We see the gift of tongues practiced in the New Testament. In the book of Acts, the gift is associated with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Paul also talks about the gift, most notably in his letter to the Corinthian church.
Tongues is a mysterious gift, and it can be difficult to determine its purpose. Personally, I see it as a reversal of Babel. God divided mankind at Babel through language, and then God drew mankind to Himself at Pentecost. The gift seemed to be the ability for one to speak in a real language (of which was spoken in the Roman empire) without having to first study that language. This allowed the gospel to spread out quickly across language barriers in the first critical years of the Church.
To see what came of the gift in the post-apostolic generations of the early Church we can look to the Church Fathers.
Irenaeus (c. 130–202 AD)
As Bishop of Lyons and a disciple of Polycarp (who knew the Apostle John), Irenaeus is one of the earliest post-apostolic writers to mention tongues. In his work Against Heresies (Book 5, Chapter 6), he describes it as a ongoing gift in his time: “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.” He frames it as the ability to speak foreign languages miraculously, aligning with the Pentecost event in Acts 2, and emphasizes its role in revealing truths and benefiting the community.
For Irenaeus, the gift was still being practiced in his day, it was the ability to speak real languages, and its purpose was for prophesy and mission.
Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD)
A North African theologian and apologist, Tertullian refers to tongues in Against Marcion (Book 5, Chapter 8), where he discusses spiritual gifts in the context of Montanism (a prophetic movement he later joined). “Let him who claims to have received gifts… produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer—provided it be with interpretation.” He implies tongues as intelligible speech, often requiring interpretation, and sees it as evidence of the Holy Spirit’s work similar to the apostles’. He notes encounters with the gift of interpretation in his day but doesn’t describe it as ecstatic babbling; instead, it’s tied to rational, prophetic expression.
For Tertullian, the gift was still being practiced in his day, it required interpretation, and its purpose was for the edification of the Church.
Origen (c. 185–253 AD)
The Alexandrian scholar comments on tongues in his Commentary on 1 Corinthians and other works, such as De Principiis. He views it as the miraculous knowledge of foreign languages without prior study, emphasizing that the speaker might not understand their own words unless interpreted (echoing 1 Corinthians 14:13). Origen argues the gift was temporary, part of the “signs” of the apostolic age, and by his time, it was no longer commonly exercised.
“The signs of the Holy Spirit were manifest at the beginning… but traces of them are found in only a few.” (Against Celsus 7.8)
For Origen, the gift was real and apostolic, already becoming uncommon by the mid-3rd century, and was seen mainly as a foundational sign for the church’s early mission.
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407 AD)
The Archbishop of Constantinople, known for his homilies, discusses tongues extensively in his Homilies on First Corinthians (e.g., Homily 35). He interprets it as speaking in actual languages like Persian, Roman, or Indian, directly linking it to Pentecost. Chrysostom stresses that it was a “sign” for unbelievers (per 1 Corinthians 14:22) and notes its cessation: by the late 4th century, it had largely disappeared from the church, as the need for such miracles had passed with the spread of Christianity.
“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.” (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 29)
For John Chrysostom, the gift was something real from an earlier era, but no longer practiced in his day.
Augustine of Hippo (c. 354–430 AD)
In works like The Letters of Petilian and his sermons, Augustine acknowledges tongues as a historical gift from the early church, where converts sometimes spoke in new languages upon baptism. However, he explicitly states that by his era, the gift had ceased: “In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues… These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit… That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.” He sees it as fulfilled in the church’s global unity rather than ongoing miracles.
For Augustine, the gift was a sign for the church’s beginning, meant to show the universality of the gospel, and was no longer needed once the Church was established.
Other Notable Mentions
Hippolytus (c. 170–235 AD): In Apostolic Tradition, he equates tongues with the apostles’ experience at Pentecost, viewing it as foreign languages.
Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD): In his Oration on Pentecost, he describes it as a reversal of Babel, enabling communication in diverse human tongues.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 313–386 AD): In Catechetical Lectures, he marvels at the apostles learning multiple languages instantly through the Spirit.
The Church Fathers seemed to be unified in their understanding of the gift of tongues:
No father describes tongues as:
a private prayer language
a necessary sign of Spirit baptism
a normative experience for all believers
No early source connects tongues with:
altered states of consciousness
repetitive ecstatic syllables
individual spiritual status
Tongues were real languages, not private ecstasy.
They belonged especially to the apostolic age, when the gospel was breaking into new linguistic worlds.
They declined naturally as the church became established.
