Chapter Nine
Understanding the Significance of the Gift of Tongues
We have seen that what many in charismatic churches today consider speaking in tongues is different from the biblical gifts of tongues. We should not assume, as a result, that it is evil or demonic, but it doesn’t fit the New Testament’s description of the gift. Rather than these ecstatic utterances, the New Testament gift of tongues was a gift of speaking in real human languages, and when interpreted and understood, it was closely linked with prophecy (Acts 2:16–18). Clearly, then, it had an important role in the New Testament church.
Thus, we now turn to an explanation of how the gift of tongues functioned and was supposed to function in the New Testament. We will again look at Acts and 1 Corinthians 12–14 to discern the function of tongues in the New Testament.
The Function of the Gift of Tongues in Acts
We begin with the gift of tongues in Acts, and we can be rather brief, since the texts about tongues in Acts have been considered from various angles already. We saw that the gift of tongues in Acts 2:1–4; 10:44–48; and 19:1–7 was human languages, but we didn’t ask why the gift was given.
We consider Pentecost first of all where the 120 were speaking in tongues. We have no antecedent in the Old Testament to speaking in tongues as the 120 did here. Can we discern the reason they spoke in tongues?
Some have said that speaking in tongues evidences the baptism of the Spirit, which is often taken by such adherents to be a subsequent event in the life of a Christian. But we already consider this argument’s weaknesses earlier in the book. The baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost doesn’t signify subsequence but inauguration—the inauguration of the Christian church and the new covenant, where the gift of the Spirit is poured out on all! Tongue-speaking here functions as a counter to the Tower of Babel account (Gen. 11:1–9) where the languages of human beings were confused. Here we find understanding and communication among people of many different cultures, and this points to and anticipates the new creation that is coming, a world where there are no barriers. The promise of universal blessing, which was first made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3), is becoming a reality at Pentecost. We see here the fulfillment of God’s great covenant promises.
In the case of Cornelius and his friends (Acts 10:44–48), the gift of tongues certifies that Gentiles who were not circumcised and did not keep the Old Testament law had truly received the Spirit (Acts 11:17; 15:7–11). Jewish Christians would be suspicious—as Acts 11:1–18 and Acts 15:1–29 testify—about whether Gentiles who were uncircumcised truly belonged to the people of God. But the giving of the very same gift to the Gentiles as to the 120 at Pentecost left no doubt that they too belonged to God’s people. In fact, this is the very argument made in Acts 10:45–46. The Jews were astonished that God had poured out the Spirit on Gentiles, but they knew Cornelius and his friends had received the Spirit since they spoke in tongues. Thus, Peter concluded they should be baptized, since they “have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47).
We actually don’t read that the Samaritans spoke in tongues (Acts 8:4–24), though they probably did since Simon was amazed when he “saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands” (Acts 8:18). We don’t need to rehearse here the previous discussion on why the Spirit was withheld from the Samaritans until Peter and John laid hands upon them; we can simply say that the speaking of tongues among the Samaritans was indisputable evidence that the ancient enemy of the Jews had truly received the Spirit and belonged to the people of God.
It is more difficult to discern why the Ephesian twelve spoke in tongues (Acts 19:1–7). I argued earlier that they hadn’t entered the new age of redemptive history until Paul came and laid hands on them and they received the Spirit. Before that time they had not put their faith in Jesus and had only received John the Baptist’s baptism, and thus they couldn’t really be counted as Christians. They were, so to speak, living in a redemptive historical time warp, as if Jesus hadn’t come at all. Why then did God give the Ephesian twelve the gift of tongues?
The reason might seem to be of little importance to us since we don’t think much about John the Baptist. New Testament writers, however, emphasize Jesus’ superiority to the Baptist. Luke contrasts Jesus and John the Baptist and shows that Jesus was superior. Jesus’ birth was more amazing than John’s because the Baptist was born to an old infertile couple, but Jesus was born to a virgin (Luke 1:5–2:7). The Baptist prepared the way for Jesus (Luke 1:76–77), but Jesus is the promised son of David and the fulfillment of all the covenant promises (Luke 1:68–75). The Baptist baptized in water, but Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit (Luke 3:16).
