Speaking in Tongues
What
are tongues?
The Greek word glossa
means "tongue" (as in the organ in your mouth) but also by extension,
"language" (the thing your tongue speaks). Paul mentions the
"tongues of humans and angels" in 1 Corinthians 13:1, and the fact
that the Testament of Job tells of Job's daughters speaking in angelic tongues
leads us to take "angels" seriously in this verse (although some
argue it is a later Christian addition to the text). In other words, when
certain non-Christian Jews spoke in "tongues," they apparently
believed they were speaking in angelic languages.
Were they? Were the Corinthians possibly speaking in angelic languages? I
personally doubt it, but must remain open to the possibility. Paul speaks of
the "third heaven" (2 Cor. 12:2) and likely
alludes to the dead "under the earth" (Phil. 2:10), but I see such
language as God incarnating truth in their ancient worldview. Of course don't
take me to believe the sun goes around the earth just because I might
occasionally say something about the "sun setting." So we have at
least three possibilities: 1) sometimes people do speak in angelic languages,
2) Paul never really understood the phrase "angelic languages"
literally in the first place, and 3) while he may have thought of them literally,
this is an instance of God revealing something through their ancient worldview.
We actually get mixed signals on whether tongues are human languages (xenoglossia) or not in the biblical texts. In Acts 2, the
most obvious interpretation is that the disciples are speaking in human
languages. Jews hear the gospel proclaimed in their own tongues from all around
the
So the Bible implies that tongues might
be human languages or they might be something else that Paul alludes to in one
way or another as "tongues of angels."
I might point out that in something like its 1 Corinthians 14 variety, tongues
seems to be a pan-religious phenomenon. I have already mentioned non-Christian
Jews above who apparently spoke in tongues. I do not feel it necessary to say
that such individuals were demon possessed or that Satan was in these instances
counterfeiting the genuine article. The most logical explanation to me is that
certain brains are just wired to have these kinds of experiences. And in the case of Christians, God sanctifies the
experience as a means of grace. This is just my personal hunch
as to what is going on in the vast majority of cases where tongues
is spoken today. I am open to other possibilities.
So the Bible refers to two different kinds of activity as speaking in tongues.
First, in Acts 2 individuals speak in tongues in a way that serves as a witness
to unbelievers. Second, in 1 Corinthians 14 Paul speaks of tongues that
shouldn't be done around unbelievers (glossolalia).
But the biblical text refers to both as tongues. You cannot tell by the word
"tongues" itself which the Bible refers to apart from context.
2.
Tongues in Acts
Most Pentecostals understandably make their home in Acts 2 (thus, Pentecost-als ;-). Acts 2 provides for many a direct association
between being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues. Thus for the
original Pentecostals (who had their roots in the holiness movement), speaking
in tongues was a second or even third "work of grace" for a Christian
after conversion. For those like the
There are a number of problems here.
For one thing, the book
of Acts does not say anywhere that tongues are always involved when the Holy Spirit fills a person. There
are of course three incidents in Acts where tongues are mentioned when the Holy
Spirit comes (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). But there are other places where the
Spirit comes and tongues are not mentioned (Acts 4:31; 8:17-19; 9:17-19; and
the rest of Acts).
A person who argues you have to speak in tongues to have the Spirit is arguing
from the silence of the text. I think Acts does indicate that tongues of its
sort are an indication that you have the Spirit (e.g., 10:46). But Acts never
says the opposite is true: that you will speak
in tongues if you have the Holy Spirit. It never says this.
I might also add that 1 Corinthians 12:30 gives me the
final answer on the issue of whether all Christians will speak in tongues: "All don't speak in tongues, do they?" In
Greek this is a question introduced by me,
thus a question expecting a no answer: "Do all speak in tongues? No"
is a legitimate translation. And for those UPCers out
there, Paul doesn't say, "Do all have the gift of tongues?" He simply says that all do not speak
(laleo)
in tongues, the same word that Acts 2:4 uses when it says the apostles spoke (laleo) in
different tongues.
As a matter of argument, tongues are rarely mentioned in the New Testament as a
whole. They feature prominently in 1 Corinthians where Paul is addressing a
problem in the Corinthian church. But he doesn't even mention them in his list
of spiritual gifts in Romans 12:6-8 (see their absence also in Ephesians
4:7-13). Indeed, they are last on his list even in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In
short, a Pentecostal would not have written the New Testament this way--it
would not look this way if their emphases were that of the NT authors.
