Speaking in Tongues - Part 2
Tongues is not a private prayer language because nowhere in the Bible does it provide a linguistic, contextual, or consistent pattern, nor a specific reference that justifies the claim. The idea has no theological basis, so why do we perpetuate a false teaching? Christian leaders have a responsibility to teach young Christians to think for themselves, rather than rely on 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 the use of tongues is a spiritual gift, and like any supernatural gift, it matures with time; however, it cannot be learned in the way we might learn to paint or preach a sermon. Second, all the examples of tongues are spontaneous and instigated by the Holy Spirit. Third, the biblical expression is a language for public discourse, not private, and sometimes occurs in the context of a salvation experience. Fourth, the language is understood as a known language. And fifth, it expresses the wonders of God.
Tongues cannot be spoken through a decision of our will unless we are familiar with the language in the first place. On this point, I am open to considering that a known language might be learned through repetitive use and interpretation. This commentary will challenge the opinion held by many Christians today, and a common response might be, “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 a projection—not an acceptable hermeneutic. When taken to its natural conclusion, projecting subjective opinions can be used to justify any preferred interpretation.
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. From Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4, the context is historical narrative, and the teaching focuses on how the gift is to be used to help those speaking foreign languages and enable everyone to understand the wonders of God. Teaching is part of the orderly use of gifts within the Church.
Starting with Mark 16:17, I want to examine the text often used 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, wherein Jesus instructed the disciples to “go into all the world.” This commission was followed at Pentecost by the giving of the Holy Spirit. Tongues would “follow those who believed,” because it’s associated with sending forth and the array of languages they would confront. It was prophetic, and exactly what happened after 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. Here, speaking a foreign language would be a gift to help the Church understand foreigners—something they would not otherwise be able to do—allowing for understanding through interpretation and thus edifying the Church. Unbelievers can then witness the power of God by understanding what’s taking place. 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 an actual language.
1 Corinthians 13:1. 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 say that we will speak in the language of angels, nor is it suggesting 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 is clarifying the importance of building up and enriching the Church through intelligible speech. In this situation, prophecy is placed above speaking in a foreign language because prophecy is delivered in a known language, is understood, and brings immediate edification. Ordinarily, prophecy would have no prominence over someone speaking prophetically in a foreign language if an interpreter were present. In that case, 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 should pray that he may interpret 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 common 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” often is. This could be like an Italian praising God in Italian within an English-speaking Church. God alone would understand him, and his words would be mysteries to everyone else present. Further, 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 states, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” It is important to note the connection Paul makes between speaking in a tongue and its lack of fruitfulness. Here, the actual gift of speaking a foreign language is heard by God, but if there is no interpretation, the speaker is not edified, and even their own mind does not understand what is being said. Proponents of prayer languages use this text to suggest a separation between mind and spirit, where the tongue is viewed as a spiritual connection with God alone. However, the context does not support this—the idea is imposed onto the text. I want to emphasise that I am not denying the gift of speaking a foreign language unknown to the speaker. If someone has this gift, declaring the wonders of God without interpretation would be unfruitful to their mind and to the minds of others. The 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 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 then God would confront them through the unlikely source of foreign languages spoken by 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.
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 is derived from the same biblical texts, and the same hermeneutic must be applied. The narratives in Acts and Corinthians provide no evidence to support 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 Church struggling with disorder and division, including the complications created by a diverse congregation. 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. These passages continue to challenge commentators because denominational gerrymandering undermines their meaning. 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. Paul taught that tongues functioned so that foreigners and believers alike would be edified and declare the wonders of God.
To conclude, I want to suggest a simple solution for those who believe tongues are an unknown prayer language: where the Church is concerned, if there is no interpreter, then refrain from using tongues. 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 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 feeling something makes it true?
