Speaking in Tongues vs the Bible

8/4/2019 Speaking in Tongues vs the Bible

1/20

Speaking in Tongues vs The Bible

Modern Christianity has experienced an interesting phenomenon that is currently on the rise. Most

commonly associated with those Christians identified as Charismatic, this phenomenon is known as

speaking in tongues. This practice might seem strange to an uninitiated observer:

A random church-goer might stand up and begin to pray. Soon, if not instantly, the person will start

speaking strange words (these words may follow unknown language patterns or may resemble a familiar

foreign language). The speaker might grow quiet or start shouting. Sometimes this dissolves into

repetitive chanting. The speaker may humbly finish and sit down or instead start shaking uncontrollably

and fall to the floor. There is no de facto pattern, but one facet seems universal: the audience, especially

any visitor, is left with either no new knowledge or a profound sense of bewilderment.

I first experienced this at a Bible camp hosted by Four Square church. In an experience close to what

amounts to an alter call, the pastor announced who would like to be baptized in the Holy Spirit. It

sounded all good and nice, after all who would say that they do not want to be baptized in the Holy

Spirit. To my subtle confusion, there was no water to be seen.

A couple girls headed to the front of the Church. Almost as if I were a visitor at Comic-Con, seeing some

obscure actor mobbed by legions of fanboys, I witnessed the girls instantly mobbed by a large group of

people who wanted nothing more in life than to put their hands on the girls heads. Without blinking the

entire group erupted in incomprehensible babbling. I sat in stunned bewilderment. After all, I had

thought that I was attending a Christian camp, and this resembled nothing I had ever seen in the Bible.

The pastor saw my hesitance, and directed my sister and me to 1 Corinthians:

1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge

by the same Spirit;

1Co 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of

spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am

become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for

no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is

unfruitful.


2/20

1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I

will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

1Co 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.

This last verse was the real clincher. Paul forbids forbidding tongues. If I were to oppose this practice, I

was flirting with a clear violation of scripture.

The pastor had a few things going to his advantage. He had the drop (neither I nor my sister had ever

experienced anything like this), he had Bible verses (if I had read them before I had not committed them

to any deep understanding of the text), and he had 1 Co 14:39 forbidding to forbid tongues. Tongues,

it seems, was something for which the Apostle Paul strenuously advocated.

To my advantage, the face reading of the text showed that what I was experiencing was contrary toPauls main stipulation on speaking in tongues: that is be interpreted such that people can understand it.

Paul makes extra effort to communicate this point, so much so that it is almost as if Pauls entire

purpose in bringing up tongues was to make this point. Paul begins by coupling speaking in tongues

with interpreters:




Paul, a couple chapters later, dedicates a major portion of his letter explaining not to use tongues unless

there is interpretation. He explains that prophesying (speaking the word of God) is far more important

than tongues:



1Co 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and

comfort.

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth

edifieth the church.

1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is hethat prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church

may receive edifying.

The one condition in which tongues might be more useful than prophecy is if it interpreted. Paul lists the

reason for this as that the interpretation would be prophecy. Tongues might be more important than

prophecy if the tongues were prophecy!


3/20

1Co 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you,

except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by

doctrine?

1Co 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a

distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it

be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

1Co 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is

without signification.

Paul is taking special note to illustrate the unprofitability (if no one understands what is being said) of

speaking in tongues. It is imperative that the Church understand the tongue being spoken. Paul goes

so far as to equate those who speak without interpretation as barbarians (a keen insult in the Greek

culture):

1Co 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a

barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the

edifying of the church.

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Paul is dedicating almost this entire chapter (40 verses) to stressing the importance of interpretation of

tongues. The amount of text is too staggering to quote at length.

1 Co 14 Paul says that praying in a tongue is unfruitful

1 Co 16 How can people agree with the speech if they do not understand?1 Co 17People dont gain anything from tongues

1 Co 19 is worth reporting in full:

1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my

voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue

Christians should well note the important fact that the Bible refers to individuals, not buildings, as the

church. Paul is saying that he would rather speak five intelligible words to fellow Christians, in any

setting, rather than tell them something they do not understand. Speaking in tongues is not meant forChristian-to-Christian communication. Paul continues:

1 Co 20 Paul implies that speaking in tongues without interpretation retards church growth (read:

Christian growth)

1 Co 22 Tongues should be used towards unbelievers and not believers

1 Co 23Unlearned or unbelievers will think that a tongues speaking church is mad


4/20

1 Co 24 Prophesy teaches unbelievers something as opposed to nothing (tongues)

The next verses, 1 Co 27-28, are Pauls operating instructions for speaking in the church. This is always

ignored in modern Charismatic circles:

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and

that by course; and let one interpret.

