CE 1 YEAR: 41 Miraculous Gifts II: Speaking in Tongues

Week 41

Miraculous Gifts II: Speaking in Tongues

In the list of miraculous gifts, the Apostle Paul mentions speaking in different kinds of tongues (1 Cor 12:10). This gift is mentioned three times in Acts (2:4, 6, 11; 10:44-46; 11:15-18; 19:1-7) and throughout 1 Corinthians 12-14. The gift of tongues is one of the most complex, confusing, and controversial topics in Christianity today. Therefore, this chapter will need to be longer than others. We hope to clarify what the Bible teaches on this subject. Also, we believe this chapter will be a very good example of careful Bible interpretation of a difficult topic.

It may not be helpful to refer to it as the gift of “tongues.” This makes it sound weirder than it is. The Greek word used (glossais) simply means languages. Glossais refers to human languages seven times in Revelation. Therefore, it is more helpful to call the biblical gift of “tongues” the gift of languages.

There are two primary views on what the gift of languages was in the early Church: 1) It was the miraculous ability to speak a foreign human language you had not learned; or 2) It was a private prayer language. The second claim is a serious one. It implies that only some Christians have a private prayer language with God that enables them to have a closer relationship with God. We believe this view is not biblical for the following reasons.

Biblical attributes of the miraculous gift of languages

It is important to remember a critical rule of Bible interpretation. Always interpret obscure passages with clear ones. Most NT scholars agree that 1 Corinthians 14 is one of the most difficult passages in Scripture to understand. It is not the place to begin understanding the gift of languages. The first and clearest description of the gift is in Acts 2:1-13.

First, notice how the gift is described here. It was the miraculous ability to speak in foreign human languages the Apostles did not know. It was like speaking French or Russian even though you have never learned these languages.

Likewise, the gift is described as human language in 1 Corinthians 12-14 where the same Greek word (glossais) is used (12:8, 10; 13:1, 14:10-12; 14:21). Additional evidence for this is Paul’s insistence that someone must “translate” the language when the gift is used (1 Cor 14:5, 13, 27).

Secondly, the purpose of the gift of languages was the same as all miracle working: to authenticate new divine revelation. This is the case in Acts (2:32-36; 10:44-46; 11:15-18; 19:1-7). This is the case in 1 Corinthians 14 as well. The clearest and most definitive statement Paul makes about this gift is in verse 22: “So then tongues are for a [miraculous] sign, not to those who believe, but to unbelievers.” That is also how it operated in Acts. If Paul believed that, then how can some claim he taught the gift was a private prayer language for the believer? That could not be a miraculous sign of anything for unbelievers.

Thirdly, the gift of languages produced speech that was meaningful to humans. In Acts 2 people heard the disciples “declaring the wonders of God” in their own languages (v. 11). Likewise, the Apostle Paul wrote that no matter what language was spoken through the gift, it would contain meaningful content for humans (1 Cor 14:10). This is why he commanded that any utterance claiming to be the gift, be immediately translated (14:27-28). If the real gift of languages contained meaningful speech for humans, that was commanded to be translated for humans, then how could it be a private prayer language with no meaning for humans?

Fourth, the gift of languages was a spiritual gift sovereignly granted by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4, 7, 11). How can some insist it is something that all Christians can and should learn how to do?

Fifth, the gift of languages was a minor gift in the early Church. Paul lists the spiritual gifts in order of importance three times, and intentionally places the gift of languages last in every list (1 Cor 12:8-10, 28, 30). He repeatedly says it is inferior to the gift of prophecy (1 Cor 14:5, 12).

This confronts the error of many who believe that the gift of languages demonstrates a second blessing, or the baptism of the Spirit. On the contrary, Paul said all the Corinthians were baptized with the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13), but not all of them had the gift of languages (12:30).

It is true that the gift accompanied the initial reception of the Holy Spirit in several cases recorded in Acts (2:4; 10:44-46; 19:6-7). However, this was not the case in several other instances in Acts (2:38-41; 8:14-17; 9:17-18; 13:52). Paul says nothing about this when he writes elsewhere of the baptism of the Spirit (Rom 6:1-11; Col 2:11-13; Eph 1:13-14). Experiencing the gift of languages when receiving the Spirit at conversion is one more unique event in the Acts of the Apostles that was not intended to be the norm in the Church.

