And they were filled with the Holy Spirt and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance (Acts 2:4).
Perhaps few things are more confusing and controversial to the New Testament church than the phenomenon of tongues. Are tongues a natural language to be interpreted? Or the ecstatic language heard only by angels and understood by God a legitimate expression of the texts of Scripture?
What is the appropriate balance if there is one? Have tongues ceased? Can they, or more importantly, should they, be practiced today? There can be an overreaction to the extremes of Pentecostalism. There can also be an overreaction to cessationism, the teaching that the gifts have ceased following the time of the apostles.
This paper aims to present a cogent exegetical and theological presentation of what the writers of the New Testament intended for us to know and teach. It will attempt to give a fair treatment of both sides of the argument and allow the reader to draw sound theological conclusions based upon the evidence presented.
The examination of this topic requires looking at the relevant texts of Scripture that speak of the word tongues. Additionally, the meaning of the word tongues and the different contexts in its usage. Lastly, it is crucial to examine the other voices through church history, and modern commentators cited here who have come to different conclusions. It is essential to understand that good men and women on both sides of the issue can disagree but still be faithful believers in Christ.
There are two primary definitions of the word γλῶσσα (glṓssa). Eerdmans Bible Dictionary defines it as such:
Tongue (Heb. lāšôn; Gk. glṓssa).† In biblical usage not only the physical organ (e.g., Ps. 22:15 [MT 16]; Mark 7:33), but also, by extension, the capacity for speaking (Exod. 4:10; Jas. 1:26; KJV, 1 John 3:18; RSV “speech”), different manners of speaking (Job 5:21; Prov. 6:24), and any language as distinguished from other languages (Rev. 5:9; KJV, Gen. 10:5). The KJV also translates Gk. diálektos “language” as “tongue” (Acts 1:19; 2:8; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).
The definition is easily understood and predictable based upon the context. The only options appear to be the tongue as an organ in the mouth, the type of speech used in speaking, or an understandable language.
Wayne Grudem says, “It should be said at the outset that the Greek word glṓssa, translated ‘tongue,’ is used not only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth but also to mean ‘language.’” Grudem states that languages are in view in the New Testament. If the word glossa carries only these two meanings, it would certainly clear up any misunderstandings. Grudem affirms this as well, “But if English translations were to use the expression ‘speaking in languages,’ it would not seem nearly as strange, and would give the reader the sense much closer to what first-century Greek-speaking readers would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or 1 Corinthians.”
Why is there such a misunderstanding of the meaning? Where does the modern understanding come in, as to the erratic speech found in the continuationist teaching or charismatic churches?
Another term used to describe speaking in tongues is “glossolalia.” According to Eerdmans Bible Dictionary,
The terms “speaking in tongues” and “glossolalia” both arise from Gk. laleín hetérais glṓssais “to speak in other tongues [i.e., languages]” (Acts 2:4) and similar forms used in the New Testament of miraculous ecstatic speech. Ecstatic speech and praise are common to many religions ancient and modern, and was present among the early prophets of Israel and surrounding nations (1 Sam. 10:5–6, 9–13; 1 Kgs. 18:29).
Eerdmans Bible Dictionary states that in Acts 2, it was an understandable human language not known to the speaker and provides an area to explore in the exegesis of the text. Did the speakers supernaturally understand what they were saying, or did only the hearers perceive their native languages spoken to them? Additionally, Eerdmans states the erratic speech of “glossolalia” is not an actual human language, not to be understood in those terms, but directed toward God, and is referred to as “tongues of men and angels” (1 Cor. 13:1) by the Apostle Paul.
When arriving at a theological conviction, one certainty is that glossa represents a legitimate language. A language spoken, heard, and recognized by different people groups. “And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?” (Acts 2:8). As to the meaning of glossolalia, this needs to be rooted out. Was Paul referring to an unknown language of God or angels, or had the spirit of the day and pagan culture drifted into the Church? Analyzing each section of these relevant texts is the only proper way to draw sound conclusions.
“When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place” (Acts 2:1).
Acts chapter 2 sees the arrival of the promised Holy Spirit. Jesus had said, “He would send the Helper” (John 14:16). The Holy Spirit had been promised previously in the prophecy of Joel chapter 2, “But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:” (Acts 2:16). The outpouring of the Spirit not only fulfilled the prophecy of Joel and confirmed what Jesus had said, but it also ushered in a restoration of the scattering of people and the confusion of the languages as had occurred at Babel (Gen. 11:7). Matthew Henry says, “The difference in languages which arose at Babel, has much hindered the spread of knowledge and religion. The instruments whom the Lord first employed in spreading the Christian religion, could have made no progress without this gift, which proved that their authority was from God.”
