“I am so excited…I’ve started to pray for the gift of tongues!” gushed a fellow congregant, following some Sunday sermon. “The what?” I asked, admittedly abashed. As a new Christian, my limited knowledge was as rife as my insecurity. Should I have already known what that gift was? As my zealous associate explained, I listened in unsettled interest before concluding two thoughts: 1. The Bible apparently included the gift of tongues and 2. The gift of tongues is apparently normative within the church. This newfound enlightenment—compliments of my fellow churchgoer—however, did little to assuage my growing self-doubt: was I supposed to pray for this gift as well? What was I supposed to do with it? Was I an inferior Christian if I couldn’t speak in tongues too? As time went on, I shelved my uncertainty concerning the subject and steadfastly plodded along in my faith. Over the years, the occasional sermon would turn up to address the gift of speaking in tongues, and each time it was clearly communicated that this supernatural ability was to either be regulated publicly or practiced privately, and the speaker typically assumed the gift to be an unintelligible, heavenly utterance, most often conceded with a dearth of exposition.
My theology was complete. I knew where I stood on tongues. Never mind the position had been formed over years of intermittent, topical teaching lacking a careful definition of terms and systematic study. It had been taught by people I respected and trusted, and that was sufficient for me. Many years later, the same humiliation—this time met with mortification—I had experienced at the hands of my pious communicant pounced in gleeful ridicule of my ignorance. When a serious student of the Bible casually mentioned in passing that speaking in tongues was a human, foreign language, chagrin cackled in mockery as I felt my quickly-reddening ears and face flush with heat, humbling me into silence…rightly so. Had I been wrong all these years? How could I have missed something so ordinarily straightforward? My inadequate research, compounded with derelict sermons and genuine but misguided claims, ignited my desire to comprehensively settle the matter for myself.
Although there is ample evidence to conclude that speaking in tongues is neither normative nor intended for private practice, this post will solely focus on the evidence for whether “tongues” means an erratic, heavenly utterance or a human, foreign language.[1] While I recognize Acts 2 is theologically linked with Genesis 10 (the Tower of Babel and the birth of human languages), this post will strictly focus on the books of Acts and 1 Corinthians because they are only two pericopes of Scripture that explicitly mention the gift of tongues. Whether the language of Acts 2 is synonymous with 1 Corinthians 12-14 is germane to the issue, therefore I analyze below the evidence both in support and against the claims that each section should be interpreted as a heavenly utterance. The significance of this topic cannot be overstated since many Christians, including myself, have been lost in the confusion swirling around the gift of speaking in tongues. This in turn has misinformed the expectation of proper Christian conduct today, resulting in sincere followers of Christ participating in mistaken and even harmful practices.
WHAT IS MEANT BY “TONGUES”?
Because there are many perspectives on tongues, it is best to begin with a definition: speaking in tongues is “The act of speaking a language one did not acquire by natural means. This often related to either divine revelation or worship. The language may or not be intelligible by another human.”[2]
Generally, most scholars agree on two meanings for “tongue” (γλῶσσα):
- “An organ of speech” (e.g., Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; 16:24; Acts 2:26; Rom. 3:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:9; Phil. 2:11; James 1:26; 3:5, 6, 8; 1 Pet. 3:10; 1 John 3:18; Rev. 16:10).
- A language (Acts 2:11; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15).
A third meaning is in dispute: some believe the word is used of strange words, spoken while in a spiritual ecstasy. Sometimes this is referred to as glossolalia because of the combination of γλώσσαις λαλεῖν in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12:30; 13:1; 14:2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39. [3]
This third meaning of dispute will be further analyzed within the scope of this post, but it is first important to note that the gift of tongues is only specifically mentioned in two books of the Bible, notably in the New Testament: Acts (2:1-13; 10:1-11:18; and 18:24-19:7) and 1 Corinthians (12-14). Also important to note is that while Acts is a historical-narrative account, 1 Corinthians is expository. Dr. Jonathan Murphy, department chair and associate professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, explains the context of Acts:
Acts is historical-narrative: it invokes the categories of narrative to relate history that happened, but selective history. Part of that selected history is being chosen through the message that Luke wants to advance through the historical narrative of Acts. This helps when looking at issues that are either prescriptive today or just descriptive of that transitional period in the church. I cannot look at the book of Acts and say, “Well that happened to them, so I can expect that to happen to me in my life today” because Acts is a historical narrative book, so some history doesn’t continue while some teaching does.[4]
While Acts is primarily descriptive of the early disciples’ experiences, 1 Corinthians is different in that it is expository: “[It] indicates such things as the relationship of the gifts to the body, the atmosphere in which they are to be exercised, and the rules for the exercise of the gifts in the church.”[5] Paul defines the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14 as a spiritual gift, and instructs the Corinthians “regarding the nature, the purpose, and the regulation of the gift in the local church meetings.”[6] The central doctrine in 1 Corinthians is ecclesiology, therefore this epistle expresses Paul’s views on how the church (local and universal) should properly function.[7] Consequently, not only do we find practical instruction, but insight into how Paul addressed each problem within the Corinthian church. Thus, the book of 1 Corinthians is business-like in nature because Paul is essentially checking off a list of problems the Corinthian church had raised in their previous letter.[8]
The fact that only two New Testament books mention the gift of tongues indicates the manifestation of the gift was not normal, and thus not necessary to address with instructions in such epistles such as the pastoral epistles (addressing church order), Philippians (addressing the Christian walk), and Ephesians (addressing the body of Christ). Because no reference to the gift of tongues exists elsewhere, “this in itself should give cause for a careful consideration of the place of tongues in the church today,” remarks William Bellshaw.[9] However, could not this mean there were other letters in which Paul addressed tongues, but they were simply uninspired? Perhaps, but this is pure speculation; additionally, if the gift of tongues had been a normative expectation, it is plausible to assume it would be addressed in Paul’s corresponding epistles, similar to his addressing spiritual gifts in more than one epistle: for example, 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 and v. 28-30; 1 Peter 4:10-11; Ephesians 4:7-16; and Romans 12:6-8.
