The assembly of Christians must not rest contented with the manifestation of the gift of tongues, the sign of judgment given over the unbeliever, If the unbeliever is to be convinced that he is a sinner, the spokesmen in the assembly must move on from tongues to prophecy (1 Cor. 14:24). Then the secrets of his heart will be laid bare, he will fall down to worship God, and will perceive the presence of God among the people (1 Cor. 14:25). It is prophecy, not tongues, that ultimately will make believers out of unbelievers (1 Cor. 14:22b).

The question of ‘tongues’ in the church today continues to be a source of great difference of opinion. Some people are most enthusiastic. Others are quite certain that the current phenomenon represents Satan’s work in the midst of the church. Most evangelical believers simply don’t know what to think or how to respond.

How do you decide among these various opinions? You cannot deny that something called ‘tongues-speaking’ is occurring in the church today. But how do you reach a sound conclusion about its significance?

By the study of Scripture, of course. Certainly it is important to be sensitive to the religious experiences of various people. But ultimately all religious experience must stand the objective test of Scripture. The greatest favour that may be shown to Christian friends is to call them to test their experience by Scripture. For ‘iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend’ (Prov. 27:17).

The possibility of a ‘fresh look’ at the subject of tongues in Scripture may be viewed with scepticism in the light of the flood of material already available on the subject. But the effort must be made for exegetical re-evaluation.

In the New Testament only two books mention the phenomenon of tongues, excluding the longer ending of Mark. But in the Old Testament three different authors anticipate the New Testament phenomenon of tongues. Taken together, four different aspects of tongues surface from these old and new covenant Scriptures which point to the same conclusion: the tongues now being manifested in the church are something other than the tongues anticipated in the Old Testament prophecy and realised in the New Testament experience. These four elements are as follows:

1. New Testament tongues were revelational;
2. New Testament tongues were foreign languages;
3. New Testament tongues were for public consumption;
4. New Testament tongues were a sign indicating a radical change in the direction of redemptive history.

Let us consider each of these aspects of biblical tongues as they may contribute to an understanding of the modern phenomenon.

1. New Testament Tongues Were Revelational

If exegetical considerations lead to the conclusion that New Testament tongues were revelational, it follows that unless a person is willing to allow for continuing revelation beyond the Scriptures, the tongues being manifested today cannot be regarded as the same as the tongues of the New Testament. Several considerations point to this conclusion, the first of these being the usage of the term ‘mystery’ in 1 Corinthians 14 and the rest of the New Testament.

In 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul says, ‘He who speaks in a tongue utters mysteries.’ This term ‘mysterion’ in the New Testament has a very specific meaning which inherently includes the idea of the communication of divine revelation.

As already noted, a ‘mystery’ in the New Testament is a truth about God’s way of redemption that once was concealed but now has been revealed. In its very essence a New Testament ‘mystery’ is a revelational phenomenon. This conclusion is supported by virtually every usage of the term ‘mystery’ in the New Testament.

The term ‘mystery’ occurs approximately 28 times in the New Testament. The consistency of meaning maintained in Scripture is striking:

Matthew 13:11: Jesus says, ‘To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom.’ These ‘mysteries’ are no longer hidden from Jesus’ disciples. Kingdom mysteries are truths revealed rather than concealed.
Romans 11:25: Paul explains, ‘I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery.’ The ‘mystery’ about Israel should no longer be a matter of ignorance, for the truth of the ‘mystery’ has been revealed.
Romans 16:25: Paul’s preaching is ‘according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past but now revealed and made known.’ Paul can preach with confidence because the ‘mystery’ of the gospel now has been revealed.

As he begins his letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains: ‘I proclaimed to you the mystery of God’ (1 Cor. 2:1). It was not an enigma that he proclaimed. He declared openly something that needed to be understood. Paul continues in the same vein by noting that Christian ministers speak God’s wisdom-in-mystery which has been hidden, but now can be openly proclaimed (1 Cor. 2:7). So men ought to regard Christian ministers as stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:7). Since they are stewards dispensing the mysteries, the ‘mysteries’ are now understood.

1 Corinthians 13:2: Paul proposes the hypothetical case in which he might come to ‘know all mysteries’, and in 1 Corinthians 15:51 he declares, ‘Behold I tell you a mystery’ Throughout his letter to the Corinthians, a ‘mystery’ appears as an element of God’s redemptive truth that now has become known.

