Speaking in Tongues
T. David Gordon
I. Clarifying the Issue:
The question is not whether the phenomenon is “real;” the question is whether the
phenomenon is a work of the Holy Spirit. As I write this, I have a cold. A cold is “real;” I really
have one. Is a cold the work of the Holy Spirit? Not necessarily; it could be His work in my
life--to humble me, to teach me to rely on His grace, etc.--but unbelievers get colds also, so a
cold, albeit a reality, is not necessarily a work of the Holy Spirit. Similarly, if one goes to Heinz
Field in Pittsburgh on a brisk, 20-degree January afternoon, one might see eight men seated next
to each other, bare-chested, with S-T-E-E-L-E-R-S painted on their chests. This is real; they
really do have those letters on their chests. But this is not necessarily a work of the Holy Spirit.
Sometimes, in certain social contexts, people do things that might otherwise seem erratic (barechested when it’s 20 degrees?) or curious. But not every erratic or curious phenomenon is a
work of the Holy Spirit. The mere fact that a phenomenon is “real” or “curious” does not
constitute it a work of God’s Spirit.
II. Is the phenomenon of speaking meaningless words exceptional? Is it a miraculous work of
the Holy Spirit? Is it demonic?
No. Some linguists at one time (I haven’t read the current literature) said that language
development ordinarily goes through three phases: prototaxic speech, parataxic speech, and
syntaxic speech, corresponding to prototaxic, parataxic, and syntaxic cognition.1 Prototaxic
utterance is the initial sound-making babbling that a child does; it is entirely random (as
recordings indicate), in the sense that the child does not yet appear to be able to control the
utterances he produces (and may not even be aware that he is producing them). Parataxic
utterances are those that the child appears to control (recordings indicate that certain
combinations of syllables are repeated), yet they are meaningless to others. Syntaxic utterances
are those utterances that the child imitates in others, that are rewarded when the child makes
them (e.g. “Ma-ma”). Under the influence of social approval, most children abandon their
parataxic utterances in favor of syntaxic utterances. But anyone who wishes to do so, under the
right social or individual circumstances, can return to parataxic utterances.
When the phenomenon of religious “speaking in tongues” has been recorded by linguists,
it has the same characteristics as parataxic utterance. That is, in the right social circumstance (a
religious setting that encourages it, or a private emotional state that finds syntaxic language
inadequate), any individual can revert to parataxic utterance. It is not “miraculous” when every
child does it, and it is not miraculous when an adult does it.
III. What does “to speak in a tongue” mean? Specifically, does it mean to speak ecstatically, in
a language that no one understands (parataxic speech), or does it mean to speak a foreign
language, a language different from one’s native language (syntaxic speech)? Related to this is
1
This distinction was first made by Harry Stack Sullivan (1892-49), who was well-known for his
treatment of schizophrenic patients at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in Washington, DC.
1
the question: What does it mean “to interpret a tongue”? Does it mean to make sense of ecstatic
speech, or does it mean to translate a foreign language?
A. “To speak in a tongue”
1. Passages that use the expression “speak in a tongue,” but do not clearly
describe the phenomenon
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak
in other tongues (λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις) as the Spirit gave them
utterance.
1Cor. 14:4 The one who speaks in a tongue (ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ) builds up
himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. 5 Now I want
you all to speak in tongues (λαλεῖν γλώσσαις), but even more to prophesy.
The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues (ὁ
λαλῶν γλώσσαις), unless someone interprets (διερμηνεύῃ), so that the
church may be built up.
1Cor. 14:6 Now, brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues
(γλώσσαις λαλῶν), how will I benefit you unless I bring you some
revelation or knowledge or prophecy or teaching?
1Cor. 14:9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is
not intelligible (διὰ τῆς γλώσσης ἐὰν μὴ εὔσημον λόγον), how will anyone
know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air.
1Cor. 14:13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the
power to interpret (ὁ λαλῶν γλώσσῃ προσευχέσθω ἵνα διερμηνεύῃ).
1Cor. 14:18 I thank God that I speak in tongues (γλώσσαις λαλῶ) more
than all of you. 19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words
with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a
tongue (ἐν γλώσσῃ.).
1Cor. 14:27 If any speak in a tongue (γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ), let there be only
two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret
(διερμηνευέτω).
2. Passages that use the expression “speak in a tongue” that describe the
phenomenon
Acts 2:11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them
telling in our own tongues (λαλούντων αὐτῶν ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις)
the mighty works of God.”
