theTrents.org

Introduction

Following a recent conversation with my sister-in-law regarding what is most commonly known as "speaking in tongues", I endeavored to determine exactly what scripture has to say about the practice. I wanted to solidify my somewhat wobbly stance, having made study of it in times past but never coming to any firm conclusions.

I am hesitant to cement a position into my personal beliefs unless I am sufficiently well-studied and unreservedly confident on the matter; and on this subject of tongues have several portions of scripture consistently given me pause. I also try to consider the implications and import of doctrines before drawing a "line in the sand" over them: Is it a salvation issue? Does it misrepresent or malign the character of God? Is it likely to lead Christians into grievous error or unduly repel or mislead non-Christians? Does it make light of sin? This line of questioning is important, as discernment is called for when deciding how hard and fast to hold a position. Some things are worth dividing over, some are not, and others are somewhere in between.

And so a definitive answer on tongues was relegated to the "uncertain or unimportant (or both)" category of my theology, where other non-essentials, such as much of eschatology, largely reside. Basically, if I haven't studied it enough to make a thoroughly-educated decision, if it doesn't have a significant impact on life (see the questions above), and if it's not against the plain witness of the Word or conscience, I try to keep an open mind. After all, there are good Christians on both sides of many of these debates. In fact, I have many dear Christian friends of the charismatic persuasion, whose sincerity and faith are without question.

But after some rather intense study and meditation, I have now arrived at an interpretation that I feel reflects the perspicuous meaning of the text, and represents the only truly harmonious solution. I hope it is not pretentious to relate that I feel a real insight into the intent and mindset of the author (in relation to the passage in 1 Corinthians). In fact, after puzzling over a particular few verses (for years, really), I experienced what I could only describe as a Spirit-led epiphany. But that is, of course, subjective, and although I found the whole thing quite edifying personally, what I really want to do is "reason from the scriptures"(Acts 17:2) on this subject of tongues.

Reasoning from the Scriptures

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary defines glossolalia as: "profuse and often emotionally charged speech that mimics coherent speech but is usually unintelligible to the listener and that is uttered in some states of religious ecstasy and in some schizophrenic states." It's not a word heard often in Christian circles, but I thought it applicable, in order to distinguish between glossolalia and xenoglossia, which is the utterance of a normal human language not known by the speaker. By contrast, adherents would term glossolalial tongues as a "spirit", "angelic", or "prayer" language, unintelligible to man. To my knowledge, there isn't any real debate about the existence of xenoglossial tongues; so the question is: are there two types of tongues (xenoglossia and glossolalia), or only one (xenoglossia)?

The debate is nearly as old as Christianity. Originating in 156 AD and persisting until the eighth century, the Montanist sect's ecstatic, experiential practices invite a comparison to the modern pentecostal movement. Today's charismatic churches are largely Wesleyan in descent, and began to emerge in the late 19th century.

My primary text is from 1 Corinthians, however no discussion of tongues would be complete without a trip through Acts. The first and most prominent example of speaking in tongues is of course the Day of Pentecost:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, "Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? "Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs--we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God." And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others were mocking and saying, "They are full of sweet wine." (Acts 2:1-13)

This is obviously not a case of glossolalia, as we're told the speech was understood directly by the people. There is nothing to indicate the apostles babbled in a non-human language, the people merely hearing their own language, as some say. The Greek word translated "tongues" here is "glossa", meaning simply "the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations"(Thayer's and Smith's) or "a language (specifically, one naturally unacquired)"(Strong's); surely if the author meant to communicate an occurrence of glossolalia, he would have used better word choice. Also note the word is in the plural form ("tongues"); if the apostles were all speaking one "angelic language", rather than multiple distinct human languages, we'd expect to see it in the singular ("tongue"). Rather, the most obvious meaning is the apostles were actually speaking these foreign human languages "as the Spirit was giving them utterance".

The purpose of all this seems clear: a sign and witness to the unbelievers, which we'll later see is confirmed in 1 Corinthians. And although many were amazed and were no doubt among the three thousand saved later in the chapter, there were yet scoffers (in line with John 1:11). It is also interesting to note that many of the people gathered in Jerusalem that day would have also understood the lingua franca of the day, Greek. However, the message delivered in Greek certainly would not have commanded the same miraculous weight, provided the same unique personal touch of hearing the Word in one's own dialect, nor fulfilled the prophecies of Matthew 16 and Isaiah 28 (as we'll see later).

