Speaking in Tongues - Part 2

The biblical use of the word “Tongues” is more correctly interpreted as known languages, whether in the singular or the plural—a known language, not a private prayer language. The Bible does not make any specific inference or convey any teaching or pattern that justifies the claim. Therefore, no theological basis exists to interpret tongues as anything other than a known language. Christian leaders have a responsibility to teach what the scriptures actually say, not endorsing a feelings-based preference that was introduced hundreds of years after the fact. Young Christians need a sound hermeneutic to learn for themselves—not influenced by vague, subjective presumptions that undermine the biblical account—something I had to confront many years ago. We are better served by letting the Bible interpret itself.

First of all, Scripture states that speaking in different languages is a spiritual gift, and like any supernatural gift, our relationship with the Holy Spirit matures over time; however, it’s not always learned in the same way we might learn to paint or preach a sermon. Second, all examples of tongues are spontaneous and instigated by the Holy Spirit. Third, the expression is for public edification. Fourth, the language is understood as a known language. And fifth, it expresses the wonders of God. Finally, while the expression of the gift became somewhat unnecessary with the introduction of the written word, I find no evidence in Scripture to suggest the gift ceased as some like to purport. Suggesting the gift has ceased is as presumptive as suggesting it’s a prayer language.

The Scriptures convey that speaking an unknown language is spontaneous, not a decision of the will. However, the Apostle Paul counts his ability to speak known languages as a gift, which he may have learned through necessity or by revelation. On this point, it appears the ability to learn languages is regarded as a gift imparted by the Holy Spirit; thus, interpretation can obviously follow.

This commentary will challenge the presuppositions of many Christians today, who often respond with, “The Bible doesn’t record everything, and it does say we will do greater things”, so tongues might be a prayer language.” Unfortunately, this type of response is subjective projection—and taken to its natural conclusion, can be used to justify any preference we like. Feelings are inherently flawed, especially when they contradict the written word.

Does the narrative in Acts and Corinthians suggest multiple forms of the gift—one as an unknown personal prayer language and the other as a known dialectic language? The short answer is NO. In Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4, the context is historical narrative, and the teaching focuses on how the gift is a sign to the Jews and a blessing to Churches with multiple ethnic backgrounds. Its sole purpose is to create order and convey understanding about the wonders of God. It is not imparted for private prayer.

Mark 16:17 is often cited to justify a spiritual prayer language: “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.” This is the first mention in the New Testament where Jesus prophesied that speaking an unknown language would be a spiritual gift. Mark 16:15–20 is “the Great Commission” discourse—Jesus instructed the disciples to “go into all the world.” This commission was followed at Pentecost by the giving of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual warfare and speaking to foreigners would “follow those who believed,” because these gifts are associated with carrying the message of Christ, and the array of languages they would confront in doing so. It was prophetic and was fulfilled a little later at Pentecost. The manifestation of tongues at Pentecost confirmed the prophetic statement in Mark and demonstrated the gift as a dialectic language: “When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). Mark 16:17 cannot be interpreted as a completely separate incident or as a private prayer language.

1 Corinthians 12. In this chapter, Paul defines his understanding of spiritual gifts and establishes the framework for tongues within the context of a Church gathering. He is correcting the abuse and confusion in a corrupt carnal Church. Here, speaking a foreign language should be a gift to help the Church understand visiting foreigners, those residing in the assembly—something they would not otherwise be able to do—allowing for understanding through interpretation and thus edifying the whole Church. Unbelievers can then bare witness to the power of God by understanding what is being said. Its purpose is for the common good (v.7), not for personal edification or private prayer. Its corporate value is no more or less than any other gift, and this can only happen if tongues are a known language.

1 Corinthians 13:1. The love chapter—Paul opens the chapter with hyperbole—exaggerated statements not meant to be taken literally. The context is to declare the authority of love over and above the vain imaginings of man. The reference to the “tongues of angels” does not suggest we will speak in the language of angels, nor does it say that angels have a language of their own. It’s hyperbolic language used to emphasise the inadequacy of human pretensions. The hyperbole conveys that even if angels did have a language, and even if we could speak it, the elevated position it might imply would still not place us above the supremacy of love. Love must prevail and undergird every gift we have. Claiming that this narrative supports the idea of a private prayer language is a misrepresentation of Paul’s teaching on love.

