A Biblical and Historical Defense of Tongues
A Biblical and Historical Defense of Tongues
Cessationism is the completely man-made doctrine that certain spiritual gifts died out with the Apostles. Cessationism isn’t Scriptural, and the only reason anyone believes it is simply because someone told them it was so. But the Bible never says that some spiritual gifts (Tongues, healings, miracles, etc.) had an expiration date. Cessationism is also bad because it denies that other spiritual gifts, like teaching and evangelism and giving, are actually reliant on the Holy Spirit for power. It reduces the power of God to nothing more than what humans might be able to naturally learn in colleges. Cessationism is essentially psudo-Christian Humanism, wherein the Cessationists rely on their natural abilities and intellect as the basis for the advancement of Yeshua’s (Jesus’) kingdom. It perceives much of the power and Kingdom of God as a human byproduct.
Central to Cessationist’s complaints is the gift of Tongues. Contrary to the falsehoods of the Cessationists, Tongues wasn’t invented by the early Pentecostal Christians. (It was even practiced and debated in Martin Luther’s, John Wesley’s, and George Whitfield’s days. Source.) Tongues has been in practice to varying degrees for a lot more than 2,000 years, yet the Bible doesn’t provide many descriptive examples. It provides no transcripts, even in Acts 2. Like many other religious acts, the Bible treats Tongues like an extant phenomenon and then provides some guidance for how it should be conducted within the Christian community. This leaves modern people to guess as to what specifically happened, and therein lies the controversy.
Cessationists generally fall into one of two perspectives on Tongues:
Tongues was non-human language (often called “glossolalia”) that ceased with the death of the Apostles or,
Tongues was the spontaneous ability to speak in other human languages (called “xenolalia”), that ceased with the death of the Apostles. (This seems to be the prevailing Cessationist theory.)
In contrast to Cessationism, the Continuationist perspective is also somewhat split on the opinions of Tongues being human vs. “angelic” languages — most seem to lean toward the latter opinion, as there’s wide practice of it continuing to this day. Some Continuationists believe Tongues can be both human languages and angelic languages. Nevertheless, Continuationists agree that all spiritual gifts have always remained available to be given by the Spirit as He wills. Because Continuationism seems to be the default perspective of Scripture and there are no Biblical passages supporting the idea of Cessationism, here I’ll briefly explain why I believe Tongues to be non-human language (“tongues of angels”) and not merely the spontaneous ability to speak in Spanish, Greek, or whatever.
The Biblical Definition of Tongues
1 Corinthians says the most about Tongues’ use and value. It also has the most descriptive language about it. Read in entirety and context, Tongues is not merely foreign languages. To meet the criteria of being what Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14, there are some key verses that cannot be dismissed.
1 Corinthians 12:4-11, 28-30 (etc.) states that not all believers are given the gift of Tongues. Human language, however, is universally learned. And even the most Godless person is capable of learning a foreign language. The fact that not all believers are given this gift also goes against some churches’ dogma, but it’s a Scriptural truth nonetheless.
1 Corinthians 14:2-11 says that Tongues is unknown, spiritual language between a person and God. It’s not naturally discernible by anyone (including the speaker), as foreign languages are.
1 Corinthians 14:13 (etc.) says that the solution to understanding the meaning of Tongues is to pray. If it were merely foreign human languages, the more obvious solution would be to simply acquire a natural interpreter. Moreover, if Tongues were the spontaneous ability to speak in listeners’ native languages, no supernatural interpretation would be needed, as it would already be translated and understandable to the listeners. It seems clearly improbable that God would give an Englishman the ability to speak Tamil if the audience only understood Swahili.
1 Corinthians 14:14-19 says that Tongues does not come from human thought. Obviously, speaking in any human language does require and engage human thought. When Tongues is genuine, the speaker isn’t thinking about the meaning of what they’re saying. This has been confirmed scientifically through neuroimaging, which shows that people engaged in Tongues actually have lower levels of brain activity in the areas that govern language, thinking, and willful control (source; NYT synopsis).
In short: The meaning of Tongues isn’t inherently known by the person speaking it (“no one understands”). Tongues is not merely a natural human ability, like learning a foreign language. Tongues is not interpretable without someone also having another, distinct, miraculous gift. It is not the product of thought. All those things (and more) rule out the idea that it’s simply the spontaneous ability to speak in foreign languages (xenolalia). Perhaps most tellingly, Paul differentiates between tongues of men and tongues of angels (1 Corinthians 13), using the description for Tongues used in other Jewish writings of his time.
