Cat Got Your Tongues?

When it comes to Biblical issues and practices, sometimes emotion can blur the lines between what we experience and what’s actually in the Bible. Perhaps none more emotionally charged is the issue of “speaking in tongues.”

Firstly, let me point out that I grew up in a Pentecostal church. Growing up, I was proud to be Pentecostal. I was always intrigued with people speaking in tongues and being “slain in the Spirit.” When God radically changed me in the spring of 2004, I became even more zealous for all things Pentecostal. When I read 1 Corinthians 14, I did what most Pentecostals do, I assumed that the modern day “tongues” phenomenon was what was happening in Corinth. Within the paradigm of this interpretation, I eagerly desired to speak in tongues (as it would seem Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 14:1). Within a couple of months, I began to speak in tongues. At first it was few “words” but it eventually developed into a couple of different patterns. I was completely sincere and I genuinely thought that the Holy Spirit was speaking through me.

Within the past couple of years, though, as I’ve begun to study the pertinent passages a little more deeply, I’ve stumbled upon a couple of things that makes this “tongues” experience inconsistent with the Bible. Let’s begin in Acts 2, and see if we can figure this out.

Acts 2:1-3

1When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting.

Firstly, it’s generally assumed among Pentecostal interpreters that this event took place in the upper room described in Acts 1. This was probably not the case. According to verse 15, it was the third hour of the day (that is, roughly 9AM). It’s my contention that this event took place in theTemple precincts. Since this was the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), it would seem logical that the disciples were gathered with the rest of Israel, at theTemple, for prayer during the morning sacrifice. This is why 3000 could be added to the Assembly of Believers (verse 41).

3And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

The “tongues as of fire” harkens back to the rabbinic legend that at the very first Pentecost, at Sinai when God gave the Ten Commandments, sparks rested on the Israelites and each spoke the commandments in the different languages of the world. Another thing we should note is that the word “tongues” is simply the old English way of saying “languages.” There’s really no reason to translate it as “tongues” other than to maintain the notion that the modern day “tongues” phenomenon is Biblical.

5Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.

Luke describes that there were devout Jews from all over the world gathered there. This is because Pentecost is one of the three pilgrimage festivals that the Torah requires all Israelite males to celebrate in Jerusalem. Notice that each heard the disciples speaking in their own language. While the disciples’ speaking in other languages was supernatural, the act of hearing and understanding these words by the crowd was not supernatural. Each person in the crowd was simply able to discern certain of the disciples speaking in their native language. (Actually, not everyone there was able to hear something in their native language but we’ll get to that in a moment).

7They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans?  8″And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born  9″Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11Cretans and Arabs–we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”

The crowd was astonished because they knew that most of the disciples were Galileans and obviously could not have been speaking all of these different languages. Luke takes the time to describe all of the different languages being spoken (or at least the regions from which the languages came from). Each from these regions heard the disciples speaking “the mighty deeds of God” in their own language. So, let me reiterate, the disciples were empowered to speak real, human languages. There’s no indication that they were speaking anything but languages of the known world.

12And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13But others were mocking and saying, “They are full of sweet wine.”

Notice the contrast of those in the crowds. Many were astonished and later came to faith in Yeshua as Messiah after Peter’s sermon. Others though, who obviously hadn’t heard anything in their own language, assumed the disciples were drunk. This contrast is important point to consider later when we take a look at 1 Corinthians 14.

Conclusions So Far

The disciples were supernaturally empowered to speak in languages they could not previously speak. All of the languages spoken were known languages, specifically known by the people in the crowd. Again, there were people present who could understand what was being said and the actual act of listening and understanding was completely natural. There’s no indication that the Believers were able to continue to speak in different languages after this point. It’s my opinion that this event was simply a sign to Israel that God had placed His power upon the disciples. Those that had faith, joined the disciples. Those didn’t have faith, scoffed and didn’t join the disciples. Additionally, notice that the ability to speak in different languages was not the motivating factor for the 3000 to place their faith in Yeshua, rather it was the sermon Peter presented, which he spoke in the common language. The ability to speak in different languages was merely the sign that intrigued and gathered the crowd.

