STUDY NOTES  
Back   Thoughts For Those Who Speak In Tongues  
 
Pastor Randy Smith  •  April 2007

I. Introduction

  1. “It certainly would be no exaggeration to say that the tongues phenomenon has caused one of the greatest crises the church has faced in this generation. Tongues is no longer something witnessed in Pentecostal churches only; it is now seen everywhere from Roman Catholicism to Baptist and other independent churches. For centuries all of Christendom recognized the gift to be inoperative; now, along with its accompanying claims of healings, miracles, revelations, and ‘slayings in the Spirit,’ (which, by the way, is something completely unknown to even the early church itself), it has invaded virtually every denomination. Its preachers are claiming the occurrence of a modern Pentecost. Some are accusing preachers who refuse to recognize the gift of being deceivers who rob God’s people of God-sent blessings. In short, it has become one of the hottest issues on the ecclesiastical scene: those who believe in it cannot stop talking about it, and those who do not accept it seemingly never stop hearing about it!” [1]
  2. Embarking on a study of the gift of tongues is not without its difficulties.
    1. Complexity – The available biblical material is restricted. Imbalanced in proportion to the emphasis many place on this gift, tongues are only mentioned in isolated accounts contained solely in the New Testament. Furthermore, these few passages are challenging to interpret based on their grammatical construction and the limited historical background we have available.
    2. Emotionalism – On one hand, many who do not speak in tongues have reacted negatively against this gift. A personal crusade is waged due to feelings of inferiority placed on them by tongue speakers in addition to the damage these individuals have caused in many churches (such as divisiveness, pride, loss of control and diversion from true spirituality). On the other hand, those who claim to speak in tongues see this gift as evidence they have attained a greater fullness of the Spirit, often referred to as “the full Gospel.” Additionally, they often believe this gift heightens their communication with God in prayer and intimacy. As conviction grows, emotions intensify and each camp vigorously defends their position at times without regard for biblical support and reason.
  3. Despite these obstacles, we must remember that validation of a biblical position should be based on the Word of God. [2] It is not about “piling up” the most respected theologians, polling popular opinion, looking at historical tradition, searching our feelings or defaulting to personal experience. These may be helpful to enhance our investigation, but the proof must never rest on these alone. Ultimately, there are no substitutes for biblical clarity. We must remember that there is no way to test spiritual realities without the Word of God (1 Jn. 4:1), for not everything done in the name of Christ is of Christ (2 Cor. 11:3-4, 13-14; Gal. 1:8). From the time of Creation, it has been Satan’s insidious plan to put a veil between God’s children and God’s inerrant Word (Gen. 3:1f).
  4. The following conclusions have been accepted throughout this study:
    1. The Bible is the final authority.
    2. God still performs miracles today even though He has chosen to act in a way that is different from how He acted in the days of the Apostles. Consequently, as it pertains to spiritual gifts, we are not talking about the Holy Spirit’s ability, but the Holy Spirit’s design. The question is not what the Holy Spirit is able to do, but what has He chosen to do during this specific dispensation.
    3. There is no denying that the legitimate gift of tongues did exist in biblical times.
    4. For the purpose of this paper, the gift of tongues is best defined as: The supernatural ability to speak in a foreign language which was previously unknown or unstudied by the speaker at that time.
    5. Since the phenomenon of tongues has moved beyond Pentecostal circles and even Pentecostals vary on their emphasis of this gift, it is impossible to determine an “opposing side.” Due to the absence of a unified position, statements directed at those who differ must be generalized and limited.
    6. Inclusion in God’s universal church is on the basis of faith in Christ Jesus by grace alone. Yet faith in our Lord does carry with it certain doctrinal truths essential for salvation. [3] Speaking in tongues is not one of these cardinal doctrines and must be relegated to a nonsalvific, “in-house” debate. One author commented, “It is likely that no issue in Christendom has caused as wide a split in its ranks in modern times as has speaking in tongues.” [4] This was the same attitude that was dividing the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:10). Brothers and sisters, this must not be the case. Rather we must seek to “(speak) the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) and “preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

II. The Bible does not emphasize tongues

  1. Based on the prominence many place on the gift of tongues, one would be led to believe it is highlighted and stressed throughout the Bible. However, its frequency and importance in Scripture is disproportionate to the value often assigned to it by supporters. The lack of emphasis is deafening!
  2. Tongues are never mentioned in any of the thirty-nine Old Testament books [5] and briefly mentioned in only three of the twenty-seven New Testament books:
    1. Mark 16:17 – This one verse is the only mention of tongues in the Gospels. It is also the only time Jesus ever spoke of the gift. Even in this highly disputed text (see margin notes in all major translations), the gift is promised to the apostolic community, not to all believers in all ages (Mk. 16:20; cf. Mt. 10:1). Furthermore it should be noted that speaking in tongues is also mentioned in the same cluster with drinking deadly poison and handling snakes (Mk. 16:18)—two aspects that almost all modern tongue speakers are quick to dismiss. Why?
    2. Acts 2:1-13, 10:46, 19:6 – The three occurrences of tongues mentioned in Acts are not haphazard but strategically placed to authenticate the movement of the gospel to the remoter spheres mentioned in Acts 1:8. It is interesting to note that following Pentecost, tongues only appear twice subsequent to the many conversion accounts recorded. Even more interesting is that Paul, though he spoke in tongues more than most (1 Cor. 14:18) is never once recorded as using the gift! The Holy Spirit through the pen of Luke does not emphasize tongues, but rather the power and progress of God’s Word to establish the kingdom (see Acts 6:7; 12:24 and 19:20). For example, even when the gift first appeared and three thousand received the Holy Spirit (Ac. 2:38, 41), there is no record of a single one of them speaking in tongues. Emphasis is on other things such as repentance, forgiveness, water baptism, apostolic doctrine, fellowship, sacrificial love, joyful hearts, prayer, praise, the Lord’s Table and additional conversions (Ac. 2:37-47)…not speaking in tongues.
    3. 1 Corinthians 12-14 – These chapters are the only reference to the gift in all the epistles. When Paul spoke to the immature church in Corinth (1 Cor. 3:1; 14:20), it was not to highlight or elevate the gift but rather to restrict its use and correct its misuse. By way of comparison, all of chapter 14 de-emphasizes tongues in favor of prophecy (speaking forth God’s Word), which has much greater potential to edify and instruct the church (1 Cor. 14:4, 18-19, 23-25). In the two lists of gifts mentioned in this section (1 Cor. 12:8-10, 28-30), Paul always catalogs the gift of tongues last, and in his other two lists of gifts cited elsewhere, tongues is strikingly absent (Rom. 12:6-8; Eph. 4:11).
  3. As witnessed in many churches today, the Corinthian church (with their love for the showy and spectacular) sought highly after tongues. As a rebuke for their overemphasis, Paul concluded chapter 12 with the following words: “But you are eagerly desiring the greater gifts” (1 Cor. 12:31a-NIV alternate reading). [6] They erroneously pursued what they believed were the “greater gifts” while ignoring the “more excellent way” (12:31b) of love (1 Cor. 13:4-7), which is preeminent (1 Cor. 13:1-3), superior (1 Cor. 13:13) and eternal (1 Cor. 13:8).
  4. Biblical priority is placed upon all believers receiving the gift of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13), not upon every believer receiving every gift the Spirit bestows (1 Cor. 12:29-30).
  5. Jesus exalted the Scriptures (Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:27, 45; Jn. 5:39; 17:17) and often diminished the miraculous (and never specifically mentioned tongues) to engender faith (Mt. 12:39; 16:4; Jn. 2:23-25).
  6. There is no biblical evidence of Jesus speaking in tongues.

