Articles in this series:
- What is the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues? <-- This article
- What is the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues? #2
Nathan Busenitz has graciously responded to an earlier post of mine where I rather boldly said:
[Nathan] asserts that the gift of tongues is really a gift of languages (by which he means “the ability to speak a previously unlearned foreign language for the purpose of evangelism”). Clearly that was happening in Acts 2. But that cannot be what was happening in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Can you seriously imagine the apostle Paul putting such a gift at the bottom of the pile of gifts to desire?
Nathan responded to my assertion by listing seven “amazing similarities” between tongue-speaking in Acts and in Corinth. I’ll list his reasons below, and respond to each in turn. (Nathan listed the evidence from Acts, then in a subsequent list the corresponding evidence from Corinth. I’ve merged them together, but put the Corinthian evidence in italics).
- The Miraculous Tongues in Acts were directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (2:4, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). In fact, tongue-speaking is evidence of having received the “gift” (dorea) of the Holy Spirit (10:45). As in Acts, the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (12:1, 7, 11, etc.). Similarly, the gift of tounges is an evidence (or “manifestation”) of having received the Holy Spirit (12:7).
I of course agree with this. After all, I do believe that Corinthian tongue-speaking was a spiritual gift. If I was to be pedantic I would argue that in Acts tongues was the evidence for the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:46), whereas in Corinth it was one of many evidences.
- Along those lines, in Acts 11:15–17, Peter implies that the tongue-speaking of Acts 10 was the same as that of Acts 2, even noting that Cornelius and his household had received the same gift (dorea) as the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. This indicates that the tongues of the Apostles (in Acts 2) was not limited just to the Apostles, but was also experienced (at least) by both Cornelius’s household (Acts 10) and the disciples of Apollos (Acts 19). Paul, as an Apostle, possessed the gift of tongues (14:18). Yet he recognized that there were those in the Corinthian church who also possessed the gift.
I again agree that tongue-speaking in Acts 10 & Acts 19 was the same as that in Acts 2, and this shows that tongue-speaking was wider than the apostles. I’m not sure what this proves. All three Acts events are initiatory (unlike Corinth), and all three manifestations are linked to the presence of the apostles (also unlike Corinth). There’s a reason why many refer to Acts 10 and Acts 19 as ‘mini-Pentecosts’. They are not events that we expect to be repeated, and as far as we know from Acts, most converts did not speak in tongues.
- The miraculous ability, as it is described in Acts 2, is the supernatural ability to speak in other tongues (meaning foreign languages) (2:4, 9–11). As in Acts, the gift of tongues is described as a speaking gift (12:30; 14:2, 5). The fact that it can be interpreted (12:10; 14:5, 13) indicates that it consisted of an authentic foreign language, similar to the tongues of Acts 2. (Paul’s direct association of tongue-speaking with foreign languages in 14:10–11 strengthens this claim.)
I agree about Acts 2. Of course the gift of tongues in Corinth is a speaking gift. (How could it be anything else?) I agree also that Corinthian tongue-speaking is an authentic foreign language. Yet nothing in Corinthians leads us to believe that it is a supernatural ability. That is an assumption the text doesn’t support.
- The primary word for tongues in Acts is “glossa” (2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6), although it is also described with the word “dialekto” on two occasions (2:6, 8 ). As in Acts, the primary word for tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is “glossa” (12:10, 28; 13:1, 8; 14:2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 39), though Paul also uses the term “phoneo” twice (in 14:10–11).
This proves nothing. The greek word ‘tongues’ (glossa) means literally ‘tongues’, (ie the thing in your mouth!) or languages. It was not a technical term then as it is today. We should expect similar language whenever the New Testament speaks of different languages - whatever those languages may be. The word is used fifty times in the New Testament. Even if all the uses in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Acts 2 are the same miraculous gift (which I dispute), that still means that the majority of NT occurrence speaks of normal, everyday, humdrum tongues and languages. We need to be careful not to give glossa a technical meaning it doesn’t necessarily have.
- It was a sign for unbelieving Jews (2:5, 12, 14, 19). As in Acts, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (14:21–22; cf. Is. 28:11). Note that the gift is even called a “sign” in 14:22 (the word “sign” is from the same Greek word as “sign” in Acts 2:22). Thus, the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign.
Actually, Acts doesn’t say that tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews. That’s been read into the text from Corinthians. If anything this comparison demonstrates the difference between Acts and Corinth. In Acts, tongue speaking convicted sinners and brought them to repentance. In Corinth Paul explicity says tongue-speaking will not do this (14:24-26). (Again, ’sign’ isn’t necessarily a technical term - context will determine this.)
