HOME WRITINGS ORGANIZATIONS Q & A NEWSLETTER FAQS CONTACT ABOUT BELIEFS LINKS ARCHIVE FREE BIBLE STORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH A CHARISMATIC
The Apostles And The Gift Of Tongues - To Whom Did They Speak?
 
The Charismatic Challenge
Wednesday, January 7

I acknowledge your deep concern about the Word of God as ultimate truth. There are many good points in your article.

However, regarding the tongue speaking, you say, "Paul spoke in tongues more than any person because of the nature of his ministry. He travelled the extent of the Mediterranean and could speak the language of any person that he met on his journeys."

Regarding the language of ANY person he met on his journeys, where do you take it from? The Bible does not say this, or do you have some other source for this claim?

In 1 Corinthians 14:2, Paul says:
"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit."
It seems that this tongue speaking is not the same as mentioned in Acts 2:4-11. Please check the differences in the original language.

P.S. Who is the judge of private tongue speaking (is it right or not) if nobody understands except God.

Do you speak in tongues by yourself?

God bless you, with kind regards,
R — (M.A. in Ministry)

On Doctrine Reply
Hello R—,
Welcome to On Doctrine
Thank you for your visit and Contact message.

I appreciate your question about my statement regarding the definition of the nature of the gift of tongues and the apostle Paul's use of it. I certainly understand that there are many who would not adopt the definition of the gift of tongues that I presented, and would not wish to adopt that definition for a number of different reasons. I freely admit that there is not a specific verse in the Bible to which I can point as a singular proof text confirming my position, but I don't think the Scripture precludes that conclusion, and the evidence taken together provides very strong support, in contrast to the claim that the gift of tongues is a private prayer language, which has no support in Scripture.

I have never spoken in tongues, never attempted or sought the ability to speak in tongues and have no desire to speak in tongues in the manner that is found in the Christian world today.

My article was directed to the claim of Marilyn Hickey, who states that the gift of tongues is a private prayer language, which is one definition that cannot be used. The Scripture is very clear on that particular issue.

The Charismatic movement views the operation and use of the gift of tongues as one of the major gifts that must be sought by the believer (in actual practice, possibly considered to be the most significant gift), and is one of the primary distinctives of the movement. In that view, the manifestation of the phenomenon is a sign gift, and confirms certain aspects of Christian belief and practice,
1. That the person is a true Christian.
2. That salvation has been obtained (at least for the moment)
3. That the person is in the body, fellowship or church
4. That the individual has been filled with the Holy Spirit (as a second work of grace)

However, in practice, the manifestation of the gift goes far beyond the simple claim that it is a private prayer language or the confirmation of the presence of the Holy Spirit, because it is also believed that it is to be manifested and used publicly in the services of the church and elsewhere, such as small groups, revivals, evangelistic services, etc. In that application, the gift is used not only to confirm the four points above, but also to
1. Communicate to God in public prayer.
2. Give praise to God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
3. Give exhortation.
4. Give words of wisdom.
5. Give personal messages to individuals
6. Give revelations.

An entire doctrinal system has been built around definitions of its use that bear no relation to what is found in the Scripture. In the view of the movement, the use of tongues becomes an identification badge, supposedly separating the real Christians from those who are not, and the spiritual Christians from the rest. Tongues becomes the defining factor, by which people judge others as to the legitimacy of their claim to be a Christian, and is the confirming factor by which a person believes that they are a true Christian and have achieved a higher level of spirituality. Those who have sought the gift of tongues and have not found it are looked upon by those who have manifested the phenomenon as being substandard spiritually or not being Christians at all, and to be without the manifestation in one's life is to cause a person to question whether they are truly a Christian. So, within the community who believe in the gift as practiced today, there is a great division between those who have manifested the phenomenon and those who have not, which is as serious, or more so, than the division between those who believe the gift is for today and those who do not. The line between tongues being a gift imparted to those who are already Christians and the belief that it defines a Christian, becomes increasingly blurred. There are Charismatic groups who speak in tongues, such as Oneness Pentecostals, who deny the Trinity and define the godhead as being modalistic; as a result they deny the actual person of Jesus Christ, asserting that He is just an appearance or manifestation of the one God cloaked in the appearance of Jesus Christ, which is a heretical belief.