So what of those Pentecostals who would distinguish between tongues as evidence
of the Holy Spirit and tongues as a gift, as in 1 Corinthians 12-14? First,
this is not a distinction we find the Bible ever making. That's a tell tale
sign of a Christian tradition taking over, when the heart of a doctrine is
nowhere stated. It's an ingenious way of splicing Acts to 1 Corinthians--just
not one the Bible ever says. And I've already mentioned that 1 Corinthians
12:30 argues against this line of interpretation.
Again, if tongues were the evidence of the Holy Spirit, then we would expect it
to go hand in hand with any discussion of the Holy Spirit. We would expect John
to say the Holy Spirit leads into all truth (John 16:13), convicts of sin,
righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8), and you will know it because you will
speak in tongues. We would expect Romans to say that the Spirit bears witness
with our Spirit as we speak in tongues
and tells us we are a child of God (Romans 8:16). We would expect Paul to say
that the Holy Spirit is a down payment that guarantees our inheritance (2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:14), God's seal of ownership on us (2 Cor. 1:22), made clear as we speak in tongues. And it would
sure be great if Hebrews 6:4 would be a little clearer in telling us that the
heavenly gift it has in mind is speaking in tongues--it does relate it to
partaking of the Holy Spirit, after all.
A Pentecostal would have told us these
things in these passages. The New Testament authors did not. The most logical
reason they don't is because they do not think of tongues every time they think
of the Holy Spirit.
A second thing to think
about is the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are human languages,
at least that is the most natural way to take it. I think Charles Carter
used to suggest that they were speaking the same thing as 1 Corinthians 14, but
that the people were given the gift of interpretation to where they heard it in
their own languages. Ingenious! But of course Acts says nothing like this. It
is another reading into the
text to iron out an issue in our
theology.
"They began to speak in different languages [tongues] as the Spirit was
giving to them to speak out" (Acts 2:4) ... "... each one was hearing
them speak in his own dialect (2:6) ... we hear them speaking in our languages
[tongues] the great things of God (2:11)."
It seems to me that the most natural way to take this is that they spoke in
different languages and the people heard them in those different languages.
I suspect strongly that the tongues of those who claim that their tongues are
the evidence of the Holy Spirit
would not pass a foreign language test. Yet this seems to be the tongues of
Acts 2.
And while Acts 10 and 19 do not tell us if the tongues are
foreign languages or not, the book of Acts itself gives us no basis to consider it anything different from the
tongues of Acts 2. That is, Acts never informs us of the 1 Corinthians
14 type of tongues. In the story world of Acts, they do not clearly exist.
The burden of proof is thus on anyone who would argue that the tongues in Acts
10 and 19 are angelic languages or prayer languages or ecstatic languages or
anything other than the different human languages of Acts 2.
So why does Luke mention tongues these three times?
It is interesting to me that the interpretation Peter gives of the tongues in
Acts 2 is a Scripture from Joel that sees prophecy as a primary feature of the
coming of the Spirit. This fits with the fact that the tongues in Acts 2 are
used for missionary purposes--not for personal edification as the
"evidence" of the Spirit turns out to be in the UPC. One of Luke's
special emphasis is that the gospel is for the whole
world and to the ends of the earth. How appropriate that the prophetic message
be given to people from all over the world through the ability to speak in
their languages!
I believe Luke mentions the tongues in Acts 10 to make it clear that the
experience of the Gentiles wasn't different in any way from the experience of
Jews on the Day of Pentecost. This was a very important point so that Jewish
Christians could not claim any superiority over Gentile Christians. Again,
tongues in Acts 10 serve an important corporate purpose.
Similarly, I believe that Acts 19 mentions tongues to make it doubly clear that
being baptized by John the Baptist was not the same thing as being baptized by
the Spirit. The tongues emphasize this point. Again, tongues serve to make a
theological point here.
A final note.
The text of Acts 2, presenting us with events on the Day of Pentecost, has
proved to be extremely important as a sacrament of revelation both to Wesleyan
and Pentecostal communities of faith. Indeed, this text is more important to us
than to most other Christian communities. A good deal of our past identity is
tied up with a particular reading of this text. Without closing the doors to
these sacramental means of theological grace, we might also keep in mind an
original meaning concern in the process.
While we have four gospels, we have only one Acts. Those gospels are often
quite unique from each other and can differ both in arrangement and emphasis.
Indeed, in some instances we might be quite misled if we had only one of them.
For example, we would not know that Mary and Joseph came from
Here's the warning: if we had second volumes to Matthew, Mark, or John, they
would likely differ as much from Acts as Luke differs from Matthew, Mark, and
John. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly how they would differ.
