Friends, our passage today is a good place, perhaps, to explain a little about the nature and purpose of the gift of tongues. The purpose is given to us by Paul:

In the law it is written: "With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; and yet, for all that, they will not hear Me," says the Lord. Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe (1 Corinthians 14:21–22 NKJV).

The passage cited by Paul is from Isaiah 28:11–12, where God tells rebellious Judah that because she did not listen to the prophets, who spoke in a language they understood, namely Hebrew, God would bring a nation of a foreign tongue to judge them. In Isaiah the "tongues" were a sign of judgment upon unbelieving Israel. So Paul argues that in the same way "tongues" were a sign for unbelievers in his day. In what sense? Paul explains that people's reaction on hearing foreign "tongues" would be to consider the believers out of their minds (1 Corinthians 14:23). Indeed, we read that on the occasion when tongues were first given, those who did not understand assumed the disciples were drunk (Acts 2:13, 15). But those who did understand were both perplexed and amazed (Acts 2:6–12). They had the kind of reaction Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 14:24–25:

But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you (1 Corinthians 14:24–25 NKJV).

Consider how similar this description is to what actually took place in Acts:

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37 NKJV).

Who were cut to the heart? Clearly those who understood the message. There is a repeated expression, also drawn from Isaiah: "Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear." Those who understood were given ears to hear, and so they repented and believed the message.

Let it be understood that grammatically (the Greek behind the translation "tongues"), historically (as evidenced in the practice of tongues throughout the Book of Acts), and contextually (comparing the two books as I've done above, and examining the reference in Isaiah), tongues are clearly not some unverifiable ecstatic or angelic sound but rather the miraculous ability to speak fluently in a foreign language the speaker has never learned. If this one point is true, then most, if not all, of what is practiced today is not the biblical gift of tongues. What is more, the current practice often violates the biblical guidelines for the gift, because (1) it is almost always practiced without an interpreter, contrary to what Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 14:27–28, and (2) it fails to edify the church (1 Corinthians 12:7), since no one can understand what is said, not even the one speaking.

There are three direct references to tongues in the Book of Acts and one indirect reference. They all point back to the first instance in Acts 2, so we can conclude that whatever the experience of tongues in the later chapters, it mirrored the first instance.

It is clear that in Acts 2 tongues were the speaking of unlearned foreign languages by the disciples (Acts 2:6–8). We should, therefore, understand this to be the same experience of tongues among the Samaritans (ch. 8), the God-fearing Gentiles (ch. 10), and the disciples of John the Baptist (ch. 19). In Acts 2 tongues were a sign for Jews, both for those in Jerusalem and for all the Jews of the Diaspora who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost. As it was a sign for the Jews in Acts 2 of God doing a new thing among the Jews, it would again be a sign for the Jews in Acts 10:

The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, "Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (Acts 10:45–47 NIV).

Again, in this next instance of tongues, Jews were present as well. In fact, the text goes into detail to explain how "tongues" served as a sign to them that God was also working among the Gentiles to bring salvation to them. Also, to show them that He was not working among the Gentiles in a different way than among the Jews, we read, "They [the Gentiles] have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Notice that this particular working of the Holy Spirit is associated with the giving of tongues. Many have mistakenly taken this to mean that every believer should speak in tongues, but a careful study will reveal that the few instances of tongues in Acts were recorded for a very specific reason, namely, as a sign to unbelieving Jews that God was doing a new thing. What is this new thing? Paul elsewhere calls it "a mystery," and it refers to God breaking down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:11–22; 3:6).

Now, I skipped the indirect reference to tongues in Acts 8. I did this on purpose, so that you can see that in that instance, even though "tongues" is not specifically mentioned, it likely occurred, because the same filling of the Holy Spirit is referenced. Recall that Acts 8 records the ministry of Philip to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5). Many people came to faith and were baptized with water through his preaching and his miraculous signs, but we are told that they did not receive the Holy Spirit until the apostles Peter and John came to them (Acts 8:14–17).

Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is given only by the apostles? Yes and no. The Bible clearly teaches elsewhere that everyone who is saved has the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9; John 3:3, 5). In fact, the indwelling Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our salvation (Ephesians 1:14). Also, all believers are baptized by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). It is highly unlikely that the apostles got to every believer in the Bible, and they certainly did not reach believers in the centuries after their deaths.

Then why did the apostles Peter and John have to come to the Samaritans for them to receive the Holy Spirit? It seems that at this time the Holy Spirit could be received with power only through the agency of the apostles. Philip received this power through the laying on of the apostles' hands (Acts 6:5–6). Philip could only exercise the power; he could not confer it on others. Only the apostles could do this.

But why was this Spirit-filling power necessary, since it appears that people were saved apart from it? May I suggest that the apostles Peter and John were sent to Samaria (Acts 8:14) so that what God did among the Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost would be connected to the Samaritans through a common experience. We are told that through Peter and John the Samaritans did indeed receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17). And likely on this occasion there was some sign, for Simon the sorcerer "saw" something that prompted him to try to buy the power (Acts 8:18). What amazed him was likely the same thing that amazed the Jews in Jerusalem, namely, that the Samaritans spoke in foreign tongues they had never learned.

Why was this "sign" necessary? Both Samaritans and Gentiles were considered "unclean" by the Jews; therefore, early in the first century, most Jews, even among the believers, rejected the possibility of God giving salvation to them, and certainly not on the same level as the Jews, who were the "people of God." This tension can be seen throughout the Book of Acts and comes to a climax in Acts 15, where the Jerusalem Council makes an authoritative declaration of what God had already determined, namely, that salvation by grace was for all peoples, including Gentiles and Samaritans. In fact, when Peter speaks at the Council, he refers to the very occasion of "tongues" among the Gentiles as evidence that God had accepted them:

After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us" (Acts 15:7–8 NIV).

This gives us further confirmation that the giving of "tongues" was a sign for the Jews, who in this case are called "believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15:5). God was breaking down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles (Acts 10), between Jews and Samaritans (Acts 8), and lastly between Jews and an outlying group, the disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19).

The disciples of John knew only John's baptism (Acts 19:3–4), just as the Samaritans had been baptized only in the name of Jesus (Acts 8:16). They had not yet received the Holy Spirit. On this occasion, Paul was the apostle God used to give the Holy Spirit, which was evidenced by the disciples of John speaking in tongues (Acts 19:6), thus connecting this final group with the original work done at Pentecost.

The same Holy Spirit who inaugurated the church in Acts 2 among the Jews also joined the Samaritans with them in Acts 8, the Gentiles in Acts 10, and finally the fringe group, the disciples of John, in Acts 19. All these once-disparate groups God put together into one body through the same filling of the Holy Spirit, which was evidenced through the sign of "tongues."

This is the nature and purpose of tongues, which God accomplished in the first century, after which we are told that tongues would cease by themselves (1 Corinthians 13:8, where the middle voice indicates that tongues will cease of themselves). Whoever would argue for its continuance would have to show how it is still being used as a sign for unbelieving Jews today. They would also need to demonstrate the miraculous nature of the tongues practiced today, since in the first century tongues were clearly miraculous: an actual foreign language spoken by those who had never learned it. Also, since all the gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of tongues, were given for the edification of the body and not for self-edification, they would need to show why God would make an exception for tongues today, which are almost exclusively practiced for self-edification.

Finally, if the gift is for today, then why are there no interpreters as well, since Paul makes such a point of their importance in 1 Corinthians 14? Even if it is granted that a few claim to be able to interpret tongues, how can anyone verify it, since today's tongues represent no known language, and even the speakers themselves do not know what they are saying? Even if someone interprets a tongue spoken in the congregation, an unbeliever who comes into the service would hardly be amazed, as those who heard the disciples speaking in their own languages were amazed at Pentecost. Do you see the absurdity of what passes for "the gift of tongues" today? In my view, it dishonors the Holy Spirit, who gave truly miraculous gifts to men.

I hope this discussion has been helpful to anyone on the fence about what to make of today's practice of tongues. I strongly encourage you not to seek it, because since the Scriptures do not validate it, whatever you may experience, who knows where it comes from?

