. From colprolalia to glossolalia: structural similarities between
Gilles de la Jourette syndrome and speaking in tongues. Journal of Mind and
Behaviour. Winter. 3(1), 75-87.
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, L.J. 1979. The Prophets of Israel. Baker, Grand Rapids.
Wood, W.W. 1965. Culture and Personality Aspects of the Pentecostal Holiness
Religion. Mouton and Co., The Hague.
Worcester, J.E. 1897. Worcester's Dictionary: A Dictionary of the English Language.

Lippincott, Philadelphia.
Wright, D. 1982. Montanism: A movement of spiritual renewal? Theological Review.

22, 19-29.
Yaker, H.M. 1963. Letter to the editor. Christianity Today. (November) 8. 8(3), 17-18.
Young, E.J. 1952. My Servants the Prophets. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Zaehner, R.C. 1957. Mysticism: Sacred and Profane. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Zaehner, R.C. 1972. Drugs, Mysticism and Make Believe. Collins, London.
Zodhiates, S. 1974. Tongues? AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Zodhiates, S. 1992. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. World
Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls.
*****

APPENDIX
THE FOUNDING OF THE CHURCH

1. INTRODUCTION
This treatment is explanatory rather than exhaustive, in order to set the parameters
that are assessed in this study concerning the differentiation between the body of
converts of the Day of Pentecost, and the origin and nature of the church.
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.

Likewise, Israel was to be a witness to the nations concerning Jehovah, the one
true God (Isaiah 43:9-13):
All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of them foretold this and proclaimed to us the
former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, “It
is true”. “You are my witnesses”, declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may
know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after
me. I, even I, and the Lord, and apart from me there is no saviour. I have revealed and saved and proclaimed –
I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses”, declares the Lord, “ that I am God. Yes, and
from ancient days I am he. No-one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?”
“… Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is
there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one…”.
(Isaiah 44:8).
“… I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth.”
(Isaiah 49:6).
Clearly the Gentiles are included in God’s plan.
Joel emphatically identifies the inclusion of the Gentiles in his statement in
chapter 2:28-32, especially the phrases “I will pour out my Spirit on all people” (v.28)
and “… everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved” (v.32). Joel’s
statement is a bridge to the New Testament, on the Day of Pentecost.
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.
4. PREMISE OF THE CHURCH

At Caesarea Philippi, following Peter’s confession, Jesus declares: “… you are
Peter, and on this rock I will build my church …” (Matthew 16:18).
This passage has notoriously caused much controversy in the church’s history. At
least there is some common acceptance that there is a reference to something
foundational for the church and that Peter is associated with it in terms of his
declaration (v.16).
The position adopted here is that Peter’s foundational involvement in the church
is found in an additional declaration found in the book of Acts.
5. DEFINITIVE DEVELOPMENT

Following from Peter’s significant interaction with Christ at Caesarea Philippi,
Peter has another very significant encounter with God in his vision recorded in Acts
10:9-16. After seeing a vision of “all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
of the earth and birds of the air” (Acts 10:12), Peter was commanded to “Kill and eat”
(v.13). Against his refusal, Peter was rebuked: “Do not call anything impure that God
has made clean” (v.15). This occurred three times.
Quite dramatically Peter received foundational revelation concerning the
Gentiles:
You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has
shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
(Acts 10:28).
Peter’s understanding of the vision is anticipated by Cornelius under God’s

direction:
… Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.
(Acts 10:33).
Peter again states the interpretation of the vision (Acts 10:34-43), and in
particular:
… I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear
him and do what is right.
(Acts 10:34-35).
Clearly Israel has no advantage over the Gentiles, especially that they have no
“monopoly on God” (cf. Romans 3:1-2, 9-10). God accepts men of “every nation” (Acts
10:35).
What Peter received dramatically by way of revelation is now dramatically
confirmed in front of Jews (“circumcised believers” – Acts 10:45) as now the Gentiles
also received the Holy Spirit (as predicted by Joel).
Later Paul confirms the inclusion of the Gentiles into the rootstock of Israel
(Romans 11:16-24), and then he addresses the issue more specifically in Ephesians. The
book of Ephesians significantly addresses the concept of the church: its foundation
(2:19-22), its metaphors (building – 2:19-22; body – 4:12-16; bride – 5:22-32), its
unity (2:11-22), its mystery (3:1-13). Hence, the emphasis on the church provides
significant information.
Building on Peter’s revelation in Acts 10, Paul declares his own revelation: “the
mystery made known to me by revelation” (Ephesians 3:3). He declares the “mystery of
Christ” namely:
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together in the
promise in Christ Jesus.
(Ephesians 3:6).

Unambiguously, the church is the combination of Jew and Gentile in one body, the
Church. Neither Jew or Gentile alone or separately, but both together in ONE. Note
especially:
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of
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.
6. DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW ENTITY IN ACTS.

