Hey there, social media user. Cheers for stopping by.
My good friend and brother in law (in that order) Jared Rolston’s blog posts on the gift of tongues have popped up on my social media feed this week. Perhaps you’ve seen them too. If not, they can be found here and here (I’d recommend reading them first for any of what I’m saying to make sense). In them Jared makes the case that the Charismatic practice of speaking in tongues is nothing but babbling like a baby and that mature Christians should grow out of it.
My aim in writing this is not to convince Jared. I don’t share his postmil optimism. And if the tone of his blogs is anything to go by, he’s more certain of his take than I am of mine. No, my aim is to throw out an alternative perspective to the one Jared offers.
I imagine that a number of Christians who are perhaps more intuitively conservative have long not known what to do with the gift of tongues: On the one hand you know you think it’s weird, but on the other hand you know Scripture addresses it, and that’s sort of as far as you’ve got. Maybe Jared’s recent blogs have given you the space to close the door on this whole unfortunate misunderstanding. You can now file it and move on, you tell yourself. You’re the one I want to speak to. My aim is to yank that door wide open again.
Good and Pleasant Moments
I like to begin this sort of thing by celebrating where we do agree:
The Big Picture
With all that out of the way, let’s look at the big picture.
My understanding of Jared’s view is this: He reckons that Paul is addressing an issue of “ethnic pride.” The church in Corinth was “multilingual and failed to navigate the difficulties that foreign languages present.” Being “established in a high-trade port city” the church was made up of Christians speaking different languages. Instead of speaking in a common language that the church could understand, speakers would get up and address the church in a foreign language, and many in the church wouldn’t be able to understand what was said, and thus participate properly in worship.
My view is that Paul is addressing a mysterious spiritual gift given to some believers by the ascended Christ in which they are given the ability to speak forth words of prayer and praise to God. Neither the speaker nor their hearers understand what is being said. Speaking in tongues builds up the speaker, but in a way that transcends their own rationality and understanding.
Jared’s blogs have laid out some of why he thinks his view fits with 1 Corinthians 14 and also not being a baby. I will now offer some critiques, and in-so-doing, a defence of the baby babblers.
Theological + Contextual Critiques
1. The Problem of Definitions
Reading through Jared’s stuff, I struggle to identify specifically what he thinks ‘tongues’ actually is, and as a result what the problem is that Paul is rebuking. For example, at one point he says that tongues are “either a foreign or known language.” Strictly speaking, I agree with that. English, after all, is a language. But if that’s what Paul’s talking about, then isn’t everyone speaking in tongues all the time? Everyone you’ve ever known can speak in tongues, apparently.
But elsewhere he says that “the meaning of the word [is foreign languages].” This definition is more precise, but only moves the problem back one step. After all, this would mean that if I’m speaking English in NZ, it’s not a tongue, but if I were to be dumped into a rural Chinese village, English would be foreign, and thus a tongue. Do I change between having the gift and not having the gift depending on my location? This would make the gift of tongues like the undies/togs ad from a few years back or like what a pro-choicer thinks a foetus is. This would also mean that everyone has the gift of tongues, provided you’re in the right location. Are either of these definitions really the ‘manifestation of the Spirit’ Paul speaks about?
At yet another point he says that, “those with the gift of tongues have a gift of multilingualism.” So perhaps this brings more clarity: tongues are languages, but the gift of tongues is when you can competently use a couple (or more of them). He gives the example of Henry, who can speak English and Dutch. So if I can speak more than one language, then I’ve got it.
You might be thinking that some of my options above are patently absurd. But I suppose that depends on what you think the precise situation was at the Corinthian gathering. Are we dealing with a scenario where there is a common language shared by everyone at the gathering and thus tongues is when someone deliberately steps outside of that in order to speak in a language they think is better (let’s say for a reason of ethnic pride)?
Or is it a situation where there is no one language shared by everyone? If this is the case, then some of the seemingly more absurd options I’ve given above would definitely be the case. In fact, there’d be no way for someone to speak at all without speaking in a tongue, because it’s likely that it’s foreign to at least someone there. But it seems like Paul distinguishes between regular speech and tongues in 1 Cor 14, so I struggle to see how this fits with what Paul is addressing.
Depending on the situation though, I could see all three definitions making problems for the Corinthians that Jared is envisioning.
In addition, it seems like at certain points, tongues is cast as this negative thing, something that causes confusion and prevents communication, but at other points, it’s this positive thing that allows for interaction with more people. Further, at some points it sounds like ‘tongues’ and ‘interpretation’ are distinct things, but at other times, they’re exactly the same thing (more on this later).
It feels like Jared, (and by extension, Paul) is chopping and changing between these more and less precise definitions and calling it all “tongues.” It would be analogous to Paul using the phrase “drinking” to refer to “drinking wine” and “drunkeness” and merely “drinking water” all in the space of one chapter. In my opinion, it makes 1 Corinthians 14 convoluted. Surely Paul would be more precise in his terminology if he’s talking about all of these different things. Being this imprecise seems out of character for the Paul I know.
I half apologise for the length of this section, but at the same time, you’re an adult: I’m sure you’ll be fine. Seriously though, the groundwork laid in this section will hopefully make the subsequent points make a bit more sense.✌️
2. How Are These Tongues “Spiritual?”
I like that Jared anticipates that someone from my side will go here. It’s an obvious place to go. If Jared is right, all that’s going on here are “the difficulties that come about in a multicultural, multilingual congregation,” which would presumably be happening all over town in gatherings at Corinth.