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment gathers the evidence of Acts into a clear pattern, and its central historical observation is widely recognized even by those who draw different conclusions. The outpourings of the Spirit in Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 do mark the gospel crossing successive boundaries: Jews in Jerusalem, Samaritans, Gentiles, and a group of John’s disciples. Many commentators, whatever their view of tongues today, see in this sequence Luke’s way of showing that Jesus’s commission in Acts 1:8 is being fulfilled, “in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The Spirit’s visible coming at each stage confirmed that God Himself was forming one people from all of them, as Peter argued at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:8–9).

The Greek word for tongues, glōssa, simply means “tongue” or “language.” In Acts 2 the hearers explicitly recognize their own languages (2:6–11), and the comment’s reading of that chapter is uncontroversial. The disagreement lies in 1 Corinthians 12–14. Cessationist interpreters, like the commenter, argue that Corinthian tongues were the same kind of real languages. Many continuationist interpreters argue that Paul describes something that can differ from Acts 2: speech that “no one understands” (14:2), which requires a spiritual gift of interpretation rather than a translator, and which Paul himself practiced in private prayer (14:14–18). Some point to “the tongues of men and of angels” (13:1) as possibly including non-human speech, though others take that phrase as hyperbole.

The comment’s reading of 1 Corinthians 13:8 is also debated. The Greek verb pausontai is in the middle voice, and some older commentators drew the conclusion the comment draws, that tongues would stop of themselves. Many Greek scholars today, including some cessationists, think the middle voice of this verb does not by itself carry that meaning. The timing of “when the perfect comes” (13:10) is also read in several ways: as the completion of the New Testament canon, the maturity of the church, or the return of Christ. Cessationists often build their case on other grounds as well, especially the foundational role of the apostles (Ephesians 2:20) and the function of signs in confirming the apostolic message (Hebrews 2:3–4).

Both sides agree on much that the comment stresses. Paul insists that in public worship everything must be done for building up the church (14:26), that tongues without interpretation should not be spoken aloud in the assembly (14:27–28), that prophecy must be weighed (14:29), and that “all things should be done decently and in order” (14:40). He also says, “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (14:39), and he places love above every gift (13:1–3). Christians on both sides of the debate have found that these instructions correct abuses on either side: disorderly or self-focused practice on the one hand, and suspicion or contempt toward fellow believers on the other.

The practical question for readers is how to hold a conviction on a debated issue with humility. Pentecostal and charismatic Christians now make up a very large share of the worldwide church, and many cessationist churches recognize them as brothers and sisters in Christ even while disagreeing. The comment’s caution not to seek an experience for its own sake is wise counsel on any view, since Scripture calls believers to seek the Giver rather than the gift, and to test every spirit (1 John 4:1). Whatever conclusion a reader reaches, 1 Corinthians 12:13 remains the common ground: “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,” Jews or Greeks, slaves or free.

Friends, I have completed three entries into one continuous one for ease of reading. Each reading is separated by a Date marker...

On Monday, December 12, 2011, Yujin wrote...

Friends, I realize that in the past I have not written much about spiritual gifts. I've written in part about them in other places; however, I have not addressed them from their primary text until here.

From around 1901 till today the topic of spiritual gifts has become significant because of a rapidly advancing Charismatic and now neo-Charismatic movement. Prior to modern times there have only been cursory references to them throughout Christian history.

To some this movement is considered a fresh moving of the Spirit and to others a significant threat to biblical truth. Its approach to Scripture with few exceptions is a loose hermeneutic that views the Bible as a metaphor for a person's subjective experience of God, so that instead of seeking to line up experience with objective truth, it seeks the converse, namely, to align biblical truth with personal experience.

