Three weeks ago I posted a slightly provocative post entitled Why Charismatics are not New Testament Christians. That post focussed largely on prophecy, today I want to look at the gift of tongues.
The Gift of Tongues
Of all the so-called charismatic gifts, tongues-speaking is the one that non-charismatics have the most trouble in understanding and accepting. Most Charismatics believe that “speaking in tongues is prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker”.1 Tongues, in other words, are understandable only with interpretation. Frankly, this turns the clock back on the reformation. Charismatics who practice tongues-speaking in public worship have given up the hard-won victory that the word of God should be in the language of the hearer.
But there’s a more important principle at stake here. There is absolutely no evidence, anywhere in the Old Testament, that speaking in unknown languages should be part of the New Covenant blessings. Indeed, the phenomenon is utterly unknown in pre-Christian Judaism. So either God is doing something in the New Testament that he has never even hinted at, or the Charismatics have got it wrong.
The evidence for the latter is very strong. It’s strong because the evidence from the Old Testament is that not being able to understand one another is a curse (see Genesis 11). This is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 14:20-22.
Not only so, but when tongue-speaking was first practiced (at Pentecost) it was precisely so that all would understand not so all would be confused! Clearly what happened at Pentecost is not what happens in charismatic churches, and not what happens in private prayer language either.
So, if charismatics are right, and “speaking in tongues is prayer or praise spoken in syllables not understood by the speaker”, where did this doctrine come from? It was never spoken of (or even hinted at) in the Old Testament. It wasn’t mentioned by Jesus. What other New Testament doctrine can you think of that suddenly springs up in the New Testament, that isn’t rooted in the Old Testament or the sayings of Jesus?
There’s no answer to that question. Unless, of course, the charismatics are wrong. Because the Old Testament does talk about a day when the Gospel will be spoken in every language. It is that age in which we now live. An age where God is praise in any and every language. This, truly, is tongues-speaking.
So, let’s not turn the clock back. Let’s not mis-interpret Luke and Paul and thus invent a doctrine that has no basis in the Old Testament nor in the words of Jesus. And let’s not become like that Catholics so that the majority cannot understand what God is saying. Let’s hold true to reformation principles, and re-affirm that speaking in tongues means speaking in real, human languages.
- See, for example, the charismatic scholar, Max Turner’s, “Early Christian Experience and Theology of ‘Tongues’: A New Testament Perspective,” in Speaking in Tongues: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. Mark J. Cartledge, Studies in Pentecostal and Charismatic Issues (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2006), pg 29.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Mark,
Those are some excellent questions. I would like to point out that Paul does say that tongues are for unbelievers in 1 Cor. 14:22. This is probably one of the more confusing passages in the Bible since his statements here seem to contradict what he is saying in the rest of the chapter. There is a perfectly good explanation for this, but it kind of strays us from the topic at hand so i will leave that for now.
I will agree that the overall sentiment of 1 Cor. 14 is that tongues does not uplift the unbeliever, but this idea is qualified. Paul here is referring to tongues that are not interpreted. In Acts, the tongues were interpreted by those who knew the languages being spoken and they became believers. But notice that it had the opposite effect on those who did not understand by causing them to accuse the apostles of being drunk. This is exactly what Paul talks about in 14:23.
I see the events of Pentecost as being in perfect agreement with Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. It seems to me that Paul’s entire criticism of the way tongues are being used in the church at Corinth is that they are not being used to build up the church but rather to build up the individual. He does so very carefully because he does not want to discourage them from seeking the gifts of the Spirit (which they seem to do quite fervently). This can be seen in verse 12 when he says,
“Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.”
In answer to you other difficulties:
(1) Why Paul would place so little value on such a remarkable gift?
I wouldn’t say that Paul places little value on speaking in tongues (he saw fit to writes practically 3 chapters on the subject). I make a point in one of my post to say that I don’t think it is an accurate understanding of Paul’s letters to create a hierarchy of gifts. I do say that if one feels compelled to do so (as many in the Pentecostal tradition do) that there is little Biblical support for places tongues at the top. I would say however, that Paul does place tongues in context. Certainly tongues in a remarkable gift, but it is a parlor trick compared to the greater gift of God’s grace and restoration of mankind.
(2) How such a gift would be given by God to people in the assembly if it was inappropriate to use it?