The manifestation of tongues seen in the movement today, as a verification of salvation or having received the Holy Spirit or being in the body of Christ, is not an accurate measure, because it can, and does, give a false verification.

The manifestation of tongues, in the major segment of the Charismatic movement, is the principle identity and doctrine by which unity is achieved with other groups. It is defined by the majority in the manner of it being a private prayer and public language, which is a contradiction, but it is claimed that it can be used in both ways. I would not claim that everyone in the movement views the manifestation in this way. There are those who truly believe it to be a private prayer language, which is used in private only. There are those who believe that it is a public manifestation only, and there are those who consider it to be both, who are basically the majority.

Regardless of how one defines the use of the language, one definition is common to all, and that is that the language is a heavenly spiritual language, singular in nature, unique to each individual and has no connection with any known human language. For many, there is also the belief that the gift operates in a manner disconnected from the mind of the person, the language simply flowing in a communication not controlled by the individual and the individual not even knowing what is being articulated.

That definition of tongues, as applied by the Charismatic movement, is a false and non-biblical definition. There is a true gift of tongues, it was miraculous, it was found in the early church, it is spoken of in the Scripture and it was stated by the apostle Paul that its true and valid use should not be prevented. However, what is being claimed and manifested in the Charismatic movement today is not the gift as given to and practiced by the apostles and the early church, but is a false phenomenon that deceives many into believing that they are in the body of Christ when they may not be. The gift of tongues was never a private prayer language and it was never a unique heavenly spiritual language given to a believer by which they send prayers to God in a manner which they cannot do in their native language or also convey messages from heaven to the church, and it was not a communication disconnected from the intellect and understanding. It is the Holy Spirit that intercedes on the part of the believer, because we are unable to pray rightly, Romans 8:26.

Virtually no one of importance in the Charismatic movement claims that the gift of tongues is the ability to speak an existing language which the person has never learned through traditional means. The reason is clear, because the validity of that expression of tongues could be easily determined, so the manifestation in the movement does not take that form, although the Scripture teaches differently. If the manifestation of tongues today does not conform to the definition found the Scripture, then it is a false manifestation.

It is not understood why, if tongues is a gift from God, it must be learned, which seems to be the case for the majority of people. There are even schools and classes where a person can go to learn how to speak in tongues and there are any number of recommendations given to seekers, in order to start them on the road to speaking with their God-given gift. Why a God-given gift is not given in the manner that it can be immediately used without learning or practice is a mystery, and the claim that it can be learned repudiates the claim that it is a gift. This makes the gift a learned achievement and places it in the category of other gifts that are claimed can be learned, whereby a person can become a prophet or apostle by going to any one of the numerous schools organized for those who claim to have those gifts, but need someone else to show them how to make the gift operate. In these systems, God is assumed to be the Giver, but somehow forgets to include the instructions, so self-proclaimed instructors must do the job for Him.

The actual operation of the gift of tongues is found in surprisingly few passages in the Scripture. The majority of those passages being in the writings of the apostle Paul where he deals with the subject as a result of the misuse of the gift, and not because he is giving primary instruction as to its operation or necessity. Had the difficulty not occurred in the Corinthian church, then there would be very little stated in the Scripture about the gift, which probably indicates that its true place of importance is of a minor nature in relation to the church, which the Scripture states to be the actual fact.

The gift is not mentioned in the gospels of Matthew, Luke or John. The subject is found in the gospels only in Mark 16:17-20. It is from this passage that certain groups have adopted the belief that true believers are exempt from harm by poisonous snakes and other types of poison, so they introduce snake handling into their worship services. However, in relation to those beliefs and the subject of tongues, the passage has serious difficulties, because verses 9-20 appear in later manuscripts but not in the earlier. It is a matter of dispute, but the evidence points to the conclusion that those verses are later additions or redactions to Mark's writings instead of being original to the text.