So we probably should not take Acts to be a straightforward videotape of events
in the life of the early church. This fact argues against basing the core of
one's theology on a specific way of reading between the lines of the specifics
of Acts. And that is exactly what Pentecostals tend to do.
3.
Mark 16:17 (Textus Receptus)
"And these signs will follow those who believe: in my name they will cast
out demons, they will speak in new tongues..."
For some conservative Pentecostals, this verse also plays a prominent role. I
say conservative because the only translations of the New Testament that
consider it to have been in the original text of Mark are the King James
Version and the New King James Version. Other versions only print the text
because of its historical importance, but this is in deference to tradition.
Their translators did not consider them original.
After I have said this, however, I have no problems with the message of this
text. I believe that Mark 16:9-20 is a pastiche of post-resurrection events
that some author took probably from the endings of the other gospels and Acts.
When 16:18 mentions taking up snakes, for example, I picture Paul on the
Finally, 16:17 surely alludes to the Day of Pentecost. The word "new"
tongues ("new" isn't even in all the manuscripts that have this
ending) seems simply a reference to the fact that the languages on the Day of
Pentecost were new to the apostles. I suppose it is possible that it is a
reference to the tongues of 1 Corinthinans 14.
So even if the passage was original, it
would not contribute anything new to our discussion of tongues. For example,
the verse doesn't say that every Christian
will do all these things.
I might just rehearse the reasons why there is such uniform agreement that Mark
16:9-20 was not a part of the original Mark:
External Evidence
There are two types of evidence that are discussed
when one is trying to decide what the original reading of a text was. This is a
science that can be used on any text in which we only have copies of copies
that differ from one another and we are trying to decide between the various
readings to figure out what the first copy said.
With regard to what we might call "the longer ending" of Mark, the
external evidence is not good. I call it the longer ending because there is
also a shorter one and a longer, longer one. The presence of the shorter one
shows that someone else added another ending because 16:8 didn't seem like a
good way to end the gospel... and thus even those manuscripts with the shorter
ending are evidence that there was no ending after 16:8 in the manuscripts
before them.
Jerome (400) says that he does not know many Greek manuscripts with the longer
ending. Eusebius (300's) divided up the gospels into sections but made no room
for verses at this point. The longer ending is not in any of the major ancient
manuscripts and translations, including the two most famous, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
However, it was used by Tatian in the late 100's in
his spliced together "four gospels" and Irenaeus
knows of it as well (Justin Martyr has a sentence with some of the same words,
but it's not a conclusive allusion).
A late Armenian manuscript says, "of Ariston" right before the longer ending. Ariston lived in the early 100's, but most textual scholars
don't believe some copier in the 800's (I think) could know who came up with
the ending when no other manuscripts say this. But Ariston
did live at the right time for the creation of this ending.
To sum up the external evidence, we have evidence that the reading existed by
the mid to late 100's, but it did not appear in most ancient Greek manuscripts,
particularly those considered most weighty.
Internal Evidence
The internal evidence is, however, determinative. Verse 9 basically starts all
over again with the post-resurrection. It's like 1-8 never happened. Verse 8
ends with the women telling no one. Then all of a sudden we're talking about
"Now having risen on the first day" again. The women were the subject
in verse 8. Then Jesus is suddenly the subject in verse 9. This fact alone
militates against the verses being original.
There are at least nine words or phrases in these few short verses (including
connecting phrases) that appear no where else in Mark, and the style is
different. These verses are more of a summary than the narrative we have been
reading up to this point. I've already mentioned that the content of this
ending is a pastiche of references from other gospels. If these verses were
original, they would be the most "harmonistic" track of gospel
anywhere in the four gospels. That's one of the reasons why many don't notice
how odd they are--because we're used to reading the gospels as a single witness
to Jesus rather than four distinct witness.
In short, there are a few ultra-conservative people with PhD's who think these
verses are original. But their very position on this issue demonstrates to me
that they have come to the evidence with their conclusion already in hand. I
consider no one a reliable textual scholar who thinks these verses were
original.
As a side note, I have finally admitted to myself that Mark probably did have
some other ending that is lost. It would be unprecedented for a book to end
with the word "for" (which is how it ends in the Greek... I won't go
into it). And the other places in Mark where the word
"fear" is used in this way, someone is usually afraid of something. Witherington
thinks the ending of Matthew is the best place for us to go to figure out what
the original ending might have looked like. That's a fair enough suggestion, if
Matthew used Mark, but given the beginning of Mark, I doubt Mark had as much at
the end as Matthew does.