III. The gift of tongues was a known language

  1. A look at Acts:
    1. In Acts 2:6 and 8 we observe “devout men” who had traveled to Jerusalem for Pentecost that heard the Christians speaking in their “own language.” Verses 9-11 list at least a dozen different Gentile languages that were represented and understood by these pilgrims.
    2. In Acts 2:4 the believers spoke in “other” tongues. The Greek word heteros means “other of another kind” (e.g. heterosexual). This means they spoke in a language, yet languages of a different variety.
    3. The Greek word used to speak of tongues throughout the book of Acts is always glossa (2:3, 4, 11; 10:46; 19:6). This word when used throughout the Bible most often refers to a “language,” never ecstatic utterances—it is where we get our English word “glossary.” For example:
      1. In Revelation, every passage where “tongue” (glossa) is mentioned (5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15) when not referring to the physical organ (16:10), it means one of the languages associated with the various nationalities.
      2. Of its roughly thirty occurrences in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint) glossa is always in reference to a real human language.
    4. The word translated “language” in Acts 2:6, 8 is the Greek word dialektos from which we get our English word “dialects.”
    5. The gift was manifested in Acts 2 as an identifiable language and was manifested the same way in Acts 10 (and we can assume in Acts 19). Peter, in defending the account to his Jewish brethren, said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning” (Ac. 11:15).
    6. The people were amazed, astonished and perplexed (Ac. 2:7, 12). There is no doubt a miracle took place – a miracle not in the hearing but in the articulation of legitimate foreign languages unknown to the speakers.
  2. A look at 1 Corinthians:
    1. The same word glossa is used for “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
      1. If the word means a known human language throughout the Bible, why would its meaning change here?
      2. Acts (where we see the gift spoken of originally and globally) was written by Luke, a close associate and traveling companion of Paul. It is inconceivable he would speak of another kind of tongue without explanation.
      3. Even within these three chapters of 1 Corinthians, the word has references to known languages.
        • Paul pleads for “clear” understanding and a “knowledge” of what was spoken (14:9; cf. 14:7-8).
        • Paul refers to many “kinds of languages” in the world, each with its own “meaning” (14:10-11). [7]
        • Paul refrained from using the gift within the church but did refer to his frequent use outside the church on his missionary journeys. This is exactly how we see tongues (languages) exercised in Acts (14:18-19).
        • Paul, in mentioning the gift, referred to it as speaking in “words” (14:19).
        • Tongues that were to be used in Corinth were compared to a real foreign language. The same word (glossa) is used in both 14:21 and 14:22, the first to establish the second, with no distinction indicated (14:21-22).
        • No Jew would have considered ecstatic babbling as a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy or a sign that God was working among the Gentiles. If anything, ecstatic speech would only have associated the Corinthians with their pagan roots in the Greek mystery religions (12:2) and the Jews would have immediately discarded Christianity as yet another mystery cult. However, miraculously speaking a previously unknown human language would truly have been a “sign…to unbelievers” (14:22).
        • Paul commands that tongues, when spoken in the church (though limited), were always to be accompanied by “interpretation” (14:27). When he speaks of this specific gift, he uses the word hermeneia (12:10; 14:26), which is the Greek word that commonly refers to the translation of a foreign language into the known vernacular.
        • Based on the above verses, if Paul were legitimizing another use or another kind of tongues (gibberish, prayer language, etc.) we should expect some explanation.
    2. After analyzing the modern use of tongues, professional linguistics have concluded that they do not measure up to the definite vocabulary and grammatical construction necessary for known languages.
      1. Dr. Eugene Nida, Secretary of Translations for the American Bible Society remarked, “Tongue speaking when compared with one hundred-fifty aboriginal languages spoken in twenty-five countries determined that tongue speaking bears no resemblance to any language ancient or modern that linguists know of.” [8]
      2. Dr. Donald Larsen, Professor of Linguistics and Anthropology at Bethel College, said the gibberish we hear today lacks ten of the sixteen features of a standard language. [9]
      3. After an extensive study, William Samarin, professor of linguistics at the University of Toronto, described modern tongue speaking as “a meaningless but phonetically structured human utterance believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead.” He further concluded, “Over a period of five years I have taken part in meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada, and the United States. I have observed old-fashioned Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals; I have been in small meetings in private homes as well as in mammoth public meetings; I have seen such different cultural settings as are found among the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake handlers of the Appalachians [and] Russian Molakans in Los Angeles… Glossolalia [10] is indeed like language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker (unconsciously) wants it to be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, Glossolalia is fundamentally not language.” [11]
      4. In the highly respected 1972 study entitled “The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues,” John P. Kildahl concluded, “From a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired glossolalic utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired.” In fact, he says, “(Glossolalia is a) human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior.” [12]
      5. Felicitas D. Goodman, a psychological anthropologist and linguist, studied Pentecostals in a variety of ethnic communities and compared their tongue speaking with non-Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan. She concluded, when all the features of glossolalia were taken into consideration – that is, the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its suprasegmental elements (namely rhythm, accent and especially overall intonation)—there is no distinction between Christians and non-Christians of pagan religions. [13]
    3. Conclusion:
      1. After weighing the evidence one author commented, “The conclusion of the linguistics indicates that modern glossolalia is composed of unknown sounds with no distinguishing vocabulary and grammatical features, simulated foreign features, and a total absence of language characteristics. The essential character of this new movement is therefore at variance with the biblical phenomenon of speaking in known languages.” [14]
      2. There is absolutely no biblical evidence that tongues were ever intended to be incoherent, incomprehensible babbling. Every reference indicates they were a known language.
      3. Just like other religions of today and yesteryear, the Corinthians seem to have practiced a form of gibberish that originated in the mystery religions and found its way into the Christian assembly (1 Cor. 12:2). These spiritually immature believers (1 Cor. 3:1) misused the true gift of tongues and needed to be corrected by the Apostle Paul lest they bring greater confusion and disunity to the church.
      4. As the Corinthians did not speak in known languages, today’s tongue speaking follows the same error. Pastor John MacArthur said, “We know of no authentic, proven cases where any Pentecostal or Charismatic has actually spoken in an identifiable, translatable language.” [15]