Here, Jared points out something that is true: we can be guilty of assuming that for a gift to be “spiritual,” it has to be overtly mysterious and mystical. But that won’t work. After all, he argues, wouldn’t it be strange to assume that the gift of administration (1 Cor 12:28) would involve said administrator’s eyes rolling back in their head as they type at their keyboard? So why would we assume the gift of tongues has to be something like this? But consider:
In his letters generally, and in 1 Corinthians specifically, Paul has much to say about the work of the Spirit in God’s people. The wisdom of the Spirit is contrasted with “plausible words of [human] wisdom” (1 Cor 2:4, 13). The Spirit is contrasted with “the Spirit of the world” (2:12). The “things of the Spirit” are contrasted with the things that the “natural person” accepts (2:14). The work of the Spirit is the distinction between those who say “Jesus is Lord” versus those who do not (12:3) Paul draws a sharp contrast between those who are “in the Spirit” and those who are not. Wouldn’t it be strange then, when we approach the gifts of the very same Spirit, that we are talking about things that non-believers are doing all the time and that these Christians were doing prior to the conversions?
Keep in mind, Paul has said that he is talking about “spiritual (things or people)” (1 Cor 12:1; 14:1), “gifts of the Spirit (12:4), gifts that are “empowered by the Spirit” (12:11), gifts that “God has appointed” (12: 28), and “manifestations of the Spirit” (12:7; 14:12). Is this the language you would expect Paul to use to describe something that would be happening at the multicultural, multilingual temple of Aphrodite down the road? I doubt it.
3. What About Redemptive History?
The point I’ll make here is similar to the previous one, but seen from a different angle. If the gift of tongues is nothing more than the Corinthian church being made up of members from multilingual backgrounds, how does this do justice to the redemptive historical shift that the New Testament writers understand the gift of tongues to represent? In Acts 2, the apostles are gathered in one place in Jerusalem, waiting for the promise of the Father to baptise them in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). From Heaven comes the sound of a rushing wind, and they “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).
Jews from around the world hear the apostles, who were but simple Galileeans, speaking in their various languages. Peter gets up and preaches an unforgettable banger of a sermon about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and points out this very thing that you are “seeing and hearing” is the Spirit being poured out on mankind by the Lord who is exalted to the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:32-33).
Not only that, but Peter also argues that this is in fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21), in which he anticipates God’s pouring out of his Spirit in the last days:
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood,
before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:28–32).
So, this arrival of the gift of tongues demonstrates that: (1) The risen Jesus is at the right hand of the father pouring out his Spirit on all flesh and (2) we are in the “last days.” But if Jared is correct about the problem of the Corinthians being the diverse multilingual backgrounds of their members, how does this have anything to do with either the exalted Lord or the last days? Problems like this would have been the case since Genesis 11, would they not? Further, if the day of Pentecost happened in 30-33AD, and 1 Corinthians was written in 53-55AD, presumably some of the members of the Corinthian church would have “spoken in tongues” themselves prior to the exaltation of Jesus and the “last days.”
Further, Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4 suggests that I’m on the right track. In v. 7-16, Paul too understands spiritual gifts as the work of the victorious and conquering ascended Christ pouring out the spoils of war on his people.
I could be wrong here, but my suspicion is that Jared will object to this, and argue that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is categorically different from what we see in Acts 2. On one level I do agree with that: In 1 Cor 14, Paul says that “no one understands” the tongues speaker, but in Acts 2, the apostles were understood, and that was kind of the wonder of it all.
I would argue that by and large the same thing is going on here, but that in Acts 2, as God “gave them utterance,” they were guided, without knowing what they were saying, to speak in languages that the Jews from around the world knew. I’ve heard stories of a similar things occuring today with the gift of tongues, but still acknowledge that by and large, 1 Corinthians 14’s expectations are what we see. All of this is to say, the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 and Acts 2 have slightly different dynamics, but should both fall under the umbrella of a gift of the Holy Spirit poured out by the risen Christ. I would challenge unconvinced readers to read 1 Corinthians 12 1-10 and Ephesians 4:7-16 and consider whether the tongues in Acts 2 is connected to 1 Corinthians 14.
4. What About the Analogy of the “Body?”
To look at the same problem from yet another angle, let us also consider Paul’s teaching on the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. After addressing the spiritual nature of the gifts (including tongues) in v. 1-11, Paul moves on to consider all of this in light of the fact that our baptism in the Spirit (v. 13) means that we are part of the body of Christ.
Two threads are being pulled together here: (1) The spirit has made us collectively one body, the body of Christ and (2) this same Spirit is the one who gives us gifts. The point being, the Spirit gives us diverse gifts in order to cultivate this collective way that we should relate to each other. My body needs eyes and ears and legs. And the body of Christ needs preachers and tongues speakers. The Spirit deliberately gives us different gifts so that we will cling to each other. Surely the baptism in the Spirit and into the body of Christ and the appointing of gifts happen at the same time?
But depending on your definition of “tongues,” (see point 1 above), then actually all Christians speak tongues. This cuts against Paul’s analogy. “Do all speak with tongues” (1 Cor 12:30)? No, they don’t.
Or, if you want to say that tongues speakers actually have to be able to speak in multiple languages, then you still have the problem of accounting for them being able to do this before their baptism in the Spirit and into the body of Christ.
5. The Cessation of Tongues
Another problem for Jared’s take on this is that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that tongues will cease, and that this will happen when “the perfect comes” (13:10), when we see “face to face” and “know fully, even as [we] have been fully known” (13:12). I am presuming that Jared and I agree with the majority of commentators that this is referring to the age to come. But if tongues are merely languages, (or foreign languages, or the ability to speak multiple languages). Will these cease in the age to come? Do we only speak one language in the New Jerusalem? Will we not be able to speak in different languages in the better and heavenly country?
