Pro: The verse says that with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

Con: A. The verse speaks about a particular group that this will happen to. The group is identified as the drunkards of Ephraim v.1, 3 and also the priest and prophets v. 7. B. Overall this connection is to the Jews.

Ref: Paul uses the above quote in 1 Corinthians. 14:20.

Paul tells the Corinthians not to be children in understanding, in malice to be children but in understanding to be men. He speaks about how tongues are not for believers or unbelievers without interpretation or the person knowing the language being spoken. (See 1 Corinthians. 14:21)

Paul uses this verse to show the use of the gift of tongues. Note that in the book of Isaiah another tongue (Assyrians) came prior to judgment/destruction by the Assyrians and in Acts/Corinthians tongues (Misc. by Spirit) came prior to the judgment/destruction of Jerusalem in A.D 70.

Also noteworthy is that the Jews were rejecting the word of G-d then (Isaiah's time) in it's easy form, (G-d's prophecies and judgment given through the prophets in Hebrew) and they rejected "The Word" in its easy form (salvation through Messiah "The Word"). Destruction follows and the warning would come with the Assyrian language pervading Jerusalem and proving G-d's word and in the N.T his word came as a warning in other languages pervading all the Jews all around the then known world. Tongues was a terrible sign to the Jews that G-d was beginning to do something that they would never approve of.

This would have hit the Jews hard because their attitude was that they only were G-d's people only and to hear people in pagan nations praising G-d would be a shock! To hear people being blessed by G-d to speak in a pagan nation's tongue the praise of G-d would show the Jews that G-d was indeed moving to accept other nations.

The Jews would constantly reject Paul's notion of G-d being the one to call him to reach the Gentiles throughout the book of Acts. But Paul and others ability to speak in tongues, G-d's praises and other people beginning to praise G-d from their national tongue would prove the Jews wrong despite their pride.

Pro: Yahshua himself (portion of) says they shall speak in new tongues.

Con: This scripture goes along with the commission of Messiah for the apostles to preach the gospel to every creature. The signs that followed them that believed would evidently help fulfill that commission. As will be the continuous case in this issue, the proponents of the unknown/ heavenly tongue take this verse out of context blindly leaping toward the quick answer they want to see.

But there is a problem in this context that needs to be dealt with. In the context Yahshua makes statements concerning what: signs way: shall follow who: them that believe. This context v.17-18 can only be taken two ways.

A. To follow the Proponents logic, one would have to realize that seeing how Yahshua used the same wording "they shall" for each sign that in taking portion of the verse (they shall speak with new tongues.) and concluding that that means all need to speak in tongues presents a problem. By rule of context everyone would need to cast out devils (Note: Yahshua/Apostles physically cast out devils.), everyone would need to take up serpents (Note: Paul took up a serpent.), and all would have to lay their hands on the sick with the sick recovering (Note: Apostles were used by G-d for instantaneous healings.). As you can see in this case many and almost all Messiahians would not be meeting the qualifications stated by Yahshua.

B. Or one could realize that Yahshua was making a statement concerning what the group (them that believe) would collectively accomplish. #1 Yahshua/Apostles did cast out devils. #2 Apostles/Early Messiahians did speak in new tongues. #3 Paul did take a serpent in Acts. #4 Yahshua/Apostles did lay their hands on the sick with them recovering. In this view we see that all of Yahshua's statement were fulfilled and that only so many individuals within the group accomplished this. The argument is not that any of these gifts are impossible to perform today, but rather or not today's practice coincide with what the bible says.

 It should be realize that today's tongues (in most camps and at the forming of this doctrine) would associate itself with the word of faith and other super spiritual and extra biblical matter. Casting out devils today are in the mind or on some pre set stage where as the casting out of devils yesterday were not in a set environment but in the open, spontaneous, in front of foe and friend, and literal with physical evidence being present.

Tongues of yesterday (Acts) were known according to the bible while today's tongues are unknown and cannot be verified. Taking up serpents yesterday were unintentional while today's taking up serpents is a cultic practice of tempting the Lord and trying ones faith. The healings of yesterday were in public, spontaneous, proven, and covered all manner of visible illnesses.

Today's healings are in set environment, are usually invisible (leg extensions, back healings, etc.), are not spontaneous, and are not proven. The power of yesterday was able to raise people from the dead while today it is not accomplished.