It is also important to note the role of tongues as a gift from the Lord and thus, the inability to conjure it at will. Christopher Zoccali sheds light on the significant nature of tongues as a gift in his point concerning spiritual gifts:
Several key terms are linked to the concept of spiritual gifts. The term χάρισμα(τα, charisma(ta) is generally translated “gift”. But because it is likely derived from χάρις (charis), which means “grace,” the term may be better translated “concrete expression of grace” or “gracious bestowment” (Fee, Empowering Presence, 33; Berding, “Confusing Word and Concept,” 44)…reviewing its 16 uses in the Pauline texts thus provides the greatest insights for the term: Rom 1:11; 5:15, 16; 6:23; 11:29; 12:6; 1 Cor 1:7; 7:7; 12:4, 9, 28, 30, 31; 2 Cor 1:11; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6.[10]
THE BOOK OF ACTS
Now that we understand the definition for “tongues,” and the nature of its existence (as a gift), we can analyze its context. There is wide consensus that the supernatural ability to speak in tongues throughout the book of Acts meant the ability to speak in human, foreign languages (e.g. French, Chinese, Spanish, etc.):
Many say the tongues spoken on the Day of Pentecost were known languages because the word διάλεκτος describes them in Acts 2:6 and 8. This word is used also in Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2; and 26:14, where in each case it refers to a language then spoken. So the Day of Pentecost phenomenon would be classified as xenolalia. Schnabel represents this view in asserting, “The phenomenon that the believers experienced and that onlookers observed was xenolalia, the miraculous speaking in unlearned languages—here in the languages spoken in the regions mentioned in vv. 9–11, which Galilean Jews would not have spoken as part of their upbringing (in a multinational family) or as languages learned later in life (e.g., as traders).[11]
Luke (the author of Acts) describes the initial coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2—which had been predicted by Jesus in Acts 1:8 just prior to His ascension—as speaking in unfamiliar, but actual languages. Additionally, speaking in human, foreign language is also evidenced in Acts 10 and 19:
It would seem…that the consistent usage of “tongues” would argue for the meaning of languages. If the tongues are clearly languages in Acts 2, it seems that this is likewise the idea conveyed by the term in Acts 10 and 19. This is apparently confirmed by Peter’s defense in Acts 11:15 and 17 that the Gentiles had experienced what the Jewish believers had “at the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ). The identical experience of the believers in the house of Cornelius and the first recipients of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2 argues for this. It appears the tongues of Acts 10:19 were the same as at Pentecost.[12]
Author S. Lewis Johnson Jr. expounds this idea by comparing Luke’s terminology in each of the Acts passages. Johnson writes the normal word for the tongue as a speech organ is glōssa, which Luke uses for his description in Acts 2:4.[13] Additionally, Luke’s use of dialektos (meaning “language”) in 2:6 confirms the act of speaking in tongues referred to a known language or dialect.[14] “In other words,” writes Johnson, “the sense of a known tongue in 2:4 is made definite by the description of the phenomenon as a speaking in a dialektos in verses 6, 8.”[15] Furthermore, Luke’s use of the adjective heterais (“other”) in 2:4 underscores Johnson’s point: “The word usually, although not always, refers to a difference in kind, and it is rendered more accurately by the English word different. Thus, on Pentecost the utterances were not a form of ecstatic speech but known languages as Luke implies in verses 6, 8, 11.”[16] Luke uses the same term, glōssa, in Acts 10:46 and 19:6, “and we have no reason to believe that he means anything other than that which he clearly means in Acts two, known languages…there is no sound exegetical reason which would demand a different sense from that normally to be expected. They spoke in known languages, or tongues.”[17] Paul understood tongues to be a Holy-Spirit-inspired language and not a noncognitive utterance, as Stanley Toussaint argues:
“Language” is the most natural meaning of the word γλῶσσα and best explains how tongues can be differentiated into various kinds (γένη). Those who take this position believe the gift was the supernatural ability to speak a foreign language without having learned it or being able to understand it. Few if any instances of the word γλῶσσα or its compounds can be found that clearly refer to an ecstatic utterance.[18]
Despite these observances, the most convincing evidence for the use of foreign languages in Acts 2 is that the hearers from various nationalities heard the disciples speak in their own distinct languages not vernacular to the disciples, and likewise, “The narrative in Acts 10:44 would seem to imply that to Peter, the speaking with tongues at the house of Cornelius appeared in this respect, as well as in others, like that on the day of Pentecost.”[19]
THE BOOK OF 1 CORINTHIANS
Unlike the book of Acts, there is much dispute concerning the meaning of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12-14. The dissenting opinion claims the gift of tongues was not a human, foreign language but rather “a different manifestation of the Spirit from that on Pentecost, although it resembled it in many particulars. Tongues were to be ‘a sign to them that believe not.’”[20] First, we will analyze the evidence in support of the argument that the language in Acts is synonymous with 1 Corinthians. Then we will analyze the claims that 1 Corinthians 12-14 is an erratic, heavenly utterance rather than a human, foreign language.