This post-modern relativizing of biblical truth poses a danger to the average biblically-illiterate Christian, who seeks simply to please God. Since they have no objective basis for interpreting their experience, they believe any and every experience they have, as long as it is sincerely felt, is pleasing to God. We get a glimpse of the disastrous consequences of this kind of thinking at the end of the Book of Judges (chapters 17–21), where we are told that while the Jews were practicing idolatry, they thought they were pleasing God, and "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

While this wrong hermeneutic is a danger to the average Christian, it is an even greater danger to the future of the Christian faith because it tampers with the very plumbline by which we measure faith and truth. How do we know an inch is an inch or a pound is a pound or an hour is an hour. All of these measurements point to a standard. If the standard is skewed, then the world would be thrown into confusion and chaos. Therefore these standards of measurements are tightly guarded in just a few places around the world.

If the standard for faith and truth is skewed, how can anyone disprove anything. So the Bible teaches, "If salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again" (Matthew 5:13; Mark 9:50). If our spiritual and moral compass, the Bible, loses its objective basis, there will be confusion and chaos in the Christian world. And that is what we are beginning to see today.

This website is in part an attempt to counteract such a slide by encouraging people to get back into the Word for themselves, so that they may not be "children, tossed this way and that with every wind of teaching" (Ephesians 4:14), that they may understand that the words of the Bible have meaning in themselves and not the meanings that people give to them; that biblical truth is never subjective but always objective, even if those who interpret and apply this truth do so subjectively.

I am trusting not in my own ability to convey biblical truth but rather that the Lord would effectively communicate this truth to individuals as they read, study and meditate for themselves, and that the more they do, the more they will appreciate the context of popular stories, of famous verses, and of phrases and images bandied about as slogans and monikers for conferences and revivals. My hope is that people will understand that the Bible is real history with relevance for us and not "my story today," that people will not simply stick their names in verses, where a very different and particular group of people are being addressed. When groups gather for Bible study or discussion, the first question they ask after the reading would not be "What does this mean to me?" but rather "What does this mean?", that behind every subjective and personal application there is a literal and objective truth, that as important as it is to obey the truth, it is at least as important to understand the truth to be obeyed.

With that introduction, I would like to look at 1 Corinthians 12–14.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The introduction raises a question that reaches beyond debates over spiritual gifts: how should experience and Scripture relate? The author’s concern is that experience can become the controlling authority, with biblical language recruited afterward to approve it. That concern is legitimate. A text addressed to particular people within a particular argument cannot responsibly be treated as an empty container into which any desired meaning is poured. Attention to genre, grammar, historical setting, and the progress of an argument helps prevent that misuse.

The alternative, however, is not an interpretation untouched by the interpreter’s own history or assumptions. Readers bring expectations to Scripture, including readers committed to its objective truth. The appropriate response is disciplined self-examination rather than the claim that one’s own conclusions are simply identical with the text. Asking what a passage meant in its context is essential; asking how we might have misunderstood that context is equally valuable. Objective meaning and human fallibility belong in the same account of responsible reading.

The historical description of charismatic Christianity also needs qualification. The original reflects a debate as it stood in 2011 and makes broad judgments about movements that contain substantial differences. It should not be read as a current demographic report or as proof that every charismatic interpreter follows a relativistic method. Some defend continuation of gifts through sustained textual arguments and affirm the authority of Scripture. Those arguments may be challenged, but their existence matters. A criticism becomes more persuasive when it addresses the strongest version of a position instead of attributing one method or motive to everyone who holds it.

Nor did Christians first discover rhetoric, metaphor, or irony in the late twentieth century. Modern literary approaches brought particular emphases into renewed discussion, but recognition of figures of speech has a much longer history. The value of literary analysis rests in its explanatory power, not in a simplified story of its recent discovery. Conversely, identifying a possible figure does not give permission to reverse a statement without contextual evidence.

A constructive Bible study can proceed by asking what the text asserts, how its parts relate, what relevant evidence remains uncertain, and how the conclusion should shape conduct. Personal application then becomes accountable to the passage rather than merely spontaneous. The process should also cultivate patience toward other readers. First Corinthians 13 places interpretive and spiritual confidence under the demand of love. If study makes us more contemptuous, less teachable, or more eager to win than to understand, the problem cannot be solved by asserting that our method is objective. The author’s call to return to Scripture is best fulfilled through close reading joined to intellectual honesty and care for the people with whom we disagree.