How would we square this with a passage like Rev 7:9, where John sees “...a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”
To confirm that this is the new earth, this scene depicts a state of affairs in which there is no longer any hunger, thirst, tears, or great tribulation (v. 14-17).
To be consistent with my own hermeneutics, I can allow for the fact that maybe none of this scene in Revelation 7 is literal, but I’d be interested to see what it is symbolising if not a multilingual new age.
6. The Issue of Experience
I appreciate what Jared has said on the role of experience. I completely agree that we must be willing to correct what we think we have gleaned from experience if the Word of God contradicts it. The heart is deceitful above all things. Yes, “there are stories of people being healed and breaking out in tongues” but there are also “stories of once avid tongue-speakers denying the existence of God.” I agree.
Jared argues that this kind of thing factors into why people assume the weird Charismatic take on tongues to be what Paul is teaching and not his own. After all, this is the view of the mainstream church. It’s all many Christians have ever known. And it’s certainly what people will seek out if they have been trained by Christian culture to be chasing after supernatural experiences.
For what it’s worth, I’ll lay out some of my experience as it pertains to this gift. Firstly, I do not, and have never, spoken in tongues. I’ve been encouraged to at different moments in my life, and have simply found that I have had nothing to say. Secondly, my upbringing was not one where I was exposed to this understanding of tongues as a given. I grew up in a relatively conservative Open Brethren church, where apparently one time a visitor spoke in tongues and it was such an event that it is still talked about to this day. I don’t remember it. I probably encountered the gift of tongues for the first time at a Baptist Easter Camp as a 16 year old. Thirdly, whether it’s my personality or my new nature in Christ (hopefully the second one), I find much Charismatic practice in general and specifically tongues speaking to be distasteful and frustrating. I am a very unlikely contender to embrace the view that I do. I would honestly prefer Jared’s take to be correct. Fourthly, I have prayed hundreds of times to receive the gift of tongues since 2015, and have not been answered. Fifthly, as far as I am aware, I honestly believe that my view of 1 Corinthians 14 is most faithful to Paul’s words. I remember reading it as a 17 year old and being convinced that the pentecostal gatherings I was seeing were wrong in breaking out into chaotic corporate tongues sessions for all to see, but were largely correct in their definitions. I’ve done a lot of reading since then, but basically hold the same view now. It is to Paul’s words in this chapter that we now turn.
1 Corinthians 14 Itself
Leon Morris was one of the most widely respected commentators of the 20th century and certainly no wild-eyed Charismatic. Consider the words of this sober and measured New Testament scholar on the gift of tongues:
My good friend and brother in law (in that order) Jared Rolston’s blog posts on the gift of tongues have popped up on my social media feed this week. Perhaps you’ve seen them too. If not, they can be found here and here (I’d recommend reading them first for any of what I’m saying to make sense). In them Jared makes the case that the Charismatic practice of speaking in tongues is nothing but babbling like a baby and that mature Christians should grow out of it.
My aim in writing this is not to convince Jared. I don’t share his postmil optimism. And if the tone of his blogs is anything to go by, he’s more certain of his take than I am of mine. No, my aim is to throw out an alternative perspective to the one Jared offers.
I imagine that a number of Christians who are perhaps more intuitively conservative have long not known what to do with the gift of tongues: On the one hand you know you think it’s weird, but on the other hand you know Scripture addresses it, and that’s sort of as far as you’ve got. Maybe Jared’s recent blogs have given you the space to close the door on this whole unfortunate misunderstanding. You can now file it and move on, you tell yourself. You’re the one I want to speak to. My aim is to yank that door wide open again.
Good and Pleasant Moments
I like to begin this sort of thing by celebrating where we do agree:
- Obviously, we both hold a high view of Scripture. We both believe that everything Paul says in 1 Corinthians is 100% true.
- I agree that Scripture is a higher authority than experience every time.
- I am pleased to see Jared doesn’t play the cessationism card. I reckon all of the arguments for cessationism are weak and are ultimately red herrings, distracting from the actual conversation that needs to be had: “What actually are these gift things that Paul speaks of?”
- I completely agree that uninterpreted tongues should not be practised in local church gatherings. Paul is so clear on this. Let all things be done decently and in order.
- I agree that what we’re seeing in 1 Corinthians 14 is not exactly the same phenomena as in Acts 2. Interestingly though, if I’m understanding Jared correctly, I view 1 Cor 14 and Acts 2 as having significantly more overlap, but I’ll expand on that more soon.
- I would like to see my fellow Charismatics sift through the issues of the Christian life with more maturity, rationality, wisdom, and Biblical literacy. Prophetic insight into decisions can be good, but it is essential that you wrestle with the book of Proverbs.
The Big Picture
With all that out of the way, let’s look at the big picture.
My understanding of Jared’s view is this: He reckons that Paul is addressing an issue of “ethnic pride.” The church in Corinth was “multilingual and failed to navigate the difficulties that foreign languages present.” Being “established in a high-trade port city” the church was made up of Christians speaking different languages. Instead of speaking in a common language that the church could understand, speakers would get up and address the church in a foreign language, and many in the church wouldn’t be able to understand what was said, and thus participate properly in worship.
My view is that Paul is addressing a mysterious spiritual gift given to some believers by the ascended Christ in which they are given the ability to speak forth words of prayer and praise to God. Neither the speaker nor their hearers understand what is being said. Speaking in tongues builds up the speaker, but in a way that transcends their own rationality and understanding.