They were signs of God’s power, not badges of spiritual rank.
They were always meant to serve the church, not the ego of the speaker.
In summary, the Church Fathers saw the gift of tongues as a practical miracle for spreading the gospel across linguistic barriers, not as private prayer languages or gibberish. References become scarcer after the 3rd century, with later writers like Chrysostom and Augustine indicating its decline, attributing this to the church’s maturation. This contrasts with some modern interpretations, but the patristic evidence emphasizes its historical and evangelistic role.
Provinces that were occupied by Thailand (Siam) — and when
1) Battambang
Occupied:1795 – 1907
Again:1941 – 1946
Details:
First period: Siam took control after weakening of the Khmer kingdom.
Returned to Cambodia under French colonial pressure in 1907.
Second period: Re-occupied by Thailand during WWII after the Franco-Thai War.
2) Siem Reap
Occupied:1795 – 1907
Again:1941 – 1946
Details:
Controlled together with Battambang as part of western Cambodia.
Included Angkor, which was under Siamese rule for over a century.
3) Sisophon area
(today mostly Banteay Meanchey)
Occupied:1795 – 1907
Again:1941 – 1946
Details:
Was not a separate province then, but part of the Battambang–Siem Reap region.
4) Parts of Koh Kong
Occupied:early 1800s – 1907
Details:
Coastal areas were administered from Siam (Trat region).
Returned to Cambodia under the 1907 Franco-Siamese treaty.
The two main occupation periods explained
First period: 1795–1907
Siam controlled much of north-western Cambodia:
Battambang
Siem Reap
Sisophon region
Parts of Koh Kong
These areas were ruled by Khmer governors loyal to Siam. They were returned to Cambodia when France forced Siam to cede them in exchange for other territory.
Second period: 1941–1946
During World War II:
Thailand, backed by Japan, re-occupied western Cambodia after defeating French Indochina.
Provinces taken:
Battambang
Siem Reap
Sisophon area
After Japan’s defeat, Thailand was forced to return all territory to Cambodia in 1946.
Quick summary table
Cambodian area
Occupied by Thailand
Returned to Cambodia
Battambang
1795–1907, 1941–1946
1907, 1946
Siem Reap
1795–1907, 1941–1946
1907, 1946
Sisophon / Banteay Meanchey
1795–1907, 1941–1946
1907, 1946
Parts of Koh Kong
early 1800s–1907
1907
Thailand (formerly known as Siam) has a history of territorial disputes and control over parts of what is now Cambodia, stemming from centuries of regional conflicts. The most notable periods of occupation involving specific provinces are as follows:
1794–1907: Siamese Control of Western Cambodian Provinces
In 1794, Siam acquired control over the Cambodian provinces of Battambang (Bătdâmbâng) and Siem Reap (Siĕmréab), including the area around Sisophon (now part of Banteay Meanchey province), as part of an agreement to install a Cambodian prince on the throne. These territories remained under Siamese administration for over a century, during which Cambodia was often treated as a vassal state amid broader Siamese-Vietnamese rivalries. In 1907, under a Franco-Siamese treaty, Siam ceded these provinces back to French Indochina (which controlled Cambodia at the time).
1941–1946: Thai Annexation During World War II
Amid the Franco-Thai War (October 1940–January 1941) and with Japanese support, Thai forces invaded and occupied disputed territories in French Indochina, including parts of Cambodia. Occupation began in earnest on January 5, 1941, and a Tokyo-mediated peace treaty on May 9, 1941, formalized the annexation of the following areas, which Thailand reorganized into new provinces:
When did the Khmer empire become Cambodia?
Short answer: there was no single day when the Khmer Empire “became” Cambodia — it was a long transition that happened over several centuries.
But we can pin down the key turning points.
The clear timeline
1) Khmer Empire
Dates: ~802 – 1431
Capital: Angkor
This is when Cambodia was a major regional power.
2) Fall of Angkor → Kingdom of Cambodia
Turning point:1431
Angkor was sacked by Ayutthaya (Siam).
The capital moved south to Phnom Penh / Longvek.
From this point on, the state is no longer an empire — it becomes what historians call the Kingdom of Cambodia.
This is the moment most scholars mark as:
The end of the Khmer Empire and the beginning of Cambodia as a kingdom-state.
3) Modern Cambodia begins
1863 – Cambodia becomes a French protectorate. This is when borders, administration, and the modern state structure really take shape.
1953 – Cambodia becomes fully independent.
Since then: the modern nation-state of Cambodia.