Johnson asserts his argument for coordinating terminology makes it “manifestly impossible” to conclude 1 Corinthians uses tongues as unintelligible, inarticulate jargon since “It is well known that the terminology of Luke in Acts and of Paul in 1 Corinthians is the same.”[21] Johnson goes on to argue the intimate relationship between Paul and Luke has significant bearing upon the interpretation as well:
This conclusion is strengthened when we remember that Luke and Paul were constant companions and would have, no doubt, used the same terminology in the same sense. In fact, it is most likely that Luke learned the nature of the gift from Paul. He certainly was informed by Paul of the unique case of the disciples of John at Ephesus, and it is not unnatural to suppose that he knew of the events in Corinth through Paul, too. In other words, it is most likely that the early believers used a fixed terminology in describing this gift, a terminology understood by them all. If this be so, then the full description of the gift on Pentecost must be allowed to explain the more limited descriptions that occur elsewhere.[22]
Author Mark Snoeberger reinforces Johnson’s argument by pointing out that in Acts 2, “The definitive event to which all other glossolalia in Acts points (see, e.g., Acts 10:46; 11:15), the tongues were clearly human languages, because they were heard and understood by various foreigners. Uses of the term (and its cognates) in 1 Corinthians 14:21, Revelation 5:9, and Revelation 7:9 also represent undisputed references to people speaking various languages.”[23] In tandem with Johnson and Snoeberger, William Bellshaw further insists that the equivalent terminology for the word “tongue” in both Acts and 1 Corinthians indicates a foreign language:
The uniform usage of the word tongue in the New Testament is that which signifies a language used by inhabitants of the world. The only exception to this rule is the use of the word to designate the physical organ called the tongue. Therefore, there must be some compelling reason to understand this word in some other sense than the uniform meaning of the word in the New Testament. Such a compelling reason does not exist since exactly the same words to describe this phenomenon are used in Acts and 1 Corinthians. Differences in grammatical construction do appear, but the basic vocabulary is the same. No qualifying words are used to distinguish these references or to show that there is any difference between the phenomenon found in Acts and 1 Corinthians.[24]
In other words, both Luke and Paul’s predominant use of glossa in both Acts and 1 Corinthians provides sufficient linguistic evidence to conclude the language is the same. Interestingly, it is a lack of evidence that supports this conclusion as well, as author Chad Brand summarizes: “There is no evidence in the text that this was a different kind of speech than that in Acts. One would not be likely to come to such a conclusion simply from looking at the text of Corinthians. This interpretation likely arises out of experience in communities that practice glossolalia, since they rarely attest to actual languages being spoken.”[25]
In addition to parallel terminology, a common theme emerges when studying the supernatural event that occurred in Acts and the application of it in 1 Corinthians: the presence of the Jews. The Jewish presence confirms Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:21–22: “Paul states that the gift is a sign to Jews, as prophesied in the Old Testament (cf. Isa. 28:11). The intent is to confirm the fact that God has now identified Himself with the message proclaimed by the apostles (cf. Heb. 2:3–4).”[26] There were again Jews present in Acts 10:46, as well as in Acts 19:6. Because Jews were present during each experience of speaking in tongues, Paul’s words regarding the intent of the gift are confirmed.[27] The context behind Paul’s reference to Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 illumines the idea that 1 Corinthians is using tongues to mean human language. The author Stanley Toussaint emphasizes this when he writes,
Another great evidence for saying the tongues of 1 Corinthians 12–14 are languages is the use of Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21. In Isaiah 28 the prophet warned the Southern Kingdom of coming judgment. They would be carried away to other countries, where they would hear foreign languages. The tongues in Isaiah 28 are languages, and that is the meaning Paul gave the term.[28]
A third piece of evidence for the gift of tongues in both Acts and 1 Corinthians being synonymous is the fulfillment of Christ’s very own words revealed in both books. In Jesus’ farewell address to His disciples found in Mark 16:17-18, the Lord not only commissioned His followers to preach His gospel to all the world, but enlightened them on the confirmatory signs that would accompany those who believed: “In My name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Here Christ referenced the gift of tongues as one of the miraculous signs that would authenticate His message of truth with verifiable proof…a proof desperately needed during the foundational stage of the church. “These promised miraculous powers would evince that the doctrines were from God, and that the preaching and receiving of them were accompanied by a divine power and sanction,” writes author David Greene.[29] Gathering the disciples together, Jesus instructed them to remain in Jerusalem until they would be “baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:4-5). The fulfillment of Jesus’ words from Acts 1:5 came to pass in Acts 2:1-13, an event thereafter known as “The Day of Pentecost,” and His words from Mark 16:17-18 came to pass in both Acts 10:44-46 and Acts 19:1-10. There is then no other mention of tongues in the New Testament until 1 Corinthians 12-14. However, it is hard to overlook the fact that Paul uses Christ’s exact words from Mark 16:17-18 here:
