Is The Gift Of Tongues For Today?
One of the most controversial issues facing the church today is the issue of whether speaking in tongues is a gift which should be exercised by believers. I believe that there are two reasons the issue is so controversial. The first is that many of those who believe the gift is for the church today, believe so simply on the basis of experience. Since they are believers, and since they have experienced speaking in tongues, it must be of God. A second reason is that much of the support for the exercise of the gift is obtained by taking a verse here, and a verse there, and ignoring the context in which the verse is placed. When this type of "proof texting" is done, just about anything can be declared to be of God. For example, the Bible states that Judas hanged himself (Matthew 27:5). Jesus said, "Go and do thou likewise" (Luke 10:37). Does this mean then that Christians should commit suicide? Obviously, my "biblical" proof is in error.
In order to determine whether the gift of tongues is for today, it will be necessary to determine first of all the nature of the gift. What exactly is the gift of tongues? Many believe it to be a language known only to God and therefore the unintelligible sounds they utter are what they believe the Bible details as the gift of tongues. As we compare what the Bible records is the nature of the gift and what is being exercised today, I believe that we will find that the two have nothing in common. After determining the nature of the gift, we will need to determine how the gift was used in Scripture. Finally, we will need to determine the purpose of the gift. It is here that we will be able to determine if the gift is to continue today.
Let’s begin by examining the biblical usage of the gift of tongues. The word that is translated "tongues" in the Bible is the Greek word glossa. The word may refer to the organ that is found in the mouth, but generally is refers to a language. A rather unfortunate aid to interpretation was placed in the King James Bible by its editors. The word "unknown" was added to the English text before the word tongue. The word is written in italics, which means the word was not found in the original Greek New Testament, but added by the translators in order to help the reader understand the meaning of the text. Many will say the since the gift is an unknown tongue, that the language is unintelligible, or ecstatic babbling. But the addition of the word unknown simply meant known to the world, but unknown, or better, unlearned, by the speaker. I had a few years of French in High School and did not learn too much of the language. I had two years of Koine Greek in Bible College so I understand that language somewhat. But that is the extent of my knowledge of foreign languages. If you were to ask me to speak in Russian, to me, that would be an unknown tongue. It is known to the world, but not to me.
That those who spoke in tongues during the first century were speaking in a known language of the world is demonstrated in Acts Chapter 2. In verse 4 we find that the Apostles were filled with the Spirit of God and began to speak with other tongues (heterais glossais) literally- "in different languages". Those who heard them, heard the speak in HIS OWN LANGUAGE(emphasis mine). If this had been some unintelligible babbling, Luke could not have penned these words. But of even more importance is the fact that Luke uses the Greek word dialektos from which we get our English word "dialect". There are no dialects in ecstatic babblings, only in intelligible languages. Luke goes on to detail the dialects in verses nine through eleven. The word "tongue" in verse eight is once again the Greek word dialektos. Notice that those who were speaking in tongues, were speaking in a dialect of a person's birthplace. Since everyone is born somewhere on the earth, and not in heaven, this dialect must also be of the earth and not a "heavenly language". Finally, in verse 11, Luke records that the hearers heard in "our tongues" (glossa)- not God's tongue! Throughout the rest of the Book of Acts, the instances of the use of tongues have no descriptive element as does chapter two. Since no other description of the usages is given, it must be concluded that everywhere else throughout Acts, tongues speakers were speaking in known human languages.
That tongues were known languages of the world must also be concluded by the necessity of interpretation. In the rules given for the use of tongues found in 1 Corinthians 12, Paul states that tongues were not to be spoken unless someone was present who was capable of interpreting. If the language was unintelligible, the interpreter could give any meaning he desired to the message spoken by the tongues speaker, and no one would be able to prove him wrong. The opportunity for deception was great. However, if the tongues speaker was speaking in a known language of the world, then anyone who was familiar with the language could verify what was said, and consequently the possibility of corrupting the gift was greatly diminished, if not altogether eliminated.