Note: The proponents are the same group that would count snake handlers as being in doctrinal error to teach that they need to take up serpents as Yahshua spoke of. Their judgment would be based on the snake handlers taking the scriptures out of context using a portion of a verse. Compare that to what has been shown above.

Pro: This view differs in the Pro camp. Some claim the verse says they spoke with other tongues. Others say that in this chapter there were two miracles performed, one the apostles speaking in gibberish and two, the Jews hearing them in their own language. Many use the "&others mocking said, these men are full of new wine" as proving they spoke in gibberish.

Con: In just reading the word of G-d for what it says, the Apostles were blessed to speak in another unknown (foreign) language. The problem with the double blessing is that it cannot be directly seen. Two, it would be strange that G-d would only bless the apostles with gibberish instead of the next step of an actually language. Three, this theory has unregenerate Jews being blessed with supposedly the gift of interpretations.

The issue with the others mocking does not need to be taken only to mean that the apostles must have been doing something extra strange such as gibberish to be mocked in such a way.

These apostles speaking in a foreign language possibly not known to those who mocked would have been strange enough. Or if they did know the language spoken who could imagine what was being said, perhaps "Yahshua is Messiah", "Yahshua of Nazareth sits on the right hand of power", "He has risen", their statements would have definitely been seen as crazy. (Consider Fetus with Paul in Acts 26:24 and statements in! Corinthians. 14:23)

A key assumption here that is made by some in tongue speaking churches is that supposedly the apostles went from speaking in the gift of known tongues to speaking in unknown tongues somewhere between Acts 2 and Acts 8, even though the bible gives no one the authority to make such a high assumption. The next problem that we see with this idea is that even if one could believe this, there would still be the breaking of instructions in the modern tongue churches.

This does not apply to those churches that believe in speaking in a known tongue as being initial evidence such as the Pentecostals. The assumption here would only show that in today's churches it should be that an individual is blessed to speak in a known tongue as the initial evidence as the Spirit gave them utterance in the past (Acts 2).

This is important because the first baptism of the Set Apart Spirit should be used as a rule of thumb for the remaining three scenarios. In Acts 10 it is shared that the event took place exactly like Pentecost with the exception of the wind, fire, and commotion. With the other two scenarios it is not mentioned what kind of tongues were spoken in.

However Acts 2 gives us exactly what happens when one is baptized with the Set Apart Spirit and one of the initial gifts that are demonstrated. With all of this discussion put together we see that great conflict comes about in assuming that there is a such thing as a secondary tongue that all must speak in that is not ever specifically stated in the bible.

Acts 2 has to be the precedent I challenge anyone to find one verse in Acts that specifically shows (as speaking in known tongues is made clear in Acts 2) that all Messiahians would have to speak in an unknown tongue as initial evidence of receiving the Set Apart Spirit.

As you will see throughout this discussion, the secondary tongue is never shown specifically but yet proponents claim verses here there and everywhere that only associate with speaking in tongues. The only tongue that is specifically identified without mass assumption and inference is the gift of known tongues.

Pro: Upon the laying of hands on the Samaritans and the receiving of the Set Apart Spirit the scriptures says that upon seeing this take place that Simon requested the ability to do this with money. Therefore we must assume that it was tongues that they spoke in. And we must assume further that between Acts 2 to the present the apostles switched from the far more miraculous tongues to mere gibberish (This assumption is held in some circles). So therefore the Samaritans spoke in the heavenly version of tongues.

Con: In these scriptures it is bad enough to assume (a great catalyst to creating problems) that the only visible sign that Simon could have seen was tongues. 1 Corinthians. 12 states that the Set Apart Spirit is manifested in nine different ways. Even in agreeing with the assumption of tongues to the Proponents advantage we would have to go a lot further in assumption to say that this was a heavenly version of tongues which is based off the assumption that the apostles had now been speaking in such.

Pro: They spoke in tongues and magnified G-d. This is one of the purposes of the unknown tongue. The initial evidence again was speaking in tongues.

Con: Note this was known tongues according to our leading example in Acts 2 in which the rest must be based. This text especially, which is spoken as being the same to Acts 2 over in Acts 11 by Peter for defense. This would show the Jews that G-d had worked what had come to pass (a sign to the Jews of G-d's will).