4.
The Situation at
Ah, the Corinthian church. I love this church and am thankful for their
problems. Just think of what it would be like if we did not have 1
Corinthians... in other words, if they had not had so many problems! There is
SOOO much we would not know about the early church if it weren't for them!
The fundamental problem they had was division (1 Cor.
1:10). In particular, two power blocks seemed to be locking horns. The
"Paul group" was a group, presumably of church leaders and original
church members, who remained loyal to Paul's authority. A second group, the
"Apollos group," was likely prosperous and
of some status. I suppose that some of them became Christians under the
educated, eloquent, and probably upper class Apollos.
If I have it right, this Apollos group had enough
clout to take others to court, to afford meat and serve it to others, and had
enough wine to get drunk. I think this is largely the same group, a group that
considered themselves "wise" (see 1 Cor.
6:5) and to have knowledge (8:1). Paul mocks them when he tells them how
envious of them he is, since they are already reigning in the
It is difficult to know for certain how the "spiritual gift" conflict
does or doesn't connect to these two basic groups. But my hunch is that those
claiming to have spiritual gifts are probably primarily from the Apollos group. Why? Because this language of spirituality
in 12-14 is similar to things Paul says in 2:14-15. In that context Paul
strangely speaks of the "psychikos" (soulish) person versus the "pneumatikos"
(spiritual) person. The wording is so unusual for Paul (and, indeed, for most
ancient writings) that many think Paul is using the language of his Corinthian
detractors themselves at this point.
If so, the Apollos group is likely the group claiming
to be spiritual. Paul himself does not encourage eating meat offered to idols,
but we can see some PhD like Apollos telling them
that "we Jews know that there's no one home at the
But Paul then moves to his categories in chapter 3. "I wish I could call
you spiritual, but you are really fleshly." They think they are spiritual.
Paul says they are carnal, fleshly, babes in Christ.
So when 1 Corinthians 12 begins, "Now concerning spiritual things..."
(pneumatika:
the word gifts isn't actually
there in this verse), it surely relates to those claiming to be spiritual. And
if we use 1 Corinthians 12 to help us understand further what some of the
issues of spirituality were--you guessed it--some at Corinth were claiming to
be more spiritually significant than others in the church because of their
spiritual gifts.
We can basically summarize Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 12 as "People
are equally valuable no matter what spiritual gift they have." Some are
eyes, some are ears, some are feet... But all
valuable, and we should not look down on someone else because they are a hand.
Similarly, it is no coincidence that the "love chapter" is sandwiched
in the middle of this discussion of spiritual gifts in chapters 12-14. Love is
clearly the antidote to the Corinthian divisions and, more specifically, to
their spiritual gift issues.
But what might be the focal point of the issue here? What spiritual gift does
Paul focus on in 1 Corinthians 12-14? What is he leading the Corinthians away
from, other than the way some are dishonoring those without their gift? What
gift does Paul have in mind when he ends chapter 12 with "be zealous for the greater
gifts" (now shifting from the value of persons to those gifts that are
most beneficial to the body)?
We know the answer when Paul picks up his train of thought in chapter 14:
"... be zealous for
the spiritual things, but more (mallon) that you prophesy, for the one who speaks in
a tongue speaks not to humans, but to God..."
After beginning with the general issue of spiritual gifts, Paul now gets down
to business. Apparently the way tongues were being practiced at
In short, while Paul clearly believes that individuals who speak in tongues are
equal in value to any Christian with any other gift, the overall trajectory of
his rhetoric in the overall context of 1 Corinthians 14 is to move the
Corinthians away from the way they are using tongues in their community.
Further, he is likely moving a certain segment of the church from thinking they
are more important than the others in the congregation because they speak in
tongues. Paul is "reining in"
the way tongues are used at
5.
1 Corinthians 14
I would summarize Paul's point in this chapter as follows:
Your worship is a horrible mess. Everyone is just thinking of him or herself.
Do things that build up each other, like prophecy. Tongues more often than not
build up individuals but don't build up the body of Christ. What is worse, unbelievers can easily mistake them for some pagan
religious experience. Don't forbid tongues, as long as someone has an
interpretation. You yourself should pray to be able to interpret your tongues.
Even then, only have two or at the most three speak in worship, one at a time,
and again, only with interpretation.
Tongues at
But in the end, there are so many more churches and church groups today than
Paul could have imagined. And the existence of many of them is primarily due to
the exercise of tongues. Chances are, if you're going
to an Assemblies of God church, you probably find tongues edifying even if
they're not interpreted.