There are additional problems in the passage that would indicate that the concepts expressed were lifted from other Scriptures but then changed and applied in a different manner. The claim that a person would not be harmed by poisonous snakes is found in Luke 10:19 and Acts 28:3-5. However, in those passages, the protection was granted to the 70 disciples and the apostles, while in Mark, although the passage speaks about the apostles, the protection is stated to be granted to all those who have believed. The real world reveals that claim to be untrue and, with the exception of those minor snake-charming splinter groups, the majority in the Charismatic movement would reject the claim also. In addition, the passage speaks about not being harmed by drinking any deadly poison, a claim which also fails in the real world, and is not found in any of the other Scriptures.

The passage also claims that people will speak, not just in tongues, but will speak in new tongues, which many claim confirms the unique personal nature of the gift of tongues as a heavenly language. However, none of the other passages regarding tongues ever speak of new tongues, and the passage does not provide a definition of "new tongues," so the claim that they are a heavenly language is an assumption made without a proper biblical foundation. Verses 9-20 have other great difficulties and one cannot simply pick and choose which doctrines are convenient in order to support a certain point of view and incorporate them into a doctrinal system, when the verses are not original to the author, Mark.

The other Scriptures that deal with the subject of tongues are:
Acts 2:1-21
Acts 10:44-48
Acts 19:1-7
1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, 30
1 Corinthians 13:1
1 Corinthians 14:1-19

The subject of tongues is mentioned in only three New Testament books, Mark, Acts and 1 Corinthians, the rest of the books not mentioning even one word on the subject. The reference in Mark cannot be used in any authoritative manner. Acts 2 notes the use of tongues in relation to the apostles only, Acts 10 notes its use concurrent with the Holy Spirit being given to gentiles, and Acts 19 notes its use in relation to the disciples of John, who had received the baptism of repentance and were looking for the One to follow John, but did not actually know about Jesus Christ. They were baptized in the name of Jesus, receiving the Holy Spirit with concurrent speaking in tongues. It is only in 1 Corinthians that it is revealed that tongues was a continuing gift in the church. The apostle Paul discusses the subject in relation to use by the membership of the church, and its misuse by the Corinthian church. One can only conclude that the importance of the gift to the early church, in relation to its proper use, was quite minor in relation to the importance that the Charismatic movement places on it today.

Acts 2 is the defining passage, explaining what the gift of tongues was. It was the apostles who received the gift in which they spoke in other tongues, not new tongues or tongues unknown in the world. They were not speaking to themselves or to each other or to God, but it was at the point that the crowd began to gather, as a result of the noise caused by the appearance of the Holy Spirit, that the apostles spoke in those tongues to those in the crowd who understood their native languages being spoken. It was not just their basic language that the apostles spoke but the specific dialects or variations of those languages. The gift was not just to speak a basic form of a foreign language, but the ability to speak fluently as a native in the specific and unique dialect of that language which was also spoken and understood by the hearer, and could have many different forms for each language. Those in the crowd were impressed to hear their native language, which could have been learned by the apostles, but it seemed not to be possible, (". . . are not all these which speak Galilaeans?" 2:7), but to hear the specific dialect of their native country and district was something more than just remarkable and was a specific confirmation that the apostles were speaking with real power and authority granted to them by Jesus Christ and confirmed by the presence of the Holy Spirit which had been promised and had then come, ("And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?" 2:8).