So what’s the real answer?
It depends what you mean by Cambodia:
Meaning of “Cambodia”
When it begins
Khmer people & culture
Over 1,000 years ago
Political state after Angkor
1431
Modern nation-state
1863–1953
Best simple answer
If someone asks this in plain language, the most accurate and useful reply is:
The Khmer Empire ended in the 1400s. After the fall of Angkor in 1431, the empire slowly became the Kingdom of Cambodia, which later developed into the modern country of Cambodia.
Please explain how Cambodia survived between powerful neighbors (Siam and Vietnam) after the empire fell.
This is one of the most important — and least appreciated — parts of Cambodian history. After Angkor fell, Cambodia didn’t survive by strength. It survived by adaptability.
Here’s the clear story.
How Cambodia survived between Siam and Vietnam
The situation after 1431
When Angkor fell, Cambodia lost:
Military dominance
Population centers
Economic power
At the same time, two aggressive neighbors were rising:
Siam (Thailand) from the west
Vietnam from the east
Cambodia sat right between them — the worst possible position.
From then on, Cambodian survival depended on diplomacy, balance, and endurance, not conquest.
Strategy #1 — Playing Siam and Vietnam against each other
Cambodian kings learned a hard rule:
Never let one neighbor become too strong over Cambodia.
So they constantly shifted alliances:
When Siam pressured → lean toward Vietnam
When Vietnam pressured → lean toward Siam
This wasn’t weakness. It was realpolitik — survival politics.
Yes, it meant:
Paying tribute
Accepting influence
Sometimes installing kings backed by one side or the other
But it kept Cambodia alive as a state, not erased from the map.
Strategy #2 — Moving the capital to survive
After Angkor:
Capital moved to Longvek, then Oudong, then Phnom Penh.
Why?
Safer from Siamese attacks
Better access to rivers and trade
Easier to maneuver diplomatically
This shift south is one reason Cambodia still exists today. If leaders had tried to hold Angkor at all costs, the kingdom likely would have been destroyed.
Strategy #3 — Accepting temporary loss to avoid total loss
Cambodia often:
Lost provinces
Lost control of kings
Lost independence for periods
But it never accepted extinction.
Examples:
Western provinces lost to Siam → later recovered
Eastern lands lost to Vietnam → some absorbed permanently, but core survived
Periods of Siamese or Vietnamese dominance → followed by restoration
Cambodia chose:
Better to bend than to disappear.
That choice kept Khmer identity alive when many smaller kingdoms vanished.
Strategy #4 — Using France as a shield
By the 1800s, Cambodia was close to being fully swallowed:
Siam controlled the west
Vietnam dominated the east
Cambodian kings were nearly powerless
So King Norodom made a desperate but smart move:
1863 — Cambodia accepts French protection
This cost sovereignty — but saved the country.
France:
Forced Siam to return Battambang and Siem Reap
Stopped Vietnam from absorbing Cambodia
Fixed borders that still exist today
Colonialism wasn’t kind — but in Cambodia’s case, it prevented national extinction.
Strategy #5 — Cultural survival even when political power was weak
Even when Cambodia was controlled or pressured:
Khmer language survived
Buddhism survived
Royal tradition survived
Identity survived
Empires fall. Cultures that adapt endure.
That’s the real miracle of Cambodia.
The honest bottom line
Cambodia survived because it learned to:
Negotiate instead of dominate
Endure instead of conquer
Adapt instead of collapse
Other kingdoms in Southeast Asia vanished completely. Cambodia didn’t — not because it was strongest, but because it was most resilient.
Please walk me through a short timeline of the most dangerous moments when Cambodia almost disappeared.
Here’s a short, clear timeline of the most dangerous points.
The moments Cambodia almost vanished
1) 1431 — Fall of Angkor
Threat: Total collapse after empire falls Danger: Very high
Angkor is sacked by Ayutthaya.
Population scatters, power breaks down.
Many kingdoms in this situation simply die out.
Why Cambodia survived: Leaders abandoned the ruins instead of clinging to the past and rebuilt farther south. Painful move — but smart.
2) 1594 — Siam captures Longvek
Threat: Annexation by Siam Danger: Extreme
Longvek, the new capital, is destroyed.
Thousands of Cambodians taken as captives to Siam.
Cambodia loses control of its own kings for years.
Why Cambodia survived: The kingdom accepted vassal status instead of extinction. Weak, yes — but alive.