Sixth, the gift of languages was a very rare gift in the early Church. Paul told the entire Corinthian church, “I speak in tongues more than all of you” (14:18). This astonishing statement confirms several things. First, in spite of how many in Corinth thought they had the gift, Paul knew very few of them actually did. Secondly, it would be almost impossible for Paul to say this if he thought the gift was a private prayer language. Finally, how could Paul claim he used the gift more than all of the Corinthians combined? Because in his apostolic ministry He used the real gift of miraculously speaking foreign human languages to authenticate new divine revelation, just like the Apostles in Acts. And he knew that few if any Corinthians were doing that.

Seventh, the Apostle clearly commanded: No more than two or three should speak in tongues. They must speak one at a time, and someone must interpret what they say (14:27-28). If you attend almost any church that practices modern day tongues, you will see this command repeatedly violated. They simply have no respect for God’s word on this. The result is not only sin, but embarrassment. Paul warned that if multiple people spoke in tongues at a meeting visited by unbelievers, that they would think they were crazy (1 Cor 14:23).

Finally, some claim that the “praying of the Spirit” described in Romans 8:22-27 is “praying in a tongue.” But like the silent groaning of Creation, the Spirit’s prayers are not audible. This ministry of the Spirit for all Christians has nothing to do with a private prayer language that only some Christians claim.

The biblical gift of languages was the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign human language the speaker had never learned, in order to authenticate new divine revelation. This is clearly how the gift is described in Acts and 1 Corinthians 14:22.

So why do many believe Paul taught differently in 1 Corinthians 12-14? This is one of the most difficult questions in Scripture because 1 Corinthians 14 is one of the most obscure passages in all of Scripture. It will help to first understand the context and something about the Greek text of this passage

The religious context of Corinth

One key to understanding 1 Corinthians 14 is that it is describing two different phenomena. One, a miraculous gift of human languages like that occurring in Acts 2, that is a miraculous sign for unbelievers (14:22). The other, an obscure utterance spoken merely into the air with the person’s spirit, that leaves their mind barren (14:9, 14). So much so, that Paul would rather speak five words with his mind than ten thousand words in a tongue (14:19). These are two very different phenomena.

Therefore, it would seem that there are two options in interpreting 1 Corinthians 14: 1) Paul described an additional biblical gift that differs greatly from the version in Acts 2; or 2) Paul is distinguishing the real gift as described in Acts 2, from a counterfeit version being practiced in Corinth.

A primary argument for this second option is the religious practices occurring in Corinth at the time the Apostle wrote his letter. The New Bible Dictionary notes:

Gentile converts in Corinth came directly from paganism. Speaking in obscure tongues was a common practice in these religions. This may help explain the misuse of Christian spiritual gifts in the Corinthians church (J. I. Packer ed., Intervarsity, 1996, pp. 225).

What the Apostle describes in 1 Corinthians 14 as a spontaneous, obscure, meaningless, and mindless utterance was commonly observed in the temple worship of the Greek mystery religions operating in abundance at the time. When the Apostle writes to this church, in this city, he is concerned about these pagan influences in the church. Earlier in the letter he warned them not to practice pagan worship and “be participants with demons” (1 Cor 10:14-16, 18-22). Helping the Corinthians recognize pagan and even demonic influence in the church is the purpose of 1 Corinthians 12-14 (see 12:1-3).

Therefore, Paul was not introducing a different gift of languages from that described in Acts 2 as many claim. Rather, he was concerned that a pagan and fake variety of tongues was operating in the church. But he wanted to preserve the real gift if it was present (1 Cor 14:39).

This is why he commands that all obscure utterances either be translated for meaningful Christian content, or the tongues speaker should “keep quiet” (14:28). Paul did not want the fake, pagan version of the gift operating in the church. Which is why many today commit a great error and sin when they speak obscure utterances in the church without translation. They clearly disobey a command of the Apostle (1 Cor 14:13, 27-28) and possibly bring pagan practices into the church.

The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 12-14

There is another key to understanding this passage. We have already suggested that Paul is contrasting the real gift of languages with a pagan version. He also does this by using a different Greek word for each of these. Careful study of 1 Corinthians 14 reveals: 1) The plural Greek glossais, (“tongues”) always refers to the real Christian gift of miraculously speaking in foreign human languages. The real gift of languages is referred to as “tongues” (plural) everywhere else in the NT. 2) The Greek singular glosse (“a tongue”) always refers to an obscure utterance that may either be pagan or Christian, but is “unknown” until it is translated. This word is only used in 1 Corinthians 14.

Therefore, whenever the Apostle has something clearly positive to say about the phenomena occurring in Corinth, he always uses the plural term “tongues” to refer to the real gift. However, whenever he has something suspicious or negative to say, he uses the singular “a tongue” throughout 1 Corinthians 14 to refer to the possibly pagan version.