There were languages spoken from the following:
1 .Parthians - Iran
2. Medes - Iran
3. Elamites - southwest Iran
4. Mesopotamia - Iraq
5. Judaea - including Jerusalem and Syria
6. Cappadocia - Turkey
7. Pontus - northern Turkey on the Black Sea
8. Asia - Asia Minor including all of Turkey
9. Phrygia - Turkey
10. Pamphylia - Turkey on the Mediterranean Sea
11. Egypt
12. Libya around Cyrene
13. Rome
14. Jews
15. Crete
16. Arabia - south of Damascus

There were at least 14 languages spoken, and the number of dialects spoken may have been even greater (Jews may have not counted as a separate foreign language) and only twelve apostles, so some spoke in more than one language. Possibly they all spoke all the languages. The gift was a means by which the apostles could begin the fulfillment of the commission, given to them by Jesus Christ, to go into all the world to preach the gospel, first to the Jews and then to everyone else. They were in Jerusalem preaching to the Jews as they had been told (Luke 24:49), but in the first act of preaching to the rest of the world, that world came to them and heard the gospel in their own language, preached by the apostles. The gift was given to the apostles and as a sign to unbelievers, first to the Jews who also heard the gospel and the languages being spoken, but also to the gentile world as well, who heard their own language and dialect, which validated the apostle's commission that the gospel would be for everyone and not the Jews only. (Those who were there from the foreign countries may have mainly been Jews who were living there and came to Jerusalem to worship, however some were also Gentiles, ". . . Fellow Jews and all of you who are in Jerusalem . . " Acts 2:14). What was being spoken was not some personal heavenly language that was unique to the speaker and unintelligible to the hearer, but real and actual languages known and understood by the unbelieving hearers, but unlearned by the speakers. There is no teaching regarding a personal prayer language to be found in the passage.

Interestingly enough, the gift of tongues is mentioned only in relation to the incident regarding the specific message being given by Peter and the apostles, but after the message was given, there were 3,000 converts added to the church on the same day and nothing more is noted in regards to that incident. There is no mention of the converts speaking in tongues or any teaching requiring that they do so or that it was part of their salvation experience or receiving of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Peter says that the converts would receive the Holy Spirit, but never speaks of that happening as a separate action apart from their salvation or that speaking in tongues is a confirmation of that occurrence. It seems very strange, that on the same day that the apostles received the Holy Spirit and 3,000 converts were added to the church, nothing is mentioned about the manifestation of tongues in regards to that group. It would seem that they would be the defining example for conduct in the future church, but tongues is not mentioned.

The definition, that the gift of tongues was the ability to speak in an actual, existing human language not known or learned by the speaker, and, at least in the case of the apostles, the ability to speak in any language which was required, is not unique to me. Augustine made the claim and speaks better than I.

"How then, brethren, because he that is baptized in Christ, and believes on Him, does not now speak in the tongues of all nations, are we not to believe that he has received the Holy Ghost? God forbid that our heart should be tempted by this faithlessness.... Why is it that no man speaks in the tongues of all nations? Because the Church itself now speaks in the tongues of all nations. Before, the Church was in one nation, where it spoke in the tongues of all. By speaking then in the tongues of all, it signified what was to come to pass" that by growing among the nations, it would speak in the tongues of all."
--- Augustine, "Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John"
When approaching the passages written by the apostle Paul, the reality of what the gift of tongues was, as found in Acts, cannot be dismissed as having no relevance to the gift as found in Corinthians. In Acts, if the gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a known, existing language that was unlearned by the speaker, then the gift of tongues in Corinthians is the same as that in Acts. Corinthians did not reveal a new gift, but it was the same gift manifested in both incidents, and it did not magically change its nature from speaking in existing languages to speaking in a heavenly language, which is claimed by the Charismatic movement to be that which is found in Corinthians. The Scripture is consistent and we must be consistent in our interpretation of it. Just as in Mark 16:9-20, we cannot pick and choose teachings or claims just because they conform to what we wish to believe or because they conveniently support what we have already chosen to believe. In the same manner, we cannot define the gift of tongues in one way in Acts and in another in Corinthians. It must be one definition or the other, because it cannot be both.

If the definition chosen is that the gift of tongues is a private heavenly prayer language, then the narrative of Acts must be rejected or simply ignored without proper foundation to do so, and the references in Corinthians must be redefined or contorted in order to reflect that view. If the definition chosen is that the gift of tongues is the ability to speak in a known language, then the narrative in Acts is retained and the admonitions and instructions in Corinthians do not need to be redefined and contorted.