IV. Tongues came for a very distinct purpose

  1. The historical purpose for tongues was a sign to unbelievers. [16] As 1 Corinthians 14:22 states, “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers.” Therefore to exercise the gift when unbelievers are not present would be using the gift in a manner other than for which it was intended.
  2. The sign gift of tongues came and was used during the apostolic era for two distinct purposes:
    1. Composition of the Word of God
      1. Contrary to the opinion of many, miracles were not commonplace in the Scripture. For example, the translation of Enoch’s body from earth to heaven (Gen. 5:24) was the only recorded miracle performed by God during the 1,700 years between Adam and the Flood. [17] Sign gifts are only seen in operation as a form of authentication when the Word of God was being composed.
        • For example, on what grounds did the lowly Apostles have credibility to teach the Jews that the venerated ceremonies and laws of Moses instituted 1,500 years ago and contained in the Holy Scriptures are now obsolete (Heb. 8:13)?
      2. It is significant that the overwhelming bulk of recorded miracles occurred when new revelation was given, such as during the times of Moses and Joshua (Dt. 34:10-12), Elijah and Elisha (1 Ki. 17:21-24; 18:36-39) and Jesus and the Apostles (Mk. 16:17; Jn. 6:14; Ac. 4:29-31; Rom. 15:18-19; Heb. 2:3-4).
      3. Jesus said no sign would be given, except the sign of Jonah (Mt. 12:39-40; 16:4), prior to the Resurrection. Yet after Pentecost, the Apostles were given the ability to perform signs (Ac. 2:43; 2 Cor. 12:12) to authenticate their ministry for the infant church as Christ was laying a foundation through them (Eph. 2:20).
      4. Though tongues could edify when interpreted (1 Cor. 14:28), the purpose of tongues was not to reveal God’s truth but to validate the truth of God’s appointed spokesmen. In Acts it was not new insights delivered in tongues but unique expressions of old truths as they spoke “the mighty deeds of God” (Ac. 2:11).
      5. Scripture teaches that we have been given all the signs we need to believe (Jn. 20:30-31). These verses would be inaccurate if we still needed signs and wonders to confirm the preaching of the Gospel.
      6. Now that the foundation of the church is laid and the Scriptures are complete as God’s final revelation to man (Heb. 1:1-2; Rev. 22:18), these apostolic sign gifts are no longer necessary. There is no further court of appeal if one were to deny the message of God’s written Word today (by all means see Luke 16:27-31).
    2. Judgment to unbelieving Israel
      1. In 1 Corinthians 14:22 Paul states that tongues are “a sign…to unbelievers.” This verse comes directly on the heels of verse 21 which is a quotation of Isaiah 28:11-12.
        • The context of Isaiah 28 is a message of judgment on Judah spoken with great simplicity (Isa. 28:13) so the nation would have no excuse. As a consequence for their rejection, God would punish them with an invading army from the North (Assyria). [18] The sign that this judgment was near would be hearing the foreign speech of their conqueror (cf. Jer. 5:15; 4:16; Dt. 28:49;), which was an incomprehensible and heathen language to those who spoke Hebrew.
        • Isaiah 28:11-12 (1 Cor. 14:22) is spoken directly to Israel, “this people.”
        • This prophecy was an historical fact fulfilled nearly eight centuries before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.
      2. Just as tongues were a sign of impending judgment for Israel’s disobedience in the past, again Gentile tongues (languages) would be a sign of judgment on unbelieving Israel for the rejection of their Messiah in the present. As the Jews of old had rejected God’s voice through His prophet Isaiah (Isa. 30:12), the Jews of new (first century Jews) rejected God’s voice through His ultimate prophet, Jesus Christ (Lk. 17:25). Because they refused to hear the voice of God for salvation, He would speak to them through foreign languages in judgment. [19]
        • Paul makes his appeal not to experience but to the Scriptures of the Old Testament (1 Cor. 14:21).
        • God is responding to something peculiarly Jewish—their desire for signs (1 Cor. 1:22; Mt. 12:38-39; 16:1-4; Mk. 8:11; Lk. 11:16-20; Jn. 2:18; 4:28; 6:30-31).
        • In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the Isaiah text not as prophecy but as an illustration of how God uses foreign languages to communicate judgment to Israel.
        • Once a light to the nations (Isa. 42:6), God removed Israel from her special place of favor (Rom. 3:1-2; 9:4) and is now working through the nations to accomplish His divine purposes (Rom. 10:18-21). The church is now God’s lampstand (Phil. 2:15; Rev. 1:12, 20; 2:1, 5). Tongues proved this reality to the Jews.
        • Studying Paul’s tenure in Corinth (recorded in Acts 18) may reveal some evidence as to why this gift was valuable in this Jewish setting. Of all the epistles, it was only mentioned in Corinthians. [20]
        • The only accounts of actual tongue speaking are found in Acts, and as we would expect, all took place outside of the church in the presence of unbelieving Jews. The occasions are very restricted and strategically following the ripple effect as the Gospel fulfilled Acts 1:8 in its progression from “Jerusalem…to the remotest part of the earth”—beginning in a highly Jewish sphere widening to a remotely Jewish sphere. This is seen in each of its three occurrences in these “sign-event” situations. For example:
          • Acts 2 (Pure Jews) – Many pilgrims heard the “mighty deeds of God” spoken in their own language (2:11). After gaining their attention through the gift of tongues (2:12), Peter directed his message to the “men of Israel” (2:22)—the unbelieving Jews who rejected Jesus just weeks earlier (2:23). In his sermon announcing salvation, Peter exhorted the Israelites to flee from the national religion that was under condemnation (2:37-40) and become a spiritual Jew (cf. Rom. 2:29; 9:16; Gal. 6:15; Phil. 3:3). Three thousand responded favorably to the message of Christ (2:41) and devoted themselves to the apostle’s teaching (2:42).
          • Acts 8 (Samaritans – Half Jews) – Though not specifically mentioned, it is possible tongues were exercised here (the question is what Simon “saw” in 8:18) as the Gospel was going to another sphere in fulfillment of Acts 1:8. This is also why the baptism of the Spirit was delayed (8:14-17), so the Apostles could witness for themselves (when they arrived) that God was working outside the Jewish population. (Let us remember this was a monumental change of direction for the Jewish mind). Yet in every other incident when an Apostle was present in Acts, salvation and the baptism of the Spirit happened simultaneously (resembling what we experience today).
          • Acts 10 (God-Fearers – Gentile Converts) – Though the Gospel now entered the realm of Jewish proselytes, these people were ethnic Gentiles. Apart from a vision (10:9-16, 28-29, 34-35), Peter would not have eaten with them, much less considered them equal in Christ. At the Lord’s bidding (10:20) Peter and some of the Jewish brethren (10:23) went to Joppa and shared the message of salvation (10:36-43) with Cornelius, along with his family and close friends (10:24). When the Spirit fell upon these Gentiles, they began to speak in tongues (10:44-46). The Jewish believers were amazed when the gift of the Spirit came upon the Gentiles (10:45). Later, the Jewish brethren in Judea were also amazed when they heard Peter entered a Gentile home (11:2-3). But it was this sign of tongues that affirmed the legitimacy of the Gentiles’ conversion and inclusion in the plan of God. When Peter said, “God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way”(11:17), the Apostles and Jewish brethren (11:1) were convinced and the case was closed (11:18). It is also important to note that the Cornelius experience came eight years after Pentecost, yet Peter could not point to any continuous flow of such an experience when he spoke to the leaders of the Jerusalem churches and explained what happened. After eight years he had to say, “As it was to us in the beginning” (cf. 11:15) and not, “As it is in all the churches.” It was only this comment from Peter that dismissed their highly skeptical attitude (11:18).
          • Acts 19 (Pure Heathens) – Now in the furthest Jewish environment we see tongues for the third and final time in Acts. These twelve Gentile converts from Ephesus (19:1, 7) received an incomplete Gospel (19:2-5). Again, tongues were a sign to the Jews (see 19:8) that God accepted the heathen Gentiles who turned to Christ. The purpose was missionary and evangelistic, and now with the inclusion of the last group, complete.
        • Overall we see the spheres widening (Jews, Samaritans, God-fearers, pagan Gentiles) as each account of tongue speaking fulfills Acts 1:8, the theme verse of this book. Now that the Gospel has reached all ethnic spheres and the Jews are aware of God’s dealings, the sign is no longer necessary and these patterns are not to be repeated.
        • The culmination of God’s judgment upon Israel came when the Romans desecrated and destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D. under General Titus just as Jesus predicted (Lk. 19:44). The Jewish population was dispersed and the message from God was clear.
        • O. Palmer Robertson aptly said, “Tongues served well to show that Christianity, though begun in the cradle of Judaism, was not to be distinctively Jewish… Now that the transition (between the Old and New Covenants) has been made, the sign of transition has no abiding value in the life of the church.” He went on to say, “Today there is no need for a sign to show that God is moving from the single nation of Israel to all the nations. That movement has become an accomplished fact. As in the case of the founding office of Apostle, so the particularly transitional gift of tongues has fulfilled its function as covenantal sign for the Old and New Covenant people of God. Once having fulfilled that role, it has no further function among the people of God” [21]