The next mention of tongues is in Acts 10:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. (Acts 10:44-48)

We are given no indication of whether this is glossolalial or xenoglossial tongues, so neither position finds support here.

As an aside, note this is the first time we see gentiles saved, and it would appear tongues had a unique purpose here to convince the Jewish believers of that fact. The Indwelling of the Spirit is most certainly not always evidenced by tongues, as some say (no mention of tongues in relation to receipt of the Spirit in John 20:22, Acts 2:41, 8:5-25, 16:31-34). The Bible teaches quite the opposite, in fact; we are told every believer has the Spirit (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 1:13-14), but not every believer speaks in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:29-31).

The last mention of tongues in Acts is in chapter 19:

It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. (Acts 19:1-6)

Again, no specification of what type of tongues. This could be either another human language or an unintelligible "prayer language". We are not told which.

I want to also touch on the very first tongues reference in the New Testament:

"These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." (Mark 16:17-18)

Although used by fanatics to promote some strange doctrines, this is simply a prophecy which we see fulfilled shortly thereafter in Acts. Admittedly, we don't have recorded any instances of apostles drinking poison, but that is not to say it didn't happen, and there is certainly no encouragement here to purposefully attempt harmful activities. And as with the last two passages from Acts, there is no indication one way or another of which type of tongues is referenced.

Before moving on to 1 Corinthians, I want to comment on one more commonly-invoked passage:

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; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. (Rom 8:26-27)

I'll simply note what is not said here:

1. ...that this is in any way an audible process. In fact, the Greek for the phrase "too deep for words" is "alalētos" (al-al'-ay-tos), which Strong defines as "unspeakable: - unutterable, [that] which cannot be uttered.", and Thayer as "not to be uttered, not expressed in words". This definition is decidedly against the idea that anybody is saying anything audibly, nonsensical or otherwise. That the Spirit intercedes spiritually, rather than linguistically, seems to be the idea here. The KJV is more clear: "but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered".
2. ...that this is anything other than normal intercessory prayer. Just a few sentences later, in verse 34, we read that Jesus intercedes for us at the right hand of the Father, which is echoed in 1 Timothy 2. Jesus is our mediator and intercessor, and the indwelt Spirit, as His agent, certainly plays a role in this as well. How foolish must be the prayers of even the wisest of men before Almighty God! We are indeed fortunate to have assistance in our supplication, but let us not read more into this passage than is actually there.
3. ...that this is an intermittent occurrence. Even adherents to glossolalia often pray in normal speech, or silently, yet the text indicates this intercession is a continual process. It does not say "for when we do not know how to pray", as is usually misquoted, rather "for we do not know how to pray". All major translations render it similarly (NASB, KJV, NKJV, NIV, NLT, ASV, CSB, and others), as a completely unqualified statement -- we don't know how to pray, end of story; for "the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men"(1 Cor 1:25). We are in constant need of divine help in this matter, and it is thus given. Were glossolalia in view, every Christian would pray unintelligibly every time, which is obviously not the case.

Thus neither glossolalia or xenoglossia seem to be implied here, which means the passage is really not relevant to the discussion. Though it is comforting to know we have a such a Helper who can transcend the limitations of language and sound waves and human infirmity!

Moving on to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, we find really the only direct teaching about the gift of tongues, and so 1 Corinthians 12-14 will be our main text. I'll present the scripture and intersperse my comments as appropriate.

1Co 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware.

1Co 12:2 You know that when you were pagans, you were led astray to the mute idols, however you were led.

Not to be remiss or outdone by the pagans, Paul endeavors to equip his flock with guidance in all things spiritual. There is also perhaps the implication that the Corinthians, left to themselves, were doing a pretty poor job.

1Co 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

1Co 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1Co 12:5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

1Co 12:6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

1Co 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

1Co 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

1Co 12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

1Co 12:10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

Corresponding to the order given here and throughout this section, tongues are thoroughly de-emphasized as the least of the gifts.

1Co 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

The distribution of gifts is the will of the Spirit, not the will of man. One questions the legitimacy of environments which pressure people toward certain gifts. We do not procure them, they are imparted.