In a similar strain the apostle proceeds through the first twenty-one verses of the fourteenth chapter, and then brings out his conclusion: So then “tongues are for a sign” (using the very words of the Lord’s prediction, Mark 16:17); not for the benefit of believers, but of them that believe not; or…are a miracle by which the presence and power of God were manifested, directly, or through the agency of those whom he sends, not intended for churches of believers, but for unbelieving heathen.[30]
The single correlating section of Scripture addressing the phenomena of speaking in tongues happens to also harmonize Christ’s words in Mark 16:17-18. This is of course by no accident, as it represents a coherent and consistent theme in standing as the bridge between the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians. Therefore, author David Greene concludes:
The gift of tongues predicted and promised to believers (Mark 16:17), and that stated to have been actually conferred (Acts 2:4; 10:44; and 19:6), was the same as to origin, character, design, and use as that treated of 1 Cor. 12 and 14. It is to be noted that Paul repeatedly speaks of this latter as a sign; the very term which Christ employed when he made the prediction and promise in Mark.[31]
Finally, the language used in Acts is compatible with the language used in 1 Corinthians 12-14 based upon the content of speaking in tongues found in each book. The subject matter of those speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost was “the mighty deeds of God” (τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 2:11); although we do not know what these mighty deeds included, the content of the tongues is most likely prayer, praise, and thanksgiving but unlikely that the subject of the words was the gospel.[32] This is because the gospel was the topic of Peter’s sermon, which directly followed the speaking in tongues. “If the hearers of the tongues had already heard the gospel,” writes Stanley Toussaint, “Peter’s words would have been somewhat superfluous. It may be concluded the praise was of a general sort…[and] this is confirmed by Acts 10:46.”[33] Likewise, it is clear when studying 1 Corinthians 12-14 that the subject of what was spoken in tongues was also not the gospel, but rather praise:
It is quite clear from [chapter 14] verse 2 that what was spoken in a tongue was not the gospel. Verse 2 says, “For one who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God.” Certainly one would not tell God what the good news of the gospel is! In addition, one may “pray in a tongue” (v. 14). The verb is προσευχ́ομαι, the verb most commonly used for prayer. In other words, when believers spoke in tongues they were addressing God to make requests. From verse 15 one gains the impression that a Christian could also sing in tongues. This does not give any insight into verse 16, where Paul discusses blessing in the Spirit. The verb is εὐλογέω, which basically means “to speak well of” and here connotes praise. Thanksgiving was also spoken in tongues (v. 16).[34]
Ultimately, speaking in tongues meant addressing God in thanksgiving, praise, and prayer rather than preaching the gospel to the unbeliever. This parallels perfectly with the tongues spoken at Pentecost—”The mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11)—and the tongues phenomena in 1 Corinthians 14:16–17, which were mostly prayers.[35]
A Heavenly Language?
If the language used in both the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians is the same, as the previous evidence demonstrates, what is the basis for contrary claims? What is the claim anyway? To sufficiently answer these questions, we will take a close look at the book of 1 Corinthians and the scholarship surrounding it. As previously shown, the use of tongues in the book of Acts is generally accepted as actual foreign languages of which the speakers had never formerly learned; they were supernaturally inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. The point of departure is found in the book of 1 Corinthians, where proponents of an incomprehensible, ecstatic utterance lean on the following arguments: 1. Paul’s comment in chapter 13:1 indicates a heavenly language and not an earthly one 2. The language in Acts is a “one-step” language while 1 Corinthians is a “two-step” language 3. The Corinthian’s incorporated pagan practices into their worship, including ecstatic gibberish, and 4. The insertion of the term “unknown” into the text. Let us analyze these arguments in turn.