V. We are already complete in Christ

  1. Most proponents of tongues argue that the gift brings with it additional empowerment believing it to be evidence they have now received the fullness or second baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some will even go so far as to say that speaking in tongues is the proof of salvation. So should we be waiting and praying for this gift, or do we receive all that God has for us the moment we trust Christ?
    1. The Bible indicates that we have all that we need to serve God and enjoy Him fully immediately after salvation. Christ is sufficient! We do not need “something more” to achieve higher spirituality, security or excitement.
      1. “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete” (Col. 2:9-10a).
      2. “For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace” (Jn. 1:16).
      3. “Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Pet. 1:2-3).
      4. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).
    2. If speaking in tongues is so important to spiritual living, why does Scripture devote so little attention to them?
    3. Tongues are not a mark of mature spirituality.
      1. Jesus is our perfect example of true spirituality (1 Pet. 1:21; 1 Jn. 2:6). There is no record of His emphasizing or practicing tongues.
      2. John the Baptist was “great in the sight of the Lord and…filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb” (Lk. 1:15). At one point in his ministry he was even compared to Christ (Jn. 1:25). Yet it is said that he “performed no sign” (Jn. 10:41).
      3. When called to select godly men for the office of elder and deacon, there is no indication that one must speak in tongues to be accepted for these positions of church leadership (Ac. 6:3; 1 Tim. 3:1-13; Tit. 1:5-9).
      4. The Corinthian church that advocated and abused the use of tongues had all the gifts (1 Cor. 1:5, 7) and is a negative example as they were probably the most immature and unspiritual church in all of the New Testament (1 Cor. 3:1-3; 14:20).
      5. There is not a single biblical reference that calls us to seek the gift of tongues. The Bible teaches us that all spiritual gifts are given according to the sovereign will of God (1 Cor. 12:11, 18, 28). Maturity is not evidenced by the gifts we have been given, but rather by discovering our gifts, developing our gifts and using our gifts with gratefulness in the context of love (1 Cor. 13) and edification (1 Cor. 14).
    4. Fullness of the Holy Sprit is not measured by the gift of tongues.
      1. In 1 Corinthians Paul made it clear that “all do not speak with tongues” (1 Cor. 12:30), but he also said to these same folks that “by one Spirit (they) were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13) thereby demonstrating that tongues cannot be the proof or evidence for baptism of the Spirit.
      2. Though we are all equally baptized by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13) and equally indwelt by the Spirit (Rom. 8:9) at conversion, which is an indication of salvation (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13-14), the fullness of the Spirit can fluctuate based upon the measure to which we yield to the Spirit who is already there. According to the Bible, the fullness of the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) is measured not by tongues but rather by edifying fellowship, praise to God, thankful hearts, honoring Jesus, right marriage and parental relationships and faithful service at the workplace (Eph. 5:19-6:9). In Acts we see those who are filled with the Spirit moved to present a bold proclamation of the Gospel (Ac. 4:31; 13:9-11). [22]
      3. When we are filled with the Spirit, the Scriptures reveal that we will bring forth the fruit of the Sprit and not the gifts of the Spirit. “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23). Notice carefully how tongues are absent from this list.
      4. Nowhere does the Bible teach us to seek the baptism of the Spirit.
    5. This attitude of creating a deficiency breeds a divisive spirit within the church (1 Cor. 12:25; cf. Jas. 2:4). As witnessed within the Corinthian church, elevating one gift above the others and creating a caste system between the “have’s” and the “have not’s” is the perfect recipe for coveting, factions and spiritual pride, all of which are counterproductive to the oneness we have and are to demonstrate in Christ (Jn. 17:11, 21-23; 1 Cor. 12:12; Eph. 2:16).