1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to

himself, and to God.

Paul says it is better to keep silent than to speak without the church understanding.

From here to 1Co 14:38 Paul seems to tackle what the Charismatics would classify as tangential issues:

prophesying and women speaking in the church. This will be analyzed later and it will be apparent that

Paul is not inserting random, unrelated issues between verses on tongues.

Paul concludes this chapter (note that chapter and verse numbers were not included in Pauls original

letters) by forbidding Christians from forbidding tongues. It is apparent that modern Charismatics, by

their own interpretation of the Bible, are not doing things correctly. If anyone asks one of these

Charismatics for an interpretation afterwards, the only thing that will be offered in return will be a

quizzical look. The average Charismatic has never even heard of actually having to interpret what is said.

Think of how that would change current practice. Much mumble jumbo would be reduced. Who wants

to spout nonsense when they have to make up sense, proportionately?

Why would the modern Charismatic never offer any type of interpretation ever? Perhaps it is because

the Charismatics have been pioneering something distinctly different than what Paul described. Perhapsthe Charismatics are more wedded to a feeling then the word of God. Perhaps it is because they wish to

feel spiritual without working.

I attended one Church service in which the pastor was asking me which churches I had attended in the

past. I mentioned I had attended an Assemblies of God church in college. I quickly followed noting it was

not a speaking in tongues church to clarify I was not part of this odd movement. He paused for a

second and countered that sometimes his church spoke in tongues. I engaged him for a bit as to Pauls

actually meaning of speaking in tongues, but when I noticed I was not gaining any progress I fell back

to asking him about interpretation. I asked him if he followed Pauls mandate to interpret. He said his

church does.

To my amusement, the very next week one parishioner decided to start speaking in tongues. He stood

up and, in what seemed like an oddly Russian language, started babbling. This lasted a good five minutes

before he said Amen. Against Pauls writings (1Co 14:16), the congregation mindlessly echoed this

Amen. The man then sat down.


5/20

The preacher, most likely inspired the last weeks conversation, quickly said Brother Dave *not the real

name], would you like to interpret that for the congregation? The parishioner was taken aback. He had

not expected to actually have to formulate a meaning for his babbling. He seemed to have slightly

panicked and stated that his five minute long babbling was interpreted as God be with us.

One of the inanities of speaking in tongues is the inability for the listeners to distinguish a fraud from the

real thing (assuming there is a real thing). The comedian Sacha Cohen illustrates this in the guise of a

Kazakhstani traveler when he films himself in a church stirring up nonsense. The pagans mock

Christianity just like Paul warns will happen because Pauls express teachings are not followed. The

outside world sees Christians who speak in tonguesas mad.

The Charismatics persist in saying that their actions are Biblical. Any Biblical reference to tongues

seems to be fair game for their proof texts. Most notably, the Charismatics point to an actual recorded

event as proof for their actions. Acts 2 describes a peculiar event at Pentecost. The apostles are all

gathered together when:

Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled

all the house where they were sitting.

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of

them.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as

the Spirit gave them utterance.

The reader needs to visually understand what is happening. A strong wind blows. This is not a figurative

wind, but a real and vigorous wind. Real flaming tongues appear over the heads of the apostles. Imagine

this happening with movie special effects. The apostles then began to speak with various foreignlanguages. People saw, heard, and felt this, as evident by the very next verse:

Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded,

because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Act 2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these

which speak Galilaeans?

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

It appears that while one of the apostles would speak, multiple people who are native to different

languages are simultaneously hearing the words in different languages. The listeners reinforce this fact

by listing the languages they hear:

Act 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea,

and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

Act 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers

of Rome, Jews and proselytes,


6/20

Act 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of

God.

Peter then stands up and gives a lengthy speech after which he saves 3000 people.

To say this has absolutely has nothing in common with modern day speaking in tongues is anunderstatement. Modern observers do not feel any wind, they do not see any fiery tongues, the speaker

does not speak multiple known languages, the hearers are not amazed, and definitely the tongues do

not result in saving anyone. To say that Acts 2 is the modern day speaking in tongues defies

intelligibility.