THE “13:1” ARGUMENT
In 1 Corinthians 13:1, Paul writes: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging symbol” (NASB). Paul’s reference to the “tongues of angels” has led some to conclude he is speaking of a heavenly language unintelligible to men. The first issue with this conclusion is Paul’s inclusion of “men” in this language, indicating Paul meant a language encompassing both men and angels, i.e. an earthly language. The second issue is the well-documented method of Paul’s communication style in his epistles:
We have to think about what Paul is saying when he says, “the tongues of men or of angels.” This could be Paul just mirroring back something that some of the Corinthians were claiming. Paul does that frequently. He’ll take some claim of one of his audience, he’ll repeat it back to them, and then he will, if you will, kind of deconstruct or respond to that. He doesn’t always accept the premise, but he starts from what they say. So it may be that some in the church at Corinth were claiming they were speaking in angelic tongues. Paul is just kind of starting with that without necessarily agreeing that this is what’s happening.[36]
Paul’s method of communication often included the implementation of rhetorical tools for emphasis, and this section of Scripture is no exception. In this case, Paul’s reference to the “tongues of angels” is a perfect example of using hyperbole to underscore his point. “Paul [is] just using kind of a little rhetorical overkill, if you will: ‘Whether I speak in human tongues, or even if I would speak in angelic tongues, these certain principles would apply’—not necessarily saying anything about them,” explains Ronn Johnson et al.[37] The context of Paul’s use of hyperbole is convincing when comparing the verse directly after 13:1 because Paul wields the tool again to emphasize faith:
It is also contended from 1 Corinthians 13:1 that the gift included the ability to speak the language of angels…of course this would be unintelligible to human ears. In response one should note that Paul was using hyperbole to the extent he doubted that anyone has attained this. In the next verse he referred to the gift of faith so great one could move mountains (the reference is not to one mountain but to mountains, plural). This is possible but highly improbable. Undoubtedly, the gift of prophecy referred to in the same verse is also a hyperbole.[38]
Therefore, “Paul’s mention of a language of angels in 1 Corinthians 13:1 could possibly suggest a language unique to angels, but it is more likely that he was using hyperbole to reference a hypothetical use of tongues that exceeded even the claims of the Corinthians—yet still fell short of the greater virtue of love,” concludes Mark Snoeberger.[39] An important point to note here is the grammar of conditional clauses in Greek…when Paul says “IF I speak in…” the question becomes: what type of conditional clause is Paul using? 1st, 2nd, or 3rd? Is he saying, “Let’s assume for the sake of my argument (though it is NOT possible in reality) that one could speak in angelic languages…” OR is he saying, “Let’s assume for the sake of my argument (because it IS possible in reality) that one could speak in angelic languages…” Greek conditional clauses (grammar/syntax) are massively important in this particular text. Note too that Paul does this in Galatians: “IF an angel of God or even us come a preach a gospel to you other than the one we preached, let them be eternally condemned.” Paul is being hyperbolic. He wouldn’t preach a different gospel. He knows God wouldn’t send an angel with a different gospel. His point is to emphasize that they must stick to the gospel they received when he preached.
THE “TWO-STEP” ARGUMENT
Some proponents that argue the language of 1 Corinthians represents an unintelligible, angelic utterance contend that because interpretation was unnecessary in Acts 2 but the need for interpretation was required in 1 Corinthians, Paul must have meant a heavenly language in his epistle to the Corinthian church. Therefore, while Acts is a “one-step” language, 1 Corinthians is a “two-step” language. Dallas Theological Seminary professor Darrell Bock explains this perspective:
I think, in Scripture, you get two kinds of tongues. You get the tongues of Acts 2, which is foreign languages, okay, so there’s no need for someone to have the gift of interpretation, because if I speak the language, someone gets it; they don’t need to have someone to have the gift to do it. 1 Corinthians 14, even though it’s called “tongues,” I don’t think it’s the same thing…because you have the gift of interpretation that’s required in order to understand it. Paul doesn’t say, “Speak in tongues and someone else (if there’s someone who has the language that’s being spoken), [will] tell you what it is that’s being said.” No, they’ve got to have the gift of interpretation in order to do it. So Acts has a one-step tongue; 1st Corinthians has a two-step tongue.[40]
However, Stanley Toussaint refutes Bock’s argument by pointing to the circumstances surrounding each event: “In Acts 2 hearers were present from areas whose native tongues were spoken by those who supernaturally spoke. In 1 Corinthians the congregation was from areas where the tongues were not spoken; therefore, interpretation was needed.”[41] In fact, the very need for interpretation in 1 Corinthians strongly indicates it was indeed a foreign language, Toussaint argues: “The fact that tongues could be translated implies they were languages. It seems almost inevitable to conclude that the gift of tongues refers to the supernatural ability to speak a foreign language without having learned it and without understanding what one is saying.”[42] Author Mark Snoeberger builds upon Toussaint’s argument by pointing out: “While Paul speaks of a language known only to God (1 Cor 14:2), it is unlikely that this references a ‘divine’ language that is untranslatable, but rather an ordinary language that is untranslated, and thus illegitimate in the assembly.”[43]