VI. There is no biblical warrant for praying in tongues

  1. A look at 1 Corinthians 13:1: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.”
    1. There is no biblical evidence of a special language for angels. Of the few records we do have of their speaking (Isa. 6; Zech. 1; Mt. 28; Lk. 1-2; Ac. 10-12), they always speak in a language understood by the people they were addressing. Furthermore, considering the diversity of tongue speaking that we hear today, how can we say it represents a unified angelic communication?
    2. According to the grammatical construction of the three opening verses in chapter 13:
      1. Paul is employing hypothetical statements (“if” ean—a third class condition used for the purpose of argument). His thoughts are in the subjunctive mood (the mood of unreality). In effect Paul is saying, "If I were to speak with the tongues of men and angels." It is clear Paul did not experience all these realities such as knowing all mysteries (13:2) and giving his body to be burned (13:3).
      2. We must realize a figure of speech called “hyperbole” is used by the Apostle (not unlike our Lord – Mt. 17:20) to create greater rhetorical force. In an effort to prove his case, Paul extended the grandest thoughts possible to their furthest possible expression to magnify their inferiority when done without love. These expressions are intended to be exaggerations, not realities. For example, who could claim to “know all mysteries and all knowledge” or “remove mountains” (13:2)?
      3. The Greek Corinthian church worshipped gifted and eloquent orators (cf. 1:17; 2:1, 4). Paul plays on their fascination to show that “even if” they were to speak all the language of men and angels, without love, it would be utterly useless (13:1).
      4. We miss Paul’s point when we try to advocate these figures of speech and miss his literary efforts to emphasize the priority of love. The Corinthians were taken beyond the elite status they thought they had obtained to show that without love they were nothing!
    3. Even if there were “tongues…of angels” (13:1) that we were to imitate, it certainly would not be normative when we compare it to the other extreme and unusual situations mentioned in verses 1-3.
  2. A look at Roman 8:26: “And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.”
    1. The context of this passage is not euphoric prayer but suffering. Prayer is particularly difficult during times of suffering as we: need wisdom, require composure, desire relief, and seldom wish to remain under the trial. Therefore it is especially necessary for the Spirit to help us during these times of supplication. The word for “groanings” (stenagmos) is only used in Acts 7:34, again in the context of oppression and suffering.
    2. The verse indicates that it is the Holy Spirit making the intercession or groanings, not us. He is doing it for us, not through us.
    3. Also, the Spirit is interceding with groanings that cannot be uttered (alaletos – “not speak”). The very essence of speaking in tongues is uttering audible sounds.
  3. A look at 1 Corinthians 14.
    1. The overall context of this epistle indicates that this is a corrective letter. There are extremely few commendations (i.e. 11:2; cf. 11:17, 22) and a considerable number of rebukes for their selfish, immoral and arrogant behavior (i.e. 1:10; 5:1; 6:7, 15; 7:5, 12; 8:12; 11:17; 15:12; 16:10). [23] It seems this church practiced almost every deed of the flesh and hardly any fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:19-23). The Corinthian church must not be elevated to a positive example. [24]
    2. The section on spiritual gifts (chapters 12-14) begins by addressing the former paganism that they were bringing into the church (12:2), even to the point of cursing Jesus and attributing it to the Holy Spirit (12:3). These three chapters as a whole rebuke their self-focused misuse of tongues. Praying in tongues violates the context, as it is not for the benefit of the body (chapter 12), an expression of love (chapter 13) or for edification of the church (chapter 14). [25]
    3. Often the specific verses in chapter 14 that are misinterpreted and used to justify “praying in tongues” totally ignore the context in which they were delivered. This chapter does not advocate or promote the use of tongues but rather dethrones tongues (14:2-5, 19) and seeks to persuade the church about how incorrectly they were pursuing the gift. The context is public worship, not private tongues or individual worship as many have suggested (14:4, 5, 13-19; cf. Ac. 2:11; 10:46). A closer examination of these select verses follows: [26]
      1. 1 Corinthians 14:2a – “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men, but to God; for no one understands.”
        • Again it must be remembered that Paul is criticizing the Corinthian church for their self-gratification, not advocating a personal prayer language of tongues. Context demands condemnation, not confirmation. “It is simply bad exegesis to take a passage where Paul is correcting an abuse in the public worship service and turn it into an excursus on private devotional prayer. Such a thought was not at all in the apostle’s mind” [27]
        • Some argue that since Paul omitted the definite article, this verse could be translated “a god” (cf. Ac. 17:23).
        • Others claim that Paul was simply pointing out the futility of using a spiritual gift for “God’s benefit” since He gives us the gifts for “one another” (1 Pet. 4:10) and the “common good” (12:7). Paul’s point, “The goal is mutual edification, but no one is understanding you except God!”
        • There is no biblical record of believers speaking to God in anything but a normal, intelligible language with simplicity and clarity. Observe the “model prayer” given to us by our Lord in Matthew 6:9-13. Observe how Jesus Himself prayed in John 17:1-26.
        • The purpose of speaking in tongues is mentioned in chapter 14 and a private prayer language contradicts both injunctions to provide a sign for unbelievers (14:22) and to edify others in the church (14:5, 9, 26-28).
      2. 1 Corinthians 14:2b – “In his spirit he speaks mysteries.”
        • Paul’s goal is to emphasize the worthlessness of uninterrupted tongues as compared to prophecy as they provide no edification, exhortation or encouragement. He is not advocating a second type of tongues to be used in prayer.
        • “Mysteries” were associated with Corinthian pagan roots in the mystery religions. While biblical mysteries are revelations of things previously hidden by God (Eph. 3:9; 6:19; Col. 4:3), these “mysteries” were unknown truths that supposedly only the esteemed elite were privileged to understand. God reveals biblical mysteries (Rev. 1:20) to us through an Apostle (Rom. 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3-4; 5:32; Col. 1:26-27; 2:2; 1 Ti. 3:16). He does not have us speak mysteries to Him similar to the demands of pagan deities.
      3. 1 Corinthians 14:4a – “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” [28]
        • Again, Paul is not validating the gift for personal use but condemning the abuse of the gift for violating its intended purpose for the common good (12:7). The Corinthians were also disregarding the principle of love, which “does not seek its own” (13:5) and “does not brag” (13:4 – “Look at me, I can speak mysteries to God!”). His point is that while they were seeking self-satisfaction in the corporate assembly, the entire church was deprived of edification (see the remainder of 14:4). The only thing they were building up was their own egos.
        • Compare his line of reasoning here with 11:21. Are we to say that Paul advocated selfish eating and drunkenness in those verses? Of course not!
        • Paul is basically using sarcasm to deride this church that already thought themselves superior to the other churches and even to Paul himself (see 1 Cor. 4:7-10).
      4. 1 Corinthians 14:14a – “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays.”
        • This verse is not supporting prayer languages disconnected from the intellect. Paul counters that flawed perception in the remainder of the verse: “but my mind is unfruitful” (14:14b). Even the following verse adds additional support and correction: “What is the outcome then? I shall pray with the spirit and I shall pray with the mind also; I shall sing with the spirit and I shall sing with the mind also” (14:15).
        • Far from supporting mindless prayer in the public worship gathering, Paul explains its uselessness in the following verses: “Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the ‘Amen’ at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying” (14:16)? Once again, the goal is edification (14:17), which happens not through ecstatic babble but through divine revelation (14:5).
        • Someone might object and claim that there are two types of tongues, one for public edification and one for private edification. While this popular opinion cannot be supported within this text, we beg to ask the question: “If an individual could be edified without understanding, then why not a whole group of believers?”
        • To disengage the mind is one of the primary characteristics of pagan religions.
        • God has directed “true worshippers” to approach Him in “spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:23-24). Both soul and mind should be joined together. Spirituality surely involves more than the mind, but it certainly never excludes the mind (Mt. 22:37). God desires a rational, interpersonal relationship! It has never been His intention to be addressed in a speech incomprehensible to the speaker. According to every Scriptural reference regarding prayer, there is not one statement, command, or intimation to the contrary. Only the carnal Corinthian Christians are mentioned as pursuing this method.
        • Prayer not processed through our intellect is unprofitable. Therefore, the more we pray in tongues, the less true prayer we are offering to God. Even Paul said he would “desire to speak five words with my mind…than ten thousand words in a tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19). [29]
        • Subjectivism of this sort sets us up for spiritual perversion that ranges from sheer laziness to outright blasphemy (1 Cor. 12:3).
      5. 1 Corinthians 14:18 – “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.”
        • Paul did not condemn the true gift of tongues. He had more experience than all of the Corinthian church, yet there is not any record of a single instance in Acts or any of his letters that mentions how he used the gift.
        • The point he makes here is that “in the church” (14:19) he restricted its use. Even all the examples in the book of Acts are outside the public assembly of believers. The implication is not that Paul used tongues outside the church in public devotions but that they were used as an apostolic sign gift on his missionary endeavors.
  4. Additional support and review for the nonexistence of praying in tongues:
    1. Spiritual gifts are for the benefit of others (1 Cor. 12:7; Eph. 4:12; 1 Pet. 4:10). They are intended to be vehicles for Christ to minister to His church. In all the biblical accounts, they are never intended for personal benefit. The Corinthian church was rebuked for adopting such an attitude (1 Cor. 12-14).
    2. The word “unknown” (preceding “tongues”) that is found six times in 1 Corinthians 14 in the King James Version was not included in the original Greek text. It is a clarification word supplied by translators hundreds of years ago, now omitted in modern English translations.
    3. Championing prayer tongues is a biblically nonexistent viewpoint. There is no record of anyone praying in tongues nor are we called in the Bible to seek or employ this “gift.” Tongues were always public and prayers were always intelligible.
    4. The Bible is clear that the original gift of tongues was a human language (see point III). There is no warrant to assume there is a second gift of tongues by reading the accounts in 1 Corinthians (and comparing it with Acts). If Paul were switching to a personal prayer language after describing this gift in a public assembly and stating its purpose as a sign to unbelievers, we should expect some sort of a transition indicating the change. [30]
    5. Tongues were always called to be understandable, either directly (Ac. 2:6) or through an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27).
    6. Does God need this inarticulate speech to hear us? God knows what we need before we ask (Mt. 6:8), and we would not know what we were praying for if we asked in gibberish (remember, one purpose of prayer is that prayer changes us!). So who is benefiting when we pray in tongues?
    7. In Matthew 6:7 Jesus specifically forbids thoughtless, repetitive and meaningless prayer—three aspects that commonly characterize praying in tongues. The Greek word battalogeo translated “vain/meaningless repetitions” in this verse means “to babble” or “to speak babble.”[31] If praying in tongues were a legitimate spiritual gift, would Jesus forbid it?
    8. The Bible says, “Tongues…will cease” (1 Cor.13:8). If tongues truly is a “heavenly language” or “angelic speech” or “celestial communication,” why would it cease when we get to heaven? Does all heaven stop speaking like this when we arrive? Would it not be most appropriate in order to praise the Lord like the angels when we get to our celestial home?
    9. People often encourage others to pray in tongues, but the Bible says the spiritual gifts are sovereignly given by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11). Furthermore, the Bible itself claims, “All do not speak with tongues” (1 Cor. 12:30).
    10. Praying in tongues is a slight on the great saints of the church. They never did it, and they dismissed it for almost 2,000 years. Are modern Charismatics closer to God or more empowered than men such as Luther, Calvin and Edwards?
    11. Is this a new outpouring of the Spirit at the end of the age? According to the Bible, the three specific passages addressing signs and wonders at the end of the age clearly state that these miracles are not of God. They are a deception masterminded by Satan as he masquerades as an angel of light (Mt. 24:24; 2 Thes, 2:8-10; Rev. 13:12-14).
    12. Finally, and it is worth the overemphasis, the purpose of using our spiritual gifts is for the edification of others. “So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church” (1 Cor. 14:12). Does ecstatic babble accomplish anything edifying for others (1 Cor. 14:6)?
      1. How can one give the “Amen” if he does not know what you are saying (14:16)? If I said, “Eulogetos ho Theos kai pater tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou,” I would not expect an “Amen” as you do not understand what I am saying. However if I translate these Greek words, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” you find agreement and edification.
      2. Inflated emphasis on prayer tongues divides the church between the “have’s” and “have not’s.” If prayer tongues are so special, what does it say to those who have not been given the gift (1 Cor. 12:30)? Are their gifts inferior (1 Cor, 12:14-26)? Do they not need the same edification as the one who possesses the gift?
      3. This is why Paul rebuked the Corinthians because of their appetite for emotional experience and personal fulfillment. They selfishly chose edifying themselves over edifying the church. They chose a lazy substitute for true spirituality. May we not fall into the same trap!