This understanding of ‘mystery’ continues throughout Paul’s writings. In Ephesians 1:9, ‘God made known the mystery of his will.’ It was ‘by revelation’ that the ‘mystery’ was made known to Paul (Eph. 3:3). He wants the Ephesians to ‘know’ his understanding of the ‘mystery of Christ’ (Eph. 3:4). He intends to make plain to everybody what is the ‘administration of the mystery which has been kept hidden through all ages’ (Eph. 3:9). Marriage in Christ is a ‘great mystery’, but now he is making it known to them. The Ephesians must pray that he will ‘fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel’ (Eph. 6:19,20).

Throughout Colossians, the same significance prevails for the term. In Colossians 1:25 Paul declares: ‘I present to you the Word of God in fullness, the mystery kept hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to the saints.’ He can make known the gospel only because God has ‘chosen to make known the glorious riches of this mystery’ (Col. 1:27). Paul has striven that they may know the mystery of God (Col. 2:2). To this end he asks them to ‘pray that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ’ (Col. 4:3)

2 Thessalonians 2:7 is something of an exception to this pattern. It refers to the ‘mystery’ of lawlessness that has not yet been solved. But in 1 Timothy 3:9 Paul explains that deacons ‘must possess the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience’. In 1 Timothy 3:16 Paul acknowledges that the ‘mystery’ of godliness is great. But then he proceeds to explain this mystery as consisting in the truth now made known that ‘God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached to the nations, believed on in the world, received up into glory’. His point is that the mystery once hidden has now been made known.

Finally, in the book of Revelation the ‘mystery of the seven stars’ is explained. The seven stars are the seven churches (Rev. 1:20). John subsequently reveals that ‘the mystery of God’ will be accomplished ‘just as he announced to his prophets’ (Rev. 10:7). In similar fashion, Babylon is the ‘mystery’ that the interpreting angel will ‘explain’ (Rev. 17:5-7).

Twenty-eight times the term ‘mystery’ is used in the New Testament. If we set aside for a moment the occurrence in 1 Corinthians 14 presently under consideration, twenty-seven cases explicitly talk about a ‘mystery’ as something once hidden but now revealed. Christianity emphatically is not a mystery religion. Christianity stands in drastic contrast with numerous other religions built on codes of secrecy. Christianity desires everything to be open and above board. The God of Christianity has nothing to hide. He openly manifests his truth to the world in the same way in which he sends light to dispel the darkness.

In this broader context, the reference to a ‘mystery’ in 1 Corinthians 14:2 may be properly understood. ‘He who speaks in a tongue . . . utters mysteries,’ says Paul. He does not conceal truth by speaking a ‘mystery’. Instead he communicates the truth that has been made known to him by divine revelation. Tongues were a divine instrument for communicating revelation. They were a means by which God disclosed redemptive truth once hidden but now revealed. This interpretation of the term ‘mystery’ in 1 Corinthians 14:2 would seem to be contradicted at first sight by the remainder of the verse. For Paul says, ‘Anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; indeed no one understands him, for he speaks mysteries’ (1 Cor. 14:2). How could it make good sense that a message spoken in tongues is revelational if it is not understood?

It could make good sense if the ‘tongues’ described throughout Scripture are foreign languages. If ‘tongues’ are ‘languages’ foreign to the speaker which might not be known to the audience, then it would make perfectly good sense that ‘he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, since no one understands him’ (I Cor. 14:2). He speaks as an instrument of revelation, but the language of his revelation is not understood apart from translation. In this regard, the situation at Corinth may be contrasted with the unique circumstance in Jerusalem on the first day of tongues-speaking. On the day of Pentecost, all the various languages of the world were represented by hearers as well as by speakers. So they all heard in their own native tongue the wondrous works of God. But in Corinth it is not likely that all the languages would be represented. As a result, no one would understand the speaker even though he declared the truth of God that was coming to him by revelation. A ‘mystery’ was being revealed in the utterance of the tongues-speaker, but since no one was familiar with the language he spoke, his revelation was not understood.

In any case, the use of the term ‘mystery’ as it relates to ‘tongues’ clearly indicates that tongues were revelational in nature. By the gift of tongues a ‘mystery’ concerning God’s way of redemption was ‘revealed’ to the new covenant people of God. The revelational character of tongues is further confirmed by Paul’s additional words of explanation:

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues; but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets. (1 Cor. 14:4-5, NIV)

According to the last phrase in the above quotation, tongues interpreted are equivalent to prophecy. The message brought in a tongue is brought up to the level of divinely inspired prophecy, once the tongue has been interpreted. If prophecy is a revelational gift (as biblical evidence of both the Old Testament and the New Testament would appear to support), and tongues interpreted are equivalent to prophecy, then tongues also should be understood as a revelational gift.