Friends, in 1 Corinthians 12–14 much is made of the Bible using the word "interpret" instead of "translate" with respect to the gift of tongues. Many, mainly Charismatics or Pentecostals, argue that the Bible uses the word "interpret" over "translate" because they argue the gift of tongues refers to an ecstatic or angelic utterance, which has no translation into another language, rather than an actual foreign language, which can be translated.

This is why Christians are sometimes called "anti-intellectual." It is because we make all kinds of baseless assumptions and then declare it as Gospel truth. The above distinction between "translate" and "interpret" is only conjecture without any basis in linguistic study.

However, a simple search will reveal that even linguists, whose business is to know the meaning of terms such as "interpret" and "translate," understand the distinction between these terms is not one of content but of mode. Translations are written, while interpretations are spoken (See: Translation vs. Interpretation, Difference Between Translating and Interpreting, Explanation by Planet Translation, from Bright Hub, etc.). The reason why the Bible uses the word "interpret" with respect to "tongues" is because the context suggests what is communicated from one language to another is spoken rather than written.

If you dig a bit further, you will notice other nuances of distinction between "oral" interpretation and "written" translation. The first is "real-time," while the latter is "frozen in time." One Japanese to English translator comments:

So what is the difference between “translation” and “interpretation”? “Translation” refers to the translation from one language to another of something which is frozen in time: a book, a TV show, a letter, a play, a speech someone has already delivered which is recorded and then given to the translator in its entirety. “Interpretation” is a real-time exercise – when you interpret, conversation, speech, etc. is actually taking place, and as it happens you are taking what is said in Language A and communicating it in Language B. It may be that you are interpreting at the same time as others are speaking, or it may be that you wait until the end of a chunk of speech and then interpret it into another language while the speaker pauses to wait for you (Link to full blog)

When Paul writes about interpreting tongues in 1 Corinthians 14, he is referring to "real-time" rendering from one foreign language (unknown) to another (known). You can read more on this nuance here.

Now, I am under no delusion that the Charismatic misinformation about the distinction between interpretation and translation will suddenly stop because of my entry here; however, my hope and prayer will be that the Lord will open blind eyes and guard His Word from further corruption and the wrongful practices that follow.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The distinction between oral interpreting and written translation is useful in the modern language professions. It explains why an English speaker may describe the work of an interpreter without imagining a mysterious or nonlinguistic message. Thus the original is right to challenge the assumption that the English word “interpret” automatically proves ecstatic speech. An interpreter may simply convey an intelligible language to people who do not understand it.

That professional distinction does not, however, determine the range of a Greek word in a first-century letter. Related Greek terms are used both for rendering language and for explaining meaning. Acts 9:36 explains the name Tabitha by giving its Greek equivalent, Dorcas; Luke 24:27 uses related vocabulary for Jesus’ explanation of the Scriptures. The same verbal family can therefore serve more than one communicative situation. We must ask what Paul is doing with it in context rather than importing an exclusive rule from contemporary English usage.

In 1 Corinthians 14 the decisive issue is shared understanding. An utterance that the congregation cannot understand cannot accomplish the public purpose Paul assigns to it unless it is interpreted. This remains true whether one argues that every instance of biblical tongues involves an unlearned human language or accepts another account of the phenomenon. The vocabulary alone cannot settle that larger dispute. Acts 2 provides explicit evidence that recognizable languages were heard there; the detailed regulations in Corinth require their own contextual analysis. Neither text should be made to say less, or more, than it actually specifies.

This yields a broader lesson for Bible study. Word studies are useful when they illuminate a sentence, but misleading when a possible meaning becomes the only possible meaning everywhere. Dictionary distinctions should be tested against actual examples. Likewise, a quotation from a translator can explain professional practice without becoming an authority on Pauline theology. The original’s appeal to clarity is most fruitful when applied to the argument itself: separate what the word permits, what the context favors, and what a theological conclusion additionally requires. Such care makes disagreement more precise and helps the congregation pursue understanding rather than merely exchange labels.