By the same token, tongues would be incredibly divisive in your typical
Tongues would create schism in most of our communities. I have no hesitation
about what I think Paul would say in such a context, mirroring things he said
about the Lord's Supper, meat offered to idols, and indeed, about the use of
tongues at
We can be thankful that the body of Christ has come to have whole denominations
whose special emphasis is speaking in tongues and who freely allow for it in
worship. And that allows for whole denominations who don't forbid a person from
speaking in tongues, but only use intelligible languages in worship.
And after giving you my conclusion, let me give my understanding of the train
of thought in 1 Corinthians 14.
1-5: It's better to prophecy than to
speak in tongues, because prophecy builds up the church. Tongues tends more to build up the individual.
And here let me point out the obvious: Paul's point in 14:5 is not "I wish
you all spoke in tongues." His point is "BUT I would rather have you
prophecy." Remember, this is in the form of a break up line: "I really
like you Ken, but I
don't want to go out any more." The goal of the sentence is the part after
the "but," not the part before. Notice that the possibility of
interpreting tongues is not brought up in this paragraph.
6-25: Prophecy is better than tongues
in worship, because it builds up the church. Paul uses examples
of "confused sounds" to argue against the use of tongues in worship.
And here I note that it is not until verse 13 that he first brings up the
possibility of interpretation. And even then, he argues that the speaker him or herself
pray to be able to interpret it. And of course if a person knew such an
interpretation, there would be no need to speak in tongues in the first place.
You would presumably just tell the church the prophecy straight out. In effect,
even though Paul has brought up the possibility of interpretation, he has
brought it up in a way that leads to the disuse of tongues in worship.
In 14:18-19 we have another break up line: "I thank God that I speak in
more tongues than all of you, but
in church I would prefer to speak five words with my mind than ten thousand
words in a tongue." The first clause is again a concession on the way to
the real point of the sentence--worship should be intelligible.
I think that it is more likely than not that Paul is claiming to have the same
gift as some Corinthians are exercising. While it is
possible that he means human languages, the contrast he sets up--"with my
mind"--pushes us rather to see his tongues as something he does without his
mind. In Romans 8:26, Paul mentions unspeakable groans of the Spirit in prayer,
and some scholars think this might be Paul speaking of his use of tongues in
private prayer. Can "unspeakable" mean "speaking," as in
tongues?
On the other hand, 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 seems Paul's attempt to defend himself
against those who would claim to have more spectacular religious experiences
than him. On balance the evidence seems to favor Paul speaking in tongues. But
it is not an absolute certainty since Paul generally tries to agree with the
Corinthian positions as much as possible before steering them in a more
profitable direction.
For the worship context, however, look at Paul's contrast: even 5 intelligible
words are better than 10,000 words in a tongue. Paul does not mention the
possibility of interpretation in this verse, reflecting his emphasis in the
chapter away from the use of tongues in worship.
20-25 speak of the negative effect that tongues will likely have on
unbelievers, urging the congregation to lean more toward prophecy. Again, Paul
does not mention the possibility of interpretation in these verses, reflecting
his emphasis in the chapter away from the use of tongues in worship.
In addition to unbelievers, he also mentions the potentially negative effect
tongues might have on those who do not understand (idiotes). In this sense, the
26-40 The remainder of
the chapter lays down the rules by which tongues can be practiced in worship at
So Paul says not to forbid speaking in tongues at
6.
Conclusion
I would summarize our discussion on tongues in four points:
1. The New Testament can speak of both
the tongues of "humans and angels." In other words,
the NT affirms the existence of tongues that do not involve the mind and that
are not human languages. At least in Acts 2, the tongues in question seem to be
what we call xenoglossia, speaking in foreign
languages that have not been learned (they are a witness to unbelievers). 1
Corinthians 14 seems to be regular glossolalia (they
turn off unbelievers).
2. The New Testament does not teach
that you must speak in tongues to be a Christian. Paul flatly
says, "Do all speak in tongues? (No)." He makes no distinction
between tongues as evidence of the Spirit and tongues as a spiritual gift. The
word for speak is the same in both Acts 2 and this comment in 1 Corinthians 12.
3. Some Christians have the gift of
tongues, understood as non-human languages that do not involve
the mind. Paul says not to forbid this gift. He means in Corinthian worship. I
believe it is appropriate for some groups to apply it today as don't forbid
exercise of this gift in private. Paul himself may very well have had this
gift.
4. Paul does not wish tongues to be a
hindrance in worship. At