Additionally, Paul’s instructions for interpretation convincingly argues for objective, cognitive meaning, i.e., “intrinsically propositional linguistic material that is subject to normal translation procedures.”[44] Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 14:10 that speaking in tongues includes intrinsic, propositional meaning that must be disclosed if it is to be valid and sanctioned in the church: “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning” (NASB). “That the tongues mentioned are ‘in the world’,” writes Snoeberger, “suggests further that these are ordinary human languages.”[45] This provides the clarity necessary to conclude that tongues contain intrinsically propositional meaning; tongues can be translated by normal linguistic precedents; and tongues are coherent.[46] “Any proposed expression of tongues that falls short of these criteria does not qualify as a biblical expression of tongues,” claims Snoeberger.[47]
The need for interpretation logically follows when considering the context involved in both Acts and 1 Corinthians as well:
In Acts 2 people had come from many foreign countries (Acts 2:5, 9–11). In Acts 10 Cornelius was a foreigner (Acts 10:1). In Acts 19 Paul was in a foreign country. In Corinth Paul’s ministry was to a seaport community which was a melting pot for peoples from many parts of the world. It was a city where many languages were spoken. Therefore, the ability to speak a foreign tongue without previous acquaintance with that language would arrest the attention of these people, and commend that message as a supernatural one.[48]
It is also important to emphasize that although the evidence supports the conclusion that speaking in tongues means communicating in a foreign language, it does not invalidate the supernatural gift of interpretation from the Lord, as Joseph B. Tyson and Mark Allan Powell point out: “The interpretation of tongues demanded a spiritual gift, not mere recognition on the part of one who happened to know the language being spoken.”[49]
THE “PAGAN” ARGUMENT
Another argument for the language in 1 Corinthians being one of angelic, ecstatic utterance is the proposition that the Corinthians were incorporating some of their pagan, mystery beliefs by ecstatic utterings, and Paul was addressing this in the epistle. H. Wayne House posits this argument in his article, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth.” House acknowledges another author’s contribution to the argument that 1 Corinthians is a foreign language and not a heavenly one when he writes: “The major problem with this view, in reference to Corinth, is given by Smith: ‘If speaking in tongues involved a supernatural speech in a real language, then every such utterance required a direct miracle by God. This would mean, in the case of the Corinthians, that God was working a miracle at the wrong time and wrong place! He was causing that which He was directing the Apostle Paul to curtail.’”[50] However, the reconciliation for this seeming contradiction is found in H. Wayne House’s own argument: if the Corinthians were practicing some of their pagan, mystery beliefs in the form of ecstatic utterings, then they were confusing a pagan practice with the actual supernatural gift of human, foreign language, to which Paul responded and instructed them accordingly; this, therefore, is precisely why Paul was “curtailing” the practice, not because God worked a miracle “at the wrong time and wrong place.” Additionally, theoretically-speaking, if the Corinthians were practicing ecstatic utterance—a pagan and therefore ungodly practice, as Wayne House argues—why would Paul regulate it? That regulation would denote acceptance of an ungodly practice, just as House recognizes in the writing of another author, Gundry: “Even if it were admitted that ecstatic utterance such as was practiced in the Hellenistic religion was invading Corinthian Church meetings, Paul would be condemning it by presenting normative Christian glossolalia as something radically different in style as well as in content.”[51] This indicates the Corinthians were, in fact, speaking in a human language supernaturally gifted from God. Toussaint illumines this point well in his article, “Rethinking Tongues”:
For those who argue for ecstatic utterances, several evidences are called forth. The first is the prominence given to oracular utterances in the Greek-Roman culture. These were little more than gibberish. To support this idea reference is made to 1 Corinthians 12:1–3, where people speak under some spiritual influence. In reply to this argument one should ask, “Would Paul the Apostle equate a gift of the Holy Spirit of God with the heathen practice of soothsayers wildly talking gibberish?” One would think not.[52]
Additionally, William Bellshaw underscores Toussaint’s argument by drawing attention to the ability involved in speaking in tongues, particularly the fact that as a gift from the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues was a truly unique, supernatural event that could not be replicated:
It is also reasonable to assume that, if this is a gift of the Holy Spirit, it would be something which could not be duplicated by human means at the disposal of the early church. If these tongues are ecstatic utterances, they could be duplicated fraudulently. Gibberish can be uttered by anyone, and a second person could feign interpretation of that unintelligible vocalization. Therefore, it is reasonable that this gift would consist of the ability to speak in a foreign language without the opportunity to learn that language by ordinary means. This is truly a gift of the Holy Spirit.[53]
THE “UNKNOWN” ARGUMENT
The final argument to be addressed in this post briefly concerns the insertion of the term “unknown” into the original text of 1 Corinthians 14. This insertion occurs six times in 1 Corinthians 14 (v. 2, 4, 13, 14, 19, and 27) by a translator hoping to clarify the passage.[54] Unfortunately the goal of clarity was even further obscured by the qualifying addition. William Bellshaw sheds important light on the outcome: “Instead, this insertion has caused much misunderstanding. It has led some people to believe that these sounds had never been uttered before as intelligible languages. Therefore, when reading the text of this chapter, the word unknown should be omitted.[55]
In a similar vein, author Zane Hodges argues for the substitution of the word “language” rather than the omission of it.
