THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ABOUT TONGUES
_______________________
A Paper
Presented to Dr. Danny Akin
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
_________________________
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements of the Course
Systematic Theology
__________________________
By
James Paul Inman
SEBTS Box 3348 / Phone: (919)554-4315
April 18, 1995
THE BIBLICAL TEACHING ABOUT TONGUES
INTRODUCTION
One of the most heated debates in Christian circles concerns the issue
of speaking in tongues. Positions vary from one extreme of those who believe that
the gift ceased sometime during or at the end of apostolic period to the other
extreme of those who regard the experience as the visible sign of the baptism of the
Holy Spirit that should be experienced by all believers. Donald Williams vividly
summarizes the problem by writing,
It is one of the great ironies of ecclesiology, one of the great
tragedies of church history, and one of the great triumphs of Satan
that a doctrine so conducive to the health and unity of the body of
Christ as that of the spiritual gifts should have become the occasion for
an outpouring of divisiveness, fear, and polarization. Nevertheless,
such has been our experience in the twentieth century. It is the
well documented nature of heresy that errors tend to breed their
opposites. From neglect comes excess; from excess comes fear, denial,
and rejection; from all these comes polarization, the hardening of
positions, and the squandering of spiritual energy. Logically, the
debate is over the place of the so-called supernatural, miraculous,
or extraordinary gifts. Practically, the focal point seems to be the
emotionally charged issue of tongues.
It is absolutely necessary for a follower of Jesus Christ to sort through the confusion and controversy and develop a correct understanding of glossolalia [speaking in tongues].
Pentecostal theology is very experience-oriented. Frederick Bruner writes, “It is important to notice that it is not the doctrine, it is the experience of the Holy Spirit which Pentecostals repeatedly assert that they wish to stress.” Ervin writes, “But the attempt to interpret the charismatic manifestations of the Holy Spirit without a charismatic experience is as fatuous as the application of the ‘Christian ethic’ apart from a regenerate dynamic.” On the other hand, the basic presupposition of this paper is that the Bible is God’s inerrant, and thus, authoritative Word that serves as the only standard for faith and practice. Even while acknowledging that experience informs theology, this writer asserts that experiences must be judged by the teachings of the Bible. Therefore, this paper will not focus on experience, but it will attempt to correctly interpret the biblical material about tongues presented in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 in order to develop a genuinely biblical doctrine of speaking in tongues. The focus will be on issues relating to the current tongues controversy. They include: the contemporary validity of tongues, the doctrine of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as it relates to tongues, the type of language tongues are, the purpose of tongues, and biblical guidelines for the public use of tongues.
THE CONTEMPORARY VALIDITY OF TONGUES
Is the gift of tongues for today? This is a proper starting point for a discussion of glossolalia because if tongues have ceased all other discussion is really a moot point. If cessationism is correct, as Williams states, “All manifestations such as glossolalia (speaking in tongues) are counterfeit at best, if not downright demonic.” As was noted earlier in the introductory section of the paper, there are two opposing schools of thought on this subject. There are also mediating positions between the two poles. MacArthur represents the cessationist position when he writes, “I am convinced, beyond all reasonable doubt, that tongues ceased in the Apostolic Age nineteen hundred years ago. And I also believe that the work pauo {1 Cor. 13:8} indicates that once tongues stopped, they stopped for good.” The Charismatic position is represented by Ervin, who writes, “And whether stated, or implied, it is a fair conclusion from the Biblical evidence, that tongues are the ‘external and indubitable proof’ of the baptism in / filling with the Holy Spirit.” One mediating position is expressed by Millard Erickson, who believes each instance of glossolalia should be examined on its own merits. He writes, “Consequently, one cannot rule in an a priori and categorical fashion that a claim of glossolalia is spurious.” Another mediating position is expressed by Packer, who asserts that the gift “cannot be confidently equated from any point of view with New Testament tongues: but still believes “glossolalia could be a good gift of God for some people at least, on the basis that anything that helps you to concentrate on God, practice his presence, and open yourself to his influence is a good gift.”