The later two instances of tongues mentioned in Acts (Act 10:46, 19:6), likewise, have no indication of

having anything to do with modern speaking in tongues.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the

word.Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with

Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God

The event in Acts 10 seems to indicate an event similar to Acts 2, in which known foreign languages

were mysteriously spoken by someone who did not know the language. This is evident that it is the

circumcision (the Jews) who are hearing gentiles speak. Most likely, the Jews are hearing the gentiles

speak in Hebrew (the native language of the Jews) or even Aramaic (a popular language at the time). An

additional alternative will be explored further down.

The event in Acts 19 is similar:

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they

spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.

This instance, the men speaking in tongues seem to be Jews, baptized under John the Baptist and

unaware of Jesus ministry. We do not know to whom they prophesied or to whom they spoke in

tongues. Neither of these instances has much in common with the modern Charismatic experience.

Pauls actual meaning

Acts 2:8 gives the reader a glimpse into how the word tongue is being used in Acts:

Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?


7/20

From Acts 2:8 it is clear that the speakers understood tongue to be synonymous with language. The

speaker even lists the languages! This meaning for tongue is very common in the Bible. Even in the

English language this meaning for tongue is common. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the forth

definition for tongue as:

a :LANGUAGE;especially: a spoken language

The Bible uses the word tongue fairly consistently as this meaning. Besides Acts 2, Revelation

constantly uses the word tongue to mean language:

Rev 5:9 out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Rev 7:9 of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues

Rev 10:11 many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Rev 11:9 of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations

Rev 13:7 all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 14:6 every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,Rev 17:15 peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

Alternatively, the Bible, just like the English language, uses tongue to mean the actual body part as well:

Mar 7:33 And he took him aside and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his

tongue;

Mar 7:35 And straightway his ears were opened, and the string of his tongue was loosed,

Rev 16:10 and they gnawed their tongues for pain,

Sometimes tongue is just used as a metaphor for speaking:

Rom 14:11 and every tongue shall confess to God.

Jas 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a

matter a little fire kindleth!

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it

defileth the whole body, and setteth on f ire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Jas 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

Imagine if James is referring to the same thing as the modern Charismatics!

A quick overview ofthe Greek meaning of tongue is that it is used synonymously with the English

word tongue even when used figuratively. Most commonly, it means language (as one would expect

from letters on theology, not anatomy). It often means the physical body part. And sometimes, it is used

metaphorically for speech.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/languagehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/languagehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/languagehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language


8/20

It is important to note that when Paul talks about tongues he often makes it certain that there are

various tongues. When he is talking about individuals, he tends to use the singular of tongue and

when he is talking about groups he usually uses the plural. This would make perfect sense if the Acts 2

definition of tongue is used. Many people only speak one additional foreign language, but many people

speak many foreign languages.

Singular:

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue

Plural:

1Co 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with

tongues

One notable exception to this is when Paul talks about himself:


If Paul was talking about known languages, this would make sense. Paul was a semi-linguistic scholar. He

was fluent in at least Hebrew, Greek and, most likely, Aramaic:

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more

silence: and he saith,) [this indicates two languages at least]

Act 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speakunto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? [He seems to be speaking Greek at this point

re-enforced by him reading Greek statutes and quoting Greek poets]

Paul knew three or more languages. Paul had a natural talent for language. One might even call this a

gift. If that gift was used for furthering Christ, it could naturally be called a gift of the Spirit. This is

precisely Pauls meaning in 1 Corinthianswhen he introduces gifts of the spirit. Linguistics is a gift of

the Spirit, in the same way public speaking (prophesying) is:



A common objection to understanding tongues as languages in this verse is that there is both

tongues and interpretation of tongues. Would they both not be the same gift? Not necessarily.

Sometimes people can speak a language but not interpret, and vice versa. Additionally, Paul does not

specify that these gifts can only be had one at a time. In fact, he proclaims the opposite:


9/20

1Co 12:11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally

as he will.

It is easy to illustrate this concept from verse 9 in which word of knowledge is unique from word of

wisdom:

1Co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge

by the same Spirit;

One would be hard pressed to find an individual claiming only one or the other gift can be had.

What is Pauls purpose here? He lists off Spiritual gifts. Did he one day sit down and think:

I guess I have never written out a good list of Spiritual gifts. Since I am writing a letter to the

Corinthians, I might as well just list them, almost like a Spiritual gift treatise. It is as good of a time as any

to make the list.

Paul was not writing about Spiritual Gifts in a vacuum. He is writing a letter to a specific people at a

specific point of time. His audience is a Church he has founded, with whom he was in communication

and was trying to grow. Take this in contrast to the book of Romans, in which he was writing a treatise

to a church he had not founded or visited (Rom 1:10-11). Romans reads more like a statement of belief.