- It is closely connected with prophecy (2:16–18; 19:6) and with other signs that the Apostles were performing (2:43). As in Acts, the gift of tongues is closely connected with prophecy (all throughout 12–14).
I fully agree! Unreservedly. 1 Corinthians makes it clear that interpreted tongues is equivalent to prophecy. I think that both Acts and 1 Corinthians agree that tongue-speaking is prophecy in another language.
- Some of the unbelieving Jews at Pentecost accused the apostles of being drunk when they heard them speaking in other tongues (languages which those Jews did not understand). Similar to Acts, Paul says that unbelievers will accuse the Corinthians of being mad [not unlike “drunk”] if their tongues go uninterpreted (14:23), and are therefore not understood by the hearer.
I agree that these are interesting parallels. If it is true that the ones who sneered are the ones who did not understand the languages (as you suggest), then Acts & Corinthians agree on the principle - tongues that are not understood will cause ridicule. But that does not prove that the tongue-speaking in Corinth is miraculous as it was in Acts. It just proves that the effect of non-understood tongue speaking is the same.
What I’m trying to demonstrate is that although I see some similarities between Acts and Corinthians (who would deny them?), I don’t see full correlation. I don’t believe that Nathan has demonstrated that tongue-speaking in Corinth was miraculous. Nor do I believe that the similarities he mentions are “Amazing Similarities”.
Moreover, there are some obvious dis-similarities as well. Let me list them:
- In Acts, we are explicity told that the ability to speak in tongues was miraculous. In Corinth we are not.
- In Acts, tongues could be understood. In Corinth, tongues were unintelligble without interpretation. This is quite a crucial difference, isn’t it? Does this not suggest that something different was going on?
- In Acts tongues brought unbelievers to their knees, calling on God for salvation. In Corinth Paul explicity says that tongues will not achieve this, only prophecy will (14:25).
- In Acts, tongue-speaking demonstrated that God was drawing people together. In Corinth it indicated that men were driving people apart.
- In Acts, tongue-speaking is always seen as initiatory (Acts 2, 10, 19). In Corinth it is an ongoing part of everyday church life.
In conclusion then, tongue-speaking in Corinth is similar, but not the same as in Acts.
So what is the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues? To use Carson’s words, interpreted tongue-speaking is ‘functionally equivalent’ to prophecy. Or to put it another way.
Gift of tongues + Gift of interpretation = Gift of prophecy
So the gift of tongue-speaking is just prophecy in another language. The ability to speak in another language is a gift from God, even if it has to be learned. (Just ask a cross-cultural missionary if you don’t believe me.)
Interestingly, my argument answers all of Nathan’s unanswered questions (in a later post). They are:
- “Tongues of angels” (13:1) is straightforward hyperbole. To paraphrase: You think speaking French is spiritual? Even if I speak the language of angels but have not love I am nothing… You think understanding some mystery is spiritual? Even if I can fathom all mysteries but have not love I am nothing.. You think great faith is spiritual? Even if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love I am nothing.
- The “perfect” (13:8-11) I have dealt with here.
- Private prayer languages is easy. Because tongue speaking is a naturally learned language, then Paul is obviously quite happy for someone to pray that way in private. God understands all our languages!
- Why did Paul not forbid tongue-speaking? You should not forbid someone from speaking in their native language. But you can discourage it.
I recognise, of course that my reply does leave me with some unanswered questions. Particularly, I haven’t dealt with 14:14-15, which needs a bit more thought. I’m happy to reply to any questions that are raised (I’m just trying to keep this post to a readable length!). Thanks Nathan for continuing to stimulate my mind.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Mark,
Great post. I love interacting with this stuff—so thank you.
Allow me to briefly respond to your five differences between Acts/1 Corinthians:
“1. In Acts, we are explicitly told that the ability to speak in tongues was miraculous. In Corinth we are not.”
My initial question would be, who else holds your view that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians is non-miraculous? Perhaps there are many who do, and I am simply uninformed in this regard. But it seems to me that most commentators understand the gift in First Corinthians to be miraculous (whether they understand in exactly the same sense as Acts 2 or not).
Along those lines, it seems to me that the fact that it is a “gift” (cf. 12:31) indicates that it is something not earned or achieved (such as a learned language). Wouldn’t a “gift” from God would be something that He supernatural endows?