The key biblical text in regard to this question is 1 Corinthians 13:8-13. Verses eight through ten say, “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.” Patterson lists the three basic views as to what the perfect is referring to as the writing of the New Testament, the return of Christ, and the heavenly state. Cessationists who take the view that the “perfect” is the New Testament believe that tongues ceased at that time. However, many cessationists believe the “perfect” refers to the eternal state, but they still believe tongues will cease before knowledge and prophecy because of the way verse eight is written in Greek. “Fail,” which refers to prophecies, and “vanish away,” which refers to knowledge, come from the same Greek word, whose lexical form is katargeo, and is in the passive voice. “Shall cease,” which refers to tongues, is pauo in the Greek and is in the middle voice. Criswell says, “He uses a different verb, pauo, ‘cause to cease,’ and he changes the voice from passive to middle, pausontai, which literally translated means ‘tongues shall make themselves to cease’ or ‘tongues shall automatically cease of themselves’.” Thus, many cessationists believe that prophecy and knowledge will cease in the eternal state while tongues cease sometime before prophecy and knowledge. Then, they give various arguments with the intent of proving that the time of cessation was during the Apostolic Age. MacArthur, who is one of the leading cessationists, gives six basic arguments. They are: the gift of tongues was a miracle gift, and the age of miracles passed away with the apostles; the gift of tongues was a sign to unbelieving Jews; the inferiority of tongues to prophecy; the lack of need of the gift when the New Testament was completed; and absence of the tongues phenomena within evangelical church history.
How valid are these arguments? In regard to 1 Corinthians 13, it should be noted, first of all, that the focal point of the chapter is the superiority of love (“a more excellent way”). Even the exercise of the spiritual gifts is to be controlled by love. This does not rule out the cessationist argument about tongues, but it should cause the wise interpreter to proceed with caution and not make too much out of the change in voice. Furthermore, equally competent scholars disagree with the cessationist understanding of these verses. D.A. Carson says of the cessationist view that it “assumes without warrant that the switch to this verb is more than a stylistic variation.” Gordon Fee says, “The change of verbs is purely rhetorical.” The point is that the foundation of the cessationist argument is based on an inference and not on a definite fact of Scripture. MacArthur’s six arguments do carry some weight, but they seem to be lacking as far as absolutely proving the cessationist point. Once again, they are inferences. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 14:39 says, “Do not forbid to speak with tongues.” In regard to this sentence, MacArthur says, “Paul was not forbidding the use of a true gift in its true expression at its true time. Now this cannot be applied to today, because the true gift of tongues has ceased.” This writer is compelled to agree with Jack Deere, who says,
They {orthodox theologians and Bible teachers} have set
aside a part of the Word of God as void! And they have done
so without specific biblical proof. If I were going to set aside a
part of the new Testament as no longer valid for today, I could
not do that on the basis of theological deductions or later
historical experience. I would have to have a specific text in
the New Testament that told me a particular command has now
been nullified.
This seems to be a necessary conclusion if the Bible is going to truly be the basis of authority in regard to the tongues question. In addition, Erickson says, “There simply is no biblical evidence indicating the time of fulfillment of the prediction that tongues will cease. Therefore, this writer does not believe that cessationism is a valid position to hold in regard to glossolalia. The opposite viewpoint will be considered in the next section of the paper.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN RELATION TO THE GIFT OF TONGUES
The cornerstone of Pentecostal theology is their belief that the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs subsequently to and not coterminously with salvation and is accompanied by the initial, physical evidence of speaking in tongues. If they are correct about the baptism of the Spirit, then they are correct in their assertion that tongues are for every believer. However, if they are wrong at this foundational point, their teaching about tongues is also wrong. What does the Bible teach?
The key verse in regard to this question is 1 Corinthians 12:13. It says, “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” In order to solve the dilemma of when the baptism occurs, Patterson asserts that “one needs to address three questions: (1) Who is being baptized? (2) Who is the baptizer or the administrator? (3) Into what element is this immersion taking place?” The Corinthian believers were those who were referred to as being baptized, and the conclusion can be drawn that this applies to all true believers. The Corinthians were baptized into the body of Christ, and it was the Holy Spirit who was the baptizer. Patterson then draws the conclusion that “at the moment of conversion the Holy Spirit immerses every believer into the body of Jesus Christ.” It must be at the moment of conversion because “if it were to happen sometime after salvation, then Paul could not have said that all believers have been baptized with the Spirit.” Fee, who is a Pentecostal, writes, “Most likely, therefore, Paul is referring to their common experience of conversion, and he does so in terms of its most crucial ingredient, the receiving of the Spirit.” Packer says, “Reference to a second blessing has to be read into the text; it cannot be read out of it.” Thus, an examination of this verse demonstrates that salvation and the baptism of the Spirit are coterminous, and the Pentecostal view is shown to be false.