Tongues is only inappropriate to use if used inappropriately (why does that come out sounding like a bad Groucho Marx impression? ;). I would say that the majority of God’s gifts are given with the condition that they be used in the right way. Sex for example is a glorious gift from God, but it must be limited to taking place between two married individuals. In the same way God blesses his church with tongues but they must be used to uplift the church and they must be understood/interpreted.
I hope this clarifies things a bit and I apologize if my posts came off as confrontational. I realize that gibberish has some bad connotations, but I was simply trying to spare my wrists from typing “unintelligible utterances” or similar neutral phrases.
Dan. Thanks for your continued dialogue. You’re right, we really do need a shorthand way of saying “unintelligible utterances” - preferably one that’s easier to spell, too!
To respond to your latest comments. You defined tongues as “speaking in an existing language unknown to him/her for the purpose of enriching the church community”. Presumably you feel that this is a gift given by the Spirit at a particular point in time. What I mean is, I presume you don’t think that one of the Corinthians would have a permanent gift of being able to speak in Egyptian, but he could perhaps be given that gift at a particular point in a particular gathering.
Earlier I asked the question “How such a gift would be given by God to people in the assembly if it was inappropriate to use it?” What I meant by that is why would God give an individual the gift of speaking in Egyptian at 11:35 on a Sunday morning if he could not use that gift because there were no interpreters present? That makes no sense to me.
I don’t think the analogy with sex is relevant. Sex is a gift that God gives much more generally, and I can use that gift as I choose. Tongues (according to your definition) is a very specific gift that lasts only for a very short time. Why would God give a gift that couldn’t be used?
I see what you are saying now. I’m not sure if I would necessarily follow your presumption that speaking in tongues is a gift given at a particular time. I would be willing to say that this would be the most Biblically and historically defensible position, but ultimately I would say that it’s God’s gift and he can do with it what he pleases. If God wishes someone to permanently speak in Egyptian, then He can do so.
in answer to you question, “why would God give an individual the gift of [tongues]…if he could not use them because there were no interpreters present?” I would say that he wouldn’t. in the case of the church in Corinth, I would propose that one of the following was taking place. People were speaking in tongues and (a) the proper use of interpretation had fallen to the wayside and those given the gift of interpretation did not discern or use their gift (b) the individual speaking was intended to interpret (as Paul tells them to do in 1 Cor. 14:13) and fell into the same problem as situation “a,” or (c) the tongues being spoken in Corinth were not genuine tongues. Ultimately we cannot be certain what happened in Corinth since we don’t have any actual accounts of how speaking in tongues took place. But based upon Paul’s writings on the subject as well as the nature of God in general, I would say that all gifts are given for a specific purpose and if someone were in a situation where they were given a gift but could not use it (i.e. no interpretation) then they should seriously question its validity.
Might I suggest you read this article by Dr. Sam Storms? It will not answer every question you asked, but I think it answers several of your questions.
And, this one, too (also by Storms):
@Dan: You said, “I’m not sure if I would necessarily follow your presumption that speaking in tongues is a gift given at a particular time”. Actually, I don’t think that the gift Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians is a gift given at a particular time. What I actually said in my previous comment was, “Presumably you feel that this is a gift given by the Spirit at a particular point in time” (emphasis added for clarity). I made the assumption that’s what you thought on the basis of your earlier definition: “an individual speaking in an existing language unknown to him/her”. If the gift is given permanently, then when the speaker speaks, it won’t be in a language unknown to him/her, because the permanent gift (given months/years ago) will mean they already know the language.
As far as the gift of interpretation goes, I really don’t see how option (a) is a possibility, because then Paul would have criticised the interpreters, not the tongue-speakers. Option (b) is certainly a possibility though. I think option (c) is much less likely because if their tongues weren’t genuine I can’t imagine Paul tolerating ‘fake’ spiritual gifts at all.
The problem you have with option (b) is that the speaker wouldn’t be able to interpret his own tongues-speech because it would be “in an existing language unknown to him/her”.
You seem to be saying that God wouldn’t give a gift that couldn’t be used, so God wouldn’t miraculously give a previously unknown language if it couldn’t be used. But in Corinth the gift couldn’t be used because there were no interpreters, and the speaker couldn’t interpret himself because he didn’t know the language he was speaking.