Since you argue that tongues (in 1 Cor.) are non-miraculous, but that with interpretation they are equivalent to prophecy, are you also suggesting that New Testament prophecy was non-miraculous? If so, how do you define prophecy… Does it include the idea of receiving divine revelation and insight (something I would consider miraculous)? Does it include the idea of sometimes predicting the future (something I would again consider miraculous)? Or is it simply the ability to proclaim truth (as truth has already been revealed). In my opinion, prophecy includes an element of the miraculous/supernatural. Thus, if translated tongues are equivalent to prophecy, wouldn’t translated tongues also include an element of the miraculous/supernatural.
Also, I think it is important to realize that the early church fathers understood the gifts of 1 Corinthians to be equivalent to the gifts of Acts. I realize that church history is not authoritative. But it is still (in my opinion) a fact that cannot be altogether ignored.
“2. In Acts, tongues could be understood. In Corinth, tongues were unintelligble without interpretation. This is quite a crucial difference, isn’t it? Does this not suggest that something different was going on?”
I think it would depend on the audience. In Acts, if Andrew (as a hypothetical example) spoke in Egyptian, the Egyptians who were there would understand him. Thus they would not need an interpreter. But, if Andrew visited Corinth and began preaching in Egyptian, the congregation would be unable to understand unless someone translated the message (since they did not already know Egyptian).
“3. In Acts tongues brought unbelievers to their knees, calling on God for salvation. In Corinth Paul explicitly says that tongues will not achieve this, only prophecy will (14:25).”
The context in 14:25 is uninterpreted tongues. After all, if a Greek speaking visitor shows up when Andrew (from my hypothetical above) is speaking in Egyptian, the visitor will not only be confused, he will mock (as the Jews did in Acts 2). But if the Egyptian is translated it becomes (as you noted) equivalent to prophecy, and the visitor is convicted.
“4. In Acts, tongue-speaking demonstrated that God was drawing people together. In Corinth it indicated that men were driving people apart.”
In Acts, tongues was being used properly. It was being spoken to those who could understand the languages they were hearing and who were, therefore, edified. In Corinth tongues was being abused (which is why Paul addresses it in his epistle). Because languages were sometimes being spoken which no one in the Corinthian congregation already knew, a translator was required so that the Corinthian congregation could be edified. As Paul states in 12:7, tongues rightly used promotes the common good of others.
“5. In Acts, tongue-speaking is always seen as initiatory (Acts 2, 10, 19). In Corinth it is an ongoing part of everyday church life.”
I totally agree that in Acts, tongue-speaking is seen as initiatory. However, it is an argument from silence to conclude that therefore it never occurred again in the early church, or was not an ongoing part of early church life. Personally, I see 1 Corinthians 12–14 as evidence that it was a continual part of the early church.
Well, that’s a quick response. I wish I had time to go into more detail, but it’s already pretty long.
Thanks again Mark for all the time and thought you’re putting into this. Your interaction is proving to be very helpful for me.
Grace and Peace,
Nathan
just found your site via the affinity testing forum, very interesting post, had always thought the tongues in corinthians were miraculous but never really gave it any thought… now i’ve read your post i’ll have to think again (or for the first time! properly…) about my position on this. thanks
This is a great post about the topic!!!
Thanks!!
speaking in tongues is a topic so many people want to know about… i just wrote a friend an email about the whole thing!
I know that there is a lot of controversy on this issue out there in the Christian community. But from seeing the Holy Spirit’s power in this way and having experienced it, it is a great gift! I first witnessed this gift, among others, at a church in Yale, MI. They operate in what is called the ‘body ministry’ where worship, teaching, and gifts can be used in the church to minister by the leading of the Holy Spirit. This is primarily where these gifts of the Spirit are used… to edify the church or ‘body of Christ’.
For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in is spirit he speaks mysteries 1 Cor. 14:2
I think that this is pretty self explanatory. When He grants us this gift, it is for our use in communicating with Him. I think that it is a unique gift in that we can edify the church through the gift of interpretation of tongues (if someone else in the body has it, or if we have it).
All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 1 Cor. 12:30
Just like I am not a teacher, not all have the gift of tongues. I know that there are a variety of gifts listen in scripture [but my knowledge is limited at the moment to name all of them
] In my experience, i was never really prayed over or had people lay hands on me or anything. The Bible says that even if a person is in a meeting with Spirit-filled believers, he can be granted the gift and be filled with the Spirit. I first started praying for the gift of tongues about 4 years ago. And for some reason, God decided to give it to me a few months ago in September. My friend, Shelley, told me about the baptism of the Holy Spirit during that time 4 years ago and she prayed with me about it.