3) 1700s — Being squeezed from both sides
Threat: Partition between Siam and Vietnam Danger: Extreme
Siam dominates the west.
Vietnam expands aggressively into the Mekong Delta.
Cambodian kings are installed and removed by foreign powers.
At this point Cambodia was a buffer state with almost no real power.
Why Cambodia survived: Kings played both sides relentlessly — switching alliances whenever survival required it.
4) 1834–1845 — Vietnamese occupation
Threat: Cultural and political erasure Danger: Possibly the closest Cambodia ever came to disappearing**
Vietnam directly controls Cambodia.
Cambodian administration dismantled.
Vietnamese officials attempt forced assimilation.
Khmer elites flee or are killed.
This was not just occupation — it was absorption in progress.
Why Cambodia survived: Popular resistance + Siamese intervention forced Vietnam to withdraw. If that war had ended differently, Cambodia likely would not exist today.
5) 1863 — The desperate choice
Threat: Permanent division between Siam and Vietnam Danger: Final moment before extinction
By the mid-1800s:
Cambodia controlled almost nothing itself.
Siam held the west.
Vietnam dominated the east.
The king had no army strong enough to resist either.
The critical decision: King Norodom accepted French protection.
This sacrificed independence — but saved the nation.
Without this move, Cambodia would almost certainly have been absorbed and erased within a generation.
6) 1975–1979 — Khmer Rouge
Threat: Physical destruction of the nation Danger: Catastrophic
Nearly one quarter of the population dies.
Institutions destroyed.
Educated class eliminated.
The state collapses completely.
This wasn’t foreign conquest — it was self-destruction on a national scale.
Why Cambodia survived: Vietnamese intervention ended the regime, and the people rebuilt from almost nothing.
The pattern you should notice
Every time Cambodia faced extinction, survival came from one of three things:
Hard compromise (accepting vassalage or protection)
Cultural endurance (Khmer identity outlasting political power)
Cambodia didn’t survive by winning wars. It survived by making the least bad choice when all choices were bad.
That’s not a romantic story — but it’s a real one.
Why did the Khmer empire decline?
The Khmer Empire didn’t fall because of one single disaster. It declined because several pressures hit at the same time, and together they were more than the empire could absorb.
Here’s the clear, honest breakdown.
Why the Khmer Empire declined
1) The empire grew too big to control
At its height, Angkor ruled:
Most of modern Cambodia
Parts of Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam
That’s impressive — but it created a problem:
The center became too far from the edges.
Communication was slow.
Local governors gained power and loyalty weakened.
Rebellions and breakaway regions became harder to stop.
The empire wasn’t defeated all at once — it slowly lost control from the outside in.
2) Environmental stress broke Angkor’s system
Angkor depended on one of the most complex water-management systems in the medieval world.
It worked brilliantly — until climate changed.
In the 1300s–1400s:
There were severe droughts, followed by massive floods.
Canals broke.
Reservoirs filled with sediment.
Rice production fell.
When food security weakens, everything weakens:
Army
Economy
Political stability
Angkor’s greatest strength became a liability.
3) Religious change weakened royal authority
For centuries, kings ruled as:
God-kings (Devaraja)
This system depended on:
Hindu state religion
Monumental temples
Absolute royal authority
Then Theravada Buddhism spread across the empire.
It changed society in a big way:
Less focus on divine kingship
More focus on monks, villages, and local communities
Power became decentralized
This was good for the people — but it weakened the state’s ability to mobilize huge resources for empire and war.
4) Strong enemies rose at the worst time
While the Khmer state was weakening:
Ayutthaya (Siam) was rising in the west
Vietnam was expanding in the east
Cambodia went from being:
the dominant power → to the buffer state
Angkor was attacked repeatedly, not just once. The famous sack in 1431 was the final blow — not the beginning of the decline.
5) Internal conflict and unstable kingship
Late Angkor was full of:
Power struggles
Short reigns
Rival claimants
Civil wars
An empire can survive enemies. It can survive droughts. But when leadership is unstable at the same time, collapse accelerates.
The real answer in one sentence
The Khmer Empire declined because environmental collapse, religious change, political fragmentation, and foreign pressure all hit together, leaving Angkor unable to function as the center of a vast empire.
Imagine a young boy who believes in Santa Claus. He believes that the presents he finds under the tree each Christmas morning were placed there by a magical man who came down the chimney, and who afterward hopped on his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
But, one Christmas Eve, the boy decides he wants to see Santa for real and so he sneaks out of his room late at night hoping to catch Santa in action. What he does see, however, is his own parents carefully laying out presents, one by one, around the base of the tree. And so, he knows the truth. It is in fact his own parents who are delivering the goods.