Some believe that there are two or more kinds of tongues given in the New Testament. One type is that which is a known language as demonstrated in the Book of Acts and another is the tongues of angels that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 13:1. This kind of tongues speaking is then used in a believer's private prayer life. Tongues and prayer will be examined in just a little bit, for now I want to examine if there is a second kind of tongues, the tongues of angels. 1 Corinthians 13 has been called the great Love Chapter of the New Testament. Certainly it is a great exposition of the magnificence of love but it must be remembered that- get ready for this, this is important- chapter 13 comes right between chapter 12 and chapter 14 (I told you that was important!). The significance of this is that both chapters 12 and 14 are dealing with the exercise of spiritual gifts, so too is chapter 13. The first three verses of chapter 13 deal with the exercise of spiritual gifts apart from love for God and the brethren. Paul is speaking hypothetically. Paul did not understand all mysteries nor did he have all faith, he did not bestow all his goods to feed the poor nor did he give his body to be burned. Had Paul understood all mysteries, he would have been the most intelligent man alive. Had Paul had all faith, he would have been the most spiritually-minded man alive. Had Paul given all his goods to feed the poor, he would have been the most benevolent man alive. Had he given his body to be burned, he would have been the most sacrificial man who had ever lived. But if he was any or all of these things and he did not possess love or be motivated by love for others to do these things, he would be nothing and accomplish nothing. The expression of "tongues of angels" in verse one then, simply means that if his speech was so eloquent that it sounded angelic, if it was not motivated by love, it would be as beautiful as a crash of the cymbals. There is simply no reason to believe, from this passage, that there is a language of angels that man is supposed to speak.
When what is being reported as tongues speaking today is compared to how the gift was exercised in the New Testament, we see that there is very little, if any resemblance at all to each other. Some will say that according to Romans 8:26, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with groanings which is praying in tongues. However there is a very serious problem with Romans 8:26 and tongues. The groanings that the Holy Spirit makes are those which "can not be uttered". The word uttered can also be translated by "unspeakable". Here's the problem- How can anyone speak in a tongue which is unspeakable? To equate the groanings of the Holy Spirit's intercession and the gift of tongues is simply bad Bible hermeneutics. We must conclude then, that every time tongues were spoken in the New Testament, the speaker was always speaking a known language of the world, not some unintelligible gibberish. To state, as some do, that there were different kinds of tongues in the New Testament, is to add something to the text of the New Testament that is not there so that the modern practice can be justified. It is making the Bible agree with experience, rather than experience agree with the Bible.
Many will say that a person who speaks in an unknown tongue does well for he edifies himself according to 1 Corinthians 14:4. But is this the edification that Paul desires for believers? I suggest it is not. Again we must be careful not to isolate the verse out of its context. Back in chapter 12:7, Paul states that spiritual gifts are distributed by the Holy Spirit for the profit (edification) of all. Spiritual gifts were never intended to be used privately, but for the public good. The context of chapter 14 follows what was said in chapter 12. In that the tongues speaker is only edifying himself, he is not using the gift for its intended purpose. This can clearly be seen in verse 5. Paul is encouraging the Corinthians to promote the gift of prophecy over the gift of tongues because when one prophesied, the whole church received edification. What verse two states is that only God understands when a person speaks in an unknown tongue and God does not need, nor can not be edified- He is already infinitely perfect! And what profit does the church receive when it has no idea of what is being said? This is the question of verse 6. He clearly states in verse 12 that spiritual gifts must edify the church.
But one may ask, didn't Paul pray in tongues. The answer is NO! Verse 14 says that if a person would pray in an unknown tongue, he would have no understanding of what he was praying for. In verse 15 Paul states that he will pray with understanding, hence, he could not be praying in an unknown tongue. At this point we need to ask, Does man need to pray in tongues? Can't God understand him in man's own known language? Why certainly He does! But does man benefit by praying for something he has no idea of what he is asking for? Of course not. Why does God desire that we pray in first place? If God knows what we need even before we ask for it, why is it necessary that we pray? The answer is that when God answers prayer, we know where the answer came from, we give thanks, and God is glorified. If we pray for things, and we have no idea of what we prayed for, how will we know when and what to thank God for, and how will He then be glorified?
Some say that speaking in tongues is the evidence of either being baptized by the Spirit of God, or of being filled by the Spirit of God. It is argued that throughout the Book of Acts, when people came to faith in Jesus Christ, they were subsequently baptized by the Spirit, and when this occurred, they spoke in tongues. To be fair, there are a couple of instances where this happened (Acts 10:46 and 19:6). However, two very important points must be noted concerning these two instances. First, in both cases, the "subsequent" was immediately following their coming to faith in Christ. It may even be correct to state that the speaking in tongues and the operation of the Holy Spirit happened simultaneously with them coming to faith in Christ. If there is any delay of time at all between the time of believing in Christ and the time when they spoke in tongues, it was minimal. There is one exception to this and that is found in Acts 8:14-17. Because of the preaching of Philip the evangelist, many people in the city of Samaria had come to faith in Christ. However, they had not yet received the Holy Spirit. Peter and John were dispatched to Samaria and when they had laid hands on the believers there, they received the Holy Spirit. I must emphasize that this was an exception, not the rule. In all other cases found in the book of Acts, the giving of the Holy Spirit came with the people believing. You do not build doctrines on exceptions. But exceptions must also have a legitimate explanation or they cancel the validity of the doctrine. I believe that the delay in the giving of the Holy Spirit to these Samaritans can be explained in that it was necessary for the Apostles to recognize that God was including the Samaritans with all the same rights and privileges as the rest of the Jews, that there was no division in the Body of Christ. Remember that the Samaritans were considered "2nd class" citizens of Israel by the Jews and there was a great enmity between them, so much so that Jews would even avoid traveling through Samaria when going between Judea and Galilee (cf. John 4:9). By waiting until John and Peter had arrived from Jerusalem to pour out the Spirit to these Samaritans, God proved to the leadership of His Church that all, regardless of ethnicity, would be on an equal basis in the Body of Christ.