One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself 1 Cor. 14:4
Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. 1 Cor. 14:5
Tongues is a unique gift in that instead of edifying the body of Christ, it edifies your body. God has given also the gift of ‘interpretation of tongues’ where another believer interprets your tongue (unknown languages). Now, this gift of interpretation is used to edify (or build up) the body of Christ. This is why in the book of Corinthians, they talk about the order of worship and how to handle the gifts in a meeting. Anyway, this interpretation is brought on only supernaturally by the Holy Spirit in an assembly (or gathering) of believers and non-believers. See above 1 Cor. 14:5.
I don’t want to confuse you so if you have questions, go right on ahead and ask.
So, in conclusion, in order for the gift of tongues to edify the body of believers, or the church, it must be followed by an interpretation. As a result, this interpretation will build up the church!! And if He gives us the gift of tongues, it is a language between God and the believer!
Can you be taught how to speak in tongue.
To Diane
I think you have already learned to speak in tongues!!!!
What if the language-speaking at Pentecost was not miraculous, either…
http://www.alliancenet.org/CC/article/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415640,00.html
and…
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560462|CIID1415642,00.html
Acts 2
If the tongues speaking here is not miraculous (gifted by the Spirit), then why did they need the Spirit to enable them to speak? If these were previously learned languages, why did they not just speak them?
If they were speaking common languages (Greek and Aramaic), why was the crowd bewildered and amazed? Why the comment about these men all being Galileans? (reference the Alliance web site)
1 Corinthians
Clearly in 1Cor 12, the gift list is a list of gifts from the Spirit. Tongues here, is included in the list of obviously miraculous powers, or “manifestations of the Spirit”. To deny tongues as miraculous here is to deny the context.
It seems reasonable to me to suggest that, Corinth being a “local church”, it would not be full of visitors in the same way the Temple would at Pentecost. Therefore, you would not expect the same sort of responses. Being a Spirit filled church, they would be used to this kind of miraculous dynamic. The tongues would be unintelligible because of the limited languages spoken in a local church.
Why would there be different gifts of speaking in tongues? What’s the point?
Incidently, the gift list in 1Cor 12 should not be compared to the list in Eph 4. The Ephesians list is clearly people (ministry gifts to the church). The Corinthians list is gifts for the people. And, by the way, it seems to me to suggest you only get one gift is not right either. The Father sends the Spirit to equip us to reach the world - then says you can’t have the whole package? It seems to me that the correct exegesis of verse 11 is that the Spirit will give you which ever gift you need for the situation you are in “just as He determines”. Having been a Pentecostal Christian for 32 years, I have exercised all of the gifts in this list at one time or another, and expect to do so again! If I ask my heavenly Father for a gift to enable me in ministry, will he give me a stone or a scorpion?
How can we eagerly desire the greater “gifts” (plural) if there is no chance of having more than one?
In chapter 14, Paul tells us that if we speak in tongues we speak to God, this brings a little conflict to Carson’s view, because here we see tongues as being God-ward not man-ward, this is the same in Acts 2; “we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” (v.11). So, it seems, tongues is primarily worship, not prophecy. Interpretation is necessary so that we can say “Yes and Amen” to what is being said and join in with the worship. (See also 1Cor 14:16)
Verse 14 tells us that, when we speak in tongues the mind is “akarpos”, generally useless, thus underlining the miraculous nature of tongues, the mind is not involved, it is by the Spirit.
Now for the difficult verses, 21-25. Paul is quoting Isaiah 28:11, foreign languages in the place of worship were a sign of God’s judgement and might cause the non-believer to stumble. Prophecy, however, was a common factor of Ancient Near Eastern life and therefore more acceptable to the visitor. I would want to suggest that this instruction is applicable in the ANE context, but not today. Prophecy is just as weird to those who are not yet saved or Spirit filled. In the modern context, I guess you have to take a view that its either all OK, or non of it is OK.
In Corinth, it is not the tongues speaking that is driving people apart, it is the quest for spiritual status, hence Paul’s comments about the body. It appears that the Corinthians were judging a persons spirituality by how many gifts they had and how often they used them. Tongues would be a good way of showing how spiritual you are in this context. Do it long and loud and look good! Paul’s rebuke is well deserved.