1 Corinthians 12:10 is the first reference to tongues made by Paul.
". . . to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues."

The meaning is quite clear, one person has the ability to speak in various kinds of tongues which is more than one. So, the gift of tongues involves the ability of a person to speak in multiple tongues, the exact number not being specified, but at least two. Since that is the case, the definition of the gift as being a private prayer language involving a special and unique heavenly language fails completely. First of all, there is no mention of a prayer language and there is no mention of a heavenly language that is unique to the individual. The Greek word used is "glossa" which is the same used in Acts 2:4 and connected with the Greek word "dialektos" used in Acts 26, both defined as language and "dialektos" also used as dialect.

The Scripture reveals a progressively refined explanation of the nature of tongues. In Acts it is specifically demonstrated as the ability to speak a known and existing human language that was unlearned by the speaker, and by the list of languages spoken, at least some of the apostles must have spoken in more than one language. Now, in 1 Corinthians 12:10, the apostle Paul states specifically what has been inferred from Acts, that the gift involves the ability to speak various languages.

Not only that, there are two types of manifestations in relation to tongues; there is, (1) the speaking of tongues and, (2) the interpretation of tongues, and both are the ability to deal with multiple languages - at least two and by inference, many languages.

If the definition of the gift of tongues is a private heavenly prayer language, then some major difficulties are encountered:
1. If the language is private communication to God through prayer, then why are there some who are interpreters? Does God need an interpreter? How does private prayer to God suddenly become public through an interpreter and why?
2. If the language is a private heavenly prayer language, then why is there more than one language being spoken by the individual?
3. Is one language not private enough, so that another more private than the first is required?
4. Is one language private (not requiring an interpreter) and one language public (requiring an interpreter)?

The reality of what is taught in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12, causes any definition of tongues as being a private heavenly prayer language to fail the test of a biblical teaching.

1 Corinthians 12:28-30 also disproves the claim that the gift of tongues confirms the receipt of the Holy Spirit in the life of a Christian. In verse 28, the apostle Paul lists the gifts that are given, the manifestation of tongues being last. In verse 30, the apostle Paul states specifically and unequivocally that not every believer has the gift of tongues or the gift of interpretation, ". . . Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? . . ." The answers to the questions are rhetorical, requiring that the reader answer, "No." Not all speak in tongues and not all interpret those tongues, just as not all are apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers or healers.

So, the question becomes, "How does this claim that the gift of tongues is a private heavenly prayer language work, if not all receive it? And how does the gift of tongues confirm receipt of the Holy Spirit if not all receive the gift?" The answer is quite apparent, because the gift of tongues is not a private heavenly prayer language and it is not given as a confirmation of the receipt of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul makes it clear that not all believers speak in tongues, and by the gift being at the bottom of the list of gifts, 1 Corinthians 12:28-30, there are apparently more who do not have the gift than those who do have the gift, yet those who do not have the gift, also have the Holy Spirit, because to be in the body is to have the Holy Spirit, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13; Ephesians 4:4.

What was happening in Corinth was that those who had the gift of tongues, which was one of the least important gifts, were asserting their use of it as being the most important of the gifts, because it was the most spectacular and showy of all the gifts. Those who spoke in tongues had taken control of the church and were expressing their gifts to the exclusion of the other members. Not only had they taken control of the operation of the church, they had taken control of the services as well, using that avenue to express their gifts in a manner that caused chaos and confusion at every meeting of the church. They claimed that they had the best and most important gift, and that everyone else should have the same gift, and they ignored the gifts of greater importance to the extent that they brought disunity into the fellowship by their self-centered preoccupation with their own gifts, and revealed that they loved themselves to the exclusion of love for the other believers, which the apostle Paul notes as their problem, "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love . ," 1 Corinthians 13:1. As the apostle Paul moved into 1 Corinthians, chapter 13, he continued the exposition of what he claimed he was going to do, "But earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way," 1 Corinthians 12:31.