Now, with this knowledge, would it be proper for the boy to then believe that it is his own parents who slid down the chimney? And it his own parents who will fly off into the night on the sleigh? No, of course not. The boy must disregard the entire Santa narrative. There’s no one coming down the chimney. It’s all his parents buying the presents from the store, wrapping them out of sight, and placing them under the tree. Once the boy discovers the truth about one thing, he must apply that truth to everything else.
First Century Cosmology
First century Christians did not have telescopes. They believed the realm above them was a series of layers transcending the dome of the sky. They believed that angels and God literally resided in and above the layers containing the sun, moon, and stars. God’s throne room was a literal place up in what we would call “outer space.” When Jesus ascended up to the Father, to sit at His right hand, Jesus literally went up to sit on a literal throne in a literal throne room.
Since Jesus was up in outer space, of course when He returns, he will return from outer space. Where else would He come from?
21st Century Cosmology
Today we have telescopes. We know that we live in one galaxy among billions, and that each galaxy contains billions, if not trillions, of stars. The universe is so vast, it is beyond comprehension. In fact, the universe is likely infinite. We know this now.
We know that there is no Santa. Therefore, is it proper for us to continue to believe that one day the world will see Jesus descending down to the earth through the layers of the heavens as they believed He would in the 1st century? Should we combine their cosmology with our own? No, of course not. Ask any Christian today where heaven is, and unless he’s a flat-earther, he will likely say that heaven is located in the spiritual realm, someplace beyond the material realm that we do not have access to.
New Testament Eschatological Language
New Testament (NT) eschatology is primarily Israel’s eschatology. The Church’s eschatology builds upon it, but then transcends it. The cosmos coming under judgement for the NT authors was the Israelite cosmos. The end was near, at hand, at the door, soon, and about to happen. Every NT author believed he was living in the last days. And he was, to the degree that the old order of things was coming to an end. The apocalyptic language of the NT reflects this.
Israel’s eschatology is not the Church’s eschatology. The Church’s eschatology is this: Just as a dragnet draws all the fish into the boat, so is all creation being drawn to the Father by the redemptive work of Christ. We don’t know when this work will be complete, and we don’t know what it will finally look like. For now it is beyond our comprehension, beyond our reach.
It’s okay to be somewhat agnostic when it comes to eschatology. Embrace the mystery. Whatever you do, don’t go on believing that your dad has a pack of flying reindeer hidden away in a barn somewhere.
We Are Not Israel
Israel is gone. Our faith is not “Judeo/Christian.” We are just Christian. Yes, Jesus was the Messiah Israel was waiting for, but He was not the Messiah they were expecting. Jesus was not the blood soaked Davidic warrior coming to destroy Rome and establish a powerful Israelite theocracy the 1st century Jews were hoping for. This is why He was rejected.
Jesus subverted all Messianic expectations. His kingdom is not of this world. He came to conquer a higher enemy. He came to do the will of the Father, not Israel. The Father’s will is to redeem His creation. This is what Christianity is: The redemption of creation through Christ.
For Christians, Israel has become allegory. The Old Testament scriptures are transformed to types and shadows. It’s not our literal history. It’s our mythology.
Most Christians live like this even if not fully aware of it. They may say the stories are literal history, but they always apply the stories allegorically to their own life’s journey. It doesn’t matter if the stories are literal history or not; anything to do with Israel we allegorize.
Jesus is not coming down from the sky. Israelite cosmology is not true. That’s okay, because we are Christians. We know more. We’ve seen more. We know what is mythology and what is reality. We know the truth, and what we know is true; we must apply it to everything else.
Religions are man-made attempts to know God. God is God, and is not defined by religion. But, we can believe God is the Father who knows and understands all things
The Old Testament is not a document dictated by God to give us a perfect picture of God. The Old Testament is the story of one group of people trying to understand God–not just who God is, but what God is–and they got a lot wrong. God is both beyond our understanding, and our good Father. If that’s true, His plan for humanity is just beginning.
We get most things wrong about God, even now after 2000 years of Christianity. The diversity of Christianity makes this clear.
Religions are man-made attempts to know God, but we are learning.
If we believe in God, and that God is a loving Father, then we must believe in the incarnation. But, we cannot fully understand the incarnation since it ties together two things we’ve never experienced: 1) a pre-fallen state; 2) life after death.
Pursuit of Percipience 