Speaking in Tongues and
The Judgment of God
Questions will help us understand the true purpose of tongues
Speaking to God or God Speaking to Us?
Does God speak to the church in "Speaking in Tongues"—or d do we speak to God? Paul says in his discussion on the use of tongues: "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God." (1 Cor 14:2a)
He also contrasts that with: "On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people." (1 Cor 14:3a)
These two verses are the strongest statements of audience relating to tongue speaking. In Acts 2, we read: "we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God." (Acts 2:11b)
Whilst this statement isn't as strong, the context still indicates that tongues are a form of praise to God. The idea of tongues being a form of praise directed at God is confirmed in the story of the conversion of Cornelius: "For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God." (Acts 10:46a) Paul instructed the Corinthians to ensure tongues are interpreted for the edification of all: "If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God." (1 Cor 14:27-28)
The revelatory nature of tongues with an interpretation is evident by Paul's statements that immediately follow his instructions to the Corinthians on the need to interpret tongues: "If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets." (1 Cor 14:30-32)
Paul uses the terms "revelation and prophecy" immediately following his instructions on how the Corinthians should use the gifts of "tongues, interpretation and prophecy".
You might now ask: How can praise to God be of revelatory nature, given that tongues earlier were said to be addressed to God? The Psalms in the Old Testament are good examples of how praise to God can also be revelatory. In theology speak, we call this "Doxology". An example of Doxology, which is revelatory, in the New Testament is found in Colossians chapter 1:15-20, and there are several others.
Interpretation of Tongues
Are "Tongues" always to be interpreted and what should this look like? We have already ascertained that there is only one gift of tongues. The biblical data and the testimony from the early church fathers support the notion that this gift was natural languages that were foreign to their original audience. As a sign for predominantly Jewish unbelievers in the early beginnings of the church, and given its revelatory nature, it makes sense that the gift gradually stopped being given and used as the canon of written revelation became accepted and agreed upon in the early church.
John Frame says: "Now, in 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is very concerned that the worship of the church not only honour God, but also edify the people. It's not enough in worship to speak to God; we must also teach one another, encourage one another (Heb 10:25), edify one another, lead one another to spiritual growth. Someone who speaks in tongues, Paul says, communes with God, but he does not edify the congregation, unless there is an interpretation. So, Paul says, Christians should not speak in tongues in worship unless someone present has the gift of interpretation, unless someone is able to translate the tongue-speech into a known language."
Most Pentecostal and Charismatic churches do not practice the "interpretation of tongues" in the worship service as per Paul's instructions: "If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent." (1 Cor 14:27-30)
In my own experience in churches that operated the "gift of interpretation of tongues"—let's assume for the sake of this argument that the gift they had was valid—the interpretation consisted mostly of messages that were addressed to the congregation. What are we to make of a gift that does not fit the Biblical data? The most troubling issue is that the interpretation of "unintelligible tongues = glossalalia" cannot be verified from a language perspective.
The high degree of subjectivity involved is everything other than edifying. Messages that contradict scripture can be rejected, but messages of non-doctrinal nature cannot be validated against scripture, leaving the audience in the realm of at least some degree of "blind trust".
Is this what God designed this gift for? The first outpouring of the Holy Spirit with the "gift of tongues" did not need to be interpreted, given the international audience. We are also given a clue in the Acts 2 passage that the content of the messages were "doxological" in nature.
They were not subjective messages for the church, i.e. what they should do next, or how they should behave. If "speaking in tongues followed by interpretation" were revelatory gifts for the church in its infancy, giving the church the same kind of revelation we now have with the completed canon of scripture, then these gifts were not designed for divine behavioral guidance. Arguably then, since we have the complete and all-sufficient divine revelation given to us in the written record of the New Testament, we do not need the kind of revelation we could receive through a continued operation of "speaking in tongues followed by interpretation" today.
Wouldn't its continued use contradict scripture since one would have to assume an incomplete canon?
Tongues of Fire & the real purpose of the gift
What are the "Tongues of Fire"—is fire positive, or is it a sign of God's judgment? The word "fire" in the New Testament is mostly associated with God's judgment, whether local or final. There are some comparisons of fire and trials and James uses the word relating to sins of the tongue. It's used 66 times in the New Testament, ESV translation.
A study of the use of fire in the Old Testament reveals similar results. Leviticus chapter details some of the processes involved with sacrificial sin offerings. The final verse in the chapter is significant: "And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the pieces of fat on the altar, and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces." (Lev 9:24)
Immediately following this miracle: "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from before the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD." (Lev 10:1-2)
God often used fire when he revealed himself—see Exodus chapter three, how God reveals himself to Moses—frequently this fire represents God's judgment.
On the day of Pentecost, as the Holy Spirit is poured out on the disciples of Christ, tongues of fire appeared on each of them. We are not told whether they represent judgment or not. "And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them." (Acts 2:3)
Given that Peter then references the prophet Joel in his sermon (see Acts 2:16–21), these verses are often used by charismatics as proof texts that believers should expect to see visions and dream dreams today.