· 2:41 Three thousand added “to their number”. (Not identified as the church).
· 2:42 Devoted themselves to “the fellowship”.
· 2:46 Met together in the temple courts – no formal identity or building – and in
their homes.
· 2:47 There was nevertheless growth as the Lord added to “their number” daily.
· 3:11 Peter and John meet at “Solomon’s Colonnade”.
· 4:1-2 Pivotal message of the new group – the resurrection.
· 4:4 Continued growth.
· 4:23 Peter and John went back “to their own people”. A cohesive group is
developing.
· 4:32,34 “All the believers were one in heart and mind”. The new group was
developing great unity and mutual fellowship.
· 4:33 The pivotal message is maintained.
· 5:1-11 The case of Ananias and Sapphira shows an accountability to an unofficial
group.
· 5:11 First use of the word ejkklhsia – although the term is not necessarily
definitive of the church as an identity with structure and “constitution”. At that
time “church” was a term used of any assembled group – like Israel in the
wilderness (Acts 7:38) or a riotous mob (Acts 19:32, 40).
· 5:12 Still meeting at Solomon’s Colonnade.
· 5:13-14 Continued growth. Believers “added to their number”.
· 5:33-39 Before Gamaliel, the believers are identified as a sect, and that they most
likely derive from God (compare the Matthew 16:18 expectancy).
· 5:41-42 Basic principles of teaching and preaching focused on Christ. Still no
regularised location – “the temple courts and from house to house”.
· 6:1 Social ministry developing. Need for some formal structure, definition and
accountability.
· 6:2 “The Twelve” – assumed but identified leadership amongst the disciples.
· 6:3 Some form of division of labour and embryonic operation of “the
priesthood of all believers”. Recognition of the need of qualification for
serving roles.
· 6:5 Unwitting “congregational government” – the “proposal pleased the whole
group”. Compare the decision/approval of the church at the Jerusalem Council
(Acts 15:22). Assent without formal membership.
· 6:6 Affirmation by the leaders implies a form of accreditation – and increasing
structure/form.
· 6:7 Continued and significant growth.
· 8:1 Persecution of the “church at Jerusalem”. Technically the church probably
had very few Gentiles at this stage, due to the enormous prejudice. Even Peter,
after his revelation in Acts 10, still defaulted at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-16).
Probably Luke is using the term retrospectively of the initial church that was
first recognized in Jerusalem.
· 8:14 Apostles in Jerusalem adopt an informal “sending agency” operation. No
church is formally identified.
· 9:1 The believers are referred to as “the Lord’s disciples”. Those of “The Way”
were apparently operating under the umbrella of synagogues.
· 9:13 The “saints in Jerusalem” is a general term, suggesting the absence of a
formal identity in Jerusalem up to this time.
· 9:15 The ministry of Paul is identified as having a specific role in reaching the
Gentiles, part of God’s plan.
· 10:1-48 Subsequently Peter receives a vision and revelation to challenge the Jews
to recognize and accept the Gentiles in fellowship. (See above).
· 11:1-3 ** Reaction of the “Apostles and brothers” in Jerusalem clearly suggests
that the Gentiles had still not been included, and that the church was still not
technically in existence.
· 11:4-18 Against the reaction of the Apostles and brothers, Peter boldly declares his
revelation, resulting in the stated acceptance of the Gentiles: “So then, God has
even granted the Gentiles repentance unto life” (v.18).
· 11:26 Continued growth – amongst the Greeks at Antioch. First recorded outreach
to Gentiles.
· 13:1-3 The identification of “Christians” at Antioch (Acts 11:26) and the ministry
of Paul at Antioch, the Apostle to the Gentiles, plus the change of attitude
amongst the Jerusalem leaders, suggests that the rootstock of Israel was now
accepting Gentile believers, thus signalling the formal identification of the
church.
7. RELEVANCE OF THE DISCUSSION.

If it is established that the church was not formed at Pentecost, but some time
later, then it follows that tongues at Pentecost were given for a specific purpose to that
group (a “one-off” ONE-STAGE communication), but they are not to be confused with
the gift to the church (a long term TWO-STAGE communication) – a Jew/Gentile group
identified subsequently. The church was provided with the necessary gifts as and when
they were necessary.
The above “Development” in Acts shows something of the growth of the
fellowship and the associated structures that were given as necessary. Likewise, it
follows that spiritual gifts – for the benefit of the church – would only be given as
required.
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.
*****

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
BACKGROUND, TRAINING
Rev Dr David A Swincer is an ordained Baptist Minister, having served almost
40 years in pastoral ministry, including 13 years as a seminary professor.
Raised on a sheep farm in South Australia, David developed a strong sense of the
practicalities of life, and this experience has been invaluable in his pastoral and
lecturing experience.
He originally trained as a secondary school teacher, specializing in mathematics
and science. He acquired a B.A. degree and Secondary Teaching Diploma. He taught for
4 years full-time.
The unmistakable call to Pastoral Ministry led to training in the New South Wales
Baptist Theological Seminary, where he did post-graduate study, gaining a B.D. and
Dip. R.E. After 8 years of Pastoral Ministry, he moved to the Seminary Position,
specializing in New Testament – especially Greek exegesis. Circumstances meant that
he also lectured widely in other areas, undertaking some lecturing in OT exegesis,
Modern Church History, overview of theology, and a special emphasis in pastoral
subjects (including writing several papers on associated topics, notably a Pre-marriage
Counseling Course; Marriage Enrichment; Conflict resolution).
He pursued strong personal interest in the nature and practice of worship.
A pastor at heart, Dr Swincer loved to see the practical side of careful exegesis
and theological education.
During this time he undertook M.A. and Doctoral studies.
His whole ministry has been marked by a willingness to think laterally, and to
challenge common presuppositions, in the search for the truth. His books strongly
challenge traditional positions that seem to be held unthinkingly. That will be a
challenge to the reader!
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.
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.
*****