VII. The gift of tongues (If it were still present) is misused today

  1. Because of the abuses occurring in the church at Corinth, Paul needed to attach some regulations to the use of the gift. [32] Rarely are these biblical constraints and commands (14:37) followed today. [33]
    1. If the gift is used in the church it must be translated (14:27-28). If no interpreter is present, the speaker must keep silent! It is implied that the speaker should know in advance whether or not an interpreter is available. Furthermore, only “one” interpreter may be used, and this person must be someone other than the tongues speaker himself.
    2. Only three at the most may speak in tongues in a given service (14:27). Entire congregations speaking and praying in tongues is specifically forbidden.
    3. Each person must speak in sequence (14:27). It is hard enough to listen to one person speaking a foreign language. Undeniably, more than one at a time would only add to the chaos and failure to edify (14:26).
    4. Though it is difficult to reconstruct this Corinthian environment, it appears women are to remain silent and not speak in tongues (14:34-35). Realizing how “politically incorrect” this statement might be, Paul says that protests only reveal ones conceit (14:36), unspirituality (14:37) and rebellion (14:38). Only men are recorded as speaking in tongues in the book of Acts.
  2. In the contemporary church, it is common to find an absence of self-control both in body movement and verbal utterance. This only precipitates a disorderly and disorganized environment. Being “carried away” is reflective of the pagan religions and is not indicative of the Holy Spirit who brings “self-control” (Gal. 5:23). Paul rebuked the Corinthians for this behavior, reminding them “God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:33). A few verses later he said, “But let all things be done properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Cor. 14:40).
  3. The use of tongues was intended to be very limited and restricted within the church (1 Cor. 14:18-19). As a matter of fact, all other biblical occurrences of the miraculous gifts are exercised outside the church, with the exception of Eutychus (Ac. 20:9), and that was more of an interruption. Tongues in biblical times were spoken in the context of a Gospel presentation to unbelievers.
  4. We are never told to pursue this gift. Every account in the book of Acts witnesses speaking in tongues coming in an unexpected way as a sovereign act of God at His appointed time. At its inception, those at Pentecost were “waiting” (Ac. 1:4) and “sitting” (Ac. 2:2) when the gift “suddenly” (Ac. 2:2) came upon them (see point IV).
  5. Elevating this gift and dividing believers between those with and without the gift is extremely destructive to the church and contradictory to the unity and oneness we should share in Christ. We must not grade the gifts according to human standards (see point four).
  6. Why are people taught how to use this gift in Pentecostal circles? Is that really miraculous and supernatural? According to Acts 2:4 it is the Spirit that gives utterance. The Apostles were never given instruction, for we only observe them speaking spontaneously and without any prompting and preparation. Even the Ephesian disciples immediately spoke in tongues, without any prior understanding of the gift, when “the Holy Spirit came on them” (Ac. 19:6).
  7. Though God in His providence may enable an evangelist to speak miraculously a foreign language to aid him or her on the mission field, this is not necessarily the sign gift of tongues as described in the Bible.
    1. In Acts, the disciples were speaking in tongues before the crowd (the pilgrims from the other nations) gathered (Ac. 2:4-6).
    2. The crowd that gathered at Pentecost did not need to hear Peter in their own language to understand. They clearly understood Peter when he delivered his sermon in one language (probably Aramaic).
    3. It was through Peter’s sermon in one language that they understood and were convicted (Ac. 2:14-40).
    4. Overall, tongues were not evangelistic but a sign to the people.

VIII. The gift of tongues ceased in the Apostolic era

  1. As it has been underscored within this study, tongues came for a specific purpose in God’s redemptive history. Tongues were for a sign, not to Christians, but to unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22), specifically Israel (1 Cor. 14:21). Once the sign was clearly presented to Israel and the Temple was destroyed as predicted (Lk. 21:20, 24), transition to the New Covenant was complete. Tongues had fulfilled its role. Now a sign was no longer needed a sign to show that God was moving from one nation to all the nations. As a general rule, signs are obsolete once the reality has arrived. So today, as well, this first century spiritual gift, would be (and is!) superfluous [34]
  2. Tongues are not mentioned in any biblical book after 1 Corinthians was written in approximately AD 58. [35] While many biblical books were being composed until roughly AD 96, tongues (or miracles for that matter) were not mentioned. Almost forty years of silence continued through the post-apostolic church. Even ill people, spoken of in these books, were not recorded to have been healed through the gift of healing (2 Tim. 4:20; Phil. 2:25-27; 1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Cor. 12:7-10; Jas. 5:14-15). When John, the last living Apostle died, the sign gifts that had identified the Apostles became moot as their purpose was completed (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12).
  3. Throughout biblical history the sign gifts came with the reception of new revelation. Now that the canon is complete, there is no longer any need for these spiritual manifestations to authenticate the author.
  4. Church history gives evidence that the gift of tongues came to an end during the apostolic era. [36]
    1. Origen (185-254 A.D.) – “Moreover the Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry and after His ascension He gave still more, but since that time these signs have diminished.” [37]
    2. Chrysostom (349-407 A.D.) – “This whole place is very obscure (sign gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12), but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place.” [38]
    3. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) – “In the earliest times ‘the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed and they spoke with tongues,’ which they had not learned, ‘as the Spirit gave them utterance.’ These were signs adapted to the time for there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening and it passed away.” [39]
    4. Historian Cleon Rogers said, “It is significant that the gift of tongues is nowhere alluded to, hinted at or even found in the Apostolic Fathers.” [40]
    5. For nearly 1,800 years the only recorded instances of tongues speakers were in isolated sects that were heretical, fanatical and unorthodox. It was not until the twentieth century that speaking in tongues returned and was accepted by the mainline denominations.
  5. In 1 Corinthians 13:8 the Bible says tongues will cease.
    1. This means they will cease permanently. In other words, when they cease they will never start up again.
    2. Tongues will cease in and of themselves (pauo - middle voice). While “the perfect” will stop prophecy and knowledge, [41] tongues will just end by themselves when they are no longer needed. Since verse 9 omits any reference to tongues, it would appear that tongues would cease before the removal of prophecy and knowledge.
    3. If an absence of tongues for 1,800 years is not “ceasing,” it is difficult to imagine what else could qualify.
    4. New Testament scholar Thomas R. Edgar concluded, “Since these gifts and signs did cease, the burden of proof is entirely on the charismatics to prove their validity. Too long Christians have assumed that the noncharismatics must produce incontestable biblical evidence that the miraculous gifts did cease. However, noncharismatics have no burden to prove this, since it has already been proved by history… In other words they must prove that their experiences are the reoccurrence of gifts that have not occurred for almost 1,900 years.” [42]
  6. Overall, the Bible, theology and history all say that tongues ceased with the Apostles. [43]