1Co 12:12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Put simply, all Christians have the Spirit.

1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

1Co 12:15 If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.

1Co 12:16 And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.

1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?

1Co 12:18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

1Co 12:19 If they were all one member, where would the body be?

1Co 12:20 But now there are many members, but one body.

Again, it is for God in his infinite wisdom to mete out gifts. This is a scathing indictment against those who would say a person does not have the Spirit unless he has exhibited a particular gift. Identify your gift, use it for the glory of God and at His leading, and be content.

1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."

1Co 12:22 On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary;

1Co 12:23 and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable,

1Co 12:24 whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked,

1Co 12:25 so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

Paul makes an analogy to the physical body here. All parts of the physical body have their function and place, as do gifts in the Church. Even the private and unpresentable body parts are specially honored with modesty and have a vital role, though they are not seen.

1Co 12:26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

1Co 12:27 Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.

We are a family, one body, and since we are interdependent, we affect each other.

1Co 12:28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

Again the ordering of the gifts. One questions the legitimacy of environments that promote the lesser gifts to prominence over the greater ones.

1Co 12:29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they?

1Co 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

As mentioned before, although all Christians have the Spirit, all Christians do not speak in tongues. The idea that tongues necessarily evidence the baptism of the Spirit is unscriptural.

1Co 12:31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way.

An over-emphasis of lesser gifts is unscriptural. Let us be mindful that our emphases do not come to the point of error.

1Co 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.

This verse is often employed in support of glossolalial tongues. However, it would surely be unwise to infer doctrine from such a passing reference! Paul here makes his point, as he often does, through exaggeration to the point of absurdity. There is no support here for an "angelic language" any more than for a man actually knowing "all mysteries and all knowledge" or "removing mountains", as in the next verse. Documenting or establishing normative practice could not be further from view.

1Co 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1Co 13:3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

1Co 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant,

1Co 13:5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered,

1Co 13:6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;

1Co 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Gifts are important, but let us put things into perspective! What is most important? Love.

1Co 13:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

1Co 13:9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part;

1Co 13:10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

This passage is used by cessationists to support the idea that "signs" gifts ceased with the apostolic age. The claim is that "the perfect" is scripture, and once the canon was complete, there was no longer a need for these gifts. This argument is weak, and depends entirely on that definition of "the perfect". If "the perfect" refers instead to the second coming of Christ, this interpretation is invalid. And since we are not told directly nor given any definite clues to the identity of "the perfect", it is rash to deduce concrete doctrine from this passage.

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

1Co 13:13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Paul speaks of maturity here. The spiritually immature will elevate gifts unduly, but the mature Christian keeps his priorities straight.

1Co 14:1 Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.

As with anything, there must be balance. Gifts have a place in Christian life. However, they must not receive undue focus, and the lesser gifts must be treated as such.

1Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

It is crucial to consider audience and scope in interpreting this verse. Paul is writing to Christians about their interaction with other Christians in a corporate worship (church) setting. If I stood up next Sunday and undertook -- in Polish -- a brilliant speech on the many glories of God, the only one who would understand it would be God himself. I don't know Polish, and I'm fairly sure nobody at my church knows it either. So although I uttered a normal human language, it would be a complete mystery to myself and the congregation.

And so it was back then as well. The believers native to any given area (in this case Corinth) would have all spoken a common language/dialect (in this case Doric Greek) and thus believers at any given assembly shared a common tongue. Keep in mind there were no cathedrals or church buildings at this time in history, and believers met in each other's houses, which is a fairly private setting. Also remember the church at Corinth was made up of Corinthians -- people local to Corinth -- and Corinth was Greek long before being conquered by the Romans, thus being well established in the language. This is in stark contrast to public preaching or missionary work, such as the Day of Pentecost, where people of many different lands and languages were gathered. Within the church, anything besides the local language would be understood by few or none of the people ("does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands"), whereas outside of the church, the application is obvious.

1Co 14:3 But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation.

1Co 14:4 One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.

Prophesying here is generally understood as teaching or preaching the Word (speaking "for edification and exhortation and consolation"). It would indeed be quite an experience for myself if I stood up and delivered a Spirit-led speech in Polish, however, it wouldn't be profitable to those listening, since they wouldn't understand a word. Conversely, if I delivered a Spirit-led and scripturally-sound message in English, we'd all benefit from hearing, and more importantly, understanding, the Word.

