Thoughts on Tongues - by Ian

Hey, all. 

It would be a gross understatement to suggest that the Revivalist groups have completely misunderstood the biblical teaching on 'tongues'. What I aim to do in this brief post is demonstrate why the above statement is true, in the hope that the people who continue to struggle with the effects of Revivalist teaching on 'tongues' might actually be able to put the subject into its proper context, and so enjoy a measure of peace. Importantly, I've no intention of addressing the supposed validity or otherwise of modern 'tongues' as found in either Revivalist or Pentecostal circles. My goal will simply be the summarising of the scriptural witness, rather than attempting any sort of defence for the modern expression. And, of course, I've written from the perspective that it's the Bible that should inform the Christian's belief insofar as this topic is concerned. 

I'll begin by listings several positive and negative statements that will inform this post, commencing with the positive. First, that there is such a thing as 'speaking in tongues', and that it is presented in Scripture as being wholly miraculous in origin (rather than the wholly learned behaviour which is frequently the case nowadays). Second, that the Bible presents two distinct sets of spiritual phenomena haphazardly translated as 'tongues' in the English New Testament (NT). Third, the Bible further indicates that the second set of phenomena, the 'unknown tongue' referred to in 1 Corinthians, is a specific 'spiritual gift' that is available to some Christians throughout the Church Age. 

Insofar as the negative statements are concerned, I'll begin by suggesting that that 'tongues', in either form, is not the same as the 'gift' of the Holy Spirit that Scripture describes. Second, that according to Paul, an overemphasis on the supposed benefits of the spiritual gift of 'tongues' is a sure sign of religious immaturity, human sinfulness and misplaced pride/arrogance. Third, that being able to speak/pray in 'tongues' is not a sure indication that one is saved. Finally, fourth, that 'tongues' is not presented in Scripture as being a supernatural aid to preaching, as being somehow intended for use in a polylingual cultural environment or context. 

But first a caveat: I teach biblical Greek. When making my assessments below, I consider closely what the New Testament as originally written (in Greek) says, and then according to the rules of koine Greek grammar and syntax. If anyone wishes to disagree with my conclusions, then such a one will need to be able to marshal a rebuttal that demonstrates that I've erred in my understanding of the language. Simply saying, 'nope', because of a philosophical disagreement with where my conclusions lead, just won't cut it. Sorry, but uninformed speculation isn't worth as much as is an informed opinion, and when it comes to this subject not all opinions are created equal. 

Those who have more than simply a casual interest can locate more detailed discussions in the various articles on the subject that appear at 'PleaseConsider' (www.pleaseconsider.info), as well as the essay that I wrote on Mark 16, and which is located elsewhere on this forum.

The first record in the NT of 'tongues' as a miraculous reality occurs in Mark 16:17, where it's referred to as one of five'signs' that would demonstrate the uniqueness of the Christian community over and against every other socio-religious community. Grammatically, the list of 'signs' that Mark recorded conforms to an indicative sub-set known as categorical/generalising plurals, that is, whilst they are generic in usage, they serve to describe a distinct category of 'things', over and against every other category of 'things'. 

Next, it's important to note that this listing of categorical/generalising plurals is found in a sequence of conditional clauses (i.e. "... the one who ... and is ... will be...", "... these signs will ... those who ... they will ... if they ...", etc). Grammatically, this indicates that the listed 'signs' are intended to be taken as predictions rather than as promises. Further, they are presented as a 'set' or 'class', which means that none of the five 'signs' in Mark 16:17 is a promise made by God to an individual believer. According to the canons of Greek grammar, categorical/generalising plurals, when used conditionally, demonstrate the predictive action of something (in our case, God) creating an effect within a sub-set or unique class of reality (in our case, his being at work within the Christian Church corporately). 

We next encounter 'tongues' in the following chapters of Acts: two (twice: vv. 4 and 11), ten (v. 46) and nineteen (v. 6). The actual Greek word used in each of these occurrences is glossais, which is the dative, feminine, plural form of the noun for 'tongue' (and is also the form of the word that's found in Mark 16:17). This impresses that Luke (like Mark) intended for us to understand that real languages were being spoken during each of these events. In the first instance (revolving around Pentecost), following the flow of the conversation that Jesus had with his eleven closest surviving disciples prior to his ascension (read 1:2-11 and 1:21-26), we discover that the promise of a specific empowering of the Holy Spirit would fall upon the small band of apostles only. This is what is recorded in chapter two. 