IX. Tongues speakers must be open to the possibility of deception

  1. We must remember:
    1. Scripture repeatedly warns us about the possibility of deception (Jer. 29:8; Mt. 24:4; Eph. 4:14; Col. 2:8, 18; 2 Thes. 2:3; 2 Pet. 2:1-3). We would be wise to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4:1) and take these warnings seriously.
    2. We should be skeptical toward new theology “missed” or rejected by the great theologians throughout church history. [44]
    3. Unbelievers can do signs and wonders (2 Chron. 18:21; Mt. 7:22; Ac. 16:16).
    4. Satan makes it his ambition to counterfeit truth (2 Cor. 11:13-15) and oppose God’s Word (Gen. 3:1; Mt. 4:1-4). There is no biblical evidence that there will be a reoccurrence of the sign gifts near the end of the church age. On the contrary, as it was spoken of earlier, there will be a rise of false signs in the latter days inspired by Satan (Mt. 24:24; 2 Thes, 2:8-10; Rev. 13:12-14) in an effort to deceive the people as he masquerades as an angel of light. We must deeply consider this haunting reality: Are people presently being primed to follow the signs of the antichrist?
  2. We must remember:
    1. Feelings, apart from the Word of God, are a poor source of truth.
      1. “The heart is more deceitful than all else” (Jer. 17:9).
      2. With great confidence, Peter rebuked the Lord for His desire to go up to Jerusalem, only to immediately hear Christ’s reply, “Get behind Me Satan” (Mat. 16:21f).
    2. Popular experience proves nothing. Experience does not guarantee truth. The argument goes like this: “I have had the experience of speaking in tongues; I find this experience in the New Testament; therefore my experience is true.”
      1. If we are to go by experience, what about the many testimonies of former tongue speakers who said they did not enjoy genuine satisfaction, power and peace until they came out of the tongues movement? What about the many false religious systems outside of Christ (The Way, Wizards, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Tibetan Monks, Buddhists, Spiritualists and the Occult) who also commonly practice speaking in tongues?
      2. Truth must judge experience and experience must express truth. Experience is never the basis for truth. True Christian philosophy always moves from truth to experience. The subjectivity of experience is always subordinate to the objectivity of truth found in Scripture (Jn. 17:17).
      3. Peter, though he experienced the transfigured Christ and spoke of it in 2 Peter 1:17-18, in the very next verse said, “We have the prophetic word made more sure.” Even the Apostle’s experience was secondary to the Word of God!
  3. We must remember:
    1. The test of any work of Christ is to ascertain if the results are God honoring. Is the Pentecostal movement producing spiritually mature believers who are better-informed theologians?
      1. Is it right to exalt the Holy Spirit over Christ? Jesus taught that the Holy Spirit glorifies Him (Jn. 16:7, 13, 14). It is wrong to think that once we receive Christ we must now receive the Holy Spirit and elevate Him as the focal point in church activity.
      2. Is it right to lose voluntary control or slip into a state where one is consciously detached from his or her surroundings? Tongue speakers are often told to “release themselves” and give up control of their bodies. Though they are told not to think about what they are saying, we must bear in mind that the fruit of the Spirit is self-control (Gal. 5:23).
      3. Is it right to manufacture an artificial caste system within the church that pressures believers to belong, to perform or to pursue the same gifts? Pastor and former tongue speaker George Gardiner remarked, “Eventually there is a crisis and a decision is made; he will sit on the back seats and be a spectator, ‘fake-it,’ or go on in the hope that everything will eventually be as it was. The most tragic decision is to quit and in the quitting abandon all things spiritual as fraudulent. The spectators are frustrated, the fakers suffer guilt, the hoping are pitiable and the quitters are a tragedy. No, such movements are not harmless!” [45]
      4. Is it right to misuse spiritual gifts to produce an emotional high and stimulation of the flesh that is psychologically addictive? Quoting George Gardiner again, “So the seeker for experience goes back through the ritual again and again, but begins to discover something: Ecstatic experience, like drug-addiction, requires larger and larger doses to satisfy. Sometimes the bizarre is introduced…as the “high” sought (becomes) more elusive.” [46]
      5. Is it right to elevate the gifts of the Spirit over the fruit of the Spirit as an indication of mature spirituality? As former charismatic Ben Byrd once said, “To equate speaking in tongues with advanced spirituality is to reveal one’s misunderstanding of Bible Truth and to reveal one’s willingness to be satisfied with a deceptive and dangerous counterfeit.” [47]

X. Conclusion

  1. With the exception of a distinct few, most would agree that the miraculous gifts are not distributed or practiced as they were in the early church. [48] To some extent all of us are Cessationists. The only question is where we are personally prepared to draw the line? Here is where we must place our feelings and experience aside, objectively examine the Scriptures and be willing to go where the evidence leads. Consequently, I am persuaded that the gift of tongues as it was practiced in the Bible ceased shortly after the apostolic era.
  2. If tongues have ceased, what is happening today? I am not, as others often are, fully prepared to attribute this new movement to the work of the evil one. I personally believe these dear brothers and sisters in Christ (most of them) are intent on serving the Lord, just misguided in their direction. I believe spiritual experience and spiritual expression is the driving force that led to the resurgence of tongue speaking in recent years to counter the dead orthodoxy that has pervaded many churches. Yet, the pendulum has swung too far and resulted in a learned behavior that is psychologically induced.
  3. Too many Christians today have become sympathetic and accepting of the unbiblical actions that are occurring within the church. Very few are calling for a critical examination. Yet as Christians, we are called to maintain the biblical purity of the church and address these errors with patience and loving concern. Much of what is happening today is far from harmless.
  4. Finally, I plead with those who may disagree with my overall conclusion to read this paper carefully and prayerfully consider the observations brought forth. Please do not dismiss the entirety of this work because of an emotional reaction or an error(s) that has no bearing on the general findings. I pray this issue will not divide true believers but call us to be faithful “Bereans” in our study of Scripture (Jn. 8:31-32).


Bibliography

Boice, James Montgomery. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997.

Byrd, Ben. The Truth About Speaking in Tongues. Columbus GA: Brentwood, 1988.

Burgess, Stanley M., Gary B. McGee, and Patrick H. Alexander, eds. Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Day, Lorraine. Speaking in Tongues (Glossolalia). <http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/speakingtongues.htm>.

Edgar, Thomas R. “The Cessation of the Sign Gifts,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122, (Oct.-Dec. 1988).

Gardiner, George. The Corinthian Catastrophe. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1974.

Gromacki, Robert G. The Modern Tongues Movement. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971.

Hayden, Dan. The Gift of Tongues. Audio Cassettes. Sola Scriptura.

Lenski, C.H. The Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

MacArthur, John. Charismatic Chaos. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

MacArthur, John. Acts. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

MacArthur, John. 1 Corinthians. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

MacArthur, John. The Gift of Tongues, Sermon. Grace Community Church.

Napier, John. Charismatic Challenge. Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 2003.

Robertson, O. Palmer, Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing. The Westminster Theological Journal 38 (Fall 1975-Spring 1976).

Powell, Charles E. Questions Cessationists Should Ask: A Biblical Examination of Cessationism. Biblical Studies Press, 1997.

Rogers, Cleon L. “The Gift of Tongues in the Post-Apostolic Church,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122, (April-June 1965).

Samarin, William J. Tongues of Men and Angels. New York: Macmillan, 1972.

Schwertley, Brian. Pentecost and the Coming of the Holy Spirit. 2004. <http://www.entrewave.com/view/reformedonline/Pentecost,%20part%205.htm>.

Schwertley, Brian. Tongues Have Ceased. <http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/heresies/tongues-have-ceased.htm>.

Schaff, Philip. ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.

Smith, Chuck. Living Water. Santa Ana, CA: The Word for Today, 2001.

Speaking in Tongues. Biblical Discernment Ministries. Mar. 1998. <http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/char/speaking.htm>.

Speaking in Tongues: False Fire From Heaven. <http://www.speaking-in-tongues.org>.

Strauss, Lehman, Speaking in Tongues. <http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=393>.

The Gift of Tongues. <http://www.biblicahttp://www.biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/gift_of_tongues.html>.

Unger, Merrill. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. Kregel Publications, 1971.

What is Praying in Tongues? <http://www.gotquestions.org/praying-in-tongues.html>.

What is the Gift of Speaking in Tongues? <http://www.gotquestions.org/gift-of-tongues.html>.

Zaspel, Fred. The Gift of Tongues, Word of Life Baptist Church, 1987. <http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/spiritualgifts/ch18.htm>.

Zerhusen, Robert. A New Look at Tongues, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996.<http://alliancenet.org>.



Endnotes


[1] Zaspel, The Gift of Tongues.

[2] John Wycliffe once said, “The true Christian was intended by Christ to prove all things by the Word of God—All churches, all ministers, all teaching, all preaching, all doctrines, all sermons, all writings, all opinions, all practices. These are his marching orders. Prove all by the Word of God; measure all by the measure of the Bible; compare all with the standard of the Bible; weigh all in the balances of the Bible; examine all by the light of the Bible; test all in the crucible of the Bible. That which cannot abide the fire of the Bible, reject, refuse, repudiate, and cast away. This is the flag which he nailed to the mast. May it never be lowered!”

[3] Some of these doctrines include: the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the Resurrection, justification by faith and the Second Coming.

[4] Strauss, Speaking in Tongues.

[5] The mention of tongues not appearing in the Old Testament is simply an observation, not any attempt to make a point. Even most its supporters would claim tongues is a gift to the church.

[6] Based on a grammatical and contextual study that takes into account the textual and historic context, I believe this is the correct rendering of this verse. Furthermore, why should we seek gifts when we are told the Spirit distributes gifts “to each one individually just as He wills” (1 Cor. 12:11).