Acts 10:44-48

44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45All the circumcised (Jewish) believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47″Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he ” 48And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Apparently, a mini “Acts 2″ experience happened again in the home of Cornelius. This time, God supernaturally empowered these new Gentile Believers to speak in different languages. Whereas in Acts 2, the sign of speaking in different languages affected those outside of the Assembly of Believers, it would seem that this time the sign of speaking of different languages was sent for the Believers. In other words, God enabled the new Gentile Believers to speak in different languages to show the Jewish Believers that God had accepted them. There’s no indication of what kind of languages the new Gentile Believers were speaking. We must assume that, like in Acts 2, they were speaking in known languages and, specifically, languages that the disciples the Jewish Believers knew. For example, Cornelius and the rest of the new Gentile Believers probably spoke Greek but it’s possible God empowered them to speak fluent Hebrew and Aramaic, since these would be languages the Jewish Believers would have known.

Acts 19:5-6

5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.

Apparently, some disciples of John the Baptist did not make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem for Pentecost. (It’s possible that John and his disciples were a part of the Essene sect which specifically did not associate with anything Temple related as they felt the priesthood was corrupt). Nevertheless, Paul laid his hands and God yet again showed that His favour was upon those that believed in Yeshua as Messiah by empowering these new disciples of Yeshua to speak in different languages. Once again, we are given no indication of what kind of languages were spoken but if this event is to be taken as another mini “Acts 2″ experience, then that would mean they spoke languages that someone within hearing distance could understand.

Conclusions So Far

These are the only 3 instances in the book of Acts where “tongues” is even mentioned. It’s clear that the phenomenon that happened in Acts 2 was a supernatural experience where the disciples were enabled to speak in real but foreign (to them) languages. Those that had faith understood what was being spoken (depending on the language) and those didn’t have faith didn’t understand and scoffed at the event. A similar event happened two more times, apparently to serve the same purpose: that God was working among the followers of Yeshua. We are given no indication that the this phenomenon continued to happen (though it could have). Additionally, it would appear that people were only able to speak in different languages when God made it happened. It would appear that the disciples could not willfully “speak in tongues” as they pleased. Also, never did the disciples seek to speak in tongues, all 3 instances show that the phenomenon happens as God wills.

1 Corinthians 12:4-11

4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.  

I would say that it’s safe to assume that the upcoming list of gifts, ministries and effects is not exhaustive. Not only that, it’s my contention that these gifts, ministries and effects are not necessarily supernatural in every sense of the word. I will elaborate on that thought as we look at each gift.

7But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

These manifestations of the Spirit are for the common good. There may be personal benefit but the goal of the manifestations is for the group not the individual.

8For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

There is no reason to believe that Paul is only referring to receiving a “word of wisdom” and a “word of knowledge” in a spontaneous sort of way. In other words, Paul could simply be referring to people who, through study and experience, has been given the ability to have more wisdom and knowledge than others. As we’ll see, each of the gifts listed in this chapter can be supernatural gifts or natural gifts used by or for the Spirit.

9to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

Faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing of spirits, speaking in different languages and interpreting different languages can all be results of a supernatural and spontaneous working of the Spirit. That being said, each of these gifts could be things inherent in an individual that the Spirit simply uses or amplifies. Some people have a tendency to show more faith and some people are more knowledgeable in the area of what’s good for the body (that is, gifts of healing). Effecting of miracles would seem to weigh more on the supernatural side but there is a natural aspect to every miracle. Prophecy, as we’ll see in 1 Corinthians 14, is not always a spontaneous prediction of the future. Prophecy could simply refer to “a discourse emanating from divine inspiration and declaring the purposes of God…” Distinguishing of spirits does not completely rely on a spontaneous revelation from God but can certainly stem from simply knowing God’s Word and making appropriate distinctions. Speaking in different languages and interpreting languages can obviously be completely natural. It’s when a person speaks of the things of God that it becomes spiritual. Whether one is speaking in a foreign language or interpreting that language into the common language, if you are speaking of the things of God, then it becomes a spiritual gift.