In the second instance (chapter ten), the same phenomena occurs with respect to the first fully gentile believers. In the final instance (chapter nineteen), Paul imparts the Holy Spirit to a group of John the Baptist's former disciples. So what the three events have in common is this: (1) the Holy Spirit overshadowed three distinct groups of people collectively (i.e. none of these accounts records individuals), (2) that the three groups of people spoke in real languages (again, collectively). And finally, (3) that each of these three 'Acts' occurrences fulfills the predictive 'sign' that was indicated in Mark 16:17. 

Moving on to briefly consider 1 Corinthians chapters twelve through fourteen, where we encounter the longest NT discourse on the subject of 'tongues'. Paul introduces and briefly touches on the topic in chapter twelve (thrice: vv. 10, 28 and 30), where he positively lists 'tongues' among a broader number of nine 'manifestations' that are given by the Holy Spirit to individuals, and then for the benefit of the Church collectively. Paul uses the inflected form, glosson, the genitive, feminine, plural form of the noun for 'tongue'. The use of this inflection might indicate that the 'language' that results is rather 'unique', but it certainly does indicate a clear distinction between the real languages recorded by Mark, and by Luke in the three passages of Acts; and what Paul is now discussing in chapter twelve of his first letter to the church at Corinth. Had Paul had in mind what Mark and Luke had in mind, then he would've used the same (common) form of the word, instead of opting for a particularly uncommon form. 

In chapter thirteen, Paul distinguishes between human speech forms, and the implied 'angelic' speech form which 'tongues' apparently represents (see v. 1). He does this by using the standard term for human language, the one found in both the Gospel According to Mark, and in the Acts accounts. Having made the distinction, it was natural for him to apply the standard inflection in this instance. However, in chapter fourteen, the predominant form of the Greek word for 'tongue' that's used is glosse, the dative, feminine, singular inflection. That Paul used a singular form of the standard word for human language, again, wasn't particularly strange, as it served to indicate that Paul fully acceptedthat the gift of 'tongues' imparted by the Holy Spirit to some believers, represented a true and legitimate form of communication, albeit one directed towards God alone. 

So, in summary, the witness is clear. Miraculous 'tongues' are a reality, or at least they are when considered from a biblical perspective. The scriptural record also clearly indicates two separate and distinct forms: (1) an authentic miracle of human languages: a form which was limited in scope, and is only recorded as having been spoken by groups of people collectively. This form was further unique in that it was intended to authenticate a new work of God, and it resulted from the direct overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (as is recorded thrice in Acts). This extraordinary 'miracle of languages' is to be distinguished from, (2) the more common yet still authentic manifestation of potentially non-human/angelic speech. 

This, the second type of 'tongues' was spoken by a number of individuals within the church at Corinth, and then only when such individuals had been given the specific gift by the Holy Spirit. And, of course, not only was the Corinthian form of 'unknown tongues' different to the 'known languages' described in Acts, so too was the function: the purpose of the Corinthian type is expressly stated as being for thebuilding up of the church for the common good (see 1 Corinthians 12:7, and 14:26).

Revivalists invariably quote Acts 2:38 as a supposed proof text that 'tongues' somehow equates with being the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is shown to be nonsense when one approaches the passage in Greek. The relevant clause in verse thirty-eight is ten dorean tou hagiou pneumatos, which in English is properly translated,"...the gift, the Holy Spirit." The reason for this is, "... the Holy Spirit" is grammatically a genitive of apposition in Greek, in other words, the 'gift' that is being referred to in the clause is the Holy Spirit himself.

Nowhere in Acts chapter two do we find the miracle of human languages referred to as being a gift; further, it ceases to be the subject of the discussion after Acts 2:13! In 1 Corinthians 12:1, Paul doesn't use any Greek word for 'gift' when he lists nine spiritual manifestations. What he does apply is a specific term that means, "... that which is graciously bestowed". In other words, 'tongues' is properly the bestowal of a measure of spiritual grace, and not specifically a 'gift', per se. 

Now before anyone accuses me of semantic wrangling, it's important to understand that it doesn't really matter. From verse seven onwards we discover that the various 'gifts' being discussed can'tbe viewed as being synonamous with the Holy Spirit himself (in other words, the gift(s)aren't the Holy Spirit given, as we find to be the case in Acts 2:38), but specific 'gifts' that the Holy Spirit givesto others. In Corinthians, the Holy Spirit is the Giver, rather than the gift given. This is further supported by the fact that in 14:14, Paul very specifically states that when he prays in 'tongues', it's his human spirit that's doing the praying, not the Holy Spirit. 

A singular purpose behind Paul writing 1 Corinthians chapters twelve through fourteen was his attempt to qualify the unhealthy level of attention that certain of the Corinthian believers held with respect to the gift of 'tongues'. He begins immediately by advising them that there are diversities of spiritual gifts, but that in spite of this, they all stem from the one Spirit (12:4-7). Verses twelve through thirty-one seeks to explain that there is unity within this diversity with respect to the various manifestations of the Spirit, and he does this by drawing an analogy between the church and a human body (where 'eyes' aren't 'ears', etc). 