Pauls other letter read like they are very directed to specific and unique issues. Paul is starting to

address a specific Corinthian church problem.

Paul is, as is his writing style, setting up his reader for a meta-concept. He is building the base for an

overarching point that is both meaningful and directly relevant to the Corinthians. He was addressingtheir internal problems.

It appears the Corinthian church was experiencing major problems when it came to good order. They

were feuding, they were causing chaos, and they were creating general calamity when it came to

conducting communion with each other. Much had to deal with speaking, tongues, and prophesying (all

encased in what Paul describes as gifts of the spirit). This chaos was in part due to natural human

tendencies of pride, but in part this was caused by geographical factors as well.

The early Corinthian church was set in the major metropolis of Corinth. The historian Strabo talks about

the wealth of Corinth in his Geography:

Corinth is called "wealthy" because of its commerce, since it is situated on the Isthmus and is

master of two harbours, of which the one leads straight to Asia, and the other to Italy; and it

makes easy the exchange of merchandise from both countries that are so far distant from each

other. And just as in early times the Strait of Sicily was not easy to navigate, so also the high seas,

and particularly the sea beyond Maleae, were not, on account of the contrary winds; and hence


10/20

the proverb, "But when you double Maleae, forget your home." At any rate, it was a welcome

alternative, for the merchants both from Italy and from Asia, to avoid the voyage to Maleae and

to land their cargoes here. And also the duties on what by land was exported from the

Peloponnesus and what was imported to it fell to those who held the keys. And to later times this

remained ever so 8.6.20c

Corinth was a necessary port for sea traders to move their goods in the Mediterranean. Corinth bridges

two bodies of water, which, if it was not utilized, a trader would have to navigate incredibly dangerous

waters to bypass. For this reason Corinth became unimaginably wealthy. Paul points out this wealth

several times in his letter, often employing sarcasm or illustrating points:

1Co 4:8 Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God

ye did reign, that we also might reign with you.

2Co 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your

sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Along with great trade and wealth, necessarily came a diversity of languages and a wealthy class of

people (a class that tends to be more vocal about all issues). See Thucydides description of a wealthy

Athens or survey leading progressives throughout American history. More money means more leisure

time to become vocal. Compound this with a multiplicity of languages, and problems may arise.

It is hard for modern Americans to understand in our mono-linguistic culture, but Corinth was a multi-

linguistic culture. Not everyone would be always able to understand everyone else. It was commonplace

to hear unknown languages being spoken. Ships would constantly be shipping in foreign goods, foreign

cultures, and foreign languages. There was not one monolithic culture like in modern America.

Paul was writing to a multi-linguistic church which seemed to have lost control of Christian fellowship.

People were talking over each other (1Co 14:23), competing for status (1Co 12:15), putting others down

(1Co 12:21), engaging in jealousy (1Co 12:18) and using languages not commonly known to others

(possible motives include pride in exclusive understanding of teaching or only being able to speak one

language). All of this was driving the Corinthian church into pieces. Paul had to settle this church down,

and he does this by introducing spiritual gifts. He lists these gifts (note that most involve public

speaking in Christian communion) and body parts to illustrate varying and equal roles in the same

Church.

Paul makes a plea to the Corinthians to think of themselves as one body with different roles:

1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the

same care one for another.

1Co 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be

honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.


11/20

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly

teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of

tongues.

Note that he lists diversities of tongues. Understanding that this means languages makes this meaning

clear: multiple people in the church spoke multiple known languages. This is in contrast to thetemporary speaking of an unknown language and then forgetting it as is claimed by modern

Charismatics.

These roles/gifts that Paul lists map very neatly with the second list that Paul gives (a list of titles):

1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?


Verses 29-30 map neatly to 27-28 until after healing. Helps and governments seem to be skipped,

and diversities of tongues seems to map to both tongues and interpret. If Pauls attempt wasparallelism, he seems to indicate that tongues and interpretation were linked as if one or overlapping

roles.

Pauls goal in these verses is to both list out various roles and then introduce a gift that trumps them all,

which believers are to covet earnestly and to strive to gain (gifts are achievable/learnable if one works

hard enough) (1Co 12:31). Paul lists this as charity often translated as love. Pauls intention is to

break up the chaos in the Corinthian church by setting love as the best gift. This ensures that the most

prideful could not claim to have a superior gift without degrading his own status. Paul is eliminating

bickering over Church roles. Paul says charity, in addition to being the most important gift, is the one gift

that will never cease (1 Co 13:8).

