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 much consternation among those who don’t receive the gift, and others to repeat several verbalised sounds and string them together 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 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 of Acts 2:1-11. Further, how can anyone know they have the gift unless it's been interpreted?
The Bible refers to tongues as the communication of a language common to man, period. A dialectic language, which is not necessarily known to the speaker but is received in the language of those who need to understand what is said. The gift conveys God’s word and edifies those who hear it. The speaking and/or interpretation is regarded as a “supernatural gift”, conveyed through revelation by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the speaking of and the interpretation, in the first instance, can be gifts that stem from no previous knowledge of the language. The ability to speak or interpret foreign languages is to communicate or facilitate the wonders of God in the language of those unfamiliar with the dialect being spoken. Secondly, the gift of interpretation is 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 confer blessing to all. The Apostle Paul spoke several languages, so were these supernatural gifts? Not unless we define all language as a gift. 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", 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 biblical context and expression are derived from and defer to the evidence and context, exemplified in the Pentecost account in Acts 2:1-11. The frivolous claim of writer John Bevere about four different types of “Tongues” in the biblical account is nothing less than theological gerrymandering. These passages are theologically and contextually 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 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. 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 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 of the 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 you have it? 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 unbelievers (pagans) or believers 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 use a circular argument to suggest that because they can speak sounds that might reverberate and sound like a language, it must be a language—and therefore personal prayer languages must be true—so they must have the 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 assemblies, 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 linguistic technique 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, and it’s institutionalised tongues as a supernatural prayer language. 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. 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 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 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.