In verse twenty-seven the word translated 'you' into English is a Greek plural, which shows that the church is the body of Christ collectively, with the individual believers comprising the various functions of that body (i.e. 'eyes', 'ears', 'mouths', etc). Chapter thirteen reinforces that any exercising of a 'gift' must be underpinned by love rather than by pride. Chapter fourteen constitutes the 'slap' on the wrist. 

Now, with respect to the mistaken view that ifone can speak in 'tongues', one can be confident that one is 'saved'; we must acknowledge that the Bible nowhere teaches this position. In point of fact, no overt, outward spiritual manifestation is provided by Scripture as a form of concrete proof that someone is in a right standing with God. Jesus speaks of such misplaced confidence (read 'self-deception') in Matthew 7:21-23. In spite of the fact that some people will claim kinship with Christ based on the ability to perform powerful, supernatural deeds (e.g. prophesying in Jesus' name, casting out demons in Jesus' name, working miracles in Jesus' name); Jesus will turn to some and say,"...away from me you evildoers, I NEVER knew you". Tough, huh? The fact is, Scripture repeatedly lets us know that both the 'saved' and the 'unsaved' will be identifiable by the 'fruit' that is displayed in their lives (see Matthew 7:15-20, cf. Galatians 5:19-24 and Ephesians 5:9). 

Finally, with respect to the mistaken view that biblical 'tongues' was intended to provide an ability to preach in a polylingual cultural millieu; well, this view doesn't fit what we read in Scripture either. Let's begin by considering the miracle of human languages that the twelve apostles spoke on the Day of Pentecost first. To start with, the languages were only one 'sign' among several that God chose to demonstrate on that day (the powerful sound of a rushing wind, the wind visibly turning into something that appeared like sheets of flame, etc). So it's a pretty shaky piece of ground on which to pitch one's doctrinal tent, should one start selecting one 'sign' as being the most important whilst rejecting the others. 

Further, the languages that were spoken by the apostles on that day were representative o fthe geographical regions encapsulating the Jewish dispersion, in other words, the aim that day was strictly at Jews rather than at people more generally. Finally, when it came time to actually preach, Peter used the one language common and understood by everyone from Africa to Asia, Palestine to Europe: Greek! Nope, 'tongues' didn't equal 'language for preaching purposes' in Acts two (or Acts ten and Acts nineteen for that matter)! When we consider the 'unknown tongue' of 1 Corinthians 12:10, we find Paul listing the supernatural ability to speak in 'tongues' with the equally supernatural ability to 'interpret' said 'tongues'. Nothing is said of the purpose of these joint gifts until later, in chapter fourteen. There, beginning with verse six we find the context indicates that the 'tongue' gift is incomprehensible to both speaker and hearers. Further, in verse nineteen Paul specifically says that he would rather speak a few words in a language understood to all, then a myriad of words in a 'language' that only God understands. This, of course, is in keeping with his teaching that 'spiritual gifts' are for the building up of the Church! Paul isn't providing instruction on evangelism in 1 Corinthians, his focus isn't on those outside the church, but on those within it. 

To close, there is nothing in Revivalist dogma, experience or practice that in any way is supported by what we read in the various accounts in Acts. These describe the miracle of human languages. Consider Acts 2 as the common test case: (1) the 'tongues' spoken at Pentecost were actual, understood human languages. (2) They were one of several miraculous phenomena that occurred in close order. (3) They were spoken by the twelve apostles only. (4) They were spoken by the twelve apostles (i.e. by arepresentative groupof people) simultaneously. (5) No-one was 'seeking' for this 'experience', and certainly not to validate their relationship with Christ! In other words, what happened at Pentecost was different in form, function, purpose, extent and nature to what individual Revivalists might like to claim for themselves with respect to their supposed 'salvation' experiences. 

From the standpoint of Scripture, the single phenonmenon of 'tongues' that Revivalists might be able to claim affinity with, is the type referred to in 1 Corinthians as the 'unknown tongue'. And, of course, this particular manifestation isn't the 'gift' that is referred to in Acts 2:38! 

In short, Revivalists are expert at reading into the Bible what they hope to find; but are rank amateurs when it comes to reading out of Scripture what's actually there. What they preach about 'tongues' is wrong. They can neither build, support nor sustain a case for their beliefs from what Scripture actually says! If anyone is interested, I'd be happy to take this to the next level, and describe (again from Scripture) why the 'unknown tongue' isn't a gift given to all believers, and further, why it's the least importantof all God's gifts. But that will be for a later time. 

God bless,

Ian