It would be helpful for you to read 1 Corinthians 12-14 now in a literal translation of the Greek. Notice how Paul switches back and forth from “tongues” to “a tongue.” Then you will be better equipped to interpret some of the difficult statements in 1 Corinthians 14.

Is there a “super prayer” gift?

Many claim they possess a more powerful and intimate prayer life through the gift of languages. This comes from their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:2. “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries” (cf. v. 28). Understandably, many have supported their practice of a “private prayer language” with this statement.

However, we notice that for the first time in this letter (and in Scripture) the Apostle has switched from the use of “tongues” (glossais), which always describes the real gift, to “a tongue” which refers to an “unknown” utterance that “no one understands” and contains “mysteries.” He is referring to an unknown utterance that must be translated to know its source.

Secondly, why does the Apostle say it is spoken “to God?” He clearly tells us in this very verse. The only reason the Apostle gives for saying that such an utterance is to God is because “no one understands” what the obscure speech is. Only God knows what it is. This view is supported when a few verses later the Apostle says: “Unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air” (v. 9). What he describes as speaking “to God” in verse 2, he describes as “speaking into the air” in verse 9.

Third, the Apostle says in 14:2 that the speaker of the obscure utterance does it merely “in his spirit,” instead of the Holy Spirit. The Greek word here for “spirit” is pneuma. Throughout the NT it can be translated as the human spirit or the Holy Spirit, depending on the context. Paul makes it clear that he is speaking of the human spirit in verse 2 when he says in verse 14: “If I pray in a tongue [unknown, not necessarily the gift], my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.”

Fourth, The Apostle said he would do something better than “pray in a tongue,” which leaves the “mind unfruitful.” That was to “pray with my [human] spirit [emotions], but also [at the same time] pray with my mind [understanding]” (vs. 14-15). Paul said he would not pray apart from the mind which is what the habit of praying in a tongue is. Likewise, the Apostle Peter instructed, “be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers” (1 Pet 4:7). It would be hard to believe that Peter thought merely emotional and “empty-minded” prayer would be more spiritual.

If you believe that praying in an obscure, repetitive tongue is a spiritual gift from God, then Jesus said something you need to seriously consider. He commanded: “When you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans” (Matt 6:7). Sound familiar? We have already pointed out that meaningless “babbling” in prayer was a common practice in the Greek mystery religions at the time Jesus lived on the Earth. Is there any doubt He was referring to this?

Most believe that Jesus was merely referring to repetitive prayer because He said the pagans pray with “many words.” But the Greek word here (polulogia) can just as well be translated “much utterance,” without the implication that the utterances have meaning as real words.

The more important word to understand is “babbling” (battalogēsēte). The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature defines battalogēsēte as “to speak like one who stammers, using the same utterances again and again, speaking without thinking.” That is a very good description of the modern practice of praying in a tongue.

If you still doubt that Christ’s words apply to praying in an obscure tongue, then imagine yourself in the crowd when He spoke these words: “When you pray, do not keep on babbling like the pagans . . . This, then, is how you should pray: ‘Our Father Who is in Heaven’ . . .” (Matt 6:7, 9).

Now imagine immediately after Christ said that, someone stood up in the crowd and loudly uttered a “prayer” in an obscure “tongue.” Then this person says to the crowd: “What he just said about not babbling like pagans does not include praying in a tongue. Sure, it resembles what the pagans do in their temples, but it can also be a spiritual gift from God. In fact, it is a more spiritual way of communing with God than what He is teaching.” Do you think Jesus would be smiling and nodding with approval? Then perhaps He does not approve of it today either.

Finally, there are several serious questions that many ignore. If Paul is talking about a gift from God that enables more intimate and powerful prayer, then why is the Apostle so critical of it (14:9, 12, 14, 19)? Why would he command that intimate prayer to God needs to be interpreted for the benefit of others (14:27-28)? How can an obscure utterance of “private prayer language” be a miraculous sign to unbelievers (14:22)? If the gift empowers effective prayer in such a real way as so many claim, why wouldn’t God give this gift to all of His children?

Unfortunately, many read far too much into verse 2 that is not there. They interpret it to say: “One who speaks an obscure utterance speaks to God because the Apostle is introducing a completely different gift of tongues from that described in Acts, and which enables a person to fellowship in a more intimate way with God than other Christians.”