The apostle Paul had indicated that the gift of tongues was one of the lesser gifts, while the gift of apostleship, prophecy, teaching, miracles and healings were the greater. But to state that the Corinthians should desire the greater gifts is to contradict what he had been writing to them, by confronting them for their sinful conduct in misusing the gift that they did have. I think a better way to view his comment is, "You are desiring the best gifts, but wrongly so. And I show you a still more excellent way or the correct way." I am not dogmatic on this, but his rejection of their conduct in relation to their gifts cannot be denied, and his desire to show them something better than what they were doing is evident.

Throughout the entire 13th chapter, the apostle Paul introduces and explains the reality and necessity of the better way. To express love is the better way, and it is better than any of the other gifts, because to have any of the gifts without love invalidates the reality of the gift,
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing," 1 Corinthians 13:1-2.
The apostle Paul was not introducing the idea of speaking in an angelic language, but was hyperbole in relation to his definition of tongues being a foreign language, "If I speak with the tongues of men . . ," but even if he could speak with some angelic tongue and did not have love, it is pointless.

The Corinthians had lost the preeminent expression of the body of Christ, which was love. Reaching back to the teaching of Jesus Christ, he introduces the subject of love, its importance in the relationship of Christians to each other, its importance in relation to the operation of gifts and its importance in relation to God.

"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments,"' Matthew 22:36-40.
After introducing the better way of love in chapter 13, the apostle Paul returns to his original subject regarding the use of gifts, especially the use of tongues, in chapter 14. His subject has not changed, because he has not introduced any new definition of tongues at any point in his discourse. 1 Corinthians 14:2 reflects the continuing exposition of the same gift of tongues discussed in chapters 12 and 13.

There is one consideration that must always be applied in relation to the study of Scripture, and that is CONTEXT - CONTEXT - CONTEXT. Nothing has changed in what the apostle Paul has been saying about tongues prior to 14:2 that would warrant an assumption that 14:2 refers to any type of tongue that is different from what has been his subject for 2 chapters. There are no verses after 14:2 giving any instruction, teaching or doctrine about a special type of tongue and its use, that is directed to God, or its definition as a heavenly language. Context is the number one consideration when studying the Scripture. If you wish to consider 14:2 as a reference to a tongue given in order to speak to God, then you must bring that teaching or idea from outside the passage and the specific verse, and you must apply it as an eisegetical interpretation which does not have a foundation within the passage or verse. This is a very dangerous manner in which to treat Scripture, because it allows all manner of false meanings to be assigned to verses that have no connection with the doctrine and teachings that they are said to represent.

The apostle Paul explains his statement in 14:2, and further on, in 14:4, 14:9-17 and 14:27-28. Why, if one speaks in a tongue would he not speak to men but to God? Paul answers the question in the above verses:
"So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning. If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.... Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret," 1 Corinthians 14:9-11, 13.

The apostle Paul's explanation is clear and it involves the languages spoken in different nations, verses 10-11. A person who speaks a language without an interpreter to those who cannot understand it, does not speak to men. He speaks to God who is the only One present capable of understanding what is spoken. That is the point of his reference to the musical instruments in 14:7-8. That is also the same concept in which he says that speech that is not understood is like speaking in the air, pointless to the listener who is supposed to be the one edified. A person can make a noise with an instrument which has no meaning, but when played by someone with ability, the noises are turned into distinct tones and melodies which then have meaning to the hearer. A language spoken to one who does not understand is like a musical instrument on which someone makes a noise, but a language that is interpreted has meaning to the hearer, just like a musical instrument that is played by one who is trained.

In 14:2, the gift is seen in action by the spirit, "...but in his spirit..." but the gift is wrongly used, because what is spoken is not comprehended by anyone else, "...he speaks mysteries." What the person speaks is a mystery to any person who cannot understand the language, a fact which the apostle Paul explains in 14:11, "If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, (a foreigner who does not understand the language) and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me (because he speaks a language that I do not understand)"

There is another element to consider in 1 Corinthians, and that is the fact that the apostle Paul frequently switches from the word tongue in the singular, to the word tongues in the plural. The King James version translates the singular as "unknown tongue" and the plural as "tongues".

