The Wonderful Gift of Tongues
Where do you stand on the gift of tongues? Many committed Christians believe one of two views, cessationism or continuationism. Others aren’t exactly sure what to believe about this oft-debated gift. Is there a way to bring the two views together while at the same time explaining New Testament tongues simply and convincingly? I believe there is, and to get there all we need is take a fresh look at the gift as described in 1 Corinthians 14.
Cessationism
What do cessationists believe? Cessationists are convinced the gift of tongues is no longer available to believers today. To support their case they often assert that tongues were for the most part unhelpful if not downright dangerous in the First Century Church. To support their case, cessationists typically disparage the gift and even claim that Paul’s expresses his own discomfort and frustration with it in 1 Corinthians 14.1 Such denunciations only drive a further wedge between them and the other camp in the body of Christ, continuationists. Continuationists are impressed with the gift of tongues described in 1 Corinthians 14 and defend it as an important gift that God is still giving to Christians today. For many continuationists the negative claims of the cessationist camp are seriously out of touch with both the Scripture and the Spirit as He expresses Himself among the majority of believers and churches today.
Where do I stand? You’ll have to read to the end to find that out, but I hope to show you that neither camp takes tongues seriously enough. Cessationists are wrong because they all too often disparage the tongues they read about in Scripture. Fact is the gift is so prominent that Paul mentions its activity more than any other spiritual gift in 1 Corinthians. Average every-day Christians just like you and me spoke God’s word in languages unknown to them. It was a miracle every time it happened, and it happened a lot. That’s why cessationists need to rethink their entire approach to their position.
On the other hand, if you are a continuationist and are grateful for the tongues in use today, I’d like you to read this article because, well, you too have a problem. Your continuationist brethren who write and speak favorably about tongues today are claiming far too little about it. As I’ll explain, people in your camp are disparaging tongues and discounting its spectacular powers from those Paul ascribed to it in 1 Corinthians 14.
So both camps would benefit by some reconsideration of tongues’ dynamism in 1 Corinthians 14, and could even come together in doctrine and worship. A fresh analysis of the power of tongues would also benefit any who are unsure of what to think about this glorious gift. And while 1 Corinthians 14 describes many excelling powers of tongues, we’ll consider just three: revelation, mystery, and authority.
Revelation
Paul said, “brothers, if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation”? (ESV, 1 Cor. 14:6. C.f. 14:27-30). Here Paul looks forward to a future day when he will be with the Corinthians and participate in their passionate worship of Christ. He longs to be with them and benefit them by speaking God’s very own words to them, in tongues—words he identifies as revelation. Earlier in his letter Paul referred to Scripture when he said “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (NASB, 1 Cor. 2:10). “Revelation” is a word used by biblical writers to describe a miracle of communication. Whenever God communicates to man it is called revelation, and as the word implies, is a disclosing of truth that could not be received apart from God taking the initiative to give it. This miracle of revelation, this self-disclosure from God, was the greatest power in the gift of tongues.
Revelation was God-initiated and God-breathed communication whether written or spoken, which means tongues, like Scripture, were infallible. So when a continuationist says that tongues bring forth both truth and error, we have a problem.2 Unwittingly, they are showing contempt for God’s revelation that He robed so beautifully in this glorious gift.
Mystery
Here’s another point like the last one. Tongues-messages also communicated mysteries, as Paul says, “one who speaks in a tongue…utters mysteries in the Spirit” (1 Cor. 14:2). At first that might sound mystical and other-worldly, but it isn’t. It just means that when a person spoke tongues they spoke truth that hadn’t been revealed previously in the Old Testament. A mystery was hidden truth that God was now revealing to the First Century Church. Many such mysteries are recorded in the New Testament: the church (Eph. 3:3-9), Israel’s future salvation (Romans 11:25), the indwelling of Christ in the believer (Col. 1:27) and the instantaneous catching up of believers at Christ’s return (1 Cor. 15:51).
Nobody could make up a “hidden-in-God” mystery and speak it in a tongue because a tongues-message still had to be translated for anyone to know the mystery. That in part is why we never see a false tongues-speaker in the New Testament. Instead, once a tongues-message was received and interpreted the church received a mystery from God. And since it came from God, the tongue-message was immediately useful for the believers and instructed them on essential Christian doctrines that promoted godly living. As a result tongues-messages were vitally important to the church, and in the right situation a church service would stop in order to hear the message being spoken by the tongues-speaker. He had the floor because his message spoke mysteries that God was now revealing for the whole church. So anybody who wants to claim that their tongues are just private affairs between them and God, or that tongues can contain errors, are not speaking about New Testament tongues. They are speaking about something different.