In these passages, we see that the Holy Spirit can give us non-human language through which we can pray to God and, if miraculously interpreted, also communicate the Holy Spirit’s words to others. For this reason, many refer to speaking in Tongues as “praying in the Spirit” and it’s also practiced musically through "singing in the Spirit.”
The Historical Context of Tongues
Tongues being a non-human language is reinforced throughout Scripture and history. Like prayer, sacrifice, temples, and priesthoods, supernatural ecstatic utterances were also common in other religions too, including the Greeks, which is where Paul sent his letter to the Corinthians. By the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, Jews believed in non-human “tongues of angels,” as mentioned in the then-popular apocryphal Jewish folklore, the Testament of Job:
“Then rose the one whose name was Day (Yemima) and girt herself; and immediately she departed her body, as her father had said, and she put on another heart, as if she never cared for earthly things. And she sang angelic hymns in the voice of angels, and she chanted forth the angelic praise of God while dancing. Then the other daughter, Kassia by name, put on the girdle, and her heart was transformed, so that she no longer wished for worldly things. And her mouth assumed the dialect of the heavenly rulers (Archonts) and she sang the donology of the work of the High Place and if any one wishes to know the work of the heavens he may take an insight into the hymns of Kassia. Then did the other daughter by the name of Amalthea’s Horn (Keren Happukh) gird herself and her mouth spoke in the language of those on high; for her heart was transformed, being lifted above the worldly things. She spoke in the dialect of the Cherubim, singing the praise of the Ruler of the cosmic powers (virtues) and extolling their (His) glory.”
Here, a first century BC/AD piece of Jewish intertestamental literature specifically refers to a concept of non-human language as the “voice of angels,” “dialect of the heavenly rulers,” “language of those on high,” and “dialect of the cherubim” — all before or concurrent with Paul’s writing of nearly identical descriptions in 1 Corinthians.
Tongues as a divine or heavenly language also has precedent in Greece, the very place to which Paul wrote his instructions on Tongues. Many of Paul’s Corinthian instructions directly play off their former religious background. For instance, he instructs the women to refrain from the frenzied shouting, cymbal clashing, and chaos that was a hallmark of Greco-Roman Dionysus/Bacchus worship. Many Greek and Roman writings and laws address this, including the works of Menander (4th Century BC), Strabo (1st Century AD), and others. Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, being a play, actually includes a script for ecstatic, religious tongues, which includes phrases such as, “Evoi! Evoi! Lallala, Lallala! Evae! Evae! Lallalalae.” Another telling example comes from Iamblichus in the 3rd Century BCE:
“It is necessary to investigate the causes of the divine frenzy (madness). These are illuminations that come down from the gods, the inspirations that are imparted from them, and the absolute authority from them, which not only encompasses all things in us but banishes entirely away the notions and activities which are peculiarly our own. The frenzy causes words to be let fall that are not uttered with the understanding of those who speak them; but it is declared, on the contrary, that they are sounded with a frenzied mouth, the speakers being all of them subservient and entirely controlled by the energy of a dominant intelligence. All enthusiasm is of such a character, and is brought to perfection from causes of such a kind.”
(Iamblichus, Theurgia or The Egyptian Mysteries, Part III, Chapter VII)
A decent summary of the ancient source material can be found here, in an article by Richard Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, published in The Reformed Journal.
I don’t share the context to affirm the ancient Jews or pagans. I share it because there’s tremendous value in understanding the context into which 1 Corinthians was written. The Corinthian culture had a clear understanding of the spiritual and religious nature of Tongues; the concept was already widely known before Paul or Luke wrote anything about them. As such, Paul and Luke weren’t creating a new idea, and Paul wasn’t merely providing commentary on something invented on the day of Pentecost. Rather they were making distinctions between Tongues use in Christian faith (“all things must be done properly and in an orderly way,” per vs. 40) and the frenzy-induced Tongues that were known in Judaism and other religious circles. In short: No one in the First Century would have thought that Tongues or “tongues of angels” were merely foreign languages. Moreover, if they were actually opposed to Tongues, they could have easily told the Corinthian church to cease entirely, but Paul gave the opposite instruction, “Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues…” (1 Corinthians 14:5a), and Paul closes with “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Corinthians 14:5a).
Context Cures the Confusion
Most people who don’t know the historical context struggle with 1 Corinthians 14:22-24 and just imagine it’s a translation error (it’s not). Here’s the full text:
“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? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 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.”