Nor is Luke the only writer who emphasizes that Jesus takes precedence over the Baptist. In John’s Gospel, we see that the Baptist is a witness (John 1:6–8), but Jesus is the Word of God, and God himself (John 1:1–2, 18). Jesus is the bridegroom, but John is the friend of the bridegroom (John 3:29), and so John is content to “decrease” and to allow Jesus to “increase” (John 3:30).
The story of the Ephesian twelve, then, shows that Jesus, in contrast to John, baptizes with the Spirit, and their speaking in tongues upon receiving the Spirit verifies Jesus’ preeminence over the Baptist. Presumably the Gospel of John emphasizes that the Baptist was secondary to Jesus because some were tempted to exalt him over Jesus; Acts 19:1–7 fulfills the same function. All glory belongs to Jesus as the promised one! The Ephesian twelve speak in tongues to verify they had received the Spirit, confirming that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist.
The Function of the Gift of Tongues in 1 Corinthians
When we come to 1 Corinthians 12–14, it is evident that the Corinthians exalted the gift of tongues over all other gifts. The experience of the Spirit coming upon one, causing one to speak to God in a previously unknown language was intoxicating. It seemed like a special indication of God’s favor. Paul emphasizes, in response to their fascination with tongues, that all the gifts are important. No one is inferior or superior based on the gift they have. Nor is any particular gift comprehensive. The Corinthians thought that those who had the gift of tongues were part of the spiritual elite, and Paul brings them back to reality.
Prophecy was functionally more important than tongues because those gathered could understand the prophetic word and were edified by what was said (1 Cor. 14:1–19). When believers spoke in tongues and there was no interpretation, the congregation wasn’t strengthened or helped by what was said. Those who spoke in tongues were only concerned with their own experience; they should have considered the benefit to others. Paul argued that their experience was of no benefit at all without an interpreter since no one else could understand or comprehend what they were saying.
We should also remind ourselves of our prior study on the baptism of the Spirit. It is evident that speaking in tongues isn’t the sign of Spirit baptism (1 Cor. 12:13) since all believers are baptized with the Spirit, but not all believers speak in tongues (1 Cor. 12:30). There is no basis, then, for saying that all believers should speak in tongues. Some push against this conclusion, since Paul says, “I wish all of you spoke in other tongues” (1 Cor. 14:5), and “I thank God that I speak in other tongues more than all of you” (1 Cor. 14:18). It is imperative, however, that these two statements be read in context, so that we understand their rhetorical purpose. In 1 Corinthians 14:1–5 prophecy is preferred to tongues because the church is strengthened and helped by prophecies. They are edified by prophecy because they understand what is being said. By the time Paul gets to verse 5 and says that he wishes all spoke in tongues, he adds this comment because he doesn’t want the congregation to think that he was actually hostile to speaking in tongues. Since he has emphasized that prophecy is more edifying to the congregation, he doesn’t want the Corinthians to overcorrect and think they should shun the gift. Thus, Paul said it would be a good thing if all spoke in tongues, but he didn’t realistically think or expect that all would or should speak in tongues. What Paul says is rhetorical, and we see a similar example of this in 1 Corinthians 7:7 where he says that he wishes all people were single as he was. We know, however, that Paul didn’t think all people should be single or would be single. The same principle applies when we interpret 1 Corinthians 14:5.
Paul’s remark that he spoke in tongues more than all of them (1 Cor. 14:18) could also be misunderstood. The comment is tacked onto the end of a section (1 Cor. 14:6–19) where Paul makes a sustained argument against uninterpreted tongues. The importance of understanding and comprehensibility is emphasized repeatedly in these verses. Once again, Paul doesn’t want the Corinthians to misunderstand; he isn’t an opponent of the gift of tongues. He prizes the gift personally since he speaks in tongues regularly. Clearly, Paul doesn’t think all should speak in tongues, since he says they should seek and desire the greater gifts. And it is evident from Paul’s argument that tongues isn’t a greater gift, because it doesn’t edify the church to the same extent prophecy does (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1).