So perhaps you’d agree with me that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians is the ability to speak a previously known language?
Mark,
I would definitely be open to the possibility that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was a known language (St. Aquinas seemed to feel this way as well, at least regarding tongues in his time), but I think that this idea would fall on the same ground as the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians being an “angelic” language. I say this because both theories deviate from the model seen in Acts chapter 2. i feel that, unless the scripture explicitly says it is otherwise, we should assume that the gift of tongues in uniform throughout the Scriptures and throughout church history.
Looking at a few points that you made in the above comment:
You said, “If the gift is given permanently, then when the speaker speaks, it won’t be in a language unknown to him/her, because the permanent gift (given months/years ago) will mean they already know the language.”
I don’t think this necessarily follows. Certainly it could be assumed that if someone is miraculously given the ability to speak in Greek with no training and no understanding of the language it is possible for them over months of using the language to begin to understand it. But this does not have to be the case and even if it were the case with some individuals it wouldn’t negate the original miracle of God giving someone the gift of a tongue unknown to them at that time. Also, in regards to an individual interpreting their own speaking in tongues, I don’t see how we can say that if they interpret what is said that it automatically makes it a known language. I say this because if it is a the Holy Spirit which gives them the interpretation then they are not speaking it like their native language. Think of it this way, someone gives you a sheet of paper to read out loud and it had some language unknown to you spelled out phonetically. You read it and then they give you another sheet of with the translation written in English. You could say that you understand what the first sheet said since you have the interpretation, but thats a far cry from knowing the language. You may be able to give an accurate translation, but you would have no idea which words meant what, how to conjugate verbs, or even where one sentence ends and the next begins. So it may very well be possibly for an individual to speak in tongues and interpret them without “knowing” how to speak this language.
You said, “I think option (c) is much less likely because if their tongues weren’t genuine I can’t imagine Paul tolerating ‘fake’ spiritual gifts at all.”
I don’t think Paul would tolerate fake spiritual gifts either, but there are a couple possibilities for why this still may be the case.
1) Paul was not present to hear these tongues, his knowledge of the events in Corinth were second hand. Some might not like this explanation since Paul was divinely inspired when writing this letter so God certainly could have told him that the tongues were false. This is possible, but there are many places in Scripture where God chose not to give every detail about something taking place.
2) Paul may have chosen to not deal with the issue of false tongues so that he did not undermine a powerful gift in the early church community. This may seem unlikely, but I think we would both agree that there are many people faking tongues in the church today and throughout church history (I know many people who have admitted it), and since the Pentecostal church is one of the fastest growing denominations and since the Bible is a book not just written for believers 2000 years ago, but for all believers throughout the ages, it seems like if there would be something in the Bible dealing with false tongues, unless Paul thought it was better to deal with it indirectly (as he may have been doing in 1 Corinthians).
On a side note, I would like to say that I have enjoyed our conversation so far. This is actually the first in depth discussion of this matter that I have had where the condition of my soul has not been called into question, so congratulations
Dan: I’ve enjoyed the conversation too. Thank you!
I actually see the situation in Acts 2 as unique, and somewhat different from all other occurrences of tongues-speaking in Scripture. You may have noticed I’ve started a new series of posts about tongue-speaking in Acts 2.
I agree that the starting position should be to assume that tongue-speaking will follow the Acts 2 model (which is partly why I think that tongues-speaking must be in known lanugages, not angelic ones). But obviously Acts 2 is a pretty unique situation, and there’s other miraculous events on the day that weren’t to be repeated. I think the miraculous nature of the tongues-speaking is one of them. So tongues-speaking is to be repeated, miraculous tongues-speaking is not.
Hopefully more will become clear as my series on Acts 2 progresses. I may move on to Acts 10, or perhaps Corinthians later.
One point I will make now is this. For me, this is a crucial factor in concluding that tongues in Acts 2 is not exactly the same as in 1 Corinthians 14. That is, in Acts 2 the tongues-speaking was for the benefit of unbelievers, at least some of who praised God as a result. Yet Paul specifically says that tongues are not for unbelievers, who would only praise God if tongues were not being used. Equally, the other examples of tongues-speaking in Acts 10 and Acts 19 were also for believers, not unbelievers. That points to some discontinuity between Acts 2 and the others accounts, and I think that (linked with the fact that at least some of what happened at Pentecost was unique) points us towards the differences between Pentecost and the other occurrences of tongues-speaking. Miraculous tongue-speaking was necessary at Pentecost. It was not necessary elsewhere.