Let us seriously consider the arrogant and divisive ramifications of such a teaching, because many do not consider these things. It would be one thing to claim that God would grant you a spiritual gift so that you can serve others in a way those without the gift cannot. And that may be true. However, it is quite another thing to claim that God would grant a spiritual gift especially to you so that you are greatly helped in your prayer life, deepened in your intimacy with Jesus, and enhanced in your zeal and joy in worship in ways others without your spiritual gift will not be able to. That simply is not something God would do.

Wouldn’t we expect the practice of a Holy Spirit-empowered prayer gift to result in a noticeable superiority in a person’s relationship with God and their spiritual maturity, compared with those who do not practice such prayer? And yet, this has never been the case. There were many praying in a tongue in the Corinthian church, but its lack of spiritual maturity and intimacy with God is infamous.

Likewise (generally speaking), there is no superiority whatsoever in spiritual maturity, intimacy with God, answered prayer, or any other dimension of spiritual health in churches practicing “praying in a tongue” compared to those churches which do not. Many insist on the spiritual value of praying in a tongue, yet ignore the fact that the godliest and most powerful Christians throughout the Church’s history never promoted or practiced this.

Finally, we suggest there may be another reason the Apostle reminded the Corinthians that an obscure utterance is “to God.” Jesus warned that we will be held accountable for every useless and empty (argos) word we have spoken (Matt 12:35-36). Those who pray in a meaningless tongue should take notice. It would seem that Paul is warning them that God will know if they are faking some kind of spiritual gift they really do not possess.

Is praying in a tongue spiritually edifying?

Another difficult statement in 1 Corinthians 14 is verse 4: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself.” This is interpreted by many to be another reason to promote the practice of an obscure prayer language.

The Greek word for “edify” is oikodomei which is usually used in a positive sense for spiritual benefit. But in this very letter it is used in a negative sense to refer to a Christian who hardens the conscience of a weaker brother and damages him (8:10). Likewise, in 8:1 Paul warned the Corinthians that they were being “puffed up” in a negative way. Is Paul using oikodomei in 14:4 in a negative or positive sense?

The context is again important. Remember who the Apostle is writing to and what he is trying to teach them. This letter reveals a church filled with the most worldly, arrogant, immature, and selfish people we encounter in the NT (3:1-3; 4:7, 18; 5:1-2, 6; 6:15, 18; 8:1; 14:20). Accordingly, the Greek word physioo “to be puffed up” occurs 7 times in the NT and six of them are in 1 Corinthians.

The most repeated sin Paul rebukes them for in this letter is selfishness. He tells them, “Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others” (10:23-24). “I am not seeking my own good but the good of many” (10:33). “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good” (12:7). “Love is not self-seeking” (13:5). “Pursue love as you desire spiritual gifts” (14:1).

Now, convince yourself that when the Apostle says four sentences later, “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (14:4), that he means this is a good thing. Something he really wants the puffed up and selfish Corinthians to hotly pursue, as so many interpret this verse today. Paul just wrote that real spiritual gifts are for the common good (12:7), love is not selfish (13:5), and others-oriented love must be pursued in spiritual gifts that are Christian.

Therefore, it seems obvious that when the Apostle says, “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself,” this is a rebuke, not a compliment. And it would seem that only the self-centered Christianity that is so prevalent today would even allow it to be interpreted otherwise. Simply put, there is no such thing as a gift of the Holy Spirit that only edifies the self. But this is how ancient pagan and modern versions of “praying in a tongue” operate.

If some deny that the Apostle is rebuking the self-centered Corinthians for edifying themselves, we would ask, how could meaningless utterances be spiritually edifying anyway? In 14:5 and throughout the chapter, Paul says no one in the church can be edified unless they understand the tongue utterance. Is he contradicting himself in 14:4?

Later, Paul writes: “If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful” (v. 14). That does not sound spiritually edifying. This is why he said he would rather speak five words with his mind to edify others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (v. 19). Clearly, the Apostle did not believe that the practice was personally and spiritually edifying at all.

Just because a practice gives us good feelings, does not prove it builds us in a spiritual manner. Many claim some sort of positive psychological or emotional effect from praying in a repetitive, obscure, mindless tongue. But the Apostle emphatically insisted that no spiritual edification could take place unless the utterances in a tongue were translated and therefore understood (1 Cor 14:5-17; 26-28). Accordingly, never in Church history, did any orthodox branch of Christianity ever claim that spiritual edification could occur apart from our mental understanding, until the modern “tongues movement.”

Edification simply doesn’t happen in a human apart from our understanding. Emotions and feelings will, but not real spiritual edification. Pagans believe that having bodily sensations and feelings aroused results in spiritual edification. But there is no such thing in authentic Christianity.