1Co 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.

1Co 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?

People are not edified unless they understand what is said. The main idea here is that, when gathered together as a congregation, people are to be edified. There is no profit in listening to someone babble in a language nobody understands. Yes, tongues are a valid gift. However, they are a lesser gift, and there are guidelines to be followed (more on that later).

The Corinthians had clearly been abusing this gift of tongues, and Paul writes this to set them straight. This is a corrective section in a corrective epistle (see 1 Cor 1:11, 3:1-3, 4:21, et al).

1Co 14:7 Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?

1Co 14:8 For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?

1Co 14:9 So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.

1Co 14:10 There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

1Co 14:11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.

I believe the meaning here is twofold:

1. ...to advocate against the over-use and over-emphasis of tongues. Although you may be speaking clearly in another human language, if your audience (the church) does not understand it, you might as well be speaking nonsense.
2. ...to instruct against ecstatic, nonsensical utterings. Speech must be clear, and glossolalia is anything but. Even when employing the gift of tongues and speaking another human language, your target audience (those who understand that language) must be able to comprehend it. Verse 10 goes so far as to specify that we are talking about languages "in the world", of which none are "without meaning". "Prayer language" or "angelic language" is nowhere in sight. In fact, it is strongly argued against. I'm not sure how it could be put any more clearly.

As musical instruments must be played properly and with skill, so must the tongue be employed to utter speech beneficial to those who hear!

1Co 14:12 So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.

Paul knows the Corinthians have a tendancy toward overzealousness in this area and encourages them to apply their zeal properly and unselfishly.

1Co 14:13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.

...otherwise, it is of no use to anyone but the speaker. Every part of the body must be productive, or the whole suffers.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

1Co 14:15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

Without engaging the mind, even he who speaks in tongues is not fully edified. The Christian faith is not primarily experiential, as to the gratifying of the flesh through emotion, but reasoned (Isa 1:18). For the flesh profits nothing (John 6:63) and the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Job 17:9). We cannot trust the subjective, nor ground our faith upon it.

1Co 14:16 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?

1Co 14:17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.

1Co 14:18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all;

1Co 14:19 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Again, tongues has its place. Paul himself possesses the gift, and makes frequent use of it, but in the proper venue. The best place for tongues is outside the church, as a witness and sign to unbelievers. Within the church we must engage the brain and produce rational speech for the edification of all. Paul again employs an exaggeration to drive this point home (verse 19).

(Also note this is applicable against those who would conduct worship in languages not understood by the congretation, as the Papists did until the 1960's.)

"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor."(1 Cor 10:23-24)

1Co 14:20 Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.

The Corinthians are suffering from a case of acute spiritual immaturity (1 Cor 3:1-3, 4:21). Paul seeks to dissuade them from inordinate use of spiritual gifts, set up guidelines for their proper and effective use, and thus lead them out of error and toward maturity.

1Co 14:21 In the Law it is written, "BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord.

1Co 14:22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.

1Co 14:23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

1Co 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all;

1Co 14:25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.

Here we come upon the verses which perplexed me for so long, and are I think the crux of the entire discourse. How can we reconcille the apparent contradiction between "tongues are for a sign ... to unbelievers" in verse 22 and "if the whole church ... speak[s] in tongues, and ... unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?" in verse 23? If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, why are we then discouraged from speaking in tongues in the church, and rather encouraged to prophesy? And how can it be that "prophecy is a sign ... to those who believe" in verse 22, but verse 24 suggests we prophesy in the church in order to convict unbelievers?

The key, as I mentioned earlier, is understanding the distinctions of audience and application between the verses in this text. With the obvious exception of verses 21-22, these are primarily instructions for Christians about their worship together. When glossolalia is in view, these verses do not make sense. An "angelic" or "prayer" language, if it existed, would be rather a sign for believers, who, being spiritual, could discern such things (1 Cor 2:14 - "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God"); and prophecy would be the sign for unbelievers, as they would be hearing the Gospel (Rom 10:17 - "faith comes from hearing"). But it is the other way around, which means Paul can only be discussing xenoglossia.