It is necessary also to observe that it is a highly fallacious view of the nature of the so-called glossalalia of the New Testament which supposes that tongues consisted of anything other than known languages of the world. The word unknown frequently coupled with the word tongue in the Authorized Version is italicized to indicate that there is nothing in the original to correspond to it and, indeed, its insertion by the translators was infelicitous in the extreme. For the Greek word γλῶσσα (“tongue”) meant no more in such a setting to the Greek reader than does our English word “language.” If, then, at every occurrence of the word tongue or unknown tongue the English reader will simply substitute the word language, a much clearer concept of this spiritual gift will be achieved. There is no trace of Scriptural evidence that to the Jews, for whom the gift was intended, tongues were ever heard as incoherent, incomprehensible, babbling. It is evident that on the Day of Pentecost, for example, to the great Jerusalem multitude all that was being said was perfectly intelligible—without an interpreter—for these Jews exclaim: “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?…we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:8, 11).[56]
One noteworthy observation as a buttress to each of these four arguments is that of the integrity of Paul. As the author of 1 Corinthians, Paul was held to the highest of standards, notwithstanding the inspiration of God in his writing. The caliber of Paul’s character illumines the sincere but misguided arguments in support of interpreting the tongues phenomena as ecstatic utterance. David Greene states:
The supposition that the speaking with tongues in the Corinthian church was a merely fanatical, unmeaning jargon—a merely ambitious, hypocritical pretension to an ability which was not possessed, is, if Paul is admitted to have been an honest man, divinely inspired to instruct and guide the converts there, utterly incompatible with the language and manner in which he addresses them on the subject. If this γλώσσαις λαλεῖν was not the speaking in a real language, such as men employ to convey their thoughts and feelings, what could it have been?[57]
Greene then examines what Paul says in response to this question:
- Because Paul states speaking in tongues was the gift of God (1 Cor. 12:28) for the edification of Christians as a whole, Greene asks, “Could he, as an honest man, speak of any fanatical jabber as a gift of God?”[58]
- Because Paul considered himself on the same level as the Corinthians, “only claiming to have a larger measure of it, so that he spoke with tongues more than they all,” we cannot assume that he babbled nonsense and then gave thanks to God for doing so more than the Corinthians.[59]
- Because Paul exhorts the Corinthians to earnestly desire spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. 14:1 (alluding to the enumerated gifts in 12:28), and focuses on only one—the inspiration to teach—as being superior to speaking in tongues, he desires that they all speak in tongues (as long as there is an interpreter) so that the church is edified. Greene asks:
Would the apostle thus have given his sanction to the existence and continuance of such fanatical, not to say profane and blasphemous, pretensions? Would he not rather have rebuked the ambitious triflers as sharply as he did the incestuous persons, and commanded the church to rid itself of those who so grossly marred the peace and order and fair fame of their Christian assemblies? By so doing only could his closing injunction be complied with: “Let all things be done decently and in order.”[60]
- Because Paul explains that the one who speaks in a tongue is not addressing men but rather God (14:2) and likewise renders thanks to God (14:17), Greene asks, “What more arrant trifling; what more offensive mockery, could there be, than in addressing to God such fanatical gibberish, pretending it to be prayer or thanksgiving, and that it was uttered, too, under the impulse of the Spirit of God!”[61]
- Finally, because Paul writes that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself (14:4), Greens asks: “How could the venting of his fanaticism by the uttering of nonsense be to his edification?”[62]
As the argument of this post has demonstrated, there is ample evidence to conclude the following:
- The gift of tongues has the same meaning in both the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians based upon linguistic, contextual, prophetic, ambient, and relational evidence.
- The claims for an erratic, heavenly utterance rather than a human, foreign language in 1 Corinthians—as outlined in the four arguments (“13:1,” “Two-Step,” “Pagan,” and “Unknown”)—are untenable.
- The integrity of the apostle Paul stands in stark contrast to an argument altogether incompatible with his character.
Therefore, there is no compelling reason to believe unintelligible and inarticulate jargon is the same thing as the biblical gift of tongues. Indeed, as the collective weight of this post demonstrates, “Few if any instances of the word γλῶσσα or its compounds can be found that clearly refer to an ecstatic utterance,” and thus, after a careful, systematic analysis of the issue, this author concludes that the ability to speak in tongues is in no way the incoherent babbling in the Spirit, but rather as Paul understands it: a foreign language inspired by the Holy Spirit.[63] Additionally, an important practical issue that I continually find among my Pentecostal friends (as it relates to the GIFT of tongues) is that they see it as a test of spiritual growth/maturity; they see it as proof of a second “baptism”—a growth spurt in Christ. BUT no believer is to have all the gifts, and it is GOD alone who distributes them. To teach that every believer should speak in the spiritual gift of tongues as they understand it, is to miss the point of the image of the church body and the purpose of spiritual gifts to edify it.
None of This Matters If You Don’t Have Love
Thomas Constable, a former faculty member of Dallas Theological Seminary, poignantly captured a truth worth considering when studying the nature of speaking in tongues: “One of modern teacher’s greatest failures today is to give too much attention to the things the Bible does not stress, and a lack of attention to what it does stress.”[64] When studying the gift of tongues, it is of utmost importance to continually inform each argument with the ultimate goal of Bible exposition: to produce loving conduct in the reader. In the middle of Paul’s exposition of the proper use of spiritual gifts, and specifically speaking in tongues, he dedicates an entire chapter to the excellence of love. By doing this, Paul is saying that the greatest (even unimaginable) abilities are nothing but ANNOYING NOISE if they do not flow from love: “If I do not have love, I am nothing,” he writes in 1 Corinthians 13:2 (NASB). The production of love (and not controversy) is the highest priority for Paul, and “In every key Pauline passage, it is the act of ministry itself, rather than the ability to perform it, that is of central concern.”[65] Not only does love eclipse the gift of speaking in tongues, but a number of the other spiritual gifts do as well:
Two lists of gifts appear in the New Testament in which the gift of tongues is included (1 Cor. 12:8–10, 28–30)…[and] the gift of tongues is mentioned last. The gifts in the list…evidently are given in the order of their eminence because of the use of first, secondarily, and thirdly. It seems strange, in the light of this arrangement, to see the prominence given to this gift in some circles today.[66]
Therefore, William Bellshaw correctly summarizes: “Though tongues [was] a sovereignly bestowed gift of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11), it was to be kept in its proper place with respect to the other spiritual gifts. It [was] not to be depreciated nor exalted above that position which is Biblical.”[67] The Corinthian believers, as well as modern Christians today, were guilty of overrating and misusing the gift of tongues…probably because it makes us look like we have achieved a higher relationship with God than those around us. This is precisely the immaturity for which the Corinthian believers were known inside Paul’s letter. In response, Paul made “a very pointed and very sophisticated argument,” which is this: out of all these listed gifts, the Spirit apportioned them in a specific way by emphasizing prophecy, but placing tongues last.[68] Paul plainly communicated that by no means was there an expectation that everyone should speak in tongues any more than everyone should be apostles, “a caveat quite frequently ignored by modern tongues movements,” writes author Zane Hodges.[69] Ultimately, Paul ensconces his instructions in the “surpassing excellence of love over any and every spiritual gift (1 Cor. 13)” to exhort the Corinthians to avoid majoring in the minors…a lesson we would all do well to heed.
