The Greek word glossa

Glossa means languages, not earthly languages

Glossa notes

 NOTES:  The KJV often adds the word "unknown" to the text when discussimg tongues, but the word "unknown" is not in the actual Greek manuscripts.

It must be mentioned that the Greek word, "glossa," which is translated as "tongues" in the KJV, does not mean "earthly languages." It simply means, "languages." This a very important point to realize, as today tongues-speaking is criticized by cessationists because sometimes it is not an earthly language; but, rather, a heavenly language--a prayer language.

Cessationists like to make the following statement: "The Greek word, 'glossa,' in the Holy Bible, is always refering to earthly languages; therefore, the occurances of 'glossa' in the book of 1 Cor. should also be acknowledged as refering to earthly languages.[Instead of a prayer languge]" But this argument is no less than absurd. Although, it is true that the tongues-speaking of the Acts 2 Pentecost comprised of earthly languages (otherwise the gift of interpretation would have needed to be employed); to say that the occurances of "glossa" in 1 Cor. always means "earthly" languages is pure guesswork.

Of course the Holy Bible usually speaks of languages as earthly languages; that is because writers of the Holy Bible were usually writing of peoples of this planet! There was never a time when the apostles were commissioned to go to into heaven and speak in the heavenly tongues. If they did that, and wrote about it, they would say: "We spoke in the heavenly language ('glossa')." The word 'glossa' would then refer to heavenly languages also(just as "robes" refers to earthly robes; but in the book of Rev. the word "robes" refers to heavenly garments).

There is no case study in the Holy Bible to see if a writer would use the word "glossa" to describe an other-than-earthly language--but there is! In 1 Cor. 13: 1 Paul is mentioning "glossa" when he writes:

"Though I speak with the tongues [glossa] of men and of angels, and have not charity." 1 Cor. 13: 1

Notice that Paul uses the word "and" to emphasize that his prayer/praise language is in addition to "earthly" languages (which is why he refers to it as "tongues of angels").

Cessationists need to be asked a question; that is, "How come, if our verbal heart prayer is from "self and to God" it has to be an earthly language that someone may understand--especially if no one else needs no know what is prayed; as it is no one else's business? If tongues are always earthly languages, then there is no reason for anyone to pray/speak in tongues alone, or with others of same nationality. But it has already been seen that Paul (he does speak in tongues outside of church), the Ephesians of Acts 19, and those at Cornelius' house (of Acts 10), all spoke in tongues or prayed in tongues without foriegners around to hear in a foriegn dialect.

Cessationists, of course, do not agree; in fact, they show their disposition with a qiuck end-all statement that they speak (below):

"The tongues of Acts 2 Pentecost were foriegn languages, and since Peter describes the Acts 10 'Pentecost' in similar terms it must mean that the Acts 10 'Pentecost' was also foriegn langages, which means that all tongues-speaking was foriegn languages, which means that the tongues-speaking exhibited in churches today as ecstatic speech, rather than foriegn languages, is different from Biblical tongues and must be rejected."

It is true that the manifestations of Acts 2, and Acts 10 are similar, but they are not exactly alike. The Acts 2 occurance happened on an actual "Pentecost;" on the actual Pentecost, that was the fulfillment of the Old Covenent Jewish feast of Pentecost. It was not necessary for the fulfillment of the feast of Pentecost to be renewed every year with foriegn languages spoken. Just as the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread were fulfilled only once--at the cross and not needed to be fulfilled again; so the Acts 2 Pentecost was a one-time-only manifestation, and only at Jerusalem. There were many Jews gathered there (at Jerusalem) who understood different dialects, and would be impressed and pay special attention as they heard messages spoken in their own native languages. However, at Cornelius' house (Acts 10), there were no foriegners there to hear the messages in their native dialects.

Also, the Pentecost of Acts 2 included a "sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind," and "There appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and it sat upon each of them." (Acts 2: 2-3)

When Peter said that the Gentiles at Cornelius' house "receieved the Holy Spirit just as we" he did not have to mean that they received the Holy Spirit in the exact same manifestations (of earthly languages, wind, and fire), but that they did indeed receive the Holy Spirit with tongues and prophecies as evidence. Peter did not have to understand the tongues-messages as actual foriegn languages to know that the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit baptism and were praising God. Also, if cessationists are correct that "glossa" always refers to earthly languages, then that word is off-limits to a mother who hears her 1 yr old child babbling (mimicking speech) and wants to say that her daughter is speaking her baby language; because cessationists insist that "glossa" only refers to known foriegn languages.

The cessationist insistence that "glossa" always means known earthly languages, is ridiculous. Their rendition of 1 Cor. 13:1 is written below:

"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, with the tongues of men being known earthly languages and the tongues of angels again meaning known earthly languages, but have not charity"

There was a uniqueness to the Acts 2 Pentecostal experience that makes it sound like the speakers were speaking in earthly foriegn languages. Because within the Acts 2 description of tongues-speaking, the Greek word "dialektoc" is used twice. The word, "dialektoc;" is the word that always, 100% of the time means, "dialect," and hence, an earthly foriegn language:

"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues ["glossa'], as the Spirit gave them utterance... Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language ["dialektoc"] And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue ["dialektoc"] wherein we were born... we do hear them speak in our tongues ["glossa"] the wonderful works of God." Acts 2:4-11

The lack of the word "dialektoc" in the book of 1 Cor. is evidence that none of the tongues-speaking that Paul spoke to the Corinthians of were earthly foreign languages. He must have been speaking to the Corinthians of tongues as ecstatic speech (tongues as a heavenly prayer/praise language).

Listed below, are reasons why some people believe that all 120 persons (rather than just the apostles) were embelished with tongues of fire and spoke in tongues:

Acts 1:15 "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples [not just apostles] (altogether the number of names was about 120)"

Acts 2:1 "And when the day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all [120] with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven."

Acts 11:17 speaking of the Acts 2 Pentecost: "If then God gave them the same gift as He gave us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?"

Notice; not just apostles who recieved the gift but the 120 "who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ."

Some people believe that all 120 did not speak in tongues, but that more people than just the apostles did. They say that Mary and other women were staying in the house with the apostles when "They were all with one accord in one place... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2: 1-4).

Acts 1: 13-15 shows that Mary and other women were staying with the apostles at that time: "they went into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord inprayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And inthose days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty)"

Also, Luke records that a man named Cleopas and another man, were walking and saw the resurrected Lord Jesus, and "they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were staying with them" (Lk. 24: 33). While Cleopas and the other were speaking to them ,Jesus appeared in their midst, saying to them: "behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high" (Lk. 24: 49). It seems unlikely that Cleopas and the other would be excluded from the promise Jesus was offering.

Who prays in tongues; is it our spirit or God's Spirit? Listed below are some verses from 1 Cor. to consider:

14:32 "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets."

14:14 "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." 14:15 "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

14:16 "Else when thou shalt bless with ___ spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayeth?"

14:2 "For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in ___ spirit he speaketh mysteries."

In 14:2 and 14:16 above, the word "the" is not in the Greek, but it may be supplied as often the word "the" is not in the Greek but is added by translators; but the word "your" should not be added to 14:16, and the word "his" should not be added to verse 14:2 because that would expect the word "spirit" to be in the genitive case in both instances--which it is not. Therefore the KJV adds the word, "the" to both verses.