Jared’s blogs have laid out some of why he thinks his view fits with 1 Corinthians 14 and also not being a baby. I will now offer some critiques, and in-so-doing, a defence of the baby babblers.
Theological + Contextual Critiques
1. The Problem of Definitions
Reading through Jared’s stuff, I struggle to identify specifically what he thinks ‘tongues’ actually is, and as a result what the problem is that Paul is rebuking. For example, at one point he says that tongues are “either a foreign or known language.” Strictly speaking, I agree with that. English, after all, is a language. But if that’s what Paul’s talking about, then isn’t everyone speaking in tongues all the time? Everyone you’ve ever known can speak in tongues, apparently.
But elsewhere he says that “the meaning of the word [is foreign languages].” This definition is more precise, but only moves the problem back one step. After all, this would mean that if I’m speaking English in NZ, it’s not a tongue, but if I were to be dumped into a rural Chinese village, English would be foreign, and thus a tongue. Do I change between having the gift and not having the gift depending on my location? This would make the gift of tongues like the undies/togs ad from a few years back or like what a pro-choicer thinks a foetus is. This would also mean that everyone has the gift of tongues, provided you’re in the right location. Are either of these definitions really the ‘manifestation of the Spirit’ Paul speaks about?
At yet another point he says that, “those with the gift of tongues have a gift of multilingualism.” So perhaps this brings more clarity: tongues are languages, but the gift of tongues is when you can competently use a couple (or more of them). He gives the example of Henry, who can speak English and Dutch. So if I can speak more than one language, then I’ve got it.
You might be thinking that some of my options above are patently absurd. But I suppose that depends on what you think the precise situation was at the Corinthian gathering. Are we dealing with a scenario where there is a common language shared by everyone at the gathering and thus tongues is when someone deliberately steps outside of that in order to speak in a language they think is better (let’s say for a reason of ethnic pride)?
Or is it a situation where there is no one language shared by everyone? If this is the case, then some of the seemingly more absurd options I’ve given above would definitely be the case. In fact, there’d be no way for someone to speak at all without speaking in a tongue, because it’s likely that it’s foreign to at least someone there. But it seems like Paul distinguishes between regular speech and tongues in 1 Cor 14, so I struggle to see how this fits with what Paul is addressing.
Depending on the situation though, I could see all three definitions making problems for the Corinthians that Jared is envisioning.
In addition, it seems like at certain points, tongues is cast as this negative thing, something that causes confusion and prevents communication, but at other points, it’s this positive thing that allows for interaction with more people. Further, at some points it sounds like ‘tongues’ and ‘interpretation’ are distinct things, but at other times, they’re exactly the same thing (more on this later).
It feels like Jared, (and by extension, Paul) is chopping and changing between these more and less precise definitions and calling it all “tongues.” It would be analogous to Paul using the phrase “drinking” to refer to “drinking wine” and “drunkeness” and merely “drinking water” all in the space of one chapter. In my opinion, it makes 1 Corinthians 14 convoluted. Surely Paul would be more precise in his terminology if he’s talking about all of these different things. Being this imprecise seems out of character for the Paul I know.
I half apologise for the length of this section, but at the same time, you’re an adult: I’m sure you’ll be fine. Seriously though, the groundwork laid in this section will hopefully make the subsequent points make a bit more sense.✌️
2. How Are These Tongues “Spiritual?”
I like that Jared anticipates that someone from my side will go here. It’s an obvious place to go. If Jared is right, all that’s going on here are “the difficulties that come about in a multicultural, multilingual congregation,” which would presumably be happening all over town in gatherings at Corinth.
Here, Jared points out something that is true: we can be guilty of assuming that for a gift to be “spiritual,” it has to be overtly mysterious and mystical. But that won’t work. After all, he argues, wouldn’t it be strange to assume that the gift of administration (1 Cor 12:28) would involve said administrator’s eyes rolling back in their head as they type at their keyboard? So why would we assume the gift of tongues has to be something like this? But consider:
- Clearly, at least some gifts are more obviously supernatural than others. Compare the “working of miracles” (v. 28) to “helping” (v. 28), for example. Now, tongues could be more like the former or the latter but we can’t make assumptions either way without evidence.
- The gift of administration is still spiritual in nature and I believe ontologically different from general skills of administration found across the human race, much like there is a difference between Spirit wrought faith and non-Spirit wrought faith, though there is a lot of overlap between the two in both cases. I do believe that administration in the household of God is not something that the “natural person (1 Cor 2:14) can do, but rather something that requires the “mind of Christ” (2:16). All of those who are frustrated by pastors whose main reading diet is leadership books from the business world agree with me.
- I argue that tongues is more obviously supernatural, in the sense that it involves speaking a language that the speaker does not understand. Charismatics assume this because of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14 about tongues specifically, not just because it is a spiritual gift.
In his letters generally, and in 1 Corinthians specifically, Paul has much to say about the work of the Spirit in God’s people. The wisdom of the Spirit is contrasted with “plausible words of [human] wisdom” (1 Cor 2:4, 13). The Spirit is contrasted with “the Spirit of the world” (2:12). The “things of the Spirit” are contrasted with the things that the “natural person” accepts (2:14). The work of the Spirit is the distinction between those who say “Jesus is Lord” versus those who do not (12:3) Paul draws a sharp contrast between those who are “in the Spirit” and those who are not. Wouldn’t it be strange then, when we approach the gifts of the very same Spirit, that we are talking about things that non-believers are doing all the time and that these Christians were doing prior to the conversions?
