What Was Tongues? (Part 1)
March 11th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This post continues from yesterday’s. It is part of a seminar we delivered at the 2007 Shepherds’ Conference with regard to the charismatic gifts.
II. BUILDING THE CESSATIONIST CASE
1. The What Question: [The "what" question refers to what the gifts were as described in the New Testament. It differs from the "when" question, which refers to when the gifts ceased in church history.]
[Contention:] The miraculous gifts of the Spirit as described in 1 Corinthians 12–14 are the same in kind as the miraculous phenomena displayed in the book of Acts.
TONGUES
A. The Charismatic Definition: The gift of tongues primarily consists of a devotional prayer language which is available to every believer. This prayer language does not necessarily consist of an authentic foreign language (and in fact usually does not). Rather it consists of a heavenly, spiritual language which, by definition, does not need to conform to the linguistic structures of earthly, human languages. As long as the tongues are used in private praise and prayer, they do not need to be interpreted.
While Acts 2 does explicitly say that speaking in tongues consists of foreign languages not previously known by the speaker, there is no reason why this text is necessarily the standard text on defining tongues. First Corinthians 12–14 seems to broaden tongues to include angelic and spiritual languages and not just human foreign languages. Thus 1 Cor. 12–14 provides the basis for our understanding of tongues, with Acts 2 providing one way in which the gift was manifested (specifically on the Day of Pentecost) (cf. Storms, Four Views, 220–21; Oss, Four Views, 280).
Adrian Warnock: “One thing that most of us agree on is that there are different kinds of tongues…. I think it is fair to say that the tongues of 1 Corinthians are different from those of Acts 2. Paul himself speaks here of different kinds of tongues. It is at least possible that at different points in this passage [1 Cor. 12–14] Paul is talking about different forms of tongues.” (http://www.adrian.warnock.info/2006/11/blogging-gifts-tongues-and.htm)
B. The Cessationist Response:
I want to take just a moment to respond to the idea that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is somehow qualitatively different than in Acts or even than in 1 Corinthians 12.
The Miraculous Sign of Tongues Described in Acts
Some Observations:
1. Acts – The miraculous tongues in Acts were directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (2:4, 18; 10:44–46; 19:6). In fact, tongue-speaking is evidence of having received the “gift” (dorea) of the Holy Spirit (10:45).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians was directly related to the working of the Holy Spirit (12:1, 7, 11, etc.). Similarly, the gift of tongues is an evidence (or “manifestation”) of having received the Holy Spirit (12:7).
2. Acts – Along those lines, in Acts 11:15–17, Peter implies that the tongue-speaking of Acts 10 was the same as that of Acts 2, even noting that Cornelius and his household had received the same gift (dorea) as the apostles on the Day of Pentecost. This indicates that the tongues of the Apostles (in Acts 2) was not limited just to the Apostles, but was also experienced (at least) by both Cornelius’s household (Acts 10) and the disciples of Apollos (Acts 19).
1 Corinthians – Paul, as an Apostle, possessed the gift of tongues (14:18). Yet he recognized that there were those in the Corinthian church who also possessed the gift.
3. Acts – The miraculous ability, as it is described in Acts 2, is the supernatural ability to speak in other tongues (meaning foreign languages) (2:4, 9–11).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is described as a speaking gift (12:30; 14:2, 5). The fact that it can be interpreted (12:10; 14:5, 13) indicates that it consisted of an authentic foreign language, similar to the tongues of Acts 2. (Paul’s direct association of tongue-speaking with foreign languages in 14:10–11 and also his reference to Isaiah 28:11, 12 strengthens this claim.)
4. Acts – The primary word for tongues in Acts is “glossa” (2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6), although it is also described with the word “dialekto” on two occasions ( 2:6, 8 ).
1 Corinthians –As in Acts, the primary word for tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 is “glossa” (12:10, 28; 13:1, 8; 14:2, 4, 5, 9, 13, 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, 39), though Paul also uses the term “phoneo” twice (in 14:10–11).
5. Acts – It was a sign for unbelieving Jews (2:5, 12, 14, 19).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (14:21–22; cf. Is. 28:11). Note that the gift is even called a “sign” in 14:22 (the word “sign” is from the same Greek word as “sign” in Acts 2:22). Thus, the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign.
6. Acts – It is closely connected with prophecy (2:16–18; 19:6) and with other signs that the Apostles were performing (2:43)
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues is closely connected with prophecy (all throughout 12–14).
7. Acts – Some of the unbelieving Jews at Pentecost accused the apostles of being drunk when they heard them speaking in other tongues (languages which those Jews did not understand).
1 Corinthians – Similar to Acts, Paul says that unbelievers will accuse the Corinthians of being mad [not unlike "drunk"] if their tongues go uninterpreted (14:23), and are therefore not understood by the hearer.