The Authority of Prophecy
Because every tongues-message was revelation and every tongues-speaker spoke mysteries,” every instance of tongues came with God’s authority. Scripture assures us that a tongues-message was equal in power and authority to prophecy: “The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets” (1 Cor. 14:5). Once a tongues-message was translated it was Christ Himself speaking in prophecy. That’s why Paul wanted the Christians speaking and hearing tongues-messages: “do not forbid speaking in tongues” and “I want you all to speak in tongues.” (1 Cor. 14:39, 5). So it’s hard to understand why continuationist leaders forbid Christians to speak in tongues and prophecy on such matters as “dates, mates, correction and direction.”3 On one hand they say that the gift of tongues is available and important, but on the other hand they say its use needs to be hindered. Tongues-messages weren’t an embarrassment to first century pastors. They respected tongues too much to make up rules about who could say what and when they could say it, like continuationist churches do today.4
Tongues-messages never gave out errors because the speaker wasn’t in control of the act—his mind was “unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). A tongues-speaker simply didn’t know what he or she was speaking and couldn’t unless there was a Christian nearby to translate the tongue into the known language of the listeners. That special ability is called the gift of “interpretation of tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12:10. So, because the tongues-speaker didn’t know what he or she was speaking until the interpreter spoke, he or she couldn’t mess it up. That’s why there’s no such thing as a tongues-message or prophecy-message with errors, as continuationists claim.5 It would be an oxymoron, like a square circle or a holy sin.
Every tongues-message was inerrant because the tongues-speaker didn’t understand the tongues-language he was speaking and, therefore, couldn’t inject his own errant thoughts into it. Instead tongues always delivered error-free, holy, and authoritative truth from God. To protect against prophetic phonies, other gifted people sat in judgment of tongues and prophecy speakers in a church service: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (KJV, 1 Cor. 14:29). They passed judgment on the person, not just the message. If the tongue or prophecy was even potentially mixed with error, it wasn’t just the errant words of a tongues-prophecy that was sifted out. Everything the tongues-speaker said was rejected because “the spirit of prophets are subject to prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32; c.f. 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 John 4:1-3, not “the words of prophets”).
Tongues’ authority illustrated
Paul illustrates the importance of translated tongues several ways in 1 Corinthians 14, and all the illustrations have significance. One of them is borrowed from the first century battle field: “If the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8).
Picture a Roman battalion getting ready for battle. They are on an open plain, exposed and vulnerable. Just over the hill crouches an enemy of great cunning. As the tension mounts the Roman battalion waits for their next order from the general, who uses a bugler to sound out his commands. But instead of clearly sounding out the proper calls, the bugler sends out mixed-up and indecipherable sounds. The soldiers are confused and dispirited. Should they move forward and engage the enemy, or should they retreat? Life and death are on the line.
No general would be satisfied with such communication from his messengers. Nor is Jesus Christ, the “General” of the Church, satisfied to have His holy words revealed in an indistinct sound. That’s why He crafted and gave gifts like tongues and prophecy—so His Church would have a distinct sound of clear authority from Him. It prepared them for spiritual battle. When translated tongues or prophecy rang out in the assembly of the Corinthian Christians, they heard their General’s instructions.
But this presents a problem for continuationists. Given tongues’ true authority, why shouldn’t they be spoken in church? When continuationist leaders hinder prophesy and tongues in worship they set themselves above not only the bugler but the church’s General, Jesus Christ.6 Again, they show contempt for this spectacular gift, and show by their decisions, if not by their words, a deep-set distrust of modern tongues and prophecy.
Paul’s bugle analogy illustrates the authority in tongues. When a tongues-message was understandable—meaning it was translated so all could understand—it communicated military orders from the church’s General, Jesus Christ. Translated tongues-messages brought clear and distinct orders so all could do the General’s will. Why would anyone hinder that unless they didn’t believe the tongues-speaking was from Christ?
What about the rest of us?