There may be a very good reason for that based on the misuse of the gift by the Corinthians. The use of tongue in the singular may represent the false manifestation of the gift, or the counterfeit. The use of tongues in the plural may represent the true manifestation of its use in relation to actual languages. So, when looking at 14:2, the singular is used and noted in the KJV as an "unknown tongue" which indicates a counterfeit, and being directed to God, which is better translated as "a god" as a false god, because of the lack of a definite article. So an ecstatic language, which was a counterfeit of the real gift, may very well have been seen in the Corinthian church, in which there were some who claimed to speak in a heavenly language, not directed toward men but to God, and may refer to those languages spoken that are indistinct or unclear, because they were not a language at all. Within the real body of Christ, there is always the counterfeit, as noted by Jesus Christ Himself in the Parable of the Tares, Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. I will not be dogmatic on this interpretation either, but I think it has merit.

Once more the apostle Paul speaks about the importance of tongues in relation to prophecy, by which he asserts that prophecy is the greater and more important gift, 14:19, but he prefaces his instruction with a most unusual statement,
"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church . . ," 1 Corinthians 14:18-19a
The apostle Paul spoke not in just a tongue, but in multiple tongues; not more than any one person in the Corinthian church, but more than all of them combined. That is the heart of his statement and his claim to a superior authority regarding their use. He also spoke in tongues outside of the church, because that is the comparison between verses 18 and 19. He spoke in tongues outside of the church, but in the church he manifested the gift of prophesy, not the gift of tongues. His indication to them was that five words of prophecy resulting in instruction to the hearer was more valuable than 10,000 words spoken in a foreign language.

The apostle Paul's teaching and admonition regarding the use of tongues is noted,
"So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted (those unfamiliar with spiritual gifts) men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you. What then is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is not interpreter, he must keep silent in the church" and let him speak to himself and to God," 1 Corinthians 14:22-28.
I do not think the church has realized or understood just how complete and powerful were the gifts given to the apostles and so they are trivialized by persons who claim to have those gifts but they are not manifested in any type of powerful manner. For the believer, the Scripture seems to indicate that one gift is sufficient, which appears to be the normal application, but in relation to the apostles, they were given every gift in its highest form and the ability to use it to its fullest extent. So, if the gift of tongues was the ability to speak in multiple languages, as noted in Acts and Corinthians, I do not feel that the ability of the apostles to speak in any language as required is outside the boundaries of the gift, beyond the reason for which it was given and the manner that it appeared in the early church.

Sincerely in Christ,

Gary A. Hand
On Doctrine webmaster
contact@ondoctrine.com

The Charismatic Challenge
Wednesday, January 21

Dear Gary,

Thank you for your thorough overview of tongue speaking in the N.T., especially regarding the Pauline theology. I agree with many of your statements, especially regarding the overfocusing of tongue speaking in some christian movements. I believe that it is absolutely wrong to judge somebody's salvation or spirituality by proof of speaking tongues. However, I believe that as speaking tongues had practical purpose during the Apostle paul's time, it also has practical purpose in our time. Therefore Paul encoured the church member to practice it, however in correct order.

God Bless You!
With love in Christ,
R —

END OF "CONVERSATIONS WITH A CHARISMATIC"
The Apostles And The Gift Of Tongues - To Whom Did They Speak?
.
TOP OF PAGE GO TO HOME PAGE GO TO ORGANIZATIONS MASTER LIST GO TO WRITINGS MASTER PAGE
   COPYRIGHT © 2001 by ON DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
HOME WRITINGS ORGANIZATIONS Q & A NEWSLETTER FAQS CONTACT ABOUT BELIEFS LINKS ARCHIVE FREE BIBLE STORE