To understand more fully Paul’s point about the relation of tongues and prophecy in the life of the church, the question must be asked: how do words edify? Exactly what was it in the verbal gift of prophecy that ‘edified’? Was it the sensations created by the voice of the prophet that edified? Was it the physical vibrations set up in the ears of the hearers that edified? Or was it the emotion experienced by the prophet himself that somehow had the effect of edifying his hearers?

No, it was not the aural sensations in themselves that built up the believers in their most holy faith. It was the understanding of God’s truth brought about by a revelation through prophecy that edified. By the communication of truth which could be understood and believed the hearers were built up in their faith.

In a similar manner, tongues that were interpreted so that people could understand the revelation became equivalent to prophecy as an instrument of edification. Without interpretation, the observing of someone speaking in a tongue had no edifying effect on the spectator. But once the message spoken in the tongue was interpreted to the audience, edification could occur among them as it had occurred to the speaker. For tongues interpreted were equivalent to prophecy in their ability to edify. Once interpreted, the message spoken in a ‘tongue’ became the very voice of God to the people.

But a further question must be asked. How is it that tongues had the effect of edifying the speaker? Paul plainly states, ‘He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself’ (l Cor. 14:4). But what in the act of speaking in a tongue caused it to edify? Was it the physical vibration associated with the phenomenon of tongues-speaking that edified the speaker?

Was it the emotion accompanying the experience? Tongues, like prophecy, are a verbal gift; and verbal gifts edify by communicating understanding. Edification through the exercise of a verbal gift does not occur by the physical vibration of the oral chambers. It does not occur through the non-rational stirrings of the emotions. Edification through a verbal gift occurs instead by the speaker’s coming to understand and believe the truth that he speaks. Otherwise there is no edification.

Anyone who teaches or preaches the Word of God understands this rudimentary principle about spiritual edification. The preacher knows full well that he is not edified by the mere exercise of his gift for preaching. He must understand and believe what he says if edification for himself is to occur.

If this were not the case, a totally different concept of the way edification occurs would have to be envisaged. For if the Spirit can use merely the exercise of a verbal gift for the speaker’s edification apart from his understanding what he says, then the same effect could be experienced by the hearers as well as by the speaker. If the one who spoke in a tongue could be edified even while not understanding what he was saying, could not the congregation expect to be edified in the same way? If the sensations associated with uttering a sound like ‘quesrylespoyou’ have the capacity for edifying the speaker, why could not those same sensations vibrating in the ears of the hearer have the effect of edifying?

But an audience is not edified one whit, no matter how zealous the speaker may be, if the message is unintelligible. Paul makes this very point. No one is edified when no one understands (1 Cor. 14:2). Edification through a verbal gift is linked intrinsically to understanding the utterance.

In accordance with this principle, it must be concluded that tongues edified as they communicated the truth of God first to the speaker and then to the hearer. Apart from understanding, there was no edification. It was the revelational experience of the truth of God directly to the tongues-speaker that caused him to be edified. The experience of the tongues-speaker was a revelational experience in which God brought to him knowledge that had the effect of edifying him.

At this point it is essential to look closely at 1 Corinthians 14:14. For Paul appears to contradict this principle when he says: ‘For if I pray in a tongue my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.’ This statement may seem to indicate that the one who prays in a tongue fails to understand what he is saying. It might appear that Paul is asserting that his non-rational ‘spirit’ expresses itself quite effectively as he speaks to God in a tongue. But his ‘mind’ is ‘unfruitful’, which seems to indicate that he fails to understand the words he himself has uttered in the tongue.

However, this on-the-surface understanding of the phrase rests on a false dichotomy between the human ‘spirit’ and the ‘mind’ as these concepts appear in the New Testament Scriptures. The human ‘spirit’ (pneuma) and the ‘mind’ (nous) cannot be separated so radically from one another. An example of the closeness of their interworking may be illustrated from an incident in the life of Christ. Some of his opponents began to ‘think within themselves’ that he was blaspheming (Mark 2:6). But Jesus ‘knew in his spirit’ what they were thinking. The word for ‘knew’ derives from the root for ‘mind’ (nous) as it is found in 1 Corinthians 14:14, while the word for ‘spirit’ (pneuma) is the second word found in the same verse in 1 Corinthians. According to the Gospel, Jesus possessed ‘rational knowledge’ in his ‘spirit’, which clearly indicates that the ‘spirit’ does not contain simply the emotional side of man. ‘Mind’ and ‘spirit’ in man communicate with one another. It is a false dichotomy contrary to the scriptural teaching about man that suggests that man’s ‘spirit’ (pneuma) is an irrational, purely emotional aspect of man, while his ‘mind’ (nous) refers to his reasoning capacities.