Because the gift of tongues was authoritative, anyone claiming to have it was rightly granted a place of honor in the church. Therefore Paul would have been extremely dismayed with anyone who claimed they had the gift of tongues yet also claimed they could mix it with personal error. He would have sternly rebuked Christians who demeaned the gift by claiming they had it when they actually didn’t. Since tongues were always authoritative and brought infallible revelation, a false claim to the gift was sinful and dangerous to every church. The person making such a claim was either misguided or mistaken—or worse, a false prophet. Equally dangerous was any church leader who didn’t allow tongues in a church service. Christ’s own command was, “do not forbid speaking in tongues” (1 Cor. 14:39).
If you claim to speak in tongues or prophecy, are you willing to claim the powers of 1 Corinthians 14 and argue that your gift must be obeyed by your church because it brings them “hidden-in-God” mysteries as well as infallible and inerrant revelation? If not, relax. You are just like me—an average Christian who never has possessed such spectacular gifts. You see, once you’ve caught Paul’s passion for this gift, cessationism makes a lot more sense than a censorious, one-foot-in, one-foot-out continuationism. And that’s a good thing, right? When God speaks, He doesn’t need us sifting through His words to discover the parts we do and don’t approve. With that burden lifted, we can thank God for just how spectacular He is, how great discipleship is, and faithfully employ the good gifts He actually has given us to use for His glory.
To my cessationist brethren: isn’t the “tongues were spectacular” theology a lot more satisfying than the “tongues were a problem” position that has typified our discussion for years? Isn’t it good to know that whether you are explaining yourself to your continuationist brethren or just trying to protect your flock from dangerous spiritual experiences, 1 Corinthians 14 is your strongest ally? After all, Paul really did like the gift (1 Cor. 14:5, 18). Shouldn’t we?
Notes
1 Cessationist writings in this regard have been unconvincing to date. Edgar writes, “First Corinthians 14:2 is not a description of the gift of tongues, exalting it as a means of communication with God” ((Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit, Kregel, 1996, 174). But Paul writes, “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God” (1 Cor. 14:2) . Another cessationist writes: “We have no indication in Scripture that he (Paul) ever prayed in tongues…” (Herbert Vander Lugt, Are Tongues for Today? Radio Bible Class, 1979, 36) yet Paul writes, “if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). Cessationists also tend to be critical of tongues: “Paul sees little value in the gift of tongues per se.” (Robert Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement, P & R, 1975, 130). Further examples can be found on the Internet: “Paul’s positive commendation of tongues (if such it is) is sarcastic” (Mark Snoeberger, “Are Tongues for Today? Part 4,” http://sharperiron.org/article/are-tongues-for-today-part-4, accessed May 30, 2011). “Tongues-speaking, though we consider it last, is the gift of the Spirit par excellence, in the minds of both Pentecostals and Charismatics” (Ron Hanko, “Signs of the Apostles, The Temporary Gifts of the Holy Spirit,” http://cessationism.com/#articles, accessed May 30, 2011, emphasis added). See also Philip R. Bryan, “Paul and Tongue-Speaking,” http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8297/ptg.htm, accessed May 31, 2011.
2 See “Creating a New Category in Our Thinking” at http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/the-authority-and-nature-of-the-gift-of-prophecy, accessed May 21, 2011.
3 That’s something of a stock phrase in continuationist circles. Sam Storms gives confusing warnings about tongues and prophecy such as “resist the temptation to speak when God is silent.” But since tongues and prophecy are by definition “God speaking,” one is left wondering what Storms means. Sam Storms, [i]The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts, Gospel Light, 2002, 102.
4 In spite of Paul’s command to speak tongues in the worship service (1 Cor. 14:39), a typical statement from a continuationist church is, “Grace Community Fellowship does not practice the speaking of tongues in our corporate worship services.” Accessed May 30, 2011 at http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/1corinthians/week9.php.
5 Christian leaders such as Wayne Grudem, Mark Driscoll, Adrian Warnock, D. A. Carson, and John Piper say that tongues and prophecy contains human errors and mistakes. Grudem’s scholarship provided the seminal impetus for this view by claiming the phrase “apostles and prophets” in Eph. 2:20 and Eph. 3:5 should be translated “the apostles who are also prophets.” For Grudem and many others this translation has created a new category of “uninspired prophets.” Cessationists view that as an oxymoron and point out its inherent flaws. Among those is its violation of the “Granville Sharp Rule” in Koiné Greek. This rule requires that Eph. 2:20 and Eph. 3:5 be translated “apostles and prophets,” since the words “apostles” and “prophets” are plurals, not singulars. See F. David Farnell, “Does the New Testament Teach Two Prophetic Gifts?” Bibliotheca Sacra 150 (January-March 1993): 75.