Pauls point in verse 11 seems to be to degrade those who focus so intently on gifts that they cause

chaos:

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but

when I became a man, I put away childish things.

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but

then shall I know even as also I am known.

1Co 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Paul his telling his readers to put aside their petty bickering and focus on charity. Spiritual gifts are

unimportant in the long run. Love is what matters.

Having dealt with bickering, Paul points his attention towards the confusion in the church. This seems to

center around tongues. Paul spends the greater part of 40 verses downgrading the importance of

tongues. This seems to be the central issue of the entire calamity.




12/20

Paul states that if you are speaking an unknown language and no one understands what you are saying,

you are still talking to God but everyone will be confused.

1Co 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth

edifieth the church.

Still on the subject of praying out loud in church when no one understands, Paul contrasts useful speech

with none-useful speech.

1Co 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he

that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church

may receive edifying.

Paul states that prophesying is better than speaking in a foreign language, unless the foreign language is

both interpreted and itself a prophesy. Note that this verse seems to indicate that the speaker is

interpreting his own speaking.

1Co 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you,

except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by

doctrine?

1Co 14:7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a

distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

1Co 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

1Co 14:9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it

be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Paul says not only should speaking in a foreign language be useful speech, but it should also be

understood by those who hear. This concept is key once Paul tells the reader who the real audience of

tongues should be.

1Co 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is

without signification.

1Co 14:11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a

barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

1Co 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the

edifying of the church.

Paul again emphasizes that the speech should be intelligible because one should always try to build up

the church.

1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Who interprets this speech? Paul seems to indicate that the speaker would be translating, or at least

hoping that another person can translate.

The next verse is what has been claimed as proof that tongues are unintelligible even to the speaker:


13/20

1Co 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is

unfruitful.

This verse looks to be a parallel to verse 2. This verse also seems to be a poor translation, either due to

old English usage or misguided translators. The word for understanding is nous. While nous is the

common Greek word for mind, it often figuratively means understanding. In the English language,

similar meanings are common. In the legal realm a contract must meet the condition of a meeting of

the minds otherwise known as a common understanding.

Strongs dictionary has this to say:

Probably from the base of G1097; the intellect, that is, mind(divine or human; in thought,

feeling, or will); by implication meaning: - mind, understanding. Compare G5590.

The translation meaning would be a better translation elsewhere in the Bible as well:

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on

which the woman sitteth.

Mind is an unnatural translation of this text. John instead is saying, this is the real meaning of what I

just described. Using this principle, in context 1Co 14:14 should be translated: For if I pray in an

unknownlanguage, my spirit prayeth, but my meaning is lost *on my listeners+.Akarpos or unfruitful

more easily translates to barren or empty.

This verse could be translated, my mind is empty, but is that what Charismatics are arguing happens

to them? They will find no argument from me on that point. Paul negates this translation when he

before described speaking in an unknown tongue as profitable to the speaker (1Co 14:4). The

Charismatics are wrong no matter how the verse is spun.

Paul goes on:

1Co 14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I

will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Whither Paul prays or sings, he will do so with meaning.

1Co 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the

unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Unlearned seems to have a special connection with tongues in Corinthians. This is used five times in the

Bible, once to describe Peter and John (Acts 4:13). One to point out that Paul was not a professional

speaker (a profession that was common at that day and age) (2Co 11:6). The last three instances

describe people who do not understand tongues (1Co 16, 23, 24). This word unlearned deals with

professional training in language skills. Someone not taught Spanish will have a hard time understanding

Spanish. Those who occupy the social position of being uneducated (1Co 14:16) will have a hard time

understanding what is said.

1Co 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.


14/20


1Co 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my

voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

Paul had a very specific reason for speaking multiple foreign languages; he was a traveling missionary

that used his languages to great effect. Paul traveled more than 99% of all people in his day and age. Hehit up the entire Eastern Mediterranean including modern Turkey, Crete, Greece, and Italy. Recall the

languages listed as spoken in just Jerusalem (Act 2:9-11)? Languages were a big deal, and Paul is

especially thankful for his languages.

Paul used his language skills for unbelievers. Acts notes that Paul impressed his hearers by speaking

Hebrew in Jerusalem. Everyone was shocked (Act 22:2). When he talks to fellow Christians (remember

that Church does not refer to a building), Paul speaks normally. There is no point in be unintelligible to

his fellow Christians. Paul says this explicitly:

1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in

understanding be men.