Final thought! If tongues is part of the initiation process (as in Acts), what is there to suggest that you would stop after initiation? Therefore, the gift in Corinthians may be seen as the same gift in Acts.
Is anybody still reading this blog?
The distinction of I Corinthians tongues and Acts tongues is in error. In I Corinthians 14, Paul speaks of speaking in tongues “as he wills.” He also says that it is his spirit that prays in tongues, not his natural mind. The natural mind is unfruitful which means that the tongues are not learned, nor can they be learned. These “tongues” are the same as those in the day of Pentecost. The fact that others “heard” them speak in their own language was a special manifestation which we do not see repeated when the Ephesians, for instance, receive the baptism.
I Corinthians 12 speaks of the gift of tongues and interpretation for edification of the church. It is “as the Spirit wills” which means that it involves a sovereign manifestation of God. Far different than I Corinthians 14.
There is only one gift of tongues. There is also a gift of interpretation. Paul makes no distinction between the references you quote. The only difference is that, with interpretation of the tongue, the whole church is edified and not just the speaker.
Paul uses exactly the same word (with the exception of 14:21) every time - the same word used throughout the NT. I’m sure that Paul, being an excellent teacher, would have drawn a distinction clearly if there was one to be drawn. If I speak in tongues, by some spiritual dynamic, I am edified. If the tongue is interpreted the whole church gets to join in whith my “praise and thanksgiving” and is also edified.
On the matter of “will”, I speak in tongues because the Holy Spirit enables me. But the Spirit does not make me! The spirit of the prophet is subject to control of the prophet (1Cor 14:32) - the gift is given, I am enabled, I then choose when to use it. If this was not so, then Paul’s requests for order in the Corinthian meetings is futile because thay would not have a choice in the matter.
We must remember also, that the verse and chapter markings are a later addition. The original text had no such markings - or punctuation for that matter. Sometimes the chapter and verse markings give us a false sense of arguments being seperated, this seems to me to be a problem for many in Corinthians. Paul takes a minor diversion (chapter 13 - to reinforce the appropriate Godly attitude) but 12 and 14 are part of the same argument dealing with the same subject matter.
Thanks Peter, its getting interesting now!
One cannot establish doctrine on the basis of word definition alone. Often the same word is used in different contexts. E.g., God is love, but the same word for love is used in John for men loving the darkness and not the light.
In I Corinthians 12, tongues is put in the setting of the manifestations of the Spirit. These gifts operate “as the Spirit wills.” In the context of I Corinthians 12, the tongue is for the edification of the church. While the particular gift is subject to the will of the person receiving it, it is not there all the time. In other words, a man cannot stand up and give a tongue in the context of I Corinthians whenever he wants.
In I Corinthians 14, Paul’s tongue is unto God and “not unto men.” This is praying in tongues that is for self-edification and not meant to be intended to interpreted. (Hence the “not unto men.” One cannot interpret what he hasn’t heard.). He also goes on to say that the one praying in tongues may pray to interpret. That cuts against I Corinthians where it says that to another is given the interpretation.
Tongues is not initiated by some “spiritual dynamic.” It is by the means of the “upon” baptism of the Holy Ghost which is identified in Acts.
For clarification, I wasn’t suggesting tongues was brought on by a spiritual dynamic, but that the edification is worked through some spiritual dynamic brought about when I pray in tongues. This is my way of saying “clearly it does me good but I don’t know how!”
If your statement means that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the gateway to the gifts, then I whole heartedly agree. However, I still cannot see any justification for more than one gift of tongues. I think its stretching it a bit to separate out chapter 14 from 12. This discourse is remedial teaching regarding the meetings in Corinth and stretches from the beginning of chapter 11 to the end of chapter 14, all should therefore be seen in that context.
Given that it is remedial teaching, it is quite reasonal to expect that Paul would be specific about the issues and also to approach them from different perpsectives. In my reading he draws no distinction that would warrant the thought that there is more than one gift of tongues - if that were so he would draw a clear distinction. I take your point about drawing doctrine from common word usage, but neither can you draw it from something that isn’t clearly there. If I am speaking a language I have not learned under the enabling of the Holy Spirit, that is speaking in tongues.