[7] “We…see that what Paul describes here refers to foreign languages. The speaker uses his ‘voice’ when he is speaking the language that is incomprehensible to Paul. The term ‘barbarian’ settles the point regarding the ‘voice’ that is used in speaking a foreign language and thus also in the analogous case when a member of the church similarly uses his voice in speaking with tongues (foreign human language)” (Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 588).

[8] Nida, Eugene A, (Quoted in: Hayden, The Gift of Tongues).

[9] Larsen, Donald, (Quoted in Hayden, The Gift of Tongues).

[10] Glossolalia comes from the Greek words glossa (tongue/language) and laleo (to speak). Technically it refers to speaking unintelligible utterances claimed to be an unknown mystical language. Xenoglossia (xenos-foreign, glossa-tongue/language) refers to the spontaneous ability to speak a foreign language without first having learned it.

[11] Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels, p. 227

[12] Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, p. 340

[13] Quoted in: Speaking in Tongues: False Fire from Heaven. Originally this quote was published in the Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987.

[14] Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement, p. 64

[15] MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos, p. 291.

[16] Former Pentecostal, George Gardiner said, “What consternation that verse caused me the first time I really saw it. I had been taught that tongues was a sign to Believers that the Holy Spirit was so controlling that even the tongue was subject to Him. Then I saw this verse, “tongues are for a sign NOT to them that believe, but to them that believe not” (Corinthian Catastrophe, p. 39).

[17] Depending on how one defines a miracle; a few other miracles during this time span could be cited as well.

[18] About fifteen years before Isaiah’s prophecy to Judah, the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 A.D.

[19] Understanding that tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (1 Cor. 14:21-22) helps us make sense of 1 Cor. 14:23. The Jew would know the prophets and recognize the sign gift whereas the pagan Gentile in Corinth would hear the gibberish or true gift uninterrupted and think the people were crazy. God saves unbelievers through the clear proclamation of His Word (1 Cor. 1:21).

[20] According to Acts 18, the Jews rejected the Gospel, but those who did believe left the synagogue with Paul, including chief Rabbi (Crispus). They began meeting right next door at the house of Titius Justus. It’s easy to imagine the Jews flowing from one location to the other. Possibly there was a conversion of the second synagogue leader (Sosthenes) (cf. Ac. 18:17; 1 Cor. 1:1). It is estimated that Paul stayed 2 years in Corinth (Ac. 18:23). Many unbelieving Jews were in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 14:22-25). This also possibly explains why the sign gift, though limited and necessary to interpret, was permitted within the Corinthians church.

[21] Robertson, Tongues: Sign of Covenantal Curse and Blessing, p. 53

[22] Someone will be quick to cite Acts 2:4, “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues.” Yet we must remember this was a unique situation that came during a monumental point in church history. It was the initial New Covenant coming of the Spirit and strategic opportunity to present a sign gift to the Jews for validation and judgment. This was a rare occasion where tongues accompanied being filled with the Spirit (cf. Ac. 4:8, 31; 6:5; 7:55; 9:17; 13:9). In Eph. 5:18 Paul commands us to be filled with the Spirit, but the verses that follow that text do not indicate tongues as being a result.

[23] It appears that there was little improvement after Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthian church (see 2 Cor. 11:3; 13:5 and Clement’s letter to the church). Despite receiving the best teaching (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4-6), they were a failure. History teaches us that this church would later die with the city.

[24] As John MacArthur once said, “How could a congregation so worldly, opinionated, selfish, cliquish, envious, jealous, divisive, argumentative, arrogant, disorderly, defrauding, inconsiderate, gluttonous, immoral and desecrative of the Lord’s Supper exercise the gifts of the Spirit?” (1 Corinthians, p. 370).

[25] The theme of chapter 14 is definitely edification. The word is found ten times in the Bible and seven of them are right here in 1 Corinthians 14.

[26] John MacArthur suggested, “It is an interpretative key to this chapter to note that in verses 2 and 4 tongue is singular (cf. vv. 13, 14, 19, 27), whereas in verse 5 Paul uses the plural tongues (cf. vv. 6, 18, 22, 23, 39). Apparently the Apostle used the singular form to indicate the counterfeit gift [as there is not a variety of “gibberishes”] and the plural to indicate the true [as there are a variety of languages] (1 Corinthians, p. 373).

[27] Schwertley, Pentecost and the Coming of the Holy Spirit.

[28] Here is an example of how this verse is misinterpreted: “Tongues is the only gift of God that edifies you personally and individually. All of the other gifts serve to edify the church and build up the body. But this one gift was given to build you up, to strengthen you” (Smith, Living Water, p. 180).

[29] It is interesting that when Paul said, “ten thousand” (murios) he referred to the highest number for which the Greeks had an expression. In Revelation 5:11 we see murias used to refer to the “myriads and myriads” of angels.” The word was a limitless expression, an inestimable number.

[30] Chuck Smith, founder of the Calvary Church network and no advocate of cessationism said, “Those who espouse two types of tongues could be right, but their argument must be made by reading into the text rather than by letting the text speak for itself” (Living Water, p. 178).

[31] This translation is used in the NIV and supported by Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the New Testament) and A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament).

[32] The gift was not meant for the church, but because it was happening in the church at Corinth it was necessary to have it strictly controlled and highly regulated (14:26-40).

[33] Even when the gift of tongues was operational, abuse of these principles would be times it should be forbidden (1 Cor. 14:39b).

[34] For example, if I am driving down a highway and looking for a specific town, signs would alert me to its upcoming presence. At incremental points different signs would indicate that I was approaching the desired location. However, once I arrive at my destination, there is no longer any need for a sign. Moreover, if my journey goes beyond this destination, signs for the previous town would be superfluous.

[35] 1 Corinthians was an early New Testament book. At the time of its writing, there were probably only six of the twenty-seven books in existence.

[36] I would personally like to spend more time investigating the history of tongues. I believe much of what is written reflects the bias of its authors.

[37] Quoted in: Hayden, The Gift of Tongues.

[38] Chrysostom, “Homilies in First Corinthians.” Philip Schaff, ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 12, p. 168.

[39] Augustine, “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” Philip Schaff, ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 7, p. 497 (emphasis added).

[40] Rogers, Cleon L, The Gift of Tongues in the Post-Apostolic Church, p. 134.

[41] The best options for the “perfect” are: The Person of Jesus Christ at His Second Coming, the perfected state of the believer in the Resurrection, the new heaven and new earth, the mature state of the church and the completed Scriptures

[42] Edgar, Thomas R, The Cessation of the Sign Gifts, p. 374.

[43] I always find it interesting that Charismatic brethren, who still believe the gift is operative as it was in the New Testament, bring translators on their missionary endeavors similar to Cessationists.

[44] As Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said, “There will be no new God, nor a new devil, and we shall never have a new Savior, nor a new atonement: Why should we then be either attracted or alarmed by the error and nonsense which everywhere plead for a hearing because they are new? What is their newness to us; we are not children, nor frequenters of playhouses? Truly, to such a new toy or a new play has immense attractions; but men care less about the age of a thing than about its intrinsic value. To suppose that theology can be new is to imagine that the Lord himself is of yesterday. A doctrine which is said to have lately become true must of necessity be a lie. Falsehood has no beard, but truth is hoary with an age immeasurable … Pity is our only feeling towards those young preachers who cry, ‘See my new theology,’ in just the same spirit as little Mary says, ‘See my pretty new frock.’”

[45] Gardiner, Corinthian Catastrophe, p. 61

[46] Ibid

[47] Byrd, The Truth About Speaking In Tongues, p. 49

[48] For example, miracles in the New Testament consisted of raising the dead (Mk. 10:26; cf. Ac. 9:40; 20:9-10) in the same manner as Jesus (Lk. 7:14-15; 8:54-55; Jn. 11:43-44). Even the gift of Apostles is no longer given as it was in the early church (Ac. 1:21-22; Eph. 2:20).