With every esteem and respect,
Calamity Greenleaf
[1] Concerning the cessation of tongues as well as its public or private nature, see Zane C. Hodges, “The Purpose of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 226; David Greene, “The Gift of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 22, no. 85 (1865): 123; Ronn Johnson, Carl Sanders, and Michael S. Heiser, TH102 Introducing Bible Doctrine II: The Triune God and His Heavenly Host (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013); George W. Dollar, “Church History and the Tongues Movement,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 319–320; Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 184; Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 14 14 (2009): 20–21; William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 151–152; S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Introduction,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 225; Chad Brand, “Tongues, Gift Of,” ed. Charles Draper et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1606.
[2] David Witthoff, ed., The Lexham Cultural Ontology Glossary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014).
[3] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 178.
[4] Jonathan Murphy, 2020, “Acts and Pauline Epistles,” Online Class Discussion for Dallas Theological Seminary, June 4, 2020.
[5] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 145–146.
[6] S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “Introduction,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 224.
[7] Roy B. Zuck, A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 284.
[8] Mark Yarbrough, “Overview of 1 Corinthians,” (lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX, June 16, 2020).
[9] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 145–146.
[10] Christopher Zoccali, “Spiritual Gifts,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[11] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 178–179.
[12] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179.
[13] S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 309–311.
[14] Johnson Jr., 309–311.
[15] Johnson Jr., 309–311.
[16] S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 309–311.
[17] Johnson Jr., 309–311.
[18] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179–181.
[19] David Greene, “The Gift of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 22, no. 85 (1865): 118.
[20] M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893).
[21] S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 309–311.
[22] Johnson Jr., 309–311.
[23] Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 14 14 (2009): 18–19.
[24] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 147–148.
[25] Chad Brand, “Tongues, Gift Of,” ed. Charles Draper et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1606.
[26] S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 309–311.
[27] Johnson Jr., 309–311.
[28] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179–181.
[29] David Greene, “The Gift of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 22, no. 85 (1865): 100–101.
[30] Greene, 111.
[32] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 181–182.
[33] Toussaint, 181–182.
[34] Toussaint, 181–182.
[35] Toussaint, 181–182.
[36] Ronn Johnson, Carl Sanders, and Michael S. Heiser, TH102 Introducing Bible Doctrine II: The Triune God and His Heavenly Host (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).
[37] Johnson et al., TH102 Introducing Bible Doctrine II.
[39] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179–181.
[39] Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 14 14 (2009): 18–19.
[40] Darrell Bock, “Acts 1-7: Q & Q,” Online lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX, May 21, 2020).
[41] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179–181.
[42] Toussaint, 179–181.
[43] Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 14 14 (2009): 18–19.
[44] Snoeberger, 18–19.
[45] Snoeberger, 18–19.
[47] Mark A. Snoeberger, “Tongues—Are They for Today?,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 14 14 (2009): 18–19.
[48] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 147–148.
[49] Joseph B. Tyson and Mark Allan Powell, “Tongues, Speaking in,” ed. Mark Allan Powell, The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (Revised and Updated) (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 1059.
[50] H. Wayne House, “Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (1983): 142–143.
[51] House, 142–143.
[52] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179–181.
[53] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 147–148.
[54] Bellshaw, 147–148.
[55] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 147–148.
[56] Zane C. Hodges, “The Purpose of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 231–232.
[57] David Greene, “The Gift of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 22, no. 85 (1865): 119–120.
[58] Greene, 119–120.
[59] Greene, 119–120.
[61] David Greene, “The Gift of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 22, no. 85 (1865): 119–120.
[62] Greene, 119–120.
[63] Stanley D. Toussaint, “Rethinking Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 172, no. 686 (2015): 179–181.
[64] Thomas Constable, “Outline: 1 Timothy 1 Pt. 1,” (online lecture, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, TX, July 13, 2020).
[65] Christopher Zoccali, “Spiritual Gifts,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
[66] William G. Bellshaw, “The Confusion of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 146.
[67] Bellshaw, 146.
[68] Ronn Johnson, Carl Sanders, and Michael S. Heiser, TH102 Introducing Bible Doctrine II: The Triune God and His Heavenly Host (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013).
[69] Zane C. Hodges, “The Purpose of Tongues,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 228–229.