1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this

people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

This is a reference to Isaiah 28:11 in which God is not talking about Charismatic tongues, but,

instead, foreign nations destroying Israel. In Isaiah, God is angry with Israel and calling down

destruction on them. He interweaves their infractions with his punishments:

Isa 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

This is elaborated on in Isaiah 33:19:

Isa 33:19 Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of a deeper speech than thou canst

perceive; of a stammering tongue, that thou canst not understand.

The stammering here can also be translated unintelligible and fierce people most likely

refers to the Chaldeans, not the Charismatics. God is threatening Israel with a foreign invasion,

not a Charismatic revival. Paul references this imagery. His point in doing this can be found in

the next verse:

1Co 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believenot: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Tongues are a sign to them that do not believe (just like the invading forces tongues was a sign to those

in Israel who did not believe). A Charismatic might object: but didnt Paul say not to speak tongues in

case an unbeliever might think that they are mad? Context is the key. When individuals are speaking in

Church (Christian communion) they are picking their own languages and speaking various languages.

When speaking to unbelievers in a controlled setting, the language can be tailored to one understood by


15/20

the hearers. In this way, languages are a sign to unbelievers, although if used incorrectly, will be seen as

madness.

Pastor Anderson illustrates this concept by giving an example of Swahili. If there is a Swahili immigrant

in Arizona, the immigrant will be blow away if a preacher shows up at their door speaking Swahili. The

amazement will greatly add to the evangelizing of that individual.

Reversing that illustration, if that same immigrant walked into a Church gathering and everyone was

speaking random languages the entire time, that immigrant would leave thinking that all of Christianity

is insane. Paul says this explicitly:

1Co 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with

tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that

ye are mad?

1Co 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is

convinced of all, he is judged of all:

If everyone is speaking in tongues, calamity will ensue, but if everyone is preaching, visitors can actually

be reached:

1Co 14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face

he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm,

hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be

done unto edifying.

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and

that by course; and let one interpret.

1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to

himself, and to God.

Paul is setting the limits to keep peace in the Corinthian church. They are no longer to clash. If they are

to speak in a foreign language (sometimes it is inevitable because the speaker may only be fluent in one

language), there must be an interpreter. If there is no interpreter, people should not waste the Churchs

time by delivering self-serving monologues that no one understands.

Paul next tackles a second practice that caused calamity, rapid and careless preaching:

1Co 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

1Co 14:30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.

1Co 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.1Co 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Paul tells the Corinthian church to take its time. Evaluate preaching. Judging the preachers will help cut

out bad teaching because bad teachers will not want to be exposed. Preach one by one, in an orderly

process. Everyone needs to understand what is being preached, and the preachers should take the lead

in evaluating other preachers.


16/20

1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Paul reiterates his goal, peace in the Church at Corinth. That has been his goal since introducing gifts,

parts of the body, and love. Paul is combating confusion and promoting understanding. What comes

next is a major controversy in the Christian church, little understood in context:

1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to

speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame

for women to speak in the church.

1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

The most prominent atheist early Christian scholar, Bart Ehrman, takes this as evidence that the Bible

was altered by later generations:

These verses in chapter 14 were not written by Paul. Someone added them to the

passage later, after the letter had been placed in circulation.

Scholars have adduced many reasons for this view. For one thing, the verses seem to

intrude in the passage in which they are found. Immediately before these verses Paul is

talking about prophecy in the church; immediately afterwards he is talking about

prophecy. But this passage on women interrupts the flow of the argument. Take them

out, and it flows much better. [Bart Ehrman, Forged p. 271]

To Ehrman, the context is prophesy, and a sudden introduction of the woman issue breaks Pauls

narrative. The Charismatic has to agree with Ehrmans narrative but not his conclusions. A proper

understanding of the context allows these verses to stand without breaking flow. The prime instigators

in the chaos (multiplicity of tongues, speaking out of turn, making shoddy sermons, and general

bickering) were the women in the Corinthian church!

Pauls Segway to this topic is precisely defining the overarching problem that he has been addressing for

3 chapters:

1Co 14:33 For God is not the authorof confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Having dealt with the real problems, Paul is turning his attention to quelling root causes. Modern

readers can sense the malice with which these verses are written. Paul had good reason to be angry: he

was personally forced to spend his time and energy to bring back order into the Church. The Church

growth had stopped. Evangelism was stunted. Christians were acting like children (Paul calls them

children in 1Co 13:11). Paul, instead of being able to release them to grow on their own, was forced to

micromanage and quell petty disputes. He is angry at those who started this problem: the women of the

church.