Keep in mind, Paul has said that he is talking about “spiritual (things or people)” (1 Cor 12:1; 14:1), “gifts of the Spirit (12:4), gifts that are “empowered by the Spirit” (12:11), gifts that “God has appointed” (12: 28), and “manifestations of the Spirit” (12:7; 14:12). Is this the language you would expect Paul to use to describe something that would be happening at the multicultural, multilingual temple of Aphrodite down the road? I doubt it.
3. What About Redemptive History?
The point I’ll make here is similar to the previous one, but seen from a different angle. If the gift of tongues is nothing more than the Corinthian church being made up of members from multilingual backgrounds, how does this do justice to the redemptive historical shift that the New Testament writers understand the gift of tongues to represent? In Acts 2, the apostles are gathered in one place in Jerusalem, waiting for the promise of the Father to baptise them in the Spirit (Acts 1:4-5). From Heaven comes the sound of a rushing wind, and they “were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4).
Jews from around the world hear the apostles, who were but simple Galileeans, speaking in their various languages. Peter gets up and preaches an unforgettable banger of a sermon about the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, and points out this very thing that you are “seeing and hearing” is the Spirit being poured out on mankind by the Lord who is exalted to the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:32-33).
Not only that, but Peter also argues that this is in fulfilment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16-21), in which he anticipates God’s pouring out of his Spirit in the last days:
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke.
The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood,
before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.
And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:28–32).
So, this arrival of the gift of tongues demonstrates that: (1) The risen Jesus is at the right hand of the father pouring out his Spirit on all flesh and (2) we are in the “last days.” But if Jared is correct about the problem of the Corinthians being the diverse multilingual backgrounds of their members, how does this have anything to do with either the exalted Lord or the last days? Problems like this would have been the case since Genesis 11, would they not? Further, if the day of Pentecost happened in 30-33AD, and 1 Corinthians was written in 53-55AD, presumably some of the members of the Corinthian church would have “spoken in tongues” themselves prior to the exaltation of Jesus and the “last days.”
Further, Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4 suggests that I’m on the right track. In v. 7-16, Paul too understands spiritual gifts as the work of the victorious and conquering ascended Christ pouring out the spoils of war on his people.
I could be wrong here, but my suspicion is that Jared will object to this, and argue that the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is categorically different from what we see in Acts 2. On one level I do agree with that: In 1 Cor 14, Paul says that “no one understands” the tongues speaker, but in Acts 2, the apostles were understood, and that was kind of the wonder of it all.
I would argue that by and large the same thing is going on here, but that in Acts 2, as God “gave them utterance,” they were guided, without knowing what they were saying, to speak in languages that the Jews from around the world knew. I’ve heard stories of a similar things occuring today with the gift of tongues, but still acknowledge that by and large, 1 Corinthians 14’s expectations are what we see. All of this is to say, the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 and Acts 2 have slightly different dynamics, but should both fall under the umbrella of a gift of the Holy Spirit poured out by the risen Christ. I would challenge unconvinced readers to read 1 Corinthians 12 1-10 and Ephesians 4:7-16 and consider whether the tongues in Acts 2 is connected to 1 Corinthians 14.
4. What About the Analogy of the “Body?”
To look at the same problem from yet another angle, let us also consider Paul’s teaching on the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31. After addressing the spiritual nature of the gifts (including tongues) in v. 1-11, Paul moves on to consider all of this in light of the fact that our baptism in the Spirit (v. 13) means that we are part of the body of Christ.
Two threads are being pulled together here: (1) The spirit has made us collectively one body, the body of Christ and (2) this same Spirit is the one who gives us gifts. The point being, the Spirit gives us diverse gifts in order to cultivate this collective way that we should relate to each other. My body needs eyes and ears and legs. And the body of Christ needs preachers and tongues speakers. The Spirit deliberately gives us different gifts so that we will cling to each other. Surely the baptism in the Spirit and into the body of Christ and the appointing of gifts happen at the same time?
But depending on your definition of “tongues,” (see point 1 above), then actually all Christians speak tongues. This cuts against Paul’s analogy. “Do all speak with tongues” (1 Cor 12:30)? No, they don’t.
Or, if you want to say that tongues speakers actually have to be able to speak in multiple languages, then you still have the problem of accounting for them being able to do this before their baptism in the Spirit and into the body of Christ.
5. The Cessation of Tongues
Another problem for Jared’s take on this is that Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13:8 that tongues will cease, and that this will happen when “the perfect comes” (13:10), when we see “face to face” and “know fully, even as [we] have been fully known” (13:12). I am presuming that Jared and I agree with the majority of commentators that this is referring to the age to come. But if tongues are merely languages, (or foreign languages, or the ability to speak multiple languages). Will these cease in the age to come? Do we only speak one language in the New Jerusalem? Will we not be able to speak in different languages in the better and heavenly country?
How would we square this with a passage like Rev 7:9, where John sees “...a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.”
To confirm that this is the new earth, this scene depicts a state of affairs in which there is no longer any hunger, thirst, tears, or great tribulation (v. 14-17).
To be consistent with my own hermeneutics, I can allow for the fact that maybe none of this scene in Revelation 7 is literal, but I’d be interested to see what it is symbolising if not a multilingual new age.
6. The Issue of Experience
I appreciate what Jared has said on the role of experience. I completely agree that we must be willing to correct what we think we have gleaned from experience if the Word of God contradicts it. The heart is deceitful above all things. Yes, “there are stories of people being healed and breaking out in tongues” but there are also “stories of once avid tongue-speakers denying the existence of God.” I agree.
