TONGUES
The issue of tongues is an interesting one. However, I think the issue of “tongues” is made into
more than it should be by many in the church today. I believe Scripture has very clear guidelines
concerning the practice and we should look at a few of these but prior to that I think we need to
understand a few things regarding this discussion.
(1) It is a safe rule to follow that in issues of theology we should “major on the majors and
minor on the minors.” Now, this would mean we should spend the majority of our time
making a big deal out of what the Scripture make a big deal and we should not spend the
majority of our time making a big deal out of things that the Scriptures spend relatively
little or no time speaking of. For example, I find some people are willing to discuss, or
even argue, over issues such as who wrote the book of Hebrews, the identity of the
antichrist or specific spiritual gifts. However, some of those very same people may not
have any idea as to what they believe regarding the inerrancy of Scripture, the
substitutionary atonement of Christ or the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Now, the
former things are important to know but they are issues that should be much further down
the list than others, such as the ones previously mentioned. Having said this, the issue of
“tongues” is only mentioned in four passages in the New Testament (not counting Mark
16:17 for reasons that can be explained but have to do with textual criticism which I am
sure most do not care to discuss, simply suffice to say that we will not count that passage
for extremely good reasons) and one reference in the Old Testament. In the Old
Testament a miraculous instance that occurs where “tongues” is mentioned is the Tower
of Babel in Genesis 11. In the New Testament, of the four instances where it is
mentioned, only one actually explains certain aspects of the practice doctrinally and that
is in 1 Corinthians 14. In Acts 2, 10 and 19 the practice, and certain things that
accompanied it, is mentioned, but no doctrinal explanation is given. Truthfully, this a
rarely mentioned issue in Scripture and does not seem to be prevalent in the New
Testament Church. I say this also because Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James and the author
of Hebrews wrote letters to Churches, regional groups of believers, and, in Paul’s case, a
few specifically to pastors on doctrinal issues. However, in all the Epistles in the New
Testament, outside the book of Acts, (which would include 22 of the 27 New Testament
books) the issue of “tongues” is only mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
(2) I think it is important to realize that the three times it is mentioned in the book of Acts it
is not the main point of the text and in 1 Corinthians it is being mentioned because it is
being abused in some manner.
Now, Wayne Grudem1 in his Systematic Theology states:
It should be said at the outset that the Greek word “glossa”, translated “tongue,” is used
not only to mean the physical tongue in a person’s mouth, but also to mean “language.”
In the New Testament passages where speaking in tongues is discussed, the meaning
“languages” is certainly in view. It is unfortunate; therefore, that English translations
have continued to use the phrase “speaking in tongues,” which is an expression not
otherwise used in ordinary English and which gives the impression of a strange
experience, something completely foreign to ordinary human life. But if English
translations were to use the expression “speaking in languages,” it would not seem
nearly as strange, and would give the reader a sense much closer to what first century
Greek speaking reader would have heard in the phrase when they read it in Acts or 1
Corinthians.2
All of this to say that everywhere the word “glossa”, or any form of it, when not used to speak
about a physical tongue (including Acts 2:3 in which the appearance of flames as tongues would
be symbolic of what was about to happen), is always used to speak of a “known language”,
1
This is a big deal coming from Grudem who is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies and,
even more important to our discussion, more denominationally associated with the Pentecostal movement.
2
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1994), 1069.
which is evident in Acts 2, and 1 Century readers would have understood the word to mean
“spoken languages”.
Without being exhaustive, I would like to point out that I am going to restrict the discussion of 1
Corinthians 14 to “tongues in the Church” simply because that is the context in which the
passage itself is restricted. Having said that, as I have already argued that I believe the instances
of tongues in the New Testament refer to “known human languages”, albeit the occurrences of
which can be supernatural (speaking in a foreign language previously unknown by the speaker),
then it should be clearly seen that I believe the “gift of tongues” still exists today and do not
believe the New Testament teaches that the gift of tongues has ceased and, therefore, neither
should we.
Now as you probably know if you know me very well, the phrase “without being exhaustive”
should almost be seen as joke. Anyway, I have found this extremely good article on 1
Corinthians 14 that I am going to give you a portion of and then we will discuss the conclusions
based on that list.
1. The native language of the city of Corinth was Greek (common knowledge).
2. Prophesying would have been in the Greek language (common knowledge).
3. Prophesying (being in Greek) was understood by all who were present at the service the
overwhelming majority of the time (common knowledge).
4. Prophesying was edifying to all (14:3) because it was understood by all (proposition 3).
5. The "problem tongue" at Corinth was not the Greek language (common knowledge).
6. The problem tongue(s) were spoken primarily to God (14:2).
7. The problem tongue(s) were not known or understood by most of the Corinthian congregation
(14:2,14,16).
8. The problem tongue when interpreted was interpreted into the Greek Language (common
knowledge).
9. The problem tongue (even when not interpreted into Greek) built up the tongue-speaker (14:4,
16-17).
10. Paul desired that all of the Corinthians have the freedom to engage in problem tongues
(14:5, 39).
