Speaking in Tongues - Part 1

This is the first of two commentaries discussing whether the "gift of tongues" can be interpreted as a personal prayer language. This topic has been a point of contention for many years—primarily because it’s often defined as a personal prayer language and is intrinsically connected with genuine salvation, even though Scripture teaches the opposite (1Cor12:30). This has caused much consternation among those who don’t receive the gift, and caused others to repeat several verbalised sounds until they sound like a language. When I say learn, I’m not suggesting the actual gift can be learned, or that a personal prayer language even exists. However, I want to state very clearly that I believe the speaking of languages and interpretation is a supernatural gift, but not when it’s defined as an unknown prayer language, so my challenge to anyone is to show me where tongues can be interpreted and contextualised as a private prayer language, and remain consistent with the context of Acts 2:1-11. Further, how can anyone know they have the gift unless it's been interpreted?

The Bible refers to the gift of tongues as the communication of an existing known language that’s common to man, period. A dialectic language, which is not necessarily known to the speaker, but understood by those who speak the language. The gift conveys God’s word and edifies those who hear it. The speaking and/or interpretation is regarded as a “supernatural gift”, conveyed by revelation through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the speaking and interpretation of languages is a gift, often arising from no previous knowledge of the language. Any pre-existing ability to speak or interpret foreign languages is also seen as a gift for communicating the wonders of God in the language of those who need to hear. Secondly, the gift of interpretation is regarded as a gift—not necessarily the interpretation of a language unknown to the interpreter. It might be the native language of those interpreting, or someone who speaks multiple languages. Therefore, the language spoken, or the interpretation of a language spoken, can be supernatural or the common language of either. The point of the gift is to provide edification for those present. The Apostle Paul spoke several languages—were these supernatural gifts? Scripture defines speaking a foreign language as a gift. Paul defined the place and purpose of tongues, using himself as an example (1 Cor 14: 5-20). Paul also says, “In the Law, it is written: With other tongues (languages) and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people", God will use foreigners to bring words of judgment upon the Hebrews. None of the language in these passages refers to, or remotely defines tongues as a personal spiritual prayer language. It refers to an understood, known, dialectic language, common to man.

The demonstration of “Tongues” is found three times in the scriptures—Pentecost in Acts 2—the house of Cornelius in Acts10:46—and finally Acts19:6 in Ephesus. These three expressions define the context of tongues as a spiritual gift. The claim of some theologians about four different types of “Tongues” in the biblical account is little more than theological gerrymandering. All three are contextually consistent and establish the meaning and place of the gift. Doctrinal teaching should reflect this context before any conclusion about meaning. However, due to our proclivity for supernatural signs, the expression has been distorted beyond biblical recognition.

The New Testament word “Glossa” comes from a prim. Root “glóch” means a projecting point. The word has an uncertain affinity, but it’s commonly interpreted as “tongue”, which in the case of supernatural gifts is a metaphor for the ability to speak a language through which communication is established. The supernatural ability to speak a foreign unknown language is not disputed, but the narrative doesn’t suggest an additional spiritual prayer language. Nowhere in the biblical corpus is tongues outlined as a personal prayer language. We must create this idea and then torture specific texts to justify this interpretation. This distortion of the truth may have arisen because tongues are stated in Mark 16:17 as a sign that follows salvation, but in this example, the context is important. The fact that many ethnic groups were often present during salvation experiences was commonplace. Under these conditions, the gift of languages is exactly where it should be. It's not hard to see how the requirement for the sign becomes problematic for those who don't demonstrate the gift after salvation. Without overly unpacking this passage, we might look at Mark 16:18 and ask why these other signs are not included as signs of salvation.

Again, I emphasise that I believe in the gift of tongues and acknowledge that many Christians who claim to have the gift may well have it—most will never know because it’s never been interpreted. The first question I might ask those who believe they have the gift is: how do they know? Has anyone interpreted the sounds you make, and how do you know your words glorify God? And what was the language being spoken? If the answers are not forthcoming and based on actual evidence, the claim to possess the gift might be the result of learning basic sounds to satisfy the need for a sign.  If we stay within the context of scripture, God enables tongues for the benefit of foreigners and unbelievers (pagans), or believers visiting or residing in or around a group of believers—those who cannot speak the native language of the culture concerned. Both will understand what is being said, and all will be edified.

Supporters of a personal prayer language believe they speak sounds that reverberate and sound like a language; so it must be the gift. However, extending this to a personal prayer language has no biblical precedent. When questions are asked about biblical support, public acknowledgement, or any record of interpretation, the response becomes less convincing. In many assemblies, young Christians have been encouraged to open their mouths and repeat a limited number of unconnected vowel sounds, over and over again. This encouragement is highly problematic and eventually leads to repetition that becomes a learned idiom, which sounds like a language. We find this linguistic technique in movies or on the stage. This process doesn’t appear representative of a supernatural gift. It’s a somewhat shallow distortion of the text, which has institutionalised tongues as a supernatural prayer language. If there’s no interpretation or confirmation, then what do we base the theology on?

Some more contemporary commentators, such as Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson, among others, don’t go so far as to state absolute evidence; they defer to possibility without taking a definitive position. In examining the work of considerably older commentaries, such as Matthew Henry or Louis Berkhof, they don’t even consider the idea of a personal prayer language, so one might question the historical introduction of the teaching. Paul's teaching on tongues is drawn from Isaiah 28:11, as is Peter’s explanation, and Luke's record in Acts 2:4-11. Peter’s justification is drawn from prophecy in Joel 2:28, and both are stated in the context of the Pentecost narrative in Acts. Consequently, the Pentecost account underpins Paul's teaching to the Corinthian Church. The subsequent invention of a personal prayer language arose thousands of years later and was arguably more about satisfying a need for supernatural signs. Judge this for yourselves—read the relevant texts and apply the word "language" instead of tongues.

If we examine the context of the texts in which tongues are used, defined, and explained, it’s clear that there is no evidence of a spiritual prayer language, period. My contention is not whether the gift exists; it’s what the gift isn't. Sadly, most, if not all, examples commonly heard today are without interpretation and produce nothing that edifies or benefits other Christians. Many Christians justify their experience of tongues as a personal spiritual experience, to suppress any further debate. It's a pity that the grammatically correct word "language" wasn't used in place of "tongues" (Glossa). If we read the text using the word "language", the context and purpose are obvious. Many difficult texts, such as Paul's reference to "tongues of angels" in support of a prayer language, are easily recognised as simple hyperbole. Psalms 78:25 speaks about the "bread of Angels", which is very similar and acknowledged in the commentary as hyperbole.