Again we must stick to the context in both this whole chapter with chapter 11 and also the book of Acts as a whole. We see here that it is on the shoulders of the proponents to prove that this was the second Tongue because the Bible already tells us it was at least the first Tongue. One, there is someone there able to (perhaps the brethren from Joppa that accompanied Peter) notice that they magnified G-d compared to being able to know that the disciples prophesied in chapter 19. This argument however is not strong in disproving the ability of this scripture to be dealing with the second Tongue.

However chapter 11 helps out greatly, Peter in his defense before the elders of the church states how that the Set Apart Spirit fell on the Gentiles as it did them in the beginning. In the beginning (Acts 2)the results were speaking in a known earthly tongue, not heavenly. How could the apostles know that this was not some prank being pulled if this was only gibberish that they were hearing?

In this view the Gentiles ability to speak in another language [Hebrew, perhaps seeing they were Gentiles] would be a definite unquestioned event in which the apostles could affirm for certain that #1. This was of G-d. #2 The Gentiles have been accepted into salvation.

It would be the Gentiles speaking in tongues that would show the Jews what G-d thought about the Gentiles not a glorying over a gift. Pay attention to the focus of why the gift was given.

Concerning the text of this scenario we see that Peter would have a vision concerning the directions the Set Apart Spirit wanted him to follow. If one would think about it the vision was given to a believer to help his unbelief concerning a common/unclean food having been made clean by G-d himself. Concerning the theme of Acts and particularly this scene we see that the Gentiles speaking in tongues were shown to the believers to help their unbelief that G-d was now cleaning that which was unclean, the Gentiles.

Special Note:

Throughout the epistles, especially (Acts and Ephesians) the greatest message being given to the Jews was that G-d has now come to save all through the blood of Messiah. If one simply paid attention they would see that this message was not easily accepted by the Jews.

This attitude goes back into the Old Testament as well. G-d himself stated that he would stir the Jews to jealousy (with their inclusive relationship to Jehovah) with another nation.

Jonah's attitude was of being willing to have the people of Nineveh be judged than go do what G-d had commanded him because he was showing mercy on a Gentile nation. The Jews were filled with wrath at Yahshua's statements in Luke 4:24-27 concerning Elijah and Elisha going to others outside Israel in a time of distress. 1 Thessalonians. 2:16 shows a prime example of the attitude of the Jews toward salvation being preached to the Gentiles.

They would know that this meant that they could not feel they held special status with G-d by merely being a Jew. Look at Paul's rebuke to the Jews in Romans 2 concerning who the real Jew was.

The Jews throughout Acts would contend with Paul's notion that G-d had sent him to preach salvation to the Gentiles.

They would give him full attention until the word "Gentile" was mentioned in his defense (Acts 22). The praises of G-d in other languages by Gentile people and the miracle of Acts 2 would slap the Jews with the reality that regardless of their disbelief, that G-d was reaching out beyond Israel to show his salvation. Cornelius and his household in chapter10 would wake up the believing Jews to the same truth when they would have struggled with any other explanation to why Peter had associated himself with Gentiles.

Acts 19

Focal Verse: 6 "And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Set Apart Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied.

Pro: As always the focus is that they spoke with tongues and it was the first thing done.

Con: The argument is pretty much the same as prior scenes. In Acts the main chapter is 2 and from there derives which tongues were spoken by the groups to follow. Paul's question in this context is misleading because it is translated incorrectly in the KJV.

Even in reading the KJV bible you can still see that the question was not one of identifying them as automatically having been saved but having no Set Apart Spirit but more so the other way.

Paul's question was an assumption of which they were that was corrected when they exposed the fact that they did not even know the existence of the Set Apart Spirit. If you read carefully (especially easier in the correct translating of this context) you can see that the disciples response drew Paul's reaction of needing to tell them that John's baptism was only sufficient in pointing to Messiah.

In further reading you see that the disciples would accept this exhortation and are baptized in the name of the Lord Yahshua which just goes further to prove that these disciples of John the Baptist had not yet received salvation but were still following John.

There would have been no need for them to be baptized again in the name of Yahshua if they had been already. Remember this was the normative practice of the Messiahians to have one baptized in water in the name of the Lord Yahshua.