The Context of the Gift of Tongues

The Readings: Click Here

Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further: Click Here

---

Hey everyone,

 

Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.

 

I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.

 

In this episode, we have the readings from Pentecost Sunday, Year B as our target for reflection. There are several details that we’re going to touch on. The first is the gift of “tongues” found in the first reading, taken from Acts 2:1-11. We will briefly touch on this detail given that we’ve already dealt with it for Pentecost Sunday, Year A. The other details, however, will be taken from the optional readings for the second reading, taken from Galatians 5:16-25, and the Gospel, taken from John 15:26-27; 16:12-15. The relevant apologetical topic for the optional second reading is the possibility for a Christian to lose the gift of salvation. There are a few topics that tie into the optional Gospel, taken from John 15:25-27; 16:12-15: the filioque (that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son), the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit, contra Jehovah Witnesses beliefs.

 

So, let’s get started with the gift of “tongues” in the first reading, taken from Acts 2:1-11. As I mentioned, we already dealt with this in episode 27, Pentecost Sunday, Year A. Suffice to say, the reference here to the “different tongues” has given rise to great controversy among Christians, both within and without the Catholic Church. The question is, “What is the nature of such a gift?”

 

For some Christians, especially those within Charismatic circles, “tongues” refers to a “private prayer language” that the Holy Spirit uniquely gives the Christian. Others within such circles interpret it as an utterance that to some might be unintelligible but to others is intelligible.

 

What both interpretations have in common is that the gift of “tongues” is not the gift to speak or understand a real language, which is the other way to interpret the gift of “tongues.” As I argue in episode 27 of the Sunday Catholic Word, I conclude the gift of “tongues” refers to a real language. You can check out episode 27 for the details.

 

With that out the way, let’s now turn to the optional second reading, taken from Galatians 5:16-25. Without reading the whole passage, Paul juxtaposes “the flesh” and “life in the Spirit.” He then lists several deeds of the flesh: “immorality, impurity, lust, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like.” After this list, Paul warns the Galatians, “I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

 

Now, you might be thinking, “What’s the apologetical significance?”

 

Well, some Christians believe that true born-again Christians, those who are already saved/justified, cannot possibly lose their salvation. But here Paul issues a warning of being excluded from the kingdom of God on account of these “works of the flesh” to Christians who were already saved/justified. Paul tells the Galatians in 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free.”

 

The reason I emphasize “to Christians who were already saved/justified” is because as a counter some Protestants will say that if a “Christian” begins to engage in such immoral activities, then he was never saved in the first place. But such a counter can’t be offered with this text because those to whom Paul is writing are “set free in Christ,” and thereby are legit Christians.

 

So, here’s the question: why would Paul issue a warning of being excluded from the kingdom of God to true born-again Christians if they were eternally secure in their salvation? That Paul does issue such warning to these Galatians reveals that Paul didn’t believe the Galatian Christians were absolutely secure in their salvation.

 

Let’s now turn to the optional Gospel reading, taken from John 15:26-27;16:12-15. Jesus says to his disciples:

 

“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father,

the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father,

he will testify to me.

And you also testify,

because you have been with me from the beginning.

. . .

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth,

he will guide you to all truth.

He will not speak on his own,

but he will speak what he hears,

and will declare to you the things that are coming.

He will glorify me,

because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.

Everything that the Father has is mine;

for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine

and declare it to you.”

 

There are three apologetical topics that tie into this Gospel reading. The first is the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

 

Jehovah Witnesses are known for denying the personhood of the Holy Spirit. On their website, they say, “The holy spirit is God’s power in action, his active force” and “is not a person.” But what Jesus says in our gospel reading reveals otherwise.

 

Notice Jesus ascribes rational activity to the Spirit: “he will testify [to Jesus] . . . guide [the apostles] . . . he will speak what he hears. . . [and] he will declare [what belongs to Jesus and the Father].” A force doesn’t testify, guide, speak, and declare.

 

Now, a Jehovah Witness might counter and say that the ascription of personal qualities to the Holy Spirit doesn’t necessarily prove the Holy Spirit is a person, since the Bible also ascribes personal qualities to wisdom (Prov. 1:20), death (Romans 5:17—death “reigns”), and sin (Romans 5:21—sin “reigns”), which we don’t think are persons.

 

Perhaps we can concede that the personal qualities themselves don’t prove the personhood of something. But when read in light of the context of our Gospel reading, which all about two other persons—the Father and the Son—we can infer the personhood of the Holy Spirit. It would be very odd and misleading for Jesus to speak of the rational activities of himself, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, but only intend to reveal that he and the Father were persons and not the Holy Spirit.