1 Corinthians 14:2. This is one of the main passages used to support a private prayer language. However, Paul is not teaching about prayer languages here. He’s clarifying the importance of building up and enriching the assembly through intelligible speech. In this situation, prophecy is placed above speaking in a foreign language because in the context of a gathered assembly, understanding the language brings immediate edification. If an interpreter were present, one would have no authority over the other—the speech of a foreigner might hold equal value. Therefore, Paul suggests that if an interpreter is not present, those who cannot speak the prevailing language in the assembly should remain silent. Verse 13 states, “For this reason, anyone who speaks in a tongue (another language) should pray that he may interpret (the Holy Spirit) what he says.” In other words, a foreigner might even pray to receive the gift of interpretation so their words can be conveyed in the dominant language. If these verses are separated from chapter 12, it becomes easy to use them out of context—and this is precisely what proponents of a private prayer language do.

1 Corinthians 14:2 states, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” Used out of context, this verse can easily be interpreted as supporting a prayer language, just as the reference to the “tongues of angels” can be. However, this is like an Italian praising God in Italian within an English-speaking Church. God alone would understand him, and his words would be as mysteries to everyone else present. Furthermore, the text does not suggest that the Italian has the gift of languages either, because, unlike Pentecost, no one understands what he says. He is merely speaking his native language in a foreign setting.

1 Corinthians 14:14 “For if I pray in a foreign language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” It’s important to note the connection Paul makes between speaking in a tongue and its lack of fruitfulness. Here, the actual gift of speaking an unknown foreign language is heard by God, but if there is no interpretation, even the speaker is not edified, and clearly their own mind does not understand. Proponents of prayer languages use this text to suggest a separation between mind and spirit, where the tongue alone is viewed as a spiritual connection with God. This is where feelings lead—a bad hermeneutic that opens to the demonic. The context does not support this—the idea is projected onto the text. I want to emphasise that I am not denying the gift of speaking a foreign language that’s unknown to the speaker; however, declaring the wonders of God without interpretation would be just as unfruitful to their mind as it would be to the minds of others. This text remains consistent with the broader narrative.

Some commentaries and studies appeal to 1 Corinthians 14:26 to suggest that a reference to “coming together with a tongue”—translated as “unknown tongue” in the KJV—resembles the utterances of priestesses at the oracles of Delphi. It is alarming, though curious, that demonic oracles in Corinth are used as the justifying comparison. However, this comparison is not consistent with the context of 1 Corinthians 14. Paul refers to Isaiah 28:11, which states, “Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people.” Paul had previously said that he was fluent in several languages (vv.18–19). Verse 21 clearly suggests a known dialectic language and is reinforced by the surrounding rebuke in Isaiah, where priests and prophets are described as staggering and failing to listen. Simply put, even priests and prophets were not listening and were going their own way, so God would confront them through the unlikely source of foreigners speaking the language of pagans and outsiders. Likewise, Paul’s reference to Isaiah serves as a warning to the Corinthians to listen to his instruction, because God will speak through others if His people refuse to listen to Paul.

Some commentators suggest that both a prayer language and a linguistic language are demonstrated within the same gift of tongues. However, the evidence for this claim has to be derived from the same biblical texts, and the same hermeneutic must be applied. The narratives in Acts and Corinthians provide no evidence for anything other than a dialectic language.

Corinth was a crossroads for travellers and traders, where many languages and cultures intersected. Paul’s letters were written primarily to correct and stabilise a young carnal Church struggling with disorder and division, including complications created by a diverse congregation. Corinth is the only Church in the entire bible where this issue occurred. Consequently, Paul was not addressing his own faith practices but was helping the Church function in an orderly manner. He clarified how gifts were given for the benefit of the whole Church, NOT individuals. These passages continue to challenge commentators because a feelings-based preoccupation by the tongues movement has undermined the context and meaning of biblical language. This goes some way toward explaining the wide range of opinions found in theological literature. Often, these differences are not critical, but when taught authoritatively, many Christians accept the dominant view without examining the texts themselves. Tongues is a clear example of how terminology can mislead, because Paul’s theology of tongues is entirely predicated on a dialectic language, as demonstrated at Pentecost, in the house of Cornelius, and in the Church in Ephesus. Paul taught that tongues functioned so that both foreigners and believers would be edified and would declare the wonders of God.

To conclude, Tongues is an issue for God to resolve, but I want to suggest a simple solution for those who believe tongues are an unknown prayer language; where any assembly of believers is concerned, stop using tongues without interpretation. It really is that simple. Whatever individuals believe about tongues privately is not the issue. The issue is the edification of the Church, and no foreign language, private or otherwise, is appropriate in the Church unless there is interpretation.

Finally, we should be brutally honest with ourselves and ask how we came to babble the unknown sounds we interpret as tongues. Did we learn this by doing what others told us to do? Was it a process of joining sounds we heard others making? If we believe this is a spiritual prayer language, how do we know? On what basis was this belief formed? Have we ever been interpreted by someone who knows the language? Or have we settled for vague explanations grounded in emotional experience—where feelings have trumped any rational understanding of God’s word?