He puts an instant prohibition on their speaking and adds a filter for their thoughts, questions, and

concerns. That filter was the husband. If woman had to use their husbands as proxies, in submissions,

then these agitators no longer would have influence in the church.


17/20

Pauls last verse on this subject is like hearing one side of a phone conversation. They verse gets

personal and it seems only part of an unknown conversation:

1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

Perhaps Paul had addressed this issue previously and the women had objected that they had valid

revelation as well. Perhaps they were claiming their additions were really valuable to the church,

enough to outweigh the chaos. Perhaps Paul had heard of the haughtiness of the ringleaders. We will

never know for certain, but in context Paul seems to be putting the final touches on his plan to restore

order to the church. He seals it with a blow.

Paul Ehrman further objects to this passage:

Even more, it is hard to believe that Paul would tell women that they could not speak in church

here in 1 Corinthians 14, when just three chapters earlier he indicated that they could indeed do

so. In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul urges women who pray and prophesy in church to do so only with

veils on their heads. If they were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to

speak in chapter 14? It makes better sense that those scholars are right who think that the verses

were not originally part of the text of 1 Corinthians. Someone has falsified the book by adding

the verses to it, making the passage say what these copyists wanted it to say rather than allowing

Paul to say what he meant to say.

Bart Ehrman, Forged p. 271-272

There were Biblical examples of female prophets (Luk 2:36). There were publically prominent

women who Paul loved (Rom 16:1). There were females who helped Paul in his journeys (Rom

16:3, Rom 16:6-7). The total injunction against all women speaking in the church seems to be

limited to only the Corinthian church.

Confirming Pauls overall teaching about keeping peach in the Churches, in a letter to Timothy (who was

in Ephesus) Paul lays out similar rules to 1 Cor 14:

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to

be in silence.

Pauls effort here was not to quell an unruly church. There is no prohibition of women talking. They are

told to learn in silence and not to teach, or usurp authority. This last phrase could be a good clue that

1 Timothy was written either after 1 Corinthians or after the Corinthian church started descending into

chaos. The letter to Timothy is establishing peaceful conduct more than quelling a church riot.

Does Paul imply by this text the rule to ask only husbands questions at home? It does not seem so.

Orderly questions and limited interaction seem to be fine for the Church of Ephesus. The general

atmosphere should be silence and the general demeanor should be subjection.

It could be that Paul sees in the Church of Ephesus, the beginnings of what happened at Corinth. The

women of Ephesus seem to be investing a lot of money in jewelry and making themselves look nice (1Ti

2:9). Paul couples the two, with the silence command after the jewelry quip. Paul might be trying to

eliminate the problem before it starts. In all, the demeanor in Timothy is not at all like Pauls demeanor

in Corinthians.


18/20

The verses in 1 Timothy are not quite the same as 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians was writing about a

specific problem to a specific group of people at a specific time. Paul sums up these 3 chapters in the

next few verses, showing that the portion concerning women were not a later addition to the text, but

the last point he was making on this issue.

Paul concludes:

1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge

that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

1Co 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with

tongues.

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Paul is wrapping up 3 chapters of reprimands. He does so stigmatizing those who reject his points and

praising those who accept his points. Because the majority of this section dealt with the disadvantages

of speaking with tongues, he decides to make sure the Corinthians do not turn to man-made law andban speaking in tongues. He forbids forbidding tongues. He has been so harsh on tongues, but

sometimes tongues are necessary. Maybe the speaker only knows one language. Maybe the speaker

one speaks one fluent language. In any case, it is not to be forbidden, but that does not mean that it

should not be interpreted.

Paul concludes with an excellent summary:

1Co 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

Other Points Made by Charismatics

The two further instances in Acts are always claimed as true instances of Charismatic speaking in

tongues. The evidence for this is shoddy, and the evidence points to either a repeat of Acts 2 or instead

a meaning of tongues synonymous with languages:

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the

word.

Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with

Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God

Acts 10 details when Peter was visiting Cornelius. There were mixed Jews and Gentiles, believers and

unbelievers. Nothing is mentioned about interpreters. The listeners seem to understand part or all of

what is said. These facts lend itself to being a repeat of Acts 2. Although the chapter does not detail a

rushing wind or tongues of fire, Acts is not in the habit of detailing explicitly every event. This seems

to be a minor event, not lending itself to more than a couple verses. The point is that the Gentiles were

partakers. The point was not to detail a miracle. Even the modern Charismatic is reading far deeper into

the text than the text allows.


