The Gift of Tongues — Part II

What were Tongues in the New Testament?

It is no wonder that cessationists and charismatics differ widely on the topic of tongues. They often do not agree as to what they even were. Continuist Dr. Wayne Grudem’s attempt therefore to forge a “middleground” or “third position” is most ambitious.

From the very inception of the Christian church, the book of Acts seems to make clear that tongues are ordinary human languages. A cursory glance at Acts 2:6-11 reveals without dispute that human languages are here being employed:

Now when this was noised abroad the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

By employing such wording as, “every man heard them speak in his own language” the Scriptures make clear that human languages contemporary for the 1st Century were at play at Pentecost. But to put the issue beyond all doubt, these observers verify for us by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that these languages were identical to the ones that they had always known: “And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” There may be some discussion over whether this miracle was worked in the speakers or in the hearers , but it seems clear enough that the speech of the apostles was quite intelligible.

Rudolf Stier, a German of the 19th Century, illustrates the scene:

It was the Savior of them all who had taught His Galileans the languages of the world, in order to proclaim His salvation … These unlearned Galileans speak of the high things of God, and His wonders and works upon earth, which they now all at once completely understand, and about which they can express themselves! Thus had the great God given them, through Jesus, tongues of fire, which, moreover, were the tongues of nations. The great things of God now proclaimed were (according to Joel ii. 21 ff.) much greater than those done under the old covenant; but not, perhaps, until eternity began for them, did these inspired spokesmen fully understand what these great things were, with which the man-voiced consecration-psalm of the Christian community resounded.

But although the gift enabled men to speak in ordinary languages, the book of Acts does not record them ever speaking in a setting that could be described as entirely ordinary. In the three instances where tongues are found in Acts, the gift is always spontaneous. They were accompanied by surprised observers and dramatic elements such as the sound of rushing wind or flames of fire.

Moving to the scene at Corinth, some of these features seem to be absent. The Apostle Paul speaks of some actually preparing to speak in tongues as they worship, indicating that this was a regular feature of church-life. Edification, not so much mass evangelization, has become the central focus. This has led to some strange interpretations of some of the portions of 1 Corinthians 12-14. For example, Paul opens his 13th chapter of first Corinthians in what appears at first to suggest that the gift of tongues is not human languages in the setting at Corinth:

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

What does the Apostle Paul mean by the “tongues of angels?” In this first verse, might the apostle be suggesting that the gift of tongues is the product of both the languages of men and heavenly angelic beings? What is his purpose in suggesting that he might speak the language of angels if this is never the purpose of tongues? Are these languages unknown to human beings?

Thoughtful consideration of these texts will prompt us to take care to not assume too quickly that two completely different things are taking place here. If we continue to read in the context of 1 Cor. 13, we find Paul alluding to other things that we might well surmise he had never actually done:
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge… And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor … and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Had Paul actually come to understand on this side of heaven all the mysteries that were in the universe through the gift of prophecy? Had he actually given away all his possessions to the poor? We have no evidence in the New Testament that either of these things occurred. In fact, Paul asserts in verse 12 of this very chapter that he did not actually understand all mysteries. “Now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”
But to place all beyond doubt that Paul is speaking in hyperbole in the opening verses of 1 Cor. 13, the apostle moves on to even more outlandish performances of faith and devotion:

… and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing … and though I give my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Had Paul actually moved some of the mountains that dotted the landscape of Palestine? Was Paul speaking of an actual occasion in which he gave his body to be burned? The answers to these questions are much easier to answer. The answer is that Paul is not speaking of things he actually had done. He is contrasting the comparative value of such hypothetical experiences with the possession and exercise of love.

Now given that context, is it likely that Paul had actually spoken with the tongues of angels? If so, it would have been the only thing in this entire set of hypothetical scenarios that would not have struck the Corinthians as fantastic. More to the point, if the Corinthians themselves were speaking both in the tongues of men and angels at the time of Paul’s writing, the rhetorical effect of this first hypothetical would have had no grip upon the consciences of those that first read it. It would have struck them as something ordinary in a chain of extraordinary things.
The apostle Paul writes something else later to the Corinthians that might have an even further tendency to stump us:

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

In Acts 2:6-11, the audience at Pentecost clearly believed that they were the intended recipients of the apostles’ speech. In Acts 2:11 they exclaim, “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” So at Pentecost it seems that men were the audience and there was understanding about what was spoken.
So what is the apostle saying in 1 Cor. 14:2? First of all, by saying that the speaker of tongues “speaketh not unto men, but unto God” the apostle is not saying that men are irrelevant or even secondary to what is happening. The same chapter reveals Paul is interested that men understand what is said.

Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

In the larger context, Paul is saying that men are not being spoken to in 1 Cor. 14:2 because what is being said is shrouded in mystery due to the absence of an interpreter. This is why he “speaketh mysteries.” Paul goes on to explain that this is undesirable. To use this one verse as a basis to justify the assertion that tongues are unintelligible mysteries intended for God and not the edification of believers bypasses Paul’s overall argument in this chapter for speaking in tongues, as the crowning imperative of verse 28 proves: “But if there be no interpreter let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.”
This closer look at the text reveals to us that any modern charismatic is not in fact urging for a continuation of the 1st Century use of this gift if he might suggest that the tongues spoken are not human languages. By arguing that tongues by their very nature are incomprehensible to any given audience, he would regularly approve a scene that would have been alien to the way they were chiefly employed in the book of Acts and expressly disapproved by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. It may be a more likely possibility that any modern charismatic that takes this route is building upon the very carnal abuses displayed by the Corinthians that Paul was seeking to correct.