When Paul says, ‘My spirit prays’ (1 Cor. 14:14), he means that from within his soul he offers prayers to God. But this praying ‘in his spirit’ is not without full rational understanding. As a consequence of this understanding as he prays, he is edified. But at the same time, his ‘mind’, that instrument by which he would formulate his thoughts for the purpose of communicating them to others, remains ‘unfruitful’. It bears no fruit. No one else in the assembly is edified with him, because no one else understands what he has spoken in the tongue. He is edified well enough. But no others are edified because his thoughts are not being communicated to them in a way that they can understand. No one else can join in his prayer because no one else understands the utterance of his ‘tongue’. But if the inspired utterance of his spirit is translated into a language known by the people, then they too can be edified along with the speaker.

This understanding of verse 14 finds strong confirmation in the immediately following verses. Paul says to the possessor of the gift of tongues:

If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say ‘Amen’ to your thanksgiving since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. (1 Cor. 14:16-17, NIV)

If it is to be presumed that a speaker can give thanks ‘well enough’ without even understanding what he is saying, could not the hearer just as well join in to give thanks in his heart without ever understanding what the speaker might be saying?

It would be far more consistent with the true mode of edification through a verbal gift to conclude that the one speaking in the tongue understood what he was saying since he gave thanks adequately. But the hearer could not join him because he did not understand.

It has been supposed that Paul intends to describe a verbal gift which edifies the speaker despite his lack of understanding, but which cannot also edify the hearer. But the evidence points in another direction. The speaker gives thanks well enough because he understands his divinely inspired utterance, even though it comes to him in a language he has never studied. But the utterance ‘bears no fruit’ of sanctification among the audience because it is not understood by them.

This perspective on verse 14 may be supported by a further consideration of verse 5. Paul says, ‘He who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in a tongue, unless he interprets’ (1 Cor. 14:5). The point is strongly made. Interpreted tongues are equivalent to prophecy. But what was God’s intent in prophecy? Why did he institute this form of communication?

God’s intent in prophecy was to communicate his verbally-inspired, infallible and inerrant Word to his people. God would not settle for less, because he wanted his people to have a secure deposit of truth. In the same way, God’s original intent in inspiring a person to speak his word in a ‘tongue’ was to give expression to his verbally-inspired infallible and inerrant Word. Tongues interpreted could be equivalent to inspired prophecy only because tongues themselves were a revelational gift. By speaking in tongues a person was delivering the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant in all its parts.

This original intent for tongues could be maintained only if the gift of interpretation also functioned as a gift equivalent in its inspiration to the gifts of tongues and prophecy. Only a translation made under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit could retain the verbally inspired, infallible and inerrant character of the Word of God. Anyone who has attempted a translation of the Bible from Greek to English would understand the necessity of an inspired gift if the preciseness and authority of the original Word from God was to be maintained absolutely perfectly. It is clear from 1 Corinthians 14:28 that the tongues-speaker did not necessarily have the gift of interpretation — a gift that required an exactness which went beyond the understanding of the sense of the revelation possessed by the tongues-speaker.

No claim could be made by any translator of Scripture that his product was identical with the verbally-inspired, infallible and inerrant Word of God as originally given unless he could affirm unequivocally that God himself had been directly and infallibly inspiring the change from one language to another. In any case, Paul indicates in these verses that tongues interpreted are equivalent to prophecy. If prophecy is revelational and tongues interpreted are equivalent to prophecy, then tongues also must be a form of revelation that God used for his church.

For this reason, the tongues being experienced today cannot be regarded as the same as New Testament tongues, apart from opening the door to continuing revelation beyond the Scriptures. The effect of this conclusion would be quite far-reaching, and would include bringing into question the completeness of God’s revelation through the apostles and prophets appointed by him to provide a foundation for the church that would remain undisturbed throughout the present age.

2. Tongues Were Foreign Languages

Acts 2:6 makes the point very clearly: ‘Each one heard them speaking in his own language.’

Read More