(1 Corinthians 14:23-25)
The reason Tongues is a “sign” to unbelievers but then dismissed as an effective gift for evangelism is because tons of unbelievers (Jews and pagans alike) practiced forms of ecstatic Tongues. Unbelieving Jews and pagans would have just thought it was another religious experience similar to their own. (Perhaps similar to dancing, feasting, or other such then-universal religious things.) There’s nothing about the act of Tongues that would inherently prove anything to them, especially if they were “ungifted,” which would include lacking the gift of Interpretation of Tongues. This is why Paul says prophecy is what will convict them. If Tongues were merely xenolalia, that would negate Paul’s point, as no one would think they’re frenzied or be convicted simply by someone speaking in multiple languages — they might think they’re smart, but they wouldn’t have any reason to believe the Corinthian church was reliant on a living God.
Confirmation in Acts 2
It’s worth noting that 1 Corinthians was written before John, Luke, Jude, and Peter ever wrote any of their books. It was written before Hebrews. If 1 Corinthians was wrong, the other writers of Scripture could have easily said so and it would not have been canonized. Or, if it was merely unclear, the other writers could have clarified it. They did not. Instead, Luke reinforced it by specifically mentioning Tongues in Acts 2:
“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with different tongues, as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out. Now there were Jews residing in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and they 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?’”
(Acts 2:4-8)
In Acts 2, we see the Apostles (and probably the rest of the 120) speaking in Tongues and then the “devout men” simultaneously hearing it in their own dialects. Read carefully, Acts 2 doesn’t say they spoke in everyone’s native dialects. Instead, it only says everyone “heard” it in their native dialects. This fits perfectly with the idea of Tongues and Interpretation of Tongues being distinct spiritual gifts that communicate the Gospel.
Additionally, there’s never been any hard evidence of xenolalia, ever. Explicit cases of xenolalia have never been documented or recorded, despite that fact that transcribing or recording something spoken in a spontaneously-acquired foreign language should be easy to do if it ever actually happened. That being said, I should note that I do think Tongues can have the functional effect of xenolalia, as happened in Acts 2. Theoretically, the audience might even feel as though they’ve heard the message precisely in their native dialects. I would categorize that as evidence of a simultaneous gift of Interpretation of Tongues. Granted, all of that is purely theoretical apart from Acts 2, as there is no evidence that xenolalia has ever happened.
I suppose someone might desperately point to the Tower of Babel as being evidence that God can produce foreign languages. Of course He can. No one is arguing against that. He certainly gave Adam and Balaam’s donkey the ability to speak a language. But I’d simply point out that the Tower of Babel’s languages weren’t a “gift/grace” to edify the Church or believers, Babel’s languages weren’t temporary, they weren’t extant foreign languages, they don’t fit the descriptions used in 1 Corinthians, and none of the Biblical authors cited that as being an example of Tongues. If it were analogous, Paul certainly could have easily mentioned the Tower of Babel when citing the chaos he was addressing in the Corinthian church, but Paul did not.
Conclusion on Tongues
Due to the definitions of Tongues found in Scripture and the historical context, the evidence strongly favors the extant practice of glossolalia over the theoretical idea of xenolalia. The idea that the gift of Tongues is merely the spontaneous ability to converse in foreign languages simply doesn’t fit the descriptions in Scripture or the context into which the Scriptures were written.
Tongues is a beautiful, edifying gift for many believers. It’s given by the Holy Spirit, and it puts believers into physical partnership with the Holy Spirit. Like all of God’s gifts, some can pretend to have it and some may misuse it. Some may genuinely have it but still lack wisdom and spiritual discernment. (Tongues isn’t, after all, a reward for degrees of learning.) That’s no different than all the other spiritual gifts, such as teaching, giving, prophecy, administration, and helping people. Nevertheless, the existence of frauds, abuse, and poor doctrine don’t negate the existence or value of genuine Tongues any more than bad teachers negate the existence or value of good, Spiritually-gifted teachers.
I’ll close with a personal note: I’ve spoken in Tongues since I was a teenager. It’s one of the primary ways I pray to God, and when I do so, He often responds. Even when He doesn’t respond directly, I’m always overwhelmed by the affection of God, manifested in the feelings the Bible describes as the Fruit of the Spirit. I don’t force it. Instead, I just empty my mind, listen for the first word or syllable, say that, and then it flows. Sometimes it’s brief, but sometimes it’s prolonged. Sometimes it’s fast and sometimes it’s slow. I don’t worry about any of that. I’m not the one generating it. It comes from God and is directed to God. He’s healed me through it in many ways, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The healing nature of Tongues shouldn’t be a surprise; Paul himself said, “The one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (1 Corinthians 14:4). I’ve got my theories on why Tongues is so powerful, but the best reason I can give is that it puts one’s self into the act of prayer without the limitations of their own mind. It allows us to pray for things we cannot comprehend. God provides the words, and His words are always perfect.