Xenoglossia is the only thing that fits. Tongues are a sign for unbelievers, as on the Day of Pentecost, because tongues provide a way to speak the Word to people of different languages than yourself, which is both miraculous (a sign) and effective (faith comes from hearing). Prophecy (teaching, preaching) is a sign to believers, as it is both edifying and provides a means to weigh a person's words against the Word, and thus their affinity with Christ (1 John 4:1 - "test the spirits"; Gal 1:8-9 - "if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"). But this (verses 21 and 21) is clearly for outside the church.

Within the church, though, tongues are not in view. They haven't a clear and useful purpose within a congregation of believers. Not only would they drive unbelievers away (verse 23), but they are not effective, unlike prophecy (teaching/preaching), to convict the heart (verse 24). This is for practical reasons as well. Out in the mission field, one will likely encounter men of varied languages and have use for such a gift. However, within the church, even an unbeliever who enters will most likely be a native, and share a common tongue with those gathered (how often do people who don't speak English visit your church?).

And so that is the puzzle which vexed me for so many years, and the solution which gives me such confidence. The wisdom in these verses is astounding, as only in "solving" the apparent conundrum do we ascertain its true meaning, and in doing so invalidate errant interpretations which simply don't fit.

1Co 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification.

1Co 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret;

1Co 14:28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

1Co 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.

1Co 14:30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.

1Co 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted;

1Co 14:32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets;

1Co 14:33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Tongues by itself is for without, rather than within, the church. Only when coupled with an interpretation, and therefore substance, may it be practiced in the assembly, and only in moderation. It is, after all, the least of the gifts.

1Co 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.

1Co 14:35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

1Co 14:36 Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only?

1Co 14:37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment.

1Co 14:38 But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

This is an often ignored and violated guideline. Women are not to assume positions of teaching authority within the congregation (at least over men - 1 Tim 2:12). This preculdes women from standing up and offering a tongue in the church. Should such a thing occur, it cannot be from God, as it constitutes a clear violation of this scripture. Leaders of congregations who allow this are gravely remiss! This is not so easily discounted as "cultural" or outdated, as Paul calls this the "Lord's commandment" (verse 37) and gives a stern warning to recognize it (verse 38).

1Co 14:39 Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.

1Co 14:40 But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

Tongues is a bona-fide, legitimate spiritual gift. However, prophecy is far and away the more important activity (verse 19, et al). Here and in verse 33 we have the idea of peace and propriety, rather than disorder and confusion. This is a picture altogether foreign to many (but not all) expressions of glossolalia I've witnessed, which I think is a testimony to the potential dangers of overly-experiential, ecstatic, emotional emphases -- such activities do not generally beget order! And since we have such a clear teaching, we must be critical of any environment which promotes disorder and confusion in the assembly.

Conclusion and Application

Paul has a surprising amount to say about the gift of tongues, but it is notably for the sole purpose of rebuke and correction of its misuse, and to downplay its significance within the church. There is also a clear witness against the practice of glossolalia. Rather, the gift of tongues is always of the xenoglossial form, which is not only scripturally supported as we have seen, but practical as to its application. Let us heed this teaching and prove ourselves doers and not just hearers of the Word! (James 1:22)

And so we are left with the challenge of how to apply these truths, the main question being: if glossolialia is not of God, of what is it? There are two choices left: man or satan. I am inclined to believe genuine believers exhibiting glossolalia are not channeling demons, but, caught up in emotion and pressured by peers, unwittingly create it from within. One must admit, it would be a simple matter to replicate that which is already nonsensical! In fact, I know someone who has confessed to that very thing, owing to the immense pressure of those around him, desiring inclusion (as we all do), and not wanting to "miss out" on anything. On the other hand, not all people within the visible church (lowercase "c") are genuine Christians, which means there may well be demonic activity involved in this practice.

On the whole, I don't classify this issue in the same realm as vital points of orthodoxy such as the trinity, the atonement, or grace and faith. As I mentioned in the beginning, I do have close friends who are faithful brothers and sisters in Christ who attend pentecostal churches. It is is certainly not my intention to offend or provoke anyone in this, and I would not count this an issue worthy of hard and fast division. However, the Bible does have some things to say in this matter, and we must pursue accurate doctrine with all dilligence and honesty. Reasoning from the scriptures together with civility is never a bad thing!

"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good"(1 Thes 5:21)