11. Paul preferred prophesying in Greek to un-interpreted tongues (14:5).
12. Prophesying in Greek was superior to speaking in un-interpreted tongues (14:5).
13. The problem tongues could be interpreted (14:5, 13, 27).
14. If the problem tongue was interpreted, it was no longer inferior to prophesying (14:5).
15. The problem tongue could sometimes be interpreted by the tongue-speaker himself (14:5, 13,
27).
16. Sometimes the tongue-speaker could not interpret the problem tongue (14:28).
17. Once interpreted the problem tongue ceased to be a problem tongue (common knowledge).
18. An un-interpreted problem tongue consisted of words (14:19).
19. An un-interpreted tongue could not convey revelation, knowledge, prophecy, or teaching
(14:6).
20. When a problem tongue was uttered (without interpretation), the tongue-speaker's Spirit
acts, but his Mind does not produce fruit (14:14).
21. The problem tongue was used by the tongue-speaker for worship or devotional purposes: for
prayer (14:14, 15, 16,17); for singing (14:15); for blessing/praising God (14:16); and for giving
thanks to God (14: 16-17).
22. Paul spoke in tongues outside of the church meetings (14:18).
23. Paul preferred "five intelligible words" to "countless, myriads of words" in an un-interpreted
tongue (14:19).
24. Paul told the Corinthians that they must use their physical organ of speech (i.e., tongue) to
produce intelligible speech. If they do not, they will be speaking uselessly into the air (14:9).
25. Paul asserts that there are many voices in the world, and yet none is meaningless in itself
(14:10).
26. Paul asserts that if people do not understand each other's voices, they become "barbarians"
to each other (14:11).
27. If all of the Corinthians engage in problem tongues simultaneously (without interpretation),
this leads the unlearned and unbelieving visitors to conclude that they are just "raving" (14:23).
28. If all of the Corinthians prophesy, the unlearned and unbelievers overhear and could
possibly be converted to the Christian faith (14:24-25).
29. Multiple individuals at the Corinthian worship service brought multiple problem tongues
(14:26).
30. If someone speaks in a particular problem tongue (singular), this should be limited to two or
at most three per meeting (14:27).
31. One tongue-speaker should speak at a time; many should not speak simultaneously (14:27).
32. One of the tongue-speakers must interpret the particular problem tongue that is used (14:27).
33. If there is no person capable of competently interpreting a problem tongue (neither among
the tongue-speakers nor among the interpreters), the tongue-speaker should keep this particular
tongue out of the public service (14:28).
34. The word tongue is used in 1 Corinthians 14 sometimes in the singular (14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19,
26, 27), and sometimes in the plural (14:5, 6, 18, 21, 22, 23, 39).
35. The problem tongues carried cognitive information (e.g., "giving thanks:" 14:16-17; lyrics of
a song: 14:15; and words: 14:19).3
Now this list is somewhat extensive but I would like to paraphrase it simply. The Apostle Paul
does not forbid the use of tongues in the public assembly, i.e. Church service, but he says it
should never be done by more than a few people and should always be able to be interpreted by
someone. Also, Paul saw the need for tongues to be minimal in the church at Corinth where
Greek would have been understood by most everybody. This would be the case in most
American churches considering that English is understood by the majority of people in American
churches as well. However, as America grows more and more global and the American church
grows more and more global, the Biblical occurrence of tongues may be seen on more occasions.
3
Robert Zerhusen, Biblical Theology Bulletin (© 1997, vol. 27).
Mark Dever states:
Look particularly at 14:4, which is very often misunderstood: “He who speaks in a tongue
edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.” Some take this as a neutral
statement, as if Paul is merely commenting that there are two different kinds of good
edification—if you want self-edification, you should seek to speak in tongues…if you want church
edification, then you should prophesy. But I don’t think that is what Paul means here. Look at
14:1. He encourages these Christians to desire especially the gift of prophecy. Then down in
verse 12, he says, “Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up
the church.” Then down in verse 19 he says, “But in the church I would rather speak five
intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.” Paul is saying that
you have to be able to understand something in order to be edified by it. Intelligibility is
necessary for edifying the church! And that, he says, is the goal of spiritual gifts…The goal of all
these spiritual gifts, Paul states clearly, is the “strengthening” of the church (1 Cor. 14:26).
That is why the Spirit gives these gifts in the church. So, to return to 1 Corinthians 14:4, Paul
isn’t merely mentioning two different kinds of edification. He is criticizing any kind of selfserving use of gifts, and he is redefining the goals for these gifts, realigning the Corinthians’
purposes with the Spirit’s purpose, which is the building up of the church.4
In summary on “tongues”:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
The gift still exists.
There is a Biblical guideline for its occurrence.
It is a known language.
It is only correct when it can be interpreted, thereby, edifying the entire Church.
It is not as necessary when people all understand a common language.
When properly occurring, it is evidence of the Spirit’s power and God’s provision for His
church to communicate the Gospel to someone who might not, otherwise, understand it.
There is quite a bit more that could be said but I think this is as good a place as any to end…I
hope this helps clarify for some and, I am sure, I made it “as clear as mud” for others!
To God Alone Be the Glory!!
Jeremy
4
Mark Dever, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 234-235.