Moving to 1 Corinthians 12, we find that Paul mentions the baptizing ministry of the Spirit in his discussion of spiritual gifts. Verse 13 states that all of the Corinthians were baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ. It is essential to note that this is the only place in all of the New Testament where the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit is explained. This ministry of the Spirit is that which identifies the believer with the universal Body of believers- the Church. It is not to be confused with the indwelling and filling of the Holy spirit whereby the believer is empowered to accomplish the will of God. In Acts 2:4 and 10:46 the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit is seen occurring at the same time the believers spoke with tongues, however, the speaking with tongues was because the believers were filled with the Spirit, not because they had been baptized by Him. The filling of the Spirit is to be repetitive, whereas the baptizing of the Spirit is a singular event in the life of the Christian. What is important about the 1 Corinthians 12:13 passage though is that all the Corinthians had been baptized by the Spirit into the Body of Christ, not just the spiritual ones. Yet, in 1 Corinthians 12:30 Paul asks if all speak in tongues. In the grammar of the Greek New Testament, the construction of the sentence is known as a deliberative subjunctive, which asks a rhetorical question. Because of the negative particle found in the question, the expected answer is NO. To include the negative particle in the translation, it could literally read, "Not all speak in tongues, do they?" If the baptism of the Holy Spirit was that which enabled the believers to speak in tongues then of necessity, all would need to speak in tongues, but Paul said all did not.
We also note that not every occurrence of the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by speaking in tongues. In Acts 2:38, Peter assured those who would believe on Jesus to be saved would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, yet there is no record that anyone spoke in tongues on this occasion. Likewise in Acts 4:4 we find that 5000 more people put their faith in Jesus Christ, yet they did not speak in tongues. We therefore conclude that speaking in tongues is not the evidence of being baptized by the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, the filling of the Spirit does not always result in the speaking in tongues. All believers are commanded to be filled with the Spirit according to Ephesians 5:18. Yet if all do not speak in tongues as 1 Corinthians 12:30 states, then how can all be filled with the Spirit? The context of Ephesians 5 reveals a number of evidences of being filled with the Spirit. First is a right fellowship with God. The filled believer is in an attitude of worship. Secondly, there is a right relationship with others- husbands and wives, parents and children, employers and employees all find themselves in fellowship with each other. But nowhere is there to be found speaking in tongues as evidence of being filled with the Spirit. While the book of Acts records that some filled believers spoke in tongues, it does not state that all filled believers spoke in tongues. We must conclude that speaking in tongues was AN evidence of being filled with the Spirit of God, but not THE evidence of it.
It is interesting to note how the gifts of tongues was employed throughout the book of Acts. There are only three recorded instances of tongues speaking in the book- 2:4, 10:46 and 19:6. It is stated in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22 that the gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews (more concerning this will be dealt with in the following paragraphs). Therefore, throughout the book of Acts, if the gift was being used correctly, then in the presence of the tongues speaker(s), there should be a company of unbelieving Jews. In each case that was so. On the day of Pentecost there were assembled Jews from all over the Roman Empire, all of which were unbelieving. In Acts 10:45 we read that there was a group of Jews which had come with Peter to Caesarea. Finally, in Acts 19 we find Paul in Ephesus and finding certain disciples. These disciples were disciples of John the Baptist (19:4) and therefore, Jews. Immediately after the conversion of these men, Paul heads for the synagogue, indicating that there were many Jews present in Ephesus. Why is it, that today, when tongues are supposedly being spoken, rarely, if at all, are any unbelieving Jews present? Modern usage of the gift does not conform to biblical usage. This brings us to the purpose for the gift of tongues. As noted in the last paragraph, the gift of tongues was given as a sign to unbelieving Jews. But a sign of what? Before looking at the specific nature of the purpose of the gift of tongues, it is necessary to look at the general nature of signs. Signs were given to authenticate. For example, in 2 Corinthians 12:12, Paul writes that the signs of an apostle were wrought among the Corinthians. These signs (miracles, etc.) were to authenticate the authority of the apostle as one who was called of God to oversee the infant church. The signs validated their authority to rule and the message they taught as being from God. Tongues then, as a sign, were to validate a message from God.