 

Moreover, as Jimmy Akin argues in his book A Daily Defense (Day 28), elsewhere in the Bible the Holy Spirit is directly quoted (Acts 8:29, 10:19, 21:11; Rev. 14:31). Acts 13:2 even quotes the Holy Spirit using the personal pronoun “I”: “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” (Acts 13:2).

 

From these texts, Jimmy draws his inference as follows:

 

This is particularly significant because the Holy Spirit is directly quoted in the historical narrative of Acts. He is quoted just like other persons, and the quotation cannot be dismissed as symbolic. This is straightforward historical narrative. Scripture thus depicts the Holy Spirit with intellect and will, as a person who—like Jesus—assists Christians, and as a person who communicates and does so using the personal pronoun I. The claim the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force is not supported by the text.

 

Finally, not only do New Testament authors ascribe personal qualities to the Holy Spirit, they also view him as divine, which clearly reveals the New Testament authors didn’t believe the Holy Spirit was an “active force” but rather they believed he was a divine person.

 

Consider, for example, 1 Corinthians 2:11, where Paul says, “[N]o one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” How can the Spirit comprehend the infinite thoughts of God unless he’s also infinite in knowledge? If the Holy Spirit is omniscient, then he is equal to God, and thus a divine person.

 

Another example is Acts 5:1-4. Here Peter rebukes Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit, but then a few sentences later says they lied to God. How can lying to the Holy Spirit be the same as lying to God unless the Holy Spirit is God? And if God, then personal.

 

We also can look at Hebrews 10:15-17 where the text quotes God’s promise of a new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 but prefaces it by saying, “The Holy Spirit also bears witness . . . saying . . .” Notice that God’s words are the Holy Spirit’s words. Clearly, the first-century Christians believed that the Holy Spirit is God, and thereby personal.

 

As they do with Jesus, the JWs miss it when it comes to the New Testament’s teaching about the personhood and the divinity of the Holy Spirit. And because such a teaching belongs to the heart of Christianity, their denial of it excludes them from being properly called Christian.

 

The second apologetical topic embedded in this Gospel reading is the doctrine of the filioque, which states that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from both the Father and the Son. We profess this in the Nicene Creed every Sunday. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a brief statement about the filioque in paragraph 247:

 

[T]he affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447, even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries).

 

This is apologetically significant because our Orthodox brethren deny this teaching, stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. And there seems to be some support here in the Gospel, for Jesus says, “the Spirit of truth . . . proceeds from the Father” (15:26).

 

But, in response, Jesus doesn’t say the Spirit proceeds only from the Father. He merely affirms that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. And such an affirmation doesn’t entail that the Father alone spirates the Spirit. To conclude that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father from a mere affirmation that he proceeds from the Father would be like saying the Scripture is our sole infallible rule of faith because the apostles affirm it to be inspired.

 

Now, our response so far only proves that this passage doesn’t support the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. We haven’t given positive evidence for our claim.

 

I do think, however, that this optional Gospel reading does provide such positive evidence.

 

Many scholars point to Jesus’ affirmation that He sends the Spirit to the apostles from the Father. Jesus’ sending of the Spirit in history, so it’s argued, reflects the eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

 

Now, for some the temporal mission isn’t enough to justify conclusions about the eternal processions. If so, we can appeal to two other details in this Gospel reading.

 

First, as we mentioned already, Jesus affirms that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. But notice in John 16:15, Jesus says, “Everything the Father has is mine.” This confirms the traditional theological maxim: Jesus is everything that the Father is except being Father—that’s to say, Jesus is identical to the Father in every way except in the relation that they have to each other: the Father is begetter and the Son is begotten.

 

Now, if everything that the Father has belongs to Jesus (except being the Father), and the procession of the Spirit belongs to Father (which doesn’t constitute the Father as Father), then it would follow that the procession of the Spirit belongs to Jesus along with the Father. Hence, we can say, “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

 

Another supporting detail that some have pointed to is Jesus’ statement, “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” As W. Leonard argues in his contributory article, “The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. John” in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (pg. 1008), “As Jesus glorified the Father, the Paraclete shall glorify Jesus, receiving and showing what is common to the Father and the Son. This statement implies the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from a co-principle.”

 

Surely, the topic of the filioque goes much deeper and becomes much more complicated that what we’ve laid out here. But at least we can see there is some biblical precedent for the doctrine of the filioque.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Well, my friends, that brings us to the end of this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Pentecost Sunday, Year B do not sell us short when it comes to apologetical material. There’s stuff here for

 

• The nature of the gift of “tongues,”
• The doctrine that it’s possible for Christians to forfeit the gift of salvation through mortal sin,
• The filioque, or the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son,
• The personhood of the Holy Spirit, and
• The Divinity of the Holy Spirit

 

As always, thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.

 

One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.

 

I hope you have a blessed Pentecost Sunday, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!