If it is not interpreted then I am the only one edified. If it is interpreted, then we are all edified. When it comes to the perspectiveof who “wills” I think we need to understand Paul’s penchant for hyperbole, particulalrly in his remedial teaching. His undergirding point is not about enabling or “will”, its about status. The point is that we are all equal, therefore, one can use this gift, the next can use another gift - we all get to participate. If I am enabled by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I should expect to be able to excersise whatever gift the Spirit deems appropriate at any given time, but I have to co-operate. The raft of unspoken prophesies due to nerves and insecurity in those to whom prophetic words have been given are evidence of this. The Holy Spirit “wills” that I flow in the purposes of God, if I “will” as well then its mission accomplished. I should do this in a loving way - the better way - and I should want to excel in gifts that edify the church, but not to ignore the gift that edifies me. These gifts are always there because the Holy Spirit - the giver - is always there and, as I have said before, why would God give me a stone when I’ve asked for bread? What is the point in earnestly desiring if the answer is no?
Over to you Peter!
By the way, Peter, I have greatly enjoyed browsing through your website!
Dave, thanks for the comment on the website. I was thinking of doing some posts on the spiritual gifts, though I have the Baptism and then healing following.
I do not see where you can take the tongues of I Corinthians 12 out of its setting with the other manifestations of the Spirit. Also, the Greek says “and to a different one”. We see in Acts 2 that the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is for every believer and each disciple spoke in tongues, not just a “different one.” When one goes to Peter and Cornelius, the Gentiles are given the Baptism (all present) but there is no evidence of interpretation by Peter. Combining the Baptism which is for everyone with I Cor. 12 which is manifested as the Spirit wills results in inconsistency.
In I Corinthians 14, Paul speaks of personal tongues. (See vs. 18-19). These tongues are from the Baptism, but they are not the I Cor. 12 tongues. In I Cor. 14 Paul says that “his spirit” prays. He does not say “as the Spirit” wills. Also, Jude 20 is consistent with I Cor. 14 in that we are to build ourselves up “praying in the Holy Ghost.” That is done as we will it.
On the practical side, I pray in tongues every single day. I pray as I will to. Though I’ve been used to heal in line with I Cor. 12, that gift is not present as I will it to be and I never know when it will manifest. Tongues are there all the time.
I’ve been on “holiday” (actually away involved in a camp and conference), during this recent flurry of comments. I’ve got a lot to pick through. Let me do my best:
Alan: Good to see you here! I have read Zerhusen’s papers previously. I’m not convinced by his arguments in Acts 2. Clearly lots of miraculous things are happening in the chapter, one of of the most significant days in redemption history. The plain understanding of the passage is that the tongue-speaking was miraculous, and I see no reason to try and see it differently. I have more sympathy with his treatment of 1 Corinthians 14 as you will no doubt have gathered.
Dave: “To deny tongues as miraculous here is to deny the context.” That simply isn’t true. Teaching need not be a miraculous gift. I would argue that healing need not be either. Nor is helping others. Nor is administration. (12:28). Tongue-speaking need not be miraculous, but context affirms it must be spiritual. I am arguing that the content of the tongue-speaking is spiritual, rather than the means of tongue-speaking.
Dave: “What’s the point of tongue-speaking?” If you lived in a situation where different people spoke different languages, which made genuine fellowship and particularly evangelism differently, you would very much value the spiritual gift of being able to speak in other languages. By the way, I agree with you about Ephesians four, but definately not about the Isaiah context. I’ll post about that later (or ask me!), as it’s needs more time than I have for this reply!
Peter: I’m with Dave. I just can’t see any justification for creating a distinction between the tongue-speaking of chs 12 and 14.
I’ve been rather quiet on this blog at late. I’m hoping to change that soon and provide more input into this area.
Mark, what, then, is your exegesis of I Corinthians 14:2 where Paul says that one who speaks with a tongue, speaks not unto men, but unto God? Also, what of “in the spirit he speaks mysteries?” In I Corinthians 12, the tongues are understood, at least by interpretation.
Peter: Thanks for your quick response! 1 Corinthians 14:12 is straight forward. Remember, under my interpretation tongue-speaking is speaking of known, human languages. Therefore the speaker is speaking in a language known to himself (and to God, of course), but unknown to his hearers. So he “speaks not to men, but to God; for no-one understands him”. “He utters mysteries in the Spirit” because his speaking is prompted by the Spirit, but it is a mystery to them because they don’t know what he is saying.
Compare that to chapter 12, where (in your words) “the tongues are understood, at least by interpretation”. That fits exactly, doesn’t it? Speaking known, human languages are understable by interpretation.
So there is no distinction between chapters 12 and 14.
Mark, sorry I do not follow you. In I Cor. 14:14, Paul states that when he speaks in a tongue, his understanding is unfruitful. That means he is not speaking in a language known to himself.