6 For another example, http://parksidecampverde.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:-what-do-you-believe-regarding-speaking-in-tongues&catid=5:faq&Itemid=10. Continuationists also claim that preaching/teaching in the worship service is more important in church than prophecy, but Paul is clear that prophecy is the far more important gift (1 Cor. 12:28; 14:1).
Ted Bigelow Bio
Ted Bigelow earned the MDiv and ThM at The Master’s Seminary and has a doctorate in expository preaching from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He pastors Grace Church in Hartford, CT and has been married to Deena since 1987. They are blessed with 4 children who, by God’s mercy, love the Lord: Katie (20), Karryn (18), Daniel (15) and David (13).
- 46 views
[JG]Excuse me for minute while I wipe something off my face.
Short answer: You said it. :)
The word “act” in my sentence “Tongues-messages never gave out errors because the speaker wasn’t in control of the act—his mind was “unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14) could have been more carefully written “words.” See how that fits. Thanks for picking up on it.
1 Cor. 14:5 equates translated tongues to prophecy. Prophecy is always an act of divine revelation.
Well, the Scriptures don’t anywhere say that tongues is prophecy in a tongues-language. You might infer it from verse 6, but it’s hardly conclusive. There is nothing in the documented cases in Acts that indicates this. They praised God in tongues. Was this tongues prophecy, or was it simply praising God? We don’t know. This is one of your logical leaps, I’m afraid. You might be right, but it is “facts not in evidence”. Could tongues be used for revelation? Of course. Always? The Scripture doesn’t say dictate that.
You have another of your logical leaps here, too. As someone stated above, verse 39 does not command they be used. It prohibits prohibition, which is not the same thing. Does someone speak in tongues in your church? If not, why not? If verse 39 commands it, you’d better obey. :)
1 Cor. 14:39 commands that tongues not be hindered – so if anyone wanted to speak tongues in church, they had God’s authority to do so. I think this is semantics and nothing more. When you couple the edifying power of the gift of tongues with the “divine permission” in v. 39, it a command to let them be spoken. That’s all.
1 Cor. 14:39 commands that tongues not be hindered – so if anyone wanted to speak tongues in church, they had God’s authority to do so.But isn’t Paul’s whole point in I Cor. 14 that many in the church at Corinth were standing up in the church and misusing their gift of tongues. So, for you to state this goes directly against Paul main point in the passage.
I take it this way. I see Paul, almost like the roll of a parent, scolding the Corinthians for the improper use of tongues. At the end, Paul is worried that he has been so harsh on tongues that everyone will be afraid to speak in tongues at all, so he makes this comment.
There were lots of Big Foot sightings at one time. There are hundreds of so called tongues stories. The problem is all I have heard are obvious baby nonsense syllables. A bigger problem is that of the four major linguistic studies done, with hundreds of various location recordings, all conclude that there are not enough syllables and language structure used to comprise even the most primitive of communication. So please lead me to your miraculous tongue speaker and then perhaps it may be of value to get involved in discussing the scriptures and cessatiionism verses continuationism.
The same goes for prophecy. Anyone have some really good prophetic messages they have heard lately? Even the ones with errors are OK by some standards. Don’t stone that prophet his errors are of God!!
This is a good article. There are even some good posts. Trouble is that it is like reading a newspaper from fifty years ago. That is except for the “any thought you have could be prophecy” position “thought up” by Wayne Grudem. Could that thought be prophecy?
Perhaps a title for a new book could be; “Leave your stones at home its all OK now.”
[Gabe Franklin] I am sorry, maybe I am being stubborn, but I just can’t get over what I believe is a misinterpretation of this verse. Ted, you state:I wrote the article for brothers like you who struggle with NT tongues. There are actually no words of scolding or reproof in chapter 14, just encouragement to be sure to translate any tongues used in public worship. But so many of us have been conditioned to preread the chapter to think that the Corinthians were all wrong in their use of tongues. We assume Paul is rebuking them because we are already negatively disposed toward tongues because of what goes on today in the world of Charismaticism and Continuationism.1 Cor. 14:39 commands that tongues not be hindered – so if anyone wanted to speak tongues in church, they had God’s authority to do so.But isn’t Paul’s whole point in I Cor. 14 that many in the church at Corinth were standing up in the church and misusing their gift of tongues. So, for you to state this goes directly against Paul main point in the passage.