The Corinthians were wrong to overestimate and prize tongues unduly, because all the gifts belong to this present evil age, and none last forever (1 Cor. 13:8). Spiritual gifts don’t bring perfection, for “we know in part, and prophesy in part” (1 Cor. 13:9), and when the perfect arrives they will no longer be needed (1 Cor. 13:10). The perfect, as I will argue later, is the second coming of Christ when we will see him “face to face” so now all the gifts, including tongues, belong to the realm of knowing “in part.” Paul compares the gifts of the present age to childhood and to becoming an adult (1 Cor. 13:11). The gifts are wonderful and represent God’s love to us in the present age, but they will be put away when we reach adulthood (i.e., at the second coming). They will seem like “childish things” compared to the knowledge and experience of God awaiting us. Paul isn’t criticizing tongues or any other spiritual gift, but he reminds us that they are not the pinnacle of spiritual experience.
Paul isn’t criticizing tongues or any other spiritual gift, but he reminds us that they are not the pinnacle of spiritual experience.
One of the more difficult paragraphs on tongues is the discussion on 1 Corinthians 14:20–25. The readers are exhorted to “be infants in evil” but not to be children in their thinking; they needed to consider matters with the maturity of adults (1 Cor. 14:20). Paul draws from Isaiah 28:11–12 to make his point. Isaiah 28 contains an oracle of judgment against Ephraim, the northern kingdom of Israel. The priests and prophets were indicted for their lack of perception and discernment, but instead of repenting, they ridiculed the judgment pronounced against them and the nation. They mocked the oracles pronounced by Isaiah as if they were baby talk (Isa. 28:9), as if they were the babbling of infants (Isa. 28:10). Isaiah replies that when the Assyrians sweep into Israel—which they did in 722 BC—their language would be as incomprehensible as baby talk, since the Assyrians spoke in another language (Isa. 28:11–12). The language of the Assyrians might sound like baby talk to Israel, but it would signify the judgment of God upon the nation as the nation was sent into exile.
The question we must ask is why Paul uses such an illustration in 1 Corinthians. What’s his point? Why does he talk about the judgment inflicted by the Assyrians? We are told in 14:22 that tongues are a “sign, not for believers, but unbelievers.” The crucial question is, How do tongues function as a sign for unbelievers?
Paul answers that question in verse 23: “If, therefore, the whole church assembles together and all are speaking in other tongues and people who are outsiders or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your minds?” Tongues are a sign of judgment for unbelievers; they lead to judgment because outsiders, when they see believers speaking in tongues, have no idea what’s happening. Instead of being drawn near to God, they are driven away from him. They are repelled from the gospel because they think believers are fanatics—as if they were babbling like babies. Paul doesn’t want unbelievers to be judged but to be saved, which is why he gives this corrective.
Prophecy, on the other hand, is to be preferred when the congregation gathers, because it has the potential of bringing unbelievers to faith (14:24–25). The unbeliever may hear the words spoken, be convicted of sin, and confess that God’s presence is in the congregation. Incidentally, Paul isn’t contradicting himself in saying prophecy isn’t for unbelievers but believers (14:22). Some think there is a contradiction since he gives an illustration of an unbeliever coming to faith through prophecy (14:24–25)! But Paul’s point is that prophecy assists people in their faith, whether they are already believers or hearing the gospel for the first time. The main point regarding tongues in 1 Corinthians 14:20–25 should be restated. Paul isn’t hostile to tongues, but in the assembly it should not be practiced if there is not an interpreter, for it may lead unbelievers to reject the gospel. And the congregation gathers for the salvation of the lost, not their judgment!
Rules about Tongues
In 1 Corinthians 14:27–28, Paul sets forth some basic rules regarding speaking in tongues when the congregation is gathered. First of all, only two or three should speak in tongues during the meetings, and the same rule is also applied to prophets (1 Cor. 14:29). Paul is aware that meetings can go too long and be dominated by a single person. Some people think if the Spirit is moving, time should not be a concern, but Paul doesn’t agree. Those who are convinced that their spiritual gifts must be expressed when the congregation meets are mistaken.
