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 the subject of contention for many years, primarily because it’s been defined as a personal prayer language, and applied as a sign of salvation. This has caused many to simply learn a sequence of verbal sounds to justify their public testimony of salvation. 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 that I believe the gift of tongues 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 contextualised as a private prayer language and remain consistent with the context in Acts 2:1-11.
The Bible refers to tongues as the communication of a language common to man, that glorifies God and edifies those who hear it, and that the speaking and interpretation of this foreign language are regarded as “supernatural gifts”, under the revelation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the speaking of, and the interpretation, are gifts that stem from no previous knowledge of the language. The ability to speak or interpret foreign languages or tongues is to communicate the wonders of God in the language of those unfamiliar with the dialect being spoken. Secondly, the gift of interpretation enables foreigners to convey the wonders of God to a group of believers, through the interpreter. Several matters arise from this, one being the definition of supernatural, because the gift of languages might be seen as those who can speak foreign languages, such as the Apostle Paul. However, Paul defined the place and purpose for using tongues and used himself as the 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", thus God will use foreigners to bring words of judgment upon the Hebrews, though not necessarily through the gift. 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 biblical context and expression are derived from, and defer to, the evidence and context exemplified in the Pentecost account of Acts 2:1-11. The frivolous claim of John Bevere about four different types of “Tongues” in the biblical account is nothing less than theological gerrymandering. These passages are theologically consistent and establish the meaning and place for using foreign languages. 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 verbal speech through which a language is conveyed. The supernatural speaking of a foreign language, not acquired or learned is not disputed, but the narrative doesn’t suggest an additional spiritual prayer language. Nowhere in the biblical corpus is tongues interpreted as a personal prayer language. We must create this idea and then massage specific texts to justify the interpretation. This distortion of the truth may have risen 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. Without overly unpacking this passage perhaps we might look at Mark 16:18 and then ask why these signs are not included as signs of salvation.
Again I emphasize my belief in the gift of tongues and acknowledge that many Christians who claim to have the gift may well have it but, most will never mature in the gift because of this false narrative about a private prayer language. The first question I might ask those who believe they have the gift is how do they know, and why do they think they have it? Has anyone interpreted the sounds they make and how do they know their words are glorifying God? And what was the language being spoken? If the answers are not based on evidence the claim to possess the gift might be from 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 unbelievers (pagans) or those believers either visiting or residing in or around a group of believers, 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 suggest because they speak these sounds, it must be a supernatural gift. But when questions are asked about biblical support, public acknowledgement, or any record, of interpretation, the response becomes defensive and less convincing. In many Churches young Christians have been encouraged to open their mouths and repeat a limited number of irrational vowel sounds, over and over again. Eventually, this repetition becomes a learned idiom that sounds like a language. We find this approach in movies or on the stage. This process doesn’t appear representative of a supernatural gift. It’s a somewhat shallow interpretation of the text but it’s institutionalized tongues as a supernatural prayer language. Many may have the gift but how do we know if it’s never authenticated? If there’s no confirmation from unbelievers, on what then do we base the theology?
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 to begin with. 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 light of the Pentecost narrative from 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 and significance. 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 that the gift exists, but that the problem lies in what the gift isn't. Sadly, most if not all examples commonly heard today are without interpretation and produce nothing that benefits other Christians. Many Christians justify their experience of tongues as a personal spiritual experience, which in effect suppresses any further debate. It's a pity that the grammatically correct word of "language" wasn't used in the 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 recognized as simple hyperbole. Psalms 78:25 speaks about the "bread of Angels", which is very similar and acknowledged in the commentary as hyperbole.