11But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

God enables people in each of these areas as He wills. The above list is not exhaustive of the “gifts of the Spirit.” There is more to the life of the Believer within the assembly but this just what Paul, inspired by the Spirit, wrote in this epistle.

1 Corinthians 14

1Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

“Prophecy” refers to clear exhortation in the language that all in the assembly understand. “Tongue” literally refers to “a language” but here specifically refers to a language that the majority does not understand. Speaking in a language that the majority does not understand is like blowing into the air. The word “spirit” is the Greek word “pneuma” and could also be translated as “breath.” Therefore, that line could be translated “in his breath he speaks mysteries.” That is, he speaks the mysteries of the word of God in a language the majority does not understand and therefore is no different than blowing into the air. So, if the person is speaking in a language no one understands, God does but the people don’t.

3But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation. 4One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

Paul, here, clearly defines prophecy as something that people understand and it’s for edification, exhortation and consolation. Speaking in a language that only the speaker understands can only edify the person speaking but speaking in a language everyone understands edifies the whole assembly.

5Now 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.

Speaking in different languages (perhaps Hebrew is in view ) is not bad but it does not benefit a congregation that doesn’t speak in that language.

6But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?

Speaking to someone in a language they don’t understand does not profit anything. Things like revelation, knowledge, prophecy and doctrine; all things relating to intelligently understanding something are things that profit.

7Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?  8For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle  

Paul’s point is that sound needs to have meaning to be understood. Random noise doesn’t communicate a message.

9So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken?  For you will be speaking into the air.

Here Paul brings up the point that speaking in a language that no one understands is just like blowing into the air.

10There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. 11If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

Paul compares the situation to barbarians speaking. Speaking to someone in a language they don’t understand doesn’t communicate any meaning to them; it might as well be a barbarian speaking.

12So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church. 13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

It’s fine to be zealous for gifting that the Spirit can give you or strengthen but the goal should be to excel at edifying the assembly. If a person does speak in a language that most don’t understand, he should seek that God give them the ability to translate it to assembly. I believe this not only refers to translating the words themselves but the meaning of what he is saying. To put it another way: some people have the ability to speak in a different language but might not be able to convey to the assembly, by way of translation, the deep nuances and intricacies of the language they were speaking.

14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

Again, the word “spirit” here could simply be referring to “breath.” If Paul were to pray in the assembly in a language that nobody understands, he is legitimately praying, but the meaning of what he is saying will have been lost on the rest of the assembly. The stress is not what the individual praying is getting but rather what the assembly is getting. This is the context as he keeps on saying that praying in an unknown language doesn’t edify the assembly. A paraphrase of this verse would be: “if I pray in a language the majority of the assembly does not understand then physically speaking I’m praying but the assembly won’t be able to understand what I’m saying.”

15What is the outcome then?  I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

I always took this as him making a distinction between sprit and understanding but he’s actually saying that he will not only pray with his breath (that is, the physical act of speaking something) but breath and understanding at the same time. That’s a long way of saying “speaking in the language everybody understands.

16Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 

In the context of a synagogue prayer service, this makes a lot of sense. The prayers of the synagogue contain many points where an “amen” is required. If you are not praying in a language people will understand then no one will be able to say the “amen” when appropriate. To “bless in the spirit” is to bless in language the majority does not understand and so, to them, only the breath (“spirit”) is praying.

17For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

The person praying the prayers is actually praying and is legitimately giving thanks but the others are not being edified because they cannot understand the language being used.

18I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Paul could speak in many languages (at least Hebrew and Greek) but he declared that he would rather speak in 5 words that people could understand than a zillion words that people could not understand. Notice how he says “my mind” but he’s referring to having other people understand.

20Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature. 21In the Law it is written, “BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME,” says the Lord.