I take it this way. I see Paul, almost like the roll of a parent, scolding the Corinthians for the improper use of tongues. At the end, Paul is worried that he has been so harsh on tongues that everyone will be afraid to speak in tongues at all, so he makes this comment.
The article has 2 goals. To get continuationists to see that what they calls tongues and prophecy is way too weak and puny to be any such thing. 2nd, to help cessationists get on Paul’s side of the tongues issue - the side that says, “hey, tongues are awesome! Use them rightly.” Try reading the chapter again hearing Paul speaking in an encouraging tone instead instead of a scolding tone and see what happens.
In the Greek NT, v. 39 is an imperative: “do not forbid to speak with tongues!”
[Jay C.] Hang on a second - JG, in what sense do you mean that speaking in tongues was a sign of judgment on unregenerate Jews?Ted actually explained it pretty well.
Isa. 28:11 is not a prediction of tongues, but an analogy. Just as the ancient Jews received a sign from God through the foreign language of the invading Babylonians, so the Jews of the 1st C received a sign in tongues. This analogy diminishes the cessationist claim that the main value of tongues was for unbelievers.We know it is a sign to the unbelieving, because 14:22 tells us so. We deduce that it is probably a sign to unbelieving Jews for three reasons. First, at the start of this letter, Paul has talked about the Greeks seek wisdom and the Jews seek a sign, so if he starts talking about a sign, we should expect him to probably be referring to the Jews. Second, the use of the analogy from Isaiah points us to a Jewish context. Third, Peter’s use of Joel 2 in Acts 2 appears to fit the same theme, of a sign to Jews.
I conclude it is a sign of the “judgment” of the Gospel going to the Gentiles for the following reasons. First, the Isaiah quote puts us in a context of judgment because of unbelief. The inclusion of the quote from Isaiah 28 doesn’t really make any sense otherwise. To see it as a sign to unbelievers to validate the speaker doesn’t really explain why in the world Is. 28 was cited. Second, the whole point of tongues in Acts 10/11 is to demonstrate that the Gospel has indeed gone to the Gentiles. Third, Romans 11 (especially) and other passages treat the Gospel going to the Gentiles as a form of judgment on Israel (see also Acts 18:6 that I cited above). Fourth, the citation of Joel 2 from Acts 2 also fits a judgment context. Fifth, we see the response of Jews to the idea of the Gospel going to the Gentiles (note Acts 22:21-22, for example) which is reflective of the fact that it was a form of judgment on them.
[Jay C.] However, the use of tongues in Acts 2 was for two reasons. One, it was the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise to the apostles that He would send The Comforter [“Helper” in the ESV] (John 15:26-27), and also it allowed the immediate propagation of the gospel to those who did not believe in the languages that they spoke (Acts 2:7-12).Nice conclusions, but can you prove them? :) I don’t think tongues was needed to fulfil the promise of the Comforter. It was a result of the fulfilment, obviously. But they all could have prophesied rather than speak in tongues, and it still would have fulfilled the promise. So no, I wouldn’t say that the reason for tongues was to fulfil the promise. The promise was fulfilled. The tongues were used. But the tongues were not there to fulfil the promise. Rather, the promise was fulfilled for many reasons, and one of those reasons was to equip the men to use tongues.
I do absolutely agree that the tongues “allowed the immediate propagation of the gospel to those who did not believe in the languages that they spoke”. Was that the primary purpose for the tongues, or a secondary benefit? The visitors in Jerusalem, after all, were almost entirely Jews who had come for the feast. Most would have understood Aramaic/Hebrew as well as Greek. The gift of tongues would not have been necessary for effective communication with most of this audience. Undoubtedly the communication was better with it. Praise the Lord for that! But I don’t think we should assume that the primary purpose here was better communication to individuals. This was sending a message to the Jewish people at a time when the nation was gathered together.
[Jay C.] I say that because I don’t think you can argue that preaching the gospel was a sign of judgment unless you are arguing that the sign of tongues was an evidence that God had finally rejected the Jews, which I don’t think you can do (esp. since Paul later rejected the Jews in Acts 18:6).The time had come for the Gospel to go to the Gentiles. This was the first step in that process, which carried on through Samaria, and to the house of Cornelius at Caesarea.