The purpose of using different languages seems abundantly clear: to spread the gospel message. This event occurred at a time and place where many had gathered from many areas abroad (Acts 2:9-11). It truly represents the reversal of Babel. Alexander Duncan bolsters the point, “Let us here also adore the wisdom of God in the gift of tongues, both as a necessary and fit means to diffuse the gospel throughout the world, and as opening a way for the successful use of all the other apostolic endowments.”
An evaluation of Acts 2:4-12 provides a clear contextual understanding of the narrative. Verse 4 states: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Something new has happened, just as Jesus had promised the coming of the Spirit, He has now arrived, and miraculous events begin to occur through the Spirit’s actions. The Spirit gives them “utterance,” which is to say, “speak one’s opinion plainly.”  However, what is evident is they were not providing an opinion as one might generally perceive an idea, but they were proclaiming the mighty works of God.
Even a cursory review of the text gives a strong indication of the meaning behind the word tongues. It also provides their purpose. Verse 5 says, “devout men from every nation under heaven.” It would seem evident that not all would speak the same language, and verse 6 states this clearly, “And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6).
Calvin adds weight to verse 5, speaking of the diversity of languages: “This serveth to increase the greatness of the thing. For the Cretians and men of Asia, dwelling so near together, might have some likelihood and agreement in speech; but the same could not be betwixt the Italians and the men of Cappadocia, betwixt the Arabians and those of Pontus.”
If context dictates the meaning of the text, then firm conclusions appear from Acts 2. When the Holy Spirit came in power, God’s mighty work enabled these men to speak understandable and clearly defined languages. Verse 12 says they were amazed and perplexed, asking, “what does this mean?” (Acts 2:12). The pericope concludes with others mocking, a common reaction to God’s revelation.
If Acts 2 is the only reference to speaking in tongues, it would appear an open and shut case; however, turning to 1 Corinthians 12—14 seems to muddy the theological waters, and investigating these texts is imperative to discovering Paul’s intent in these crucial passages.
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).
The problems at the Church of Corinth are well known. It is evident by the tone and tenor of the letter the Apostle Paul had great affection for the Corinthians, but his purpose in writing the letter carried the need for correction. “I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me” (1 Cor. 4:14-16). Spurgeon said this about the Church, “The most gifted Church is not always in the healthiest condition. A church may have many rich, influential, or learned members; yet that Church may be in an unhealthy condition.”
It is helpful to keep these issues at the forefront related to the topic of tongues. The glossolalia was a common pagan religious practice, and to believe that the Corinthians, in their immature state, brought with them previous habits is not out of the question.
John MacArthur provides a good description in his commentary:
Several pagan practices were especially influential in the Church at Corinth. Perhaps the most important, and certainly the most obvious, was that of ecstasy, considered to be the highest expression of religious experience. Because it seemed supernatural and because it was dramatic and often bizarre, the practice strongly appealed to the natural man. And because the Holy Spirit had performed many miraculous works in that apostolic age, some Corinthian Christians confused those true wonders with the false wonders counterfeited in the ecstasies of paganism.
While there may not always be direct evidence, circumstantial evidence can be convincing. Applying logic and reasoning to the equation is helpful. MacArthur goes on to say that Satan had immediately begun to counterfeit the gifts of the Spirit, “[w]ether through false manifestations or through misguided and selfish use, poison God’s spiritual organism and make it weak and ineffective.”
His point hits the mark when it comes to what seems to be a manufacturing of the gifts of tongues. Many will attempt to fake it to be seen as spiritual or to fit in with the group. Many readily admit to this phenomenon. One of them is John Piper.
In his Ask Pastor John podcast, Piper claims to desire the gift of speaking in tongues and has tried many times and asked the Lord for this gift. He states that he would sit outside the church singing in tongues but knew he was making it up and said, “but this is what they try to get you to do.” Ultimately, he knows he is making it up in his heart and mind.
In chapter 12, Paul addresses spiritual gifts, and it is essential to see what he says regarding these gifts. “Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led” (1 Cor 12:1-2). An immediate clue to the context relevant to MacArthur’s commentary is the Corinthians conversion from paganism. They undoubtedly brought with them paganistic practices, but Paul warns them these are mute and will lead you astray (1 Cor. 12:2). Verse 10 provides the relevant text: “to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10).