Jared argues that this kind of thing factors into why people assume the weird Charismatic take on tongues to be what Paul is teaching and not his own. After all, this is the view of the mainstream church. It’s all many Christians have ever known. And it’s certainly what people will seek out if they have been trained by Christian culture to be chasing after supernatural experiences.
For what it’s worth, I’ll lay out some of my experience as it pertains to this gift. Firstly, I do not, and have never, spoken in tongues. I’ve been encouraged to at different moments in my life, and have simply found that I have had nothing to say. Secondly, my upbringing was not one where I was exposed to this understanding of tongues as a given. I grew up in a relatively conservative Open Brethren church, where apparently one time a visitor spoke in tongues and it was such an event that it is still talked about to this day. I don’t remember it. I probably encountered the gift of tongues for the first time at a Baptist Easter Camp as a 16 year old. Thirdly, whether it’s my personality or my new nature in Christ (hopefully the second one), I find much Charismatic practice in general and specifically tongues speaking to be distasteful and frustrating. I am a very unlikely contender to embrace the view that I do. I would honestly prefer Jared’s take to be correct. Fourthly, I have prayed hundreds of times to receive the gift of tongues since 2015, and have not been answered. Fifthly, as far as I am aware, I honestly believe that my view of 1 Corinthians 14 is most faithful to Paul’s words. I remember reading it as a 17 year old and being convinced that the pentecostal gatherings I was seeing were wrong in breaking out into chaotic corporate tongues sessions for all to see, but were largely correct in their definitions. I’ve done a lot of reading since then, but basically hold the same view now. It is to Paul’s words in this chapter that we now turn.
1 Corinthians 14 Itself
Leon Morris was one of the most widely respected commentators of the 20th century and certainly no wild-eyed Charismatic. Consider the words of this sober and measured New Testament scholar on the gift of tongues:
"Tongues appears to have been a special form of ecstatic speech when the person uttering the words did not know what they meant (unless he had also the gift of interpretation). On the day of Pentecost mentioned in Acts ii there was an unusual manifestation, when Peter and others were understood by people from many places speaking many languages. Some commentators (e.g. Hodge) think that it is this gift of speaking in other languages which is meant here. This is an attractive solution, but nobody reading 1 Corinthians would think that this is what Paul had in mind. The gift is not part of the evangelistic programme of the Church, but is exercised among believers. It is not understood by folk speaking other languages, but requires a special gift of interpretation. Without the gift of interpretation its possessor is to speak 'to himself, and to God' (xiv. 28), which is a strange way to treat one of the world's recognized languages. The gift of which Paul speaks was not one whereby men might the more easily be understood by others, but one wherein they did not even understand themselves. Ecstatic utterance in no known language, and under the influence of the Spirit, seems to be Paul's meaning. After this gift Paul speaks of the interpretation of tongues. This was the gift whereby God made intelligible what was hidden from all in the ecstatic utterances just referred to."
Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 172-173.
Perhaps Morris was unduly influenced by the overly spiritual expectations of the post-Azusa street church in the 20th century. What I do know is what he’s seeing in 1 Cor 14 is the same thing I’m seeing. Let me make a few observations.
1. “...One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men…for no one understands him (v.2)...”
Jared argues that when Paul says the tongue speaker “speaks not to men…for no one understands him,” he has in mind a person addressing the gathered church in a foreign language, but the words aren’t landing because the audience doesn’t understand that language.
Maybe. But:
I think it’s much more likely he’s describing something intrinsic to the gift of tongues: It’s not for speaking to other people, no one can understand what is being said (not even the speaker, I will argue), and as such, it is not an appropriate gift to use in a church gathering.
2. “...One who speaks in a tongue speaks…to God (v. 2)...”
Again, Jared believes that this is someone speaking a foreign language that his audience can’t understand. The audience can’t follow, but God can, because God knows all things.
Maybe. But:
3. “...One who speaks in a tongue…utters mysteries in the Spirit (v. 2)...”
Jared understands this ‘uttering of mysteries’ to be referring to what the audience is getting from the speaker if they don’t understand him. This is the same as what would happen if you flick on a Russian TV show.
But:
In terms of the tongues speaker doing this “by the Spirit/in his Spirit,” I concede that this could go either way. But Jared should concede this too. To my knowledge, most English translations of the Bible take it to be referring to the Holy Spirit, and not our human Spirit, but I concede that this is not decisive. The wider context does talk about both the Holy Spirit and our human spirit, and so there’s valid connections to be made to either. But my understanding is definitely a viable one.
4. “...My spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.”
Where I thought Jared’s case was at its weakest was his understanding of v. 13-15. Paul writes:
13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also (1 Co 14:13–15).
I understand Jared to be taking v. 13 to be addressing someone getting up to speak, but their first language is not one the group understands (either the whole group or the majority of the group I guess?). Because they know their own thoughts better than an interpreter will, it’s preferable that they have a stab at translating it into the language of the group, which they can speak a little bit of (and of course they should pray for God’s help as they translate into this language they’re not super strong in). In terms of v. 13 itself, I think that is plausible. However:
But I think the wheels fall off in v. 14: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Jared understands Paul to be switching to a general “I,” which represents those in the congregation who would be praying along to this prayer in this language that is unintelligible to them. He writes:
I believe Paul uses a universal “I” here to stand in the place of the congregation, representing all who are praying along with the one speaking. He could be speaking for himself alone, but his experience as a foreigner to the language is no different that [sic] any other foreigners. So, I believe Paul uses the universal "I" to make a universal principle. He uses this tool throughout his writings; e.g., “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”
So here’s this guy in church, hearing a prayer out loud that he doesn’t understand, and not knowing what he’s saying “amen” to. He’s praying with his spirit, in that he’s engaging his will to pray, and is “covenantally one” with the speaker, but he’s not praying with his mind, because he doesn’t understand what is being said. Let me push back a little (a lot):
Consider the table below:
Perhaps Morris was unduly influenced by the overly spiritual expectations of the post-Azusa street church in the 20th century. What I do know is what he’s seeing in 1 Cor 14 is the same thing I’m seeing. Let me make a few observations.