FURTHER READING
SEE BELOW

CONDEMNED ALREADY
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.
I warmly commend it to be carefully assessed.
Dr EG Gibson – one-time principal of the Baptist Theological Seminary of

Queensland, Australia.
*****
**Available at the website:

www.integritypublications.biz
SEE FURTHER BELOW:

WILL NOBODY LISTEN?
How embarrassingly obvious!

Two simple aspects of regular counselling/interviewing, brought together in a unique
relationship and the results are nothing short of astonishing. We all interview two
parties separately—at least from time to time. And we all write notes of some
description. But this method of combining these two methods, very discreetly, and with
great attention to details and as a clear tool of communication between two parties at
odds, is simply enlightening.
Conflict Resolution is not new—but this combination certainly seems to be. Dr Swincer
should be deeply thanked for this timely and very effective emphasis.
During more than forty years in the pastoral (and associated) ministries, I have been
able to benefit from these methodologies to great advantage, and so I have no hesitation
in warmly commending this volume to pastors in particular, but also to anyone involved
in counselling ministries, especially where there is a focus on Conflict Resolution.
Those who employ this methodology will have great success personally, but perhaps
more importantly, difficult situations will be remarkably solved, and warring factions
brought to happy resolution.
Let there be more fulfilling reconciliation!
A Seasoned Pastor – having enjoyed the blessings of seeing families in particular,
brought to peace.
www.integritypublications.biz
*****
SEE BELOW

LET GOD SPEAK:
HIS WORD IS AUTHORITY
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!

www.integritypublications.biz SEE BELOW

TONGUES: VOLUME 2
GENUINE BIBLICAL LANGUAGE
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.
A retired pastor comments:

"This book by David Swincer is a demonstration of close and thorough exegesis. You
will be rewarded with many insights and pastoral tips as you read this work thoughtfully
and reflectively. This work is also a good example of approaching Scripture seriously
and wrestling with its application - sadly, by and large, a lost art today."
Mark Ingram.
*****

Tongues Volume 1 Confused by Ecstasy A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CONFUSING ELEMENT OF ECSTASY A CULTURAL STUDY IN HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES Nodrm PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tongues Volume 1 Confused by Ecstasy A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CONFUSING ELEMENT OF ECSTASY A CULTURAL STUDY IN HISTORICAL AND BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVES Nodrm PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TONGUES: VOLUME 1

A CAREFUL STUDY OF THE CONFUSING ELEMENT OF ECSTASY -

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

First edition 2006

Integrity Publications, Adelaide,

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

This should become a text-book on the subject.

Dr Clifford Wilson – prolific author and Christian statesman, Australia.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

1.2 LIMITS TO THE STUDY

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

DEFINING AND EXPLAINING SOME

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

2.1.2 SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

A. REFERENCES INCLUDING BOTH γλωσσα AND λαλειν

B. REFERENCES TO GLOSSOLALIA BUT OMITTING λαλεω

C. REFERENCE TO GLOSSOLALIA BUT OMITTING γλωσσα

D. OTHER FORMS OF EXPRESSION

2.1.3 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS

B. KNOWN LANGUAGES AT PENTECOST

D. LANGUAGES IN THE MODERN CHURCH

E. PRELIMINARY DELINEATION OF THE PHENOMENON

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

2.1.4 SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

2.3.1 THE GREEK WORD

2.3.2 ENGLISH USAGE

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Worcester (1897, 463) adds the aspect of madness, as a possible expression of

2.3.3 PARTICULAR DEFINITIONS

Glossolalia is here closely associated with ecstasy, trance and hypnosis.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

2.3.4 ASSOCIATION WITH TRANCE

2.3.5 ECSTASY: USUALLY AN INDUCED STATE

2.3.6 CONSEQUENCES AND CHARACTERISTICS

B. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRECURSORS

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

D. CONTINUING CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE

F. UNION WITH THE DEITY

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

G. THE ULTIMATE EXPERIENCE

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

During this time of communication, the type of behaviour of the recipient is

2.4.3 ACHIEVING TRANCE.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

2.4.4 TRANCE AND GREEK CULTURE.

2.4.5 TRANCE AND GLOSSOLALIA.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

2.4.6 CORRECTIVE FOR AUTHENTIC GLOSSOLALIA.

2.5.1 CLOSE CORRELATION, PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA

2.5.2 DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPHECY AND GLOSSOLALIA

2.5.3 PROPHECY RELATED TO ECSTASY

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

Few (Christian) scholars would be happy with Povah's conclusions. However,

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*

ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*