Second, Paul reminds prophets that their spiritual gifts can be and must be controlled (1 Cor. 14:32). Those who protest that they can’t limit the Spirit when he comes upon them are actually behaving selfishly instead of considering what is edifying for the entire congregation.
Third, gifts must be exercised in an orderly fashion (1 Cor. 14:33, 40). This means that when people speak in tongues, only one person speaks at a time (1 Cor. 14:27). There is no place for overlapping tongues, which would produce a cacophony of languages without any comprehension. Paul rules out charismatic chaos, for charismatic gifts and order and peace aren’t enemies, but friends. Supernatural realities and orderly meetings are not a contradiction but express the way the Spirit works in the congregation.
Further, if there isn’t an interpreter present, those with the gift of tongues should refrain from speaking in tongues in the congregation (1 Cor. 14:28). Apparently those who spoke in tongues were either able to interpret their own tongue, or they should know if someone with the gift of interpretation was present in the congregation. We see here as well that Paul has no problem with private tongue-speaking. We wish we knew more about why Paul thinks private tongue-speaking is helpful if there is no interpreter, but he doesn’t elaborate on this point, for he isn’t really concerned in this letter with matters of private worship. Paul clearly allows, however, private tongue-speaking. If the person with the gift of tongues can’t speak in the assembled meeting, he or she can “speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:28). They are free to exercise that gift in private in God’s presence. Paul recognizes that a person speaking in tongues privately may edify himself (1 Cor. 14:4). It is almost certain that Paul spoke privately in tongues since he claimed that he spoke in tongues more than all of them (1 Cor. 14:18).
But private tongue-speaking obviously is not necessary for spiritual growth and sanctification! We know this because not all believers speak in tongues, nor should they (1 Cor. 12:30). Actually, private tongue-speaking comes up as an aside in 1 Corinthians 12–14, and the subject isn’t elaborated on because it really isn’t important. Still, the private experience can be a blessing and Paul has no quarrel with it.
Conclusion
The gift of tongues has more than one purpose, and the fact that it has more than one purpose says nothing about whether the gift is different in 1 Corinthians from what we find in Acts. We see in Acts that tongues are given to signify the arrival of the new creation at Pentecost. Gentiles, the Samaritans, and the Ephesian twelve are given the gift of tongues to certify that they have truly received the Spirit, showing that they are truly part of the people of God. It doesn’t follow that all believers who have the Spirit speak in tongues. These groups spoke in tongues because there would have been some question about their inclusion in the people of God, and the gift of tongues demonstrated clearly that they belonged to God.
Tongue-speaking in the church must be edifying, according to 1 Corinthians, and it only edifies if it is interpreted. Thus, tongue-speaking is not allowed when the church is gathered unless there is an interpreter. People are only edified when they understand what is going on. If unbelievers come into the congregation, and there is tongue-speaking without an interpretation, they will think believers are spiritual fanatics and reject the Christian faith. Paul wants the meeting structured so that unbelievers are encouraged to put their faith in Jesus.
Along the same lines, there is no place for everyone speaking in tongues all at once, because people don’t comprehend what is going on in the midst of a cacophony of voices. Tongue-speaking should be limited to one person at a time, and there must be an interpreter. Paul restricts how many people in the congregation can speak in tongues, for the entire meeting must not be dominated by tongue-speaking (or by prophecy either, for that matter).
We can apply a principle from this to all of the spiritual gifts God gives. Unless they are exercised in an orderly way, and unless they build up the congregation, we shouldn’t exercise them. In this way, Paul makes clear that the emphasis of spiritual gifts is not on individuals, but on the church. We must remember as we gather with our churches that it’s not about us as individuals. We don’t go to church to consume but to serve and to worship together.
Discussion Questions
1. What is the relationship of tongues and prophecy in the Bible? Based on that relationship, do you think the gift of tongues is still active?
2. Paul makes clear that speaking in tongues is not the pinnacle of Christian experience. Did that cause him to criticize the gift?
3. What can we learn from Paul’s response to the Corinthians’s obsession with the gift of tongues?
4. How can we apply the principle of Paul’s instructions about tongues to all the spiritual gifts?