Mark,
I don’t think the points you have made here quite line up (at least not for me).
Firstly I agree that there are elements of Pentecost that are not repeated (at least not in the Scriptures or attested church history) such as the strong wind or the tongues of fire. But speaking in tongues (or at least the phrase) is repeated, so the fact that certain elements are not repeated does not give us reason enough to doubt that tongues are the same throughout the New Testament.
Secondly, the idea that tongues is not for unbelievers is not an entirely accurate interpretation. This is a complex issue that has to be taken in the full context (and even then is confusing). Though in 1 Corinthians, it seems that Paul is saying that tongues is for believers and and prophecy is for unbelievers, he does state in verse 22 (as i mentioned before) that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. The problem with many interpretations of this passage is that the reader has been soaking in the “good news” aspect of the Scriptures so much that they assume the “sign” from God referred to here is a good one. They forget that a curse from God is just as much of a sign as a blessing is. Paul is warning the church in Corinth that “tongues” can possibly harden people and send them further away from God (just as it did at Pentecost with the men accusing the apostles of being drunk). I know that you are aware of this as you have pointed it out before and at this point it seems like I am making your point for you, but here is why this understand of chapter 14 casts some doubt on your interpretation of tongues: If tongues can be a curse to unbelievers, what difference does it make whether the speaker knows the language or not? It seems that your argument would be more suited for defending tongues as a personal prayer language rather than disputing miraculous tongues.
Here is how I see this chapter being in harmony with Acts 2. Notice that in 1 Corinthians 14 that Paul is stressing prophecy above tongues. The reason he is doing this is because he is following the Pentecostal (as in Acts 2 NOT the denomination;) model. The primary gift bestowed on the apostles in Acts 2 is not speaking in tongues, it is prophecy! Peter even confirms this when he speaks to the crowd who are wondering what is going on and how all this is possible. Peter tells them that this is the fulfillment of what was written in Joel, “God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.” Notice that he makes no reference to speaking in tongues. The only thing he mentions (several times at that) is prophecy. This is what Paul is trying to deal with in Corinth. They have placed tongues on a pedestal and have let prophecy fall to the wayside, forgetting that tongues without understanding (prophecy) is a curse on unbelievers and hardens them.
Finally, why is it that you feel that miraculous tongues were “necessary” at Pentecost but not elsewhere?
I apologize this post has typos or is unclear. I’m a bit sleepy at the moment which means that I don’t write very well and proofreading was abandoned somewhere around the second sentence. Good night!
Dan,
Thanks again for your comment. I’ll try and respond to each of your points in order.
(1) A careful reader will have two conflicting reactions when looking at tongues speaking in the rest of the Bible. One will be the assumption that few concepts change from one page to another in the Bible. But the other is that some of what happened at Pentecost is clearly not repeatable. So, in a sense, either approach to tongues is valid - but of course only one can be right. Other data from the rest of the Scriptures must guide us. I would suggest two things: (1) Asking whether the evidence that points to tongues-speaking as miraculous languages in Acts 2 is also there everywhere else in Scripture. And (2) Asking whether what the purpose of such tongues-speaking could be elsewhere, when it’s purpose is so clear in Acts 2.
(2) I do agree that signs can be both negative and positive. The context of the Isaiah quotation in Corinthians is clear. Paul is not saying that the contents of tongues-speech will curse unbelievers. The “sign” was that Israel could hear a language they couldn’t understand. It’s very unintelligibility was the “sign” that foreigners had invaded and they were to go into exile. So the intelligibility or otherwise does matter. In fact, that’s the whole point! Unintelligibility was a sign to disbelieving Israel, so why, Corinthians, do you value unintelligibility so much!?
(3) Finally, miraculous tongues weren’t strictly necessary at Pentecost. The 120 could have spoken Greek and everyone could have understood them. But tongues were a sign, there too. The point is that at Pentecost, tongues were intelligible. That’s why they were so beneficial. But the 120 spoke in a myriad of other languages to demonstrate that the Gospel was about to go out to all people everywhere, regardless of their ethic identity. I’ve just posted about this. That’s not what’s happening in Corinth.