To the Jews, that was a rejection, though the rejection had been theirs. It doesn’t mean the Gospel stopped going to the Jews, for it still does. But now, the Jews are being “provoked to jealousy/emulation” (Romans 11:11, 14). It started at Pentecost, and they were very jealous when the Gospel went to the Gentiles, over and over again.
“Judgment”? Maybe that isn’t exactly the right word, but it’s pretty close. The message was that Israel has not believed, God’s mercy is going to the Gentiles, and you’d better come in faith and repentance or that mercy will be theirs alone and not yours at all.
To a person who believes and repents, that isn’t judgment, it is mercy. To a person who continues unbelieving, it is a sign and message of judgment.
I’ll try to respond to your other comments in the morning, it’s very late here.
[Gabe Franklin] I just read I Corinthians 14 again attempt to hear Paul speaking in an encouraging tone, and all I could hear was Paul encouraging prophecy and discouraging tongues (within the church). What stood out to me was verses 18-19 where Paul states, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church, I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” This is another argument that the main use for tongues was outside the church in witnessing to the unsaved - Hey, that fits in with my whole theory about the importance of vs. 22 that tongues is a sign to unbelievers ;)Discouraging tongues?
1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues…. (not, I want you to slow down on the tongues stuff)
1 Corinthians 14:13 let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret…. (not, let the one who speaks in tongues cease)
1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three…. (not, it should be done individually in corner)
1 Corinthians 14:39 …do not forbid to speak in tongues… (not, let’s slow these tongues down, OK?)
v. 18-19 refers to uninterpreted tongues - they’re worthless.
[Jay C.] On another note, you mentioned in Post #17-I used to agree with this. Mark 16:17-18 would fit with this as well. So also would Heb. 2:3-4. In fact, I think as a general statement about spiritual gifts it has a lot of merit, and I would include tongues in it. I would modify it slightly to say it is not so much evidence of God’s use and approval of a person, but rather, in keeping with Hebrews 2, it is evidence of God’s approval of the person’s message. But that’s really only a difference in wording — we’re pretty much on the same page there.I don’t think we really have an understanding of this gift, its purpose and its usage, until we get a grasp on what this concept of a sign to unbelievers means. We would do well to start by nailing that down and comparing the actual instances in Scripture where the gift occurred (Acts 2, 10/11, and 19) to get a handle on this gift.I thought about this a little this morning, but lost my post before I could get it up on SI. I think we can argue that spiritual gifts - like miracle working or speaking in tongues - is evidence for God’s specific use and approval of that person, even if only for a limited time. Some examples of this would be Saul’s prophesy and Balaam (already discussed here), the exclamations of the Egyptian magicians in Exodus 8:16-19, and the healing of the man born blind in John 9-10:21 (note esp. John 10:19-21). The use of tongues in Acts 2 would seem to indicate that they were given for that specific reason as well. If I go to Japan and suddenly start speaking Japanese fluently, wouldn’t that indicate that something supernatural is going on, and that people ought to pay attention to who I am?
I also think that yours is probably the most common serious view of what the sign of tongues means. It makes sense in a lot of ways, and fits with what appears to be, if not the main purpose of many of the spiritual gifts, at least an important purpose.
The thing that convinced me to see tongues as having a distinct, and very specific purpose, is I Cor. 14:20-22. You could connect verse 20 to the preceding verses, but I came to see it as challenging them to a mature rather than simplistic understanding of the purpose of tongues, which he then goes on to elaborate.
Verse 21 just doesn’t, to me, make any sense if I take the position you take and which I used to hold. It indicates, if anything, the opposite of what you are suggesting. For the people to whom tongues are a sign, in the sense of verse 22, the result is not belief. Even though the Lord speaks to them in other tongues, they won’t hear and believe. It is a sign to unbelievers who still won’t believe. Isn’t that how verse 21 requires us to interpret verse 22? And don’t the words “this people” and the term “the law” put us very much in a Jewish context (especially since it is from Isaiah, and it was very Jewish to refer to the prophets as “the law”)?
In your example, it would be a sign to Japanese people that would bring them to faith. I understand verses 21-22 to be indicating it is a sign to Jewish people that does not bring faith.
I’ll turn it around, and ask you the question. If I’m wrong and you are right, why is verse 21 there? What does it mean? Doesn’t it contradict your view by teaching that this sign won’t result in faith?