Note that this is not what Peter is saying. What is he then saying? Peter quotes the prophet Joel who spoke about dreams, visions and prophesying. Peter uses this quote as an explanation for what has just transpired. This gives us yet another clarification of the revelatory nature of "speaking in tongues," since Joel speaks of prophesying and the disciples had just spoken in tongues.
Joel also speaks of judgment using de-creation language that is often used by Old Testament prophets when pronouncing judgment on nations that are to be judged by God for their sins. Note that fire is also embedded in this language.
Carefully said, I think the reason why the "tongues of fire" appeared is related to the sign itself. When we compare this with Paul's reference to the prophet Isaiah about tongues being a sign for unbelievers, the reference to God's judgment comes into focus.
On the one hand, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is wonderful news for the gentiles who are being brought into the church. For the Jews who had committed the ultimate sin of rejecting their Messiah, this sign is a harbinger of bad news.
The "tongues of fire" on each disciple may well be a significant reference to the judgment to come within one generation on the Jewish nation. The siege of Jerusalem culminating in the complete destruction of the temple in AD70 is in view in Peter's sermon. We should note that the temple destruction occurred by fire. The words of John the baptist appear to captivate the whole story;
The baptism of the Holy Spirit, the blessing of God's Spirit and the fire of God's judgment. John spoke of God's judgment in ways that appear to have both the judgment destruction of Jerusalem in view as well as the final judgment.
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." (Mt 3:10-11)
Matthew Barret sums it really well: "John had told us before that when the promised one comes, the baptism the Messiah brings will be far greater than John's. For the anointed one will baptise with the Holy Spirit and with fire. As Israel's redeemer, he will deliver both judgment against the wicked and salvation to the repentant. Now, at last, the day of salvation was at hand."
Tongues and Other Religions
What should we make of people of other faiths who "Speak in Tongues"? The modern manifestation of "speaking in tongues" is a lot more widespread among non-Christian religions than most may realise.
Felicitas Goodman, a Hungarian anthropologist, compared it with recordings of rituals from Japan, Indonesia, Africa and Borneo and concluded that there was no distinction, it truly is universal and quite easily crosses religious divides.
Finally, without wanting to rub salt into the wound, an interesting study was carried out attempting to demonstrate that "tongues" can be learned by most people. The study was carried out with a group of 60 non-believing undergraduates. 20% could accomplish it after listening to only a 60-second sample and about 70% could succeed with some moderate training.
Naturally, I cannot redo the study nor am I psychologically qualified to make a scientific statement about this study. Let's for the sake of argument, say those students all "faked" tongues. The troubling fact remains. The kind of tongues seen in the modern Charismatic and Pentecostal movements are indistinguishable from the fake if the fake exists. Paul expressly said: "Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers." (1 Cor 14:22)
If the fake is indistinguishable from the real, how can this be a sign for unbelievers? How can it be convincing in any way? The "natural language" (xenolalia) interpretation, on the other hand, makes perfect sense of Paul's statement.
All this should help us to conclude several things:
The modern expression of tongues is not miraculous
The gift of tongues in the Bible was a real miracle with a real purpose
What is experienced in the modern Pentecostal and Charismatic movement is not the same as is recorded in the Bible
What should we make of Roman Catholics "Speaking in Tongues" to worship Mary?
Richard Bennett was an Irish priest who was trained in Rome and subsequently sent as a missionary to Barbados. There he received the "gift of tongues" while worshipping Mary. He became an influential figure in the Charismatic Renewal movement in the Roman Catholic Church.
Many years later, he learned of and became convicted of the truth of the gospel, surrendered his life to Christ and left the Roman Catholic system. For the remainder of his years, he served Christ faithfully, leading many Roman Catholics to the truth of the gospel.
"The Papacy is ever looking for ways to implement its ecumenical agenda. Its goal is to draw all Evangelicals into the folds of the Roman Catholic Church. Vatican Council II officially proclaimed this objective in its documents in the mid-1960's. However, the Papacy's problem was how to find entry points into Evangelical circles to begin implementing their new ecumenical policy. In 1967, a major event occurred among some of the Catholic students of Duquesne University as they attended a retreat. That event was dubbed by some of the professors as 'baptism in the Holy Spirit.' The news of such a 'move of God' quickly spread to Notre Dame University in nearby Indiana. Cardinal Suenens was sent by the Papacy to estimate the rapidly growing movement. With Cardinal Suenens' favorable report, the Papacy had a major entry point into Evangelical circles, which they exploited."
I learned of Roman Catholics praying to Mary in tongues long before I left the Charismatic movement, admittedly, this was a deeply troubling issue for me. How could the Holy Spirit fall on people while they are actively involved in idol worship? It was especially difficult for me to accept that the priests and nuns involved with this renewal movement would come away from their "Pentecostal experiences" with renewed and strengthened vigorous belief in their false gospel. How can one attribute such a work to the Holy Spirit?
The Pharisees of Jesus's day accused him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub. A house divided cannot stand.
The Holy Spirit always points to Christ. He would never encourage a believer to worship idols!
This was the final post in this series. My next post will be a podcast - but for those who prefer to read, I will post the text along with the podcast.