Your postulation requires Paul to speak in tongues with foreigners in the room, but in a language that he, himself, understands. That’s a pretty far-flung way to exegete that verse.
Hi Guys, sorry, I got a bit busy there for a few days! Glad to see so much activity though.
Question: Are we to see something which is “supernatural”, that is “inspired or enabled by the Spirit”, as “miraculous”? If we are, then tongues has to be miraculous.
Can’t find teaching in the Conrinthian gift list, so I’m not sure what parallel Mark is wanting to draw here? Although, if we accept the above, then any teaching which is Spirit inspired may be classified as miraculous! Also, at the point of verse 28, Paul is no longer listing gifts but making a point about different parts of the body and the fact that we need each other. Having said that, I believe, being an entirely “unadministrative” person, that there are occasions when God helps me supernaturally with my administration.
I agree with Peter, you really cannot have tongues as a language that has been learned - it doesn’t really work in any NT context where you find tongues.
Still believe there’s only one gift of tongues though, I don’t want to remove it from the Chapter 12 list, I want to put it all in there.
I’m off on holiday for a couple of weeks now. Looking forward to catching up when I get back.
Take a look at this…
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/oct06/glossolalia.htm
Hello everyone,
I want to preface my response to this question with the fact that I am not a Biblical Scholar, nor do I claim to be.
The church that I have been a member of for the past 3 years believes and teaches that there are several gifts of tongues.
1) Prayer language which we essentially have control of, but is also essentially a direct language contact with God.
2) Universal language in which the speaker is understood by everyone that hears him in his or her own language, even though the speaker is speaking his or her own language.
3) Phophetic language where there is supposed to be an interpreter.
4) Interpreter of language, who is required to interpret prophetic utterances.
I just wish I had the scripture references to support the above.
Hi Joe,
I wish you had the references as well! Number 2 is a new one on me, the others seem to be a different perspective on the basic mainstream ideas. What sort of a church is it (denomination)? I would be interested to look at where these ideas come from.
By the way, you don’t need to be a Biblical scholar to have an opinion or an experience, so, welcome!
These four views are generally accepted as four different ways of understanding the gift of tongues, but it’s hard to see how they can be four different gifts! Acts 2 is the usual reference point, “because each one was hearing them speak in his own language”, and “we hear them telling in our own tongues”.
This is the position the Anchor Bible Dictionary takes:
However, as these two testimonies are from the perspective of the hearers, what else could they say. If I was listening to someone speak my language miraculously, how would I now whether it was a miracle of speaking or of hearing? I would be very hard to know (though I guess I could watch their lips!).
However, 2:4 is clear and unambiguous: “And they were all jfilled with the Holy Spirit and began kto speak in other tongues”. Speaking in tongues (in Acts 2 at least) was a miracle of speaking human lanugages.
Discussions on the speaking in tongues are always interesting.I INITIALLY agreed with the differentiation of the various types of speaking in tongues.However after reading the comments of others i am begining to think differently.Now i am understanding that tongues is tongues but can play different roles at different times as God wishes.
It can be used for prophesy in which case there should be an interpreter it can also be a direct speech from God to man in which case God interpretes the tongues to people of diverse languages.
It could also be used for the edification of individuals as against prophesy which edifies all.
I like the mathematics you used to explain tongues. thanks
I’ll leave you with this. The first mention of the tongues we experience is the same tongue spoken in the book of Genesis chapter 11. Notice the people were of one accord, same as the day of Pentecost. It wasn’t until division that tongues were diversified. The original language, I believe, was the one in which Adam spoke to God. If you continue the search of the Scriptures, as I have, you will see that tongues are used to speak to God only, and when it is spoken to all (as a word or prophecy from God)it needs interpretaion.
Dear friends of the KING!! everyone!! yes everyone!! can speak in tongues…no matter age race background hair color height the BIBLE says that everyone should speak in tongues to God. If the bible says it…its truth. you wanna speak in tongues do it!! that’s the beauty of it. that you can do it whenever whereever you want to!
With love.
I understand that when someone speaks a tongue in private it is in praise of and directed towards God. From what I have been taught a tongue together with its interpretation is equal to a prophecy. From this am I to believe that the interpretation of a public tongue is from God towards or man towards God?