“In your thinking,” I believe, refers not to the person doing the thinking but the person doing the speaking. In other words, in the way we speak, we are not to be as children. We are to speak like intelligent men. He uses a quote from Isaiah 28:10-11 to teach that hearing and not understanding a foreign language is a sign of God’s judgment. For during the exile, the Israelites could not understand their captors.

22So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

Notice he says “are for a sign” and yet he’s making his point based on Isaiah 28’s use of real, human foreign languages. His point is that people speaking in different languages and not understanding is a sign that there is unbelief and God’s subsequent judgement. Speaking in the understood language (prophecy), on the other hand, is sign of belief and, hopefully, blessing.

23Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad  24But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

To understand verses 23-25 we can use the event that took place on Pentecost in Acts 2. Those who did not understand what was going on (that is, didn’t understand anything in their own language), were the unbelievers. They scoffed at what was going on, even though the disciples were indeed speaking the truth (albeit in a bunch of different languages). On the other hand, those that understood (and to them that would have been equivalent to prophecy) were the ones who believed.

26What is the outcome then, brethren?  When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation; let all things be done for edification.

This is actually a rebuke of how the Corinthians were conducting their services. Paul now gives his instructions on how he would want the services to be conducted.

27If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

If one wishes to speak in a different language in the assembly, Paul limits the amount of people doing this to 3. This is tricky to understand because why would people want to speak in a different language in the assembly  My best guess is that these are Jewish believers who wanted to conduct some of the service in Hebrew. If there was no one to interpret the meaning of what the speaker is saying then speaking in a different language should not be done.

29Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

The teaching is to be done also by only 2 or 3. What is taught is to be judged and scrutinized. Additionally, there is to be order and control in the assembly.

33for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Speaking in different languages with no one understanding does not come from God. God is not the author of confusion as Paul clearly states.

Conclusions

In the book of Acts, there are 3 instances recorded where God supernaturally empowered disciples of Yeshua to speak in foreign languages. The Acts 2 account explicitly shows that the languages spoken were real, human languages. Both subsequent occurrences (in Acts 10 and 19) are simply described as “speaking in tongues” and therefore the argument from silence would indicate that theses occurrences were also real, human languages. There is also no indication by Luke that this event continued to happen or was something that was “practiced” by the Believers.

The mention of “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12 could simply be referring to speaking in different languages and the interpretation of those languages. Similarly, the “tongues” spoken of throughout 1 Corinthians 14 seem to simply be referring to people within an assembly speaking the word of God in a language foreign to the majority. This is contrasted with “prophecy” which seems to be referring to the the proclamation of the word of God, either through teaching or prayer, in the commonly understood language.

The modern day “tongues” phenomenon, as I have seen and personally experienced, is usually a “language” being spoken which no one can understood, including the speaker. I would characterize the modern day “tongues” phenomenon as, at “best,” extra-biblical and, at worst, unbiblical. Each instance of “tongues” in the Bible either explicitly or implicitly refers to real, human languages with at least one person understanding what was spoken. When a person speaks in modern “tongues” it is usually nothing more than giberish and rarely conveys any sense of syntax. This would place the practice of modern “tongues” as extra-biblical.

Additionally, there is no way to test what is spoken when somebody “speaks in tongues.” If neither the speaker nor the listener know what is being said, then how will anyone know if what is being spoken is from God or not? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:3 that “no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Yeshua is accursed”; and no one can say, “Yeshua is Master,” except by the Holy Spirit.” but if no one understands what is being said how can one discern if it’s from the Spirit of God or not? More often than not, modern “tongues” is simply something that the speaker has been psychologically trained to do but there is the possibility of demonic activity. Since there is no way to know what is being spoken, then how do we know whether one is blessing or cursing God?

It is my opinion, based upon the pertinent texts studied above that Believers engaging in the modern “tongues” phenomenon should stop this practice. Even if one believes that the “tongues” being spoken today could be a real, human language, unless someone is present in the assembly to understand, it should not be spoken. At the very least, Paul’s instruction that, at the most, only 3 speak in a different language and one after the other. If there is no one present who actually understands the language, then the “tongues” speakers should not continue to speak.