Paul’s statement is abundantly clear. God gave these gifts to the church. The question remains for how long? Was it to continue into the modern era, or is there possibly a combination of both? One thing that is evident about tongues is there are various kinds of them, and there is an interpretation (1 Cor. 14:26-28).
Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, while cautious, believes the gift of speaking in tongues continues. He qualifies that these gifts occur only as the Spirit moves upon a person, not at will, and if ever to be done publicly, requires interpretation. If there is an understanding of a heavenly language of angels, understood only by God, would this also require an interpretation? A better question might be, for what purpose does it serve? Verse 7 highlights an essential argument for Paul and a correct understanding of the text. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7).
Paul highlights the importance of mutual edification and a gift that functions for the benefit of the church. He uses a metaphorical reference to the entirety of the human body working concerning the other parts. They are all critical. The use of gifts is primarily meant for the Church as a whole, not for individual gain or unique insights, and if someone is using tongues to edify himself or lacks interpretation, it seems imperative to ask questions.
Lastly, it is relevant to examine verses 28 through 29 whether it makes a case for cessationism. “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?” (1 Cor. 12:28-29).
The critical question is, do we still have apostles today? Most Christian’s affirming Orthodox teaching will agree that someone claiming to be an “apostle” is not in step with biblical teaching. If Paul affirms that offices were temporary, are other administrations of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit also temporary? E.g., healings, tongues?
Calvin makes a thought-provoking point, “[we] must note that some of the offices, to which Paul is referring, are permanent, while others are temporary…The temporary ones, on the other hand, are those which are designed, at the beginning, for the founding of the Church, and the setting up of the Kingdom of Christ; and which ceased to exist after a while.”
Lloyd-Jones questions this as well: “There seems no point or purpose in some praying in some private language, what is there to be gained by that? There doesn’t seem to be any object or purpose in it. Well, what is this?” He believes many counterfeits go along with the crowd or make up the ecstatic speaking, just as Piper affirmed that he knew he wasn’t speaking from God.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal (1 Cor. 13:1).
Chapter 13 is transitional in that it points out the purpose of spiritual gifts is love. Paul focused his argument in chapter 12 on unity in the body of Christ, and he put great emphasis on this point. He says we suffer together, we rejoice together, and in all of this, the highest gift is love.
Christianity is all about love, but true Christian love is lacking in Corinth, just as it is in many modern churches. Paul seeks to correct their focus on orthodoxy to orthopraxy. MacArthur says, “It is easier to be orthodox than to be loving, and easier to be active in church work than to be loving.” Most assuredly, MacArthur, and certainly Paul, have a legitimate point. God’s greatest gift is love.
Chapter 13 begins with a statement “tongues of men and angels,” but what are these tongues? The charismatic movement has used this verse to support a private prayer language, but is that what is in view here? Is that what Paul was saying?
If the rule of faith is that Scripture interprets Scripture, one must ascertain other references to this angelic language to find the meaning of the passage. However, there is no other reference to an angelic language, and it would seem prudent to apply this hermeneutical principle to the topic. When angels come on the scene in the New Testament, they speak in a familiar, discernible language to the hearer. ”And the angel said to them, ‘Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people’” (Luke 2:10). Calvin offers his interpretation:
When he speaks of the tongue of angels, he uses a hyperbolical expression to denote what is singular, or distinguished. At the same time, I explain it rather as referring to the diversity of languages, which the Corinthians held in much esteem, measuring everything by ambition—not by fruit. “Make yourself master,” says he, “of all the languages, not of men merely, but even of Angels.
Similarly, MacArthur believes there is no Scriptural reference to a heavenly language that men can learn. Those that would argue for this position would claim this is a heavenly language taught by the Holy Spirit to the speaker, just as happened with the actual languages of Pentecost. No matter where one sides on the debate, ultimately there is only one truth, and in alignment with Paul’s goals in chapter 13 lies the underlying point of love.
The Apostle addresses another topic within chapter 13 worthy of discussion, encompassing verses 8 through 9. “Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away” (1 Cor. 13:8-9). The text’s plain meaning seems abundantly clear if read and understood as stated. The entirety of the chapter has been about the importance and the supremacy of love. The love of God in Christ is the ultimate form of love, and it will never end. Next, there is a contrast, “as for,” which makes a clear transition to a different topic.
Matthew Henry notes this difference:
It is a permanent and perpetual grace, lasting as eternity; whereas the extraordinary gifts on which the Corinthians valued themselves were of short continuance. They were only to edify the Church on earth, and that but for a time, not during its whole continuance in this world; but in heaven would be all superseded, which yet is the very seat and element of love.