I agree with Jonathan. I speak in tongues everyday because that is the language of my Heavenly Father. I am His child. A child speaks the language of the father. I also happen to be bilaterally bilingual because I also had a natural father and learned my natural father’s language and later learned the language of the culture in which I lived. The natural languages I learned by exposure to the natural world. The spiritual language I acquired as everyone else has acquired it: when the Holy Spirit was poured out onto all the world following Christ’s death and reserrection. After Christ paid the price we no longer need the “holy of holies”, we have direct communication through the comforter which is the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “I go to prepare a place for you–that where I am there you may be also.” In the meantime until His return to take us up to the place He is preparing for us, the comforter (Holy Spirit) abides in us allowing direct communciation with God our Father. I have been helped by the comments of all of you. Thanks.
Speaking in tongues is nomore than your own language. Just say if a Mexican came up to the front of the church to testify, To you that would be in an unknown language if you didn’t understand it. If there wasn’t another Mexican or someone who could intrepret that language it couldn’t benefit anyone, but there a people who never learned another foreign language that can intrepret it.
I was baptised in Jesus name a few years ago. After years of being unsure about what all is happening to me and my spiritual life, I am starting to believe that this is all for real. I’ve always struggled with the whole idea of speaking in tongues. I’ve tried to rationalize it and even at times flat out deny it. After reading the Bible through and through and taking it in context, as it is, the Bible does teach that speaking in tongues is a real gift that ever believer has, or will recieve. I still have a hard time with tongues, but the Bible does teach it and denying it is denying the Bible.
First off I would like to say that S. M. Lockrigdes spirit filled sermon is the best praise and worship I have ever heard. I had heard it about 15 years ago and only recently remembered it, so i searched the net and found your site. I would like to thank you for the time you took to put it together. Also the word and knowlegde of Christ should never be sold, it is to be freely given, even if it cost us to get.
So I apreciate that you have offered it free.
Second It makes me sad that such a simple thing as the gifts and fruits of the spirit are taken so out of context. Paul made some things very clear in
1 Cor. 12-14. those two chapters are very detailed and indepth about the gifts/fruits. They are also very simple. They are to be read in order, without skipping from verse to verse in order to get the correct understanding, instead of seeing what we want. Skipping from verse to verse is very dangerous to the truth of the Word. People can take verses from the Word of God, and get it to say whatever they want.
First of all the Church in Corinth had a big issue with having distorted the gift of tounges in particular, that’s why Paul addressed this subject in a very serious manner. The Church of Corinth, like I believe most charasmatic and pentecostal churches do today, had gone off the deep end with this “gift”. They had church sevices and all they did is sit around together and babble nonsense. Paul is very clear on this, look for yourself. He scolds them telling them to stop. I personally do not speak in tounges, but I KNOW THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALIVE AND POWERFUL IN ME. I know what my gift is and its not tounges. I believe in every gift, and that they are active in the church today.
Paul makes it clear that:
1. The Holy Spirit decides who gets what gift, we don’t choose. 1 Cor. 12:11
2. Each person has his/her own gift. Not all have the same gifts or every gift. Not all have tounges. 1 Cor. 12:12-30
3. That what we should yearn for are the Fruits of the Spirit. Which we all can have and work on. Paul even says “yet I show you a better way”, speaking of the fruits in contrast to the gifts. And that all the gifts in the world are nothing without the fruits. Also all the gifts will pass away, not the fruits. This is makes it clear that the “evidence” of the Holy Spirt is Love. God is Love. 1 Cor.13
4. Tongues is very low in importance, it is for self edification unless interperted. Paul says to use it in your personal life, and very limited in public or church. There are multiple gifts, including non supernatural gifts like teaching and serving(yes those are gifts also, again check for yourself in
1 Cor.12) that are placed of higher importance than tounges. 1 Cor.14.
How then can anyone claim the evidence of the Holy Spirit is tongues. The whole Bible is filled with proof that it is Love which evidences the Spirit not tounges or any other gift, but the fruits. “You will know them by their fruits” also Gal. 5:22-26 and many others just look up fruit or fruits.
The most important thing I’ve learned in my studies is to read the Word of God without skipping around.
The best thing to do is read ALL of 1 Cor. 12-14 in order it makes alot more sense and is very self explanitory. I pray that God gives all his children the wisdom to study one thier own without others opinions. Remember “the Holy Spirit will teach you all things.”
How can a gift from god be small? If speaking in tongues is said to be such a minor gift, why does not everyone have the ability to speak in them? GOD grants ME the ability to speak in tounges daily and I thank him for allowing me to the gift of tounges to not leave me. Can you even imagine speaking to God in his language being not so great? Not me I think it is the greatest gift!!!!!