1. “...One who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men…for no one understands him (v.2)...”
Jared argues that when Paul says the tongue speaker “speaks not to men…for no one understands him,” he has in mind a person addressing the gathered church in a foreign language, but the words aren’t landing because the audience doesn’t understand that language.
Maybe. But:
- If “tongue” has its broadest definition and includes the language the whole church shares (assuming that there is one shared by everyone), then this would not be true. Most (if not all) of the audience would understand him. But strictly speaking “tongue” could mean this here. A known language is still a tongue.
- If “tongue” is restricted to mean a language that most (or all) in the room would not understand, I think it’s still a stretch. Surely at least some would, in which case he would be speaking to men and some would understand him.
- Thus to fit Paul’s language you’d have to argue that someone is getting up and speaking in a language that nobody else in the room understands. Surely it’s self-evident that you would not do this. To be fair, ethnic pride is a reason that I could imagine that could motivate someone to do this. But to do it in a way where no one understands is baffling.
I think it’s much more likely he’s describing something intrinsic to the gift of tongues: It’s not for speaking to other people, no one can understand what is being said (not even the speaker, I will argue), and as such, it is not an appropriate gift to use in a church gathering.
2. “...One who speaks in a tongue speaks…to God (v. 2)...”
Again, Jared believes that this is someone speaking a foreign language that his audience can’t understand. The audience can’t follow, but God can, because God knows all things.
Maybe. But:
- It seems to me that in every place elsewhere in the New Testament that someone is “spoken to,” that I can find (Yes I checked the Greek), the speaker is intentionally communicating to that person. This could be an exception, but I’m going to need some really strong evidence to understand Paul as saying anything other than that tongues speaking is intrinsically speaking to God intentionally and not to men.
- It’s also interesting that elsewhere in chapter 14, tongues speaking is associated with prayer (v. 14-15) and praise (v. 15), which makes sense if in fact the point of tongues is to speak to God.
3. “...One who speaks in a tongue…utters mysteries in the Spirit (v. 2)...”
Jared understands this ‘uttering of mysteries’ to be referring to what the audience is getting from the speaker if they don’t understand him. This is the same as what would happen if you flick on a Russian TV show.
But:
- Again, this is assuming that no one else at all understands the foreign language being spoken. If someone did understand it, it wouldn’t be mysterious.
- The word “mystery” is elsewhere used in the NT (eg. Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 4:1; 15:51, Ephesians 3:3-6) to be describing information from God that he must reveal and cannot be attained by human effort. An example that is contextually close by would be 1 Corinthians 13:2, where Paul talks about someone having great prophetic powers being able to “understand all mysteries,” which seems to me to be referring to this kind of thing, information the common man wouldn’t be privy to. This seems more likely to fit with what Paul’s saying, and fits with what we’ve seen so far.
In terms of the tongues speaker doing this “by the Spirit/in his Spirit,” I concede that this could go either way. But Jared should concede this too. To my knowledge, most English translations of the Bible take it to be referring to the Holy Spirit, and not our human Spirit, but I concede that this is not decisive. The wider context does talk about both the Holy Spirit and our human spirit, and so there’s valid connections to be made to either. But my understanding is definitely a viable one.
4. “...My spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.”
Where I thought Jared’s case was at its weakest was his understanding of v. 13-15. Paul writes:
13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also (1 Co 14:13–15).
I understand Jared to be taking v. 13 to be addressing someone getting up to speak, but their first language is not one the group understands (either the whole group or the majority of the group I guess?). Because they know their own thoughts better than an interpreter will, it’s preferable that they have a stab at translating it into the language of the group, which they can speak a little bit of (and of course they should pray for God’s help as they translate into this language they’re not super strong in). In terms of v. 13 itself, I think that is plausible. However:
- Obviously this understanding of v. 13 stands or falls on the strength of the understanding of the previous verses.
- This problem of definitions that I raised earlier comes up: What exactly is “tongues?” If Jared is correct, this person speaking tongues is speaking their own first language, one they’re significantly more competent in than the shared language. So how is this a gift?
- Or instead, If the gift is supposed to be not that they can speak in their own language, but that they can speak a little bit of the shared language, why does Paul call for a prayer for interpretation? Shouldn’t he just be praying for more tongues?
But I think the wheels fall off in v. 14: “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Jared understands Paul to be switching to a general “I,” which represents those in the congregation who would be praying along to this prayer in this language that is unintelligible to them. He writes:
I believe Paul uses a universal “I” here to stand in the place of the congregation, representing all who are praying along with the one speaking. He could be speaking for himself alone, but his experience as a foreigner to the language is no different that [sic] any other foreigners. So, I believe Paul uses the universal "I" to make a universal principle. He uses this tool throughout his writings; e.g., “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”
So here’s this guy in church, hearing a prayer out loud that he doesn’t understand, and not knowing what he’s saying “amen” to. He’s praying with his spirit, in that he’s engaging his will to pray, and is “covenantally one” with the speaker, but he’s not praying with his mind, because he doesn’t understand what is being said. Let me push back a little (a lot):
- I completely agree that sometimes Paul uses “I” generically to make a rhetorical point in his letters. I also agree that he’s doing that in v. 14. He’s not saying something that is true for himself alone and has no application beyond that. But where I think Jared is making a baffling leap is when he says Paul switches from discussing the speaker in v. 13 to a congregant praying along in v. 14. I don’t see it. Everywhere else in this chapter, he’s addressing the speaker and the problem with getting up and speaking in unintelligible language in the corporate gathering (14:2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23 etc. etc.). The one exception is in v. 11 when Paul specifies that someone else is the speaker, and he is the one listening.