Henry says that the ceasing of tongues is the miracle of speaking languages without learning them and that the Holy Spirit inspires this to edify the hearers, primarily the spread of the gospel. It is difficult to edify without understanding.
If there is a language of angels, and verse 1 is the prevailing proof text, then verse 8 must also be given the same weight; tongues will cease. In the context of chapter 13, it appears there is no other way to work around the argument. Paul provides the contrast in that love never ends, and then prophecies pass away, tongues will cease, and knowledge will pass away.
Lloyd-Jones allowed for the continuation of the gift of tongues in his sermon, but what of miracles and prophecy? Is there a clear demarcation point of when these ceased? MacArthur provides clarification on the topic of ceasing, “In the first place, tongues was a sign gift and as with the gifts of healing and miracles, it ceased to operate when the New Testament was completed. God has never ceased to perform miracles, and He continues today to heal miraculously and to work in other supernatural ways according to His sovereign will.”
MacArthur’s distinction is a good one. Many that push back at the idea of cessationism believe those that subscribe to the doctrine think God has wholly abandoned miracle work today. It is not that God has ceased to do miracles, but that God is not doing miracles through the hands of men in the same way He did in the first century. There is a marked difference between the two.
Chapter 14 contains the final discussion of spiritual gifts, and particularly tongues. Paul supports his previous argument about the pursuit of love in the church, and spiritual gifts are essential especially prophecy. The gift of prophecy builds up the church, where tongues only edify the speaker.
“So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air” (1 Cor. 14:9). Calvin adds, “For Paul is tacitly taking them to task for the lack of love, which had been apparent up to then in the way they were abusing their gifts.”
Paul seems to speak plainly in his argument as he illustrates the point with the analogy of musical instruments. It carries no meaning if they are not in sync or out of tune. He then clarifies his position even further, “There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me” (1 Cor. 14:10-11). It appears this is a compelling argument against the glossolalia the Corinthians practiced.
Calvin further addresses this point, stating the Corinthians were giving more attention to tongues because it brought more attention due to the showiness.
Calvin doesn’t leave room for anything other than a legitimate language and a limited period:
We must pay particular attention to this, for God has bestowed no gift on His Church without there being some purpose for it; and tongues were of some use at that time. But, granted that, through their misguided zeal for showiness, the Corinthians were turning that gift into something that was, to some extent, superfluous and valueless, and to some extent even harmful, yet by correcting this fault, Paul is giving his approval to tongues none the less.
Lloyd-Jones agrees on this point, “Of all the spiritual gifts it is the one most likely to be abused and it tends to lend itself to exhibitionism.”
Verse 13 clarifies the other critical point about speaking in tongues, and that is there is to be an interpretation. According to Paul, speaking in tongues to be accepted in the church must be interpreted, and only an actual language has an interpretation. The purpose is to edify the church, not show off as an individual. If the glossolalia is not the tongues of angels or speaking to God, what is it? That is a difficult question to answer. It seems to come down to one’s biblical interpretation. One group believes tongues have ceased; another believes they are still credible.
Paul closes out this section with an appeal to maturity. He states that he speaks in tongues more than all of them in verse 18, but these are useless without instruction, and so he would rather speak only five words that could be understood than ten thousand that are undiscernible. It appears Paul is employing an ironic element to drive home his point. The act of erratic speech edified nobody. It is apparent that rather than supporting this form of speaking, Paul is condemning it.
His following line of reasoning provides answers. Paul calls them to maturity; he seeks to shame them for their immaturity and then draws them to an Old Testament prophecy from Isaiah 28:11-12. MacArthur says this is the heart of chapter 14 and was given as a sign to unbelievers, specifically unbelieving Jews. Jews would have understood the prophecy of Isaiah 28 and that it carried curses and blessings.
Calvin drives this point home, which should cause anyone seeking to speak in tongues concern. The curses that Isaiah 28 promise tongues are not a healthy form of communication but one of condemnation, describing that “they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
Calvin provides two possible interpretations, the one that should concern the reader is, “‘You realize brethren, that the thing you are wanting so eagerly, is not a benefit which God gives to believers, but a punishment with which He takes vengeance on unbelievers.’” Paul would not be taking into account the permanent use of tongues, but would be referring only to an actual situation that arose just once.” Calvin affirms that he won’t quarrel over another interpretation, but he is quite satisfied with this interpretation.