This section of Scripture also demonstrates that tongues were never intended for every believer. Paul does this by demonstrating the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit in the giving of gifts in verses 4-11, showing the diversity of giftedness within the unity of the body through an extended analogy in verses 12-26, and using a series of rhetorical questions in verses 27-30. One of the questions he asks is, “Do all speak with tongues?” (v. 30). MacGorman says, “In all seven of the questions he used the negative particle me, indicating that he expected the answer no.” Showers says, “Thus in Paul’s day all believers had been baptized with the Spirit, but many were never given the ability to speak in tongues.” The same is true today. Therefore, it is clear that neither the cessationist nor the Charismatic position on tongues is viable, and a mediating position must be adopted. This will be done later in the paper.
THE TYPE OF LANGUAGE OF TONGUES
One of the main questions that needs to be dealt with in regard to glossolalia concerns the type of language that speaking in tongues actually involves. There can be no doubt that what occurred on the Day of Pentecost that is recorded in Acts 2 is the apostles actually speaking in known languages they had never studied. However, the question remains as to what type of language was being used in Corinth. Patterson lists three views of this problem. They are: (1) exclusively ecstatic utterance, (2) exclusively known languages, and (3) sometimes real languages like the Day of Pentecost and sometimes ecstatic utterances. There is enough ambiguity that humility and not dogmatism should mark one’s interpretation on this question. However, this writer is inclined to agree with Patterson’s third view. The true gift of tongues is expressed in known language, but the Corinthian Christians had possibly been influenced by their pagan neighbors and were practicing the fleshly imitation of ecstatic utterance. According to House, “Three sources are the most probable candidates for the ecstatic phenomenon seen at Corinth: the Cybele-Attis cult, the Dionysian cult (both mystery religions), and the religion of Apollo.” Paul is not denying the existence of a real gift of tongues (cf. 14:18), but it is clear that the manifestations of tongues in Corinth were not of the same character as that of the Day of Pentecost where real languages were used. On the other hand, some scholars disagree with this conclusion. For example, Fee defines tongues as “unintelligible inspired speech.” MacGorman says, “It {tongues} is irrational; that is, it is mindless.” However, one should consider the fact that the Bible records angels and even God as communicating with mankind only in understandable human speech. Furthermore, Carson notes that careful word studies have demonstrated that glossa never denotes “noncognitive utterance.” Hodges contends that the English reader should mentally substitute language wherever he reads tongue. Zodhiates declares that “the Greek word glossa means 1) our physical tongue, 2) our speech or language, and 3) our distinctive ethnic language.” Therefore, based on these facts, this writer is compelled to agree with MacArthur that “the gift of tongues is ‘the ability to speak a foreign language that had not been learned by the speaker’.”
THE PURPOSE OF TONGUES
What is the purpose of tongues? It has already been demonstrated that it is not the initial, visible evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as many Charismatics teach. Furthermore, it is not to be used privately as a means of “devotional assistance” like many Charismatics assert. There are several reasons why tongues are not to be used in this way. First, since the gift of tongues consists of known languages, it is not correct to equate attempts to communicate with God through ecstatic utterance with the genuine gift of tongues. Second, since God condescended to communicate with humanity in understandable language, why is there any need for persons to attempt to communicate with God in non-rational language? Third, glossolalia is a spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12: 10, 28), and by their very nature, the use of gifts is to be directed toward others because “a spiritual gift is a particular ability to minister to other people which is given graciously by the Holy Spirit to a believer.” Fourth, the purpose of spiritual gifts, including tongues, is for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 14:12). Fifth, the main Charismatic proof text for a private prayer language, Romans 8:26-27, does not support but is actually opposed to the concept because the verses say “the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Thus, the Spirit is not enabling believers to pray in tongues, but He is interceding for believers when they are not capable of expressing themselves in prayer. Sixth, the actual purpose of tongues, according to Acts 2, is for them to be a vehicle of communication and authentication of the gospel. Obviously, this has nothing to do with privately speaking in tongues.
BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC USE OF TONGUES
There are nine principles that are given in 1 Corinthians 12-14 to regulate the public practice of the gift of tongues. Three of these are general principles that come from chapters 12 and 13 while the other six are specific principles that Paul sets forth as he closes out his discussion of spiritual gifts in 14:26-40. The first principle is that glossolalia must not be the major emphasis in a church. It is a gift and not the gift. This is a clear principle because chapter 12 teaches that the Spirit sovereignly distributes the gifts, no believer has all of the gifts, and there is a diversity within the Body of Christ. Second, the public use of tongues must never be divisive. Chapter 12 clearly teaches that God designed the Body to be in unity. Third, the clear focus of chapter 13 is that the gifts, certainly including tongues, are to be used in a loving manner. The application of this principle keeps tongues from being self-centered. Turning to 1 Cor. 14:26-40, the fourth principle expressed by Paul is that “all things are to be done for edification” (v. 26). Fifth, Paul asserts that no more than two or three are to speak in tongues any time the church is gathered together (v. 27). Sixth, he teaches that no more than one person is to speak in tongues at a time (v. 27). Seventh, Paul declares that there must be an interpreter in order for someone to speak in tongues (v. 27-28). Eighth, women are not to speak in tongues (v. 34). Ninth, all things are to “be done decently and in order.”
CONCLUSION
It was noted earlier in the paper that neither cessationism nor the Charismatic position on speaking in tongues is valid. Thus, some type of middle position is needed. This writer takes a position similar to Erickson’s that advocates looking at each case and comparing it to Scripture. If this is done and the biblical guidelines enforced, it is an indisputable fact that almost, if not all, contemporary speaking in tongues would cease or be ruled out.
Finally, I would like to offer some practical suggestions for dealing with this issue. First, all we do and say is to be marked by love. Jesus said that love for one another, not our theological position or spiritual gifts, should cause people to know we are His disciples (John 13:35). Second, everything we do is to be done under the Lordship of Christ (1 Cor. 12:3). Third, we must remember that the Spirit’s role is to testify of Christ (John 15:26) and glorify Christ (John 16:14). Thus, we must be Christocentric. Fourth, we are to receive Paul’s commands as “the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). The Bible must be our authority. It is time for all Christians to stop elevating tradition and experience over revealed truth. Fifth, we are not to forbid the use of tongues unless it is in violation of the Scriptural principles (1 Cor. 14:39). Sixth, we must test the spirits (1 John 4:1). It is wrong to accept every spiritual experience as an experience with the Holy Spirit. Seventh, and finally, our response to those who are in error should be humble, patient, and gentle correction and teaching (2 Timothy 2:24-26) unless they persist in heresy. Then, we are to note and avoid them (Romans 16:17).
SOURCES CONSULTED
Bruner, Frederick Dale. A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Carson, D.A. Showing The Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1987.
Criswell, W.A. The Holy Spirit in Today’s World. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1966.
Deere, Jack. Surprised By The Power Of The Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Book House, 1985.
Ervin, Howard M. These Are Not Drunken As Ye Suppose. Plainfield, New Jersey:
Logos International, 1968.
Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.
Hemphill, Kenneth S. Spiritual Gifts: Empowering the New Testament Church.
Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1988.
Hodges, Zane C. “The Purpose of Tongues.” Bibliotheca Sacra (July-Sept. 1963):
226-233.
House, H. Wayne. “Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth.”
Bibliotheca Sacra (April-June 1983): 134-150.
Jepson, J.W. What You Should Know About the Holy Spirit.
Springfield, Missouri: Gospel Publishing House, 1986.
MacArthur, John, Jr. The Truth About Tongues. Panorama City, California:
Word of Grace Communications, 1984.
MacGorman, J.W. The Gifts of the Spirit. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press,
1974
Packer, J.I. Keep In Step With The Spirit. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Fleming H. Revell, 1984.
Patterson, Paige. The Troubled Triumphant Church: An Exposition of First
Corinthians. Dallas, Texas: Criswell Publication, 1983.
Showers, Renald E. “The Cessation Of The Gift Of Tongues.” Israel My Glory
(April/May 1989): 21-24.
Showers, Renald E. “Spiritual Gifts-Their Definition, Discernment And Purpose.”
Israel My Glory (March/May 1988): 14-17.
Showers, Renald E. “Spiritual Gifts-Their Distribution And Relationships.” Israel My Glory (June/July 1988): 19-23.
Williams, Donald. The Person And Work Of The Holy Spirit. Nashville,
Tennessee: Broadman and Holman, 1994.
Zodhiates, Spiros. Tongues? An Exegetical Commentary on 1 Corinthians: 12-14
Chattanooga, Tennessee: AMG Publishers, 1974.