Where the New Testament describes the phenomenon, it manifestly means to
speak a language that is foreign to the speaker, but native to someone else, what
we would call “speaking a foreign language.” When people claim to “speak in
tongues” today, we do not “deny” that they do so, we just deny that what they call
“speaking in tongues” is what the Bible calls “speaking in tongues.” What they
are doing is simply parataxic speech; nothing more nor less.
B. “To interpret a tongue” Does this mean “to make sense of an incomprehensible
utterance,” or does it mean “to translate a foreign language”? It means the latter.
2
Is. 19:18 In that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the
language of Canaan (λαλοῦσαι τῇ γλώσσῃ τῇ Χανανίτιδι) and swear allegiance to
the LORD of hosts. One of these will be called the City of Destruction.
Is. 28:11 For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the LORD will
speak (γλώσσης ἑτέρας ὅτι λαλήσουσιν) to this people, Acts 9:36 Now there was
in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas (ἣ
διερμηνευομένη λέγεται Δορκάς). She was full of good works and acts of
charity.
John 9:7 and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent)
(ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται ἀπεσταλμένος). So he went and washed and came back seeing.
Heb. 7:2 and to him Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything. He is first,
by translation of his name (ἑρμηνευόμενος), king of righteousness, and then he is
also king of Salem, that is, king of peace.
Papias of Hieropolis (early 2d century), 3:16: “Matthew composed the sayings
(τὰ λόγια) in the Hebrew language (Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ), and each translated them
(ἡρμήνευσε) as best he could (Ματθαῖος μὲν οὖν Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ τὰ λόγια
συνετάξατο, ἡρμήνευσε δ᾿ αὐτὰ ὡς ἦν δυνατὸς ἕκαστος,cited in Eusebius,
Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16).
We note in such passages that what some people call “interpreting a tongue” could more
accurately be called “translating a foreign language.” If I give a lecture on a Robert Frost
poem, we could rightly call that an “interpretation.” But if I provide Papias of Hieropolis
in English (just a few lines up), we ordinarily call that a “translation.” In the multiethnic, multi-linguistic world of the first century Roman empire into which the gospel
first went, it was highly desirable to have individuals with the ability to translate
Christian proclamation into other languages (as at Acts 2). This is what constitutes
“speaking in tongues.” Whether such translation is miraculous or simply the result of
growing up in a multi-linguistic environment is irrelevant to what the expression means,
just as it is irrelevant to whether another spiritual gift such as “teaching” is miraculous.
“Teaching” simply means “instruction,” whether the origin is miraculous or not.
Select Bibliography
Samarin, William J. Tongues of Men and Angels: The Religious Language of Pentecostalism.
New York: Macmillan (1972).
His assessment was based on a large sample of glossolalia recorded in public and private
Christian meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the USA over the course of five years;
his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the Snake Handlers of the Appalachians,
and Russian Molokan in Los Angeles. Samarin found that glossolalic speech does resemble
human language in some respects. The speaker uses accent, rhythm, intonation and pauses to
break up the speech into distinct units. Each unit is itself made up of syllables, the syllables
being formed from consonants and vowels taken from a language known to the speaker.
Felicitas Goodman. Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia (Chicago:
University Press, 1972).
Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the United States, Caribbean
and Mexico; these included English, Spanish and Mayan speaking groups. She compared what
3
she found with recordings of non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan.
She took into account both the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and the
supra-segmental elements (rhythm, accent, intonation), and concluded that there was no
distinction between what was practiced by the Pentecostal Protestants and the followers of other
religions.
-Newberg, Andrew B.; Wintering, Nancy A.; Morgan, Donna; Waldman, Mark R. (1 May 2006).
"Cerebral blood flow during the complex vocalization task of glossolalia". The Journal of
Nuclear Medicine Meeting Abstracts 47 (Supplement 1): 316P.
http://jnumedmtg.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/suppl_1/316P. Retrieved 9 January
2009.
-Carey, Benedict (7 November 2006). "A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues". The
New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/health/07brain.html. Retrieved 9 January
2009.
In 2006, the brains of a group of individuals were scanned while they were
speaking in tongues. Activity in the language centers of the brain decreased, while
activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. Activity in the area of control
decreased, which corresponds with the reported experience of loss of control. There were
no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual
language function.
Hine, Virginia H. (1969). "Pentecostal Glossolalia toward a Functional Interpretation". Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion 8 (2): 211–226. doi:10.2307/1384335.
http://jstor.org/stable/1384335.
Francis L.J. and Robbins M. (May 2003). "Personality and Glossolalia: A Study Among Male
Evangelical Clergy". Pastoral Psychology 51 (5): 391–396.
These studies concluded that glossalalia is a learned behavior: “Our findings that
glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations
that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit
glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance[…] support the hypothesis that
glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.”
4