19/20

Alternatively, this could be just referencing the Gentiles speaking in Greek and other languages to glorify

God. A Gentile glorifying God in this matter, possibly with great vigor, might lend itself to amazement of

Jewish listeners, who expect God to be just for Israel. The Jews were not under the impression that

Gentiles (who had not ritualistically converted to Judaism) would partake in salvation (Eph 3:5-6). This

interpretation also lends itself more to the evidence then assuming it is a Charismatic experience.

The only event in Acts involving Paul happens in Acts 19:

Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they

spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.

This instance, the men speaking in tongues seem to be Jews, baptized under John the Baptist and

unaware of Jesus ministry. We do not know to whom they prophesied or to whom they spoke in

tongues. Like Acts 10, this could either be a repeat of Acts 2 or just speaking in foreign languages.

Charismatics claim that these two instances are recorded events in which the apostles spoke spiritual

languages or angelic languages. They turn to 1 Corinthians to support this concept:



Besides the fact that the Charismatics must piecemeal their practices from vague statements

throughout several books by several authors, this verse has nothing to do with what was happening in

Acts or the Corinthian church.

The first thing a reader should ask is what is the purpose of this sentence. What is Pauls point?Pauls

purpose is not to detail the various languages spoken by those who speak in tongues. In other words,

Paul did not sit down and say, there is nothing in my writing listing the various languages spoken, so I

should definitely make a list. Instead this sentences purpose is to contrast an extreme with another

condition. This can be illustrated by examining the surrounding verses.



1Co 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all

knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not

charity, I am nothing.

1Co 13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to beburned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Those who claim Paul is claiming that he speaks in languages of angels have a very basic problem

(specifically verses 2 and 3). If verse 1 is a claim that Paul speaks in angelic languages, then verse 2 is a

claim that Paul understands all mysteries and knowledge. Verse 3 would be a claim that Paul gave all his

goods to feed the poor (I wonder how this work with the minimal supplies necessary to run a tent-

making operation? Act 18:3). Verse 3 would also be a claim that Paul gave his body to be burned. The


20/20

burning probably refers to the most intense martyrdom imaginable (at the point that Paul wrote this

letter there is no evidence Christians were being persecuted in such manner). A better and more natural

reading of these texts is that Paul is using theoretical extremes to make points.

Angels are ethereal. They are mysterious and hint of spiritual unknowns. Angels tend to held in special

reverence. It is no wonder that Paul used angels as a common figure of speech to illustrate extremes. In

Romans Paul invokes angels to illustrate the Christian connection to Christ:

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor

powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the

love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In 1 Corinthians he invokes angels to show the Christian the extent of judging:

1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

In Galatians, the best parallel to the figure of speech in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul uses angels to show theextent of the truth of his own gospel:

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that

which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

This is the best parallel to 1 Corinthians 13 because this is an instance in which it is irrefutable that Paul

is speaking in figures of speech. Did Paul imagine a possibility that an angel would preach another

Gospel to the Galatians? Well, did Paul imagine a possibility that HE HIMSELF would preach another

Gospel to the Galatians? Paul is saying here, even if he were to return to Galatia and say you know

what, all that gospel I preached before, that is not true and I have a different gospel for you then do

not believe him. This is a definite figure of speech. Paul never expected to preach another gospel, but he

did want to illustrate the truth of what he had preached.

This would be the equivalent of a parent saying to a child: No one can use my car. Even if the President

of the United States were to show up and ask to use it, I would say no. It is perfectly acceptable to use

extreme hypotheticals to make points. Paul does it in Galatians, and Paul does it in Corinthians.

Just as knowing all mysteries and knowing all knowledge are extremes that do not exist in this

world, speaking in languages of angels also does not exist in this world. Imagine a preacher claiming to

know all knowledge and then pointing to 1 Cor 13:2. They should be taken as seriously as someone who

claims to speak in a tongue of angels and points to 1 Cor 13:1. It is very dangerous to take things out of

context and build doctrine around vague verses. Instead, the Bible should be read and understood as

the author intends. Beliefs should be consistent and clear. Those who ignore Biblical teaching and claimbenefits and experiences not mirrored in the Bible should be treated as cultists making their own

religion.

Documents

Speaking in Tongues vs the Bible