Paul states specifically what that message was. In verse 21 of 1 Corinthians 14, he makes a reference to Isaiah 28:11-12. Isaiah is speaking to the nation of Israel and warning them about the consequences of continued disobedience to the will of God. Isaiah warns that if the Jews would not repent, judgment was coming from a nation who spoke a different language. Unfortunately, the Jews did not repent, and the Assyrians came and the judgment of God was visited upon the Jews. As we move to the New Testament, the scenario is the same. Jesus has offered salvation in His Name and most of the nation of Israel has rejected Him. Judgment will come for their disobedience if they do not repent and a sign of that judgment is those who spoke in tongues. Once again, the nation did not repent and the judgment came in 70 AD when Titus, the Roman general, came down and conquered the city of Jerusalem. If the use of tongues in the book of Acts was to be consistent with this instruction, then not only would the tongues speakers be speaking to a group of unbelieving Jews, but a message would need to preached about Jesus as Messiah and the coming judgment if they refused to believe in Him. Once again, this is exactly what happened. Acts 2:22-40 is Peter's sermon which caused 3000 Jews to believe. Acts 10:34-43 is Peter's sermon to Cornelius and his friends which speaks of God's salvation through Jesus Christ and Him being the Judge of the living and the dead. Paul preaches in Acts 19:8 of the same message. Again we see that the use of the gift in the book of Acts is consistent with the biblical purpose given in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.
Having determined the purpose for the gift of tongues, I believe that it is easy to conclude why the gift is not necessary or given to the church today. When anything accomplishes its purpose, it is no longer necessary for it to continue in use. For example, in the Old Testament, the believers were required to bring animal sacrifices for their sins. However, with the work of Jesus on Calvary's Cross, the need for animal sacrifices was eliminated, and consequently we no longer bring a lamb or a bull to church with us. So it is with the gift of tongues. With the fulfillment of the predicted judgment of God in 70 AD, the need for the gift of tongues disappeared. And without a need, the gift of tongues did likewise.
I Corinthians 13:8 states that the gift of tongues would do just that. Three gifts are being discussed in this portion of Scripture. The gift of the word of knowledge and the gift of prophecy are said to be partial gifts (we know in part and we prophesy in part v.9). That is, no one was given a full disclosure of New Testament revelation in one sitting. The New Testament was recorded by at least 8 different authors and over the course of about 60 years. However, when the perfect thing would come (13:10) the partial gifts would be discontinued. I believe this perfect thing is the completion of the New Testament revelation (see "What Is The Perfect Thing of 1 Cor. 13:10" for argumentation). Tongues, though, were not a partial gift, nor could they be. Consequently, there was nothing that had to be accomplished before the gift could be discontinued. Verse eight simply says that tongues shall cease. Church historians and writers record that by the end of the first century AD, tongues had completely disappeared. Only heretical groups, such as the Montanists, from time to time exercised the gift. For all practical purposes, the gift has been non-existent until the last few decades and the beginning of the charismatic movement. When Paul wrote that tongues would cease, the word he that is translated "cease" is a Greek word that means cease with a finality, not to be started again. As noted before, the modern demonstration of the gift of tongues is in no way consistent with the use of the gift in the first century.
Seeing that the purpose for the gift of tongues is no longer needed and that the modern demonstration of the gift is in no way consistent with the biblical design, I believe that we must conclude that the gift of tongues has ceased and is not being given by God to the church today. But this leaves us with one problem, how do we explain what is going on. Two possibilities exist. First is the deception of the flesh. Many believers, wanting a better feeling about their walk with God, and believing that this gift is desirable, simply generate what they believe is God honoring from what they have seen others do. Many in our world today build their theology around their feelings. This can be seen in a popular "Christian" song sung by Debbie Boone, where she sang, "...it can't be wrong, if it feels so right..." YES IT CAN BE WRONG! The Jews felt pretty good around Aaron's golden calf, but God was not pleased. A second possibility is satanic counterfeit. Even the best of believers are capable of being deceived by the enemy. This was Peter's case in Matthew 16:23 where the Lord looked at him and said, "Get thee behind me, Satan". As Lehman Strauss once said, "Satan is an imitator, not an innovator." He does not come up with original ideas but takes the things of God, corrupts them, and passes them off as being authentic and needed by the Christian. I believe he has deceived many today with this "gift".