If Calvin is correct, this clarifies tongues for modern believers. Calvin firmly believes the gift was for a time and place to proclaim the gospel to unbelievers for a temporary purpose. It was, after all, miraculous that someone would hear the gospel in their native tongue spoken by someone who did not speak that tongue naturally.
Paul concludes this section with a sobering thought. Are you out of your mind? “If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” (1 Cor. 14:23). Here is the crux of the argument. There are two opposing viewpoints. Speak in tongues and allow unbelievers to think this place is crazy, speak from the Scriptures in the form of prophecy, and edify the church and convict the unbeliever. Paul’s argument is sound and logical. The Scriptures lead to truth, and through the Scriptures and proclamation of the gospel, one is saved (Romans 10:14).
It is essential to understand the difference between a church that speaks tongues with an interpretation compared to charismatic chaos. If Pentecostal churches believe in the continuation of the gift of tongues they must seek to practice it biblically by having an interpretation. However, in the latter, the extreme movements fail to keep what Paul has laid out and must understand they fall under the interpretation Calvin gave as to condemnation. Paul explains this point by stating that God is not a God of confusion but of peace (1 Cor. 14:33), and when disorder runs amok in the church meeting, there is a lack of the most basic understanding.
Paul says, “But all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). The evidence points to this final statement. If things are not done decently, and in order they are out of order. They are out of line with the Scriptures, and this is a litmus test of sorts. Calvin closes out his commentary stating that God has given believers liberty of conscience and freedoms, but these freedoms should never go beyond the limits of His Word. He says it is a guardrail to protect the bride of Christ in effect. It is in this vein the topic of tongues should be discerned. If there were limitations to the time frame and tongues have ceased, it creates many difficulties for some denominations and countless believers. At this point, one must be commended to his conscience before the Lord but base those convictions on sound biblical evidence and study.
To have a proper understanding of tongues in the New Testament depends on the definition and the proper interpretation of the texts of Scripture relating to the topic. Acts 2 is the beginning point which indicates the purpose behind the use of tongues. Tongues were a native language that those of that native tongue were discernible. Its purpose was for the proclamation of the gospel and to fulfill the prophecy of Joel 2.
1 Corinthians 12 – 14 is more difficult to understand. Is there a legitimate use of private prayer language? Were the Corinthians misusing the gift in tongues in their immaturity? Were they relying on pagan traditions? A proper exegetical look at what Paul wrote provides the answers.
The third concern is what is to make of modern-day believers that still practice glossolalia or the erratic speech, which does not appear an understandable language? Once again, evidence points to conclusions, yet those who practice it should not be easily dismissed as unbelievers or deceived. There is a sincerity to those that practice such things, and yet it would appear the Scriptures are clear that the word glossa means either tongue or language.
It leaves many readers confused, yet God says He is not the author of confusion, so it is imperative to continue studying and draw sound exegetical conclusions based on evidence and not feelings. It also forces one to discard tradition and thoroughly examine languages to make decisions about the topic. While it can create struggle, trusting in the Lord to reveal the truth is a worthwhile endeavor.
Calvin, John and Beveridge, Henry, trans. Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 1 Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.
Calvin, John and Pringle, William, trans. Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1 Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010.
Duncan, Alexander and Camp, Andrew W. eds., Family Worship Bible Commentary: Walking through the Scriptures with our Forefathers, vol. 3 Present Reign Publications, 2018.
Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Concise). Accessed November, 29, 2021. https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-concise/acts/2.html
Liddell, Henry George, et al., A Greek-English Lexicon Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Lloyd-Jones, Martyn, MLJ Trust. “The Gift of Tongues,” Accessed November 14, 2021. https://www.mljtrust.org/sermons-online/john-1-26-33/the-gift-of-tongues/
MacArthur, John, The Macarthur New Testament Commentary. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2016.
Myers, Allen C. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
Piper, John. “Are Prophecy and Tongues Alive Today?,” Desiring God. Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-prophecy-and-tongues-alive-today.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.
The Spurgeon Study Bible. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 2017.
Theopedia, “Cessationism,” accessed December 9, 2021, https://www.theopedia.com/cessationism
Theopedia, “Continuationism,” accessed December 1, 2021, https://www.theopedia.com/continuationism
 All Scripture citation in this work are taken from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016) unless otherwise noted.
 Myers, “Bible Dictionary,” 1011.
 Matthew Henry, “Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (Concise),” accessed November 29, 2021, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-concise/acts/2.html.
 Ibid., 281.
 MacArthur, “1 Corinthians,” 327.
 MacArthur, “1 Corinthians,” 359.
 Ibid., 287
 Calvin, trans. Pringle, 297.