- Further evidence for this is the solution Paul offers in v. 15. Paul solves the problem of praying in their spirit but with an unfruitful mind by praying both in the spirit and with the mind. But doesn’t this depend on whether or not the speaker actually heeds Paul’s instruction and prays in a language that this poor congregant can understand? If the speaker doesn’t change what they’re doing, then the congregant won’t be able to obey v. 15. As a result, I think it’s a much better take to v. 15 as addressing the speaker leading the prayer.
- Further, this would make the flow of thought from 13 → 14 → 15 work much better. If v. 13 is addressing the speaker, and v. 15 is addressing the speaker, surely v. 14 is also addressing the speaker.
- This seems to change the definition of speaking/praying in one’s “spirit” from what Jared has already said about v. 3. If in fact Paul is not speaking of the Holy Spirit in v. 3, we are understanding the speaking mysteries “in his Spirit” as having to do with the speaker knowing what he’s saying, but no one else being on it. But in v. 14, it means something completely different, namely, engaging his will to pray and being covenantally one with the speaker.
- Jared’s interpretation also raises problems for how v. 18-19 are to be understood. In v. 18 Paul thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than the Corinthians. Surely this is not him speaking generically about a “covenantally one” congregant. He’s saying that he himself, the gifted Apostle, speaks more tongues than them. I believe the “I” of v. 19 is the same. At the very least, he’s talking about the speaker, not the congregant. He mentions “speaking” and “instructing others.” So with that locked in place, Paul contrasts his own “tongues speech” with use of the “mind.”
Consider the table below:
If I’m on the right track here, and v. 14 is addressing the speaker, and not a participating congregant who is covenantally one with the speaker, it is decisive against Jared’s view. If he concedes this point, he is conceding that the person who is leading the prayer is the same person who doesn’t understand what he’s saying. The person who is leading in prayer has the unfruitful mind. Jared’s view cannot allow this. If that is the case, my position stands.
5. “Tongues and Interpretation”
If Jared’s understanding is right, it would mean that the gift of tongues and the gift of interpretation are exactly the same. In v. 13 the one praying in a tongue should pray for help to translate what he’s saying. But this would just be praying for more tongues. Paul however, consistently distinguishes them.
“For to one is given through the Spirit… various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues” (1 Corinthians 12:8-10)...
“ Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (1 Co 12:30)?
“The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up” (1 Co 14:5).
“ Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret” (1 Co 14:13)...
“…When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation” (1 Co 14:26)...
“If any speak in a tongue, …let someone interpret” (1 Co 14:27)...
Paul seems to consistently distinguish between these two gifts. We should follow suit.
6. Liturgical Items
It’s also interesting to me that Paul seems to describe both tongues and interpretation as items in the Corinthian church’s liturgy. I understand there are a range of views as to whether Paul is recommending this or whether he is simply describing what the Corinthian church did when they gathered. I don’t think my overall point will be impacted either way. He says in v. 26:
What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up (1 Co 14:26).
Now, if all Paul means by tongues is the unfortunate but necessary problem a Church in a multilingual port city must deal with, why would he include it in a list like this? Tongues seems to be a deliberate item on the liturgy that the church is gathering to witness.
How would this work? Are we really to believe that at some point in the service, the Corinthians would hear, “Alright brothers and sisters, it’s time for a tongue,” and with that brother Thadeus was invited up to flex his skills in Egyptian? Surely not. The place of tongues on this list fits much better with my view.
Notice also that Paul distinguishes it from “a lesson.” Again, if Jared’s view is correct, wouldn’t “tongues” and “a lesson” be the same thing, the only caveat being that the guy trying to give the lesson doesn’t speak the right language for the group? A tongue, provided that there is an interpretation, is for building up, not just an unavoidable problem for a multilingual church.
Concluding Thoughts
At the beginning I wrote that my aim was to yank the door open again. I hope I have at least done that. I believe the gift of tongues is a mysterious gift given to some believers in which they are enabled to speak to God, and not to men, uttering mysteries by the power of the Holy Spirit. The tongues speaker themself does not understand what is being said, but their “mind is unfruitful.” Even still, we know from 1 Corinthians 14 that they are praising God, praying to God, and offering thanks to God. Some people are given a corresponding gift of interpretation, and are enabled supernaturally to explain the prayers being offered to God. Short of an interpretation, tongues should not be practised in a church gathering as it does not benefit those who can not understand what is said and is likely to be perceived as strange to outsiders and to that Jolly Lumberjack.
So, what should you do with all of this? I would recommend a couple of things:
Don’t overemphasise the importance of this gift. Jared is right to point out that many who love this gift need to develop maturity and a wise approach to the Christian life. I would highly recommend anyone who loves speaking in tongues to also read some J.I. Packer. It’d do you a world of good. I think Jared praying in tongues in the midst of a difficult decision is beautiful, but he is right, big issues also need to be thought through.
I’d also recommend that you pray to God to receive the gift of tongues. “...May the Lord do what seems good to him” (2 Sa 10:12).
Thanks for reading and a hearty "hamala shamala" to all.