[Jay C.]Well, I’m a cessationist, because I believe the primary purpose of tongues has been fulfilled. It was primarily for a transition period as the sign of the transition of the Gospel to a universal message. But tongues also accomplished other things, and you’ve identified them. It is hardly surprising that God can use something in more than one way, is it? So I don’t disagree with what you are saying that much, I just disagree as to the primary purpose. I would modify your statement thus:
From that, and the teaching in I Corinthians, I think we can confidently assert that tongues are a gift given to the Church in order to authenticate the speakers and to enable the gospel to spread quickly between groups without years of language training.
Tongues were a gift given to the Church which, in addition to their primary purpose as a sign to Jews of the grace of God going to the Gentiles, also authenticated the speakers and enabled the Gospel to spread quickly between groups without years of language training.
[Jay C.] I personally think that the gift of tongues has just about ended, but I’m not willing to say God’s totally finished using it.Why would it end, if your view of the purpose is correct? There are still lots of tribes where the language is not well known. Millions of dollars and hours are spent on teaching missionaries new languages. It would save so much time and money, AND make evangelism more effective, if Biblical tongues had the purpose of confirming the Gospel and making cross-language evangelism easier. If that were the purpose, surely God would be giving the gift to every missionary, wouldn’t He?
This is a difficult topic, in part because real Biblical tongues just aren’t around any more. If they were, it would be obvious, and we wouldn’t have so much confusion.
***
Disclaimer — I always feel if I take part in a thread and I believe there are serious problems, that silence is not an option. But I simply do not have the time to engage in the prophecy discussion, so I’ll just say I find the concept of errant prophecy particularly troubling, and leave it at that.
vs. 4 - The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church
vs. 5 - Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy
vs. 6 - if I come to you speaking in tongues, how will I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation
vs. 9 - if with your tongue you utter speech this is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said?
vs. 14 - For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful
If you don’t think that Paul is trying to push the fact that within the church prophecy is superior to tongues, I don’t know what to say.
I suppose this goes back to the very beginning of our conversation. I don’t buy into your idea that tongues is prophecy. You stated in post #12
The verse prior equates interpreted tongues to prophecy (1 Cor. 14:5).The only passage in which tongues is actually described is in Acts 2, and in that case, the people speaking in tongues were sharing the gospel with unbelievers. Equating tongues with prophecy seems to be quite a stretch.
Let me ask you this question. What would the purpose of the gift of tongues as prophecy be? I mean, if God wanted to provide prophecy to a congregation, why would he not just have someone with the gift of prophecy get up and prophesy? Why use tongues?
[Gabe Franklin]Gabe, kindly show me where I even hinted at this :|
If you don’t think that Paul is trying to push the fact that within the church prophecy is superior to tongues, I don’t know what to say.
Methinks you need to spend some time studying 1 Cor. 14:5 looking at the phrase begun by “unless.”
I don’t buy into your idea that tongues is prophecy.
God counsels the Corinthians on the gift of tongues 3x in 1 Cor. 12, 1x in ch. 13, and 15x in ch. 14. As a result, we have an embarrassment of riches on how tongues functioned and what they accomplished - and what uninterpreted tongues didn’t accomplish. It’s really something of a lavish buffet table. Please don’t force 1 Cor. 14 to be read through an Acts 2 lens.
Not every church had a prophet (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28), nor did a tongues-speaker necessarily have authority, as a prophet did.
Let me ask you this question. What would the purpose of the gift of tongues as prophecy be? I mean, if God wanted to provide prophecy to a congregation, why would he not just have someone with the gift of prophecy get up and prophesy? Why use tongues?
Richard Pajak
[Gabe Franklin] The only passage in which tongues is actually described is in Acts 2, and in that case, the people speaking in tongues were sharing the gospel with unbelievers. Equating tongues with prophecy seems to be quite a stretch.There is another passage. In Acts 10, there was speaking in tongues, and in Acts 11:17 it is described as being the same gift as was received at the first, in Acts 2. I’d call that a description. :)
In Acts 10, though, it wasn’t evangelistic — there weren’t even any unbelievers present by that point (verse 44) for them to be witnessing to in tongues. But neither was the purpose prophecy, but rather to demonstrate clearly that this Gospel is for the Gentiles. It was a demonstration well needed by the witnesses Peter had brought with him (verse 45), and extremely valuable in addressing the controversy that arose in chapter 11.
In Acts 2, the tongues speakers certainly could have been speaking inspired words under the direction of the Spirit. Similarly, in Acts 10. There is nothing in those texts to say they couldn’t have. But there is also nothing in those texts to say they were speaking prophetically. In Acts 2, they might have simply been reciting Is. 53 and other Scriptures. We aren’t told. We aren’t told it was a Gospel presentation either, just that they were proclaiming “the wonderful works of God”. The Gospel presentation came in Peter’s message.
Neither does I Corinthians 14:5 say that tongues is prophetic. All it tells us is that prophecy edifies the church, but tongues speaking does not unless it is translated. The only equivalence that this verse draws between translated tongues and prophecy is edification.
Prophecy edifies. Translated tongues edify. Does that mean that translated tongues are a form of prophecy? Of course not.
If I get sleepy this afternoon, and need to work, perhaps I’ll get a cup of coffee. That will help me wake up. Perhaps I’ll get a Mt. Dew. That will help me wake up. Just because both will help wake me up, I shouldn’t assume that Mt. Dew is a form of coffee. ;)
Tongues could have been a form of prophecy. I Corinthians 14:5 doesn’t prove it, but it certainly would fit with Ted’s assumption here. So would the statement in Acts 2 that the Spirit gave them utterance. I don’t see anything in Scripture that would tell us the tongues speaker wasn’t prophesying in another language. I just don’t see anything in Scripture that tells us he was, either. “The Spirit gave them utterance” doesn’t prove inspired content, just inspired ability to speak that content in a foreign language. Ted may be right about tongues being a form of prophecy (I actually think there’s a good chance he is), but he hasn’t proven his case, and to just cite verse 5 isn’t going to get there. The context is clear — Paul is talking about whether something edifies or not, not about whether tongues is a form of prophecy.
Teaching edifies, too. This verse may simply be telling us that tongues could appropriately be used in the church for edifying teaching.
[Ted Bigelow] Not every church had a prophet (cf. 1 Cor. 12:28), nor did a tongues-speaker necessarily have authority, as a prophet did.Maybe I don’t understand your position here, Ted. You are saying that tongues was fully inspired, like prophecy? In effect, prophecy in another language?
If so, why would a tongues-speaker have any less authority than a NT prophet? A prophet only had authority to the extent that he was giving the Spirit-given very words of God. Otherwise, he was just a man. Did Philip’s daughters have authority? If you believe tongues-speaking was effectively prophecy in another language, why would a tongues-speaker have any less authority than Philip’s daughters? The authority rested in the true message from God, not in the person. I don’t think the statement I’ve quoted here fits with your view of tongues as a form of prophecy.
[Richard Pajak] I like your arguments Ted and appreciate your lack of criticism(compared to others) towards continuationists. In fact you would make a lovely continuationist.Ha!
Well, I think that’s part of the issue. We Cessationists are incredibly unconvincing to serious continuationists because we have this fortress mentality about tongues. Truth is, our handling of 1 Cor. 14 has been unnecessarily shabby.
[JG]Yes.
Maybe I don’t understand your position here, Ted. You are saying that tongues was fully inspired, like prophecy? In effect, prophecy in another language?
If so, why would a tongues-speaker have any less authority than a NT prophet? A prophet only had authority to the extent that he was giving the Spirit-given very words of God. Otherwise, he was just a man. Did Philip’s daughters have authority? If you believe tongues-speaking was effectively prophecy in another language, why would a tongues-speaker have any less authority than Philip’s daughters? The authority rested in the true message from God, not in the person. I don’t think the statement I’ve quoted here fits with your view of tongues as a form of prophecy.In the 1st C church a prophet (one with the gift of prophecy) had immense authority - 1 Cor. 12:28 - just behind an apostle. Not so with a tongues-speaker. The spirit of the prophets are subject to the tongues-speakers?? ;) - no - 1 Cor. 14:32. Notice also how in context 1 Cor. 14:30 governs both the practice of both prophecy and tongues in the church.
This is a question I like to ask continuationist pastors - “which is more important in your church, teaching or prophecy?” I’ve yet to have one respond “prophecy.” They all say teaching because they usually are careful believers, and because they actually distrust present day prophecy in their churches (rightly so). So I quote 1 Cor. 12:28 and take it from there.
Female prophets were subject to the strictures of male authority in the church - see how 1 Cor. 11:5 and 1 Cor. 14:34-36 nicely bracket the female-prophecy issue.
Discussion