The biblical evidence (from the correlating observations above) supports the conclusion that the gift of tongues described in 1-2 Corinthians consists of the same phenomenon as the miraculous sign of tongues depicted in Acts.
Added to this is the fact that Luke (the author of Acts) was a close associate of Paul (the writer of 1 Corinthians). Moreover, the book of Acts was probably written after the epistle to the 1 Corinthians. It is unlikely, then, that Luke would have used the exact same terminology as Paul if he understood there to be an essential difference between the two (especially since such could lead to even greater confusion about the gifts–a confusion which plagued the Corinthian church).
But what about 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 … are there two different gifts discussed in these chapters?
1. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:7, 14–26, Paul emphasizes that the intended purpose of all the spiritual gifts (including tongues) is the edification of the church. (This is reemphasized in chapter 13, where Paul notes that even the most magnificent display of any gift is useless unless it is marked by selfless love.)
1 Corinthians 14 – As in chapter 12, Paul emphasizes that the intended purpose of tongues (that which is ideal and should be pursued) is the edification of the church (14:5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 26).
2. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:1, in order to introduce the topic of “spiritual gifts,” Paul uses a form of the Greek word pneumatikos.
1 Corinthians 14 – In 14:1, as Paul returns to the topic of “spiritual gifts,” he again uses a form of the Greek word pneumatikos. (This comes after his parenthetical comments in chapter 13 on the superiority of love to any gift.) By using the same term, Paul indicates that he is returning to the same topic (and the same set of gifts) that he left at the end of chapter 12.
3. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:31, Paul instructs the Corinthians to seek the greater gifts (“greater” from the Greek word meizon).
1 Corinthians 14 – In 14:5, Paul indicates that the gift of prophecy is greater (“meizon”) than the gift of tongues and therefore it is to be sought by the Corinthians. This builds off of Paul’s thought in 12:31, indicating that he is still speaking of the same set of gifts as those discussed in chapter 12.
4. 1 Corinthians 12 – In chapter 12, the word for tongues comes from the Greek word glossa. It’s the same word that is primarily used in Acts to describe the gift of tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 – As in chapter 12, the word for tongues (with the exception of vv. 10–11) comes from the Greek word glossa. Lexically, of course, glossa either refers to the physical organ (of the tongue) or an authentic foreign language. The context here points to the latter understanding.
5. 1 Corinthians 12 – To “speak” with tongues in 12:30 comes from the Greek verb laleo.
1 Corinthians 14 – To “speak” with tongues in 14:2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23 comes from the Greek verb laleo. Thus the combination of laleo with glossa (“to speak in tongues”) is lexically equivalent in both chapters.
6. 1 Corinthians 12 – In 12:28–30, as noted earlier, Paul is explicit that not everyone speaks in tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 – a) In 14:5 Paul says that he “wishes” (thelo) that all the Corinthians spoke in tongues. The implication, then, is that not all of them did. Moreover, Paul’s wish does not necessitate that such was a potential reality. (Paul earlier used the exact same construction in 1 Cor. 7:7 to “wish” that all Christian men were single [unmarried]. Yet, obviously, such was not a potential reality, since many of his readers were already married.) Also, Paul’s wish was not intended as a motivation for the Corinthian readers to pursue tongues. Instead, as the rest of verse 5 makes clear, Paul’s real point was that they pursue prophecy (the greater gift–cf. 14:39).
b) In 14:23, Paul’s use of “all” simply means “all who have the gift of tongues,” just as “all” in verse 24 refers to “all who have the gift of prophecy.” Nowhere, then, in chapter 14 does Paul undermine what he has already made clear in 12:8–11, 28–30 (that not every believer speaks in tongues).
7. 1 Corinthians 12 – Throughout chapter 12, the gift of tongues is closely associated with other gifts including the gift of prophecy and the gift of the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 14 – The gift of prophecy in chapter 12 (vv. 10, 28–29) is the same as the gift of prophecy described in chapter 14 (vv. 1, 3–5, etc). Also the gift of interpretation of tongues in chapter 12 is the same as that in chapter 14. It follows, then, that the gift of tongues in chapter 12 is also the same as the gift of tongues in chapter 14.
Contextually, chapters 12–14 form one unit within the first epistle to the Corinthians. It is difficult to imagine that Paul would use the same terminology in the same context to refer to two categorically different phenomena.
What’s the point of all this?
Simply to make the case for the following:
1) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 2 was clearly the ability of the apostles to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned.
2) The manifestation of tongues in Acts 10 (and by implication Acts 19) is said, by Peter, to have been the same as what occurred in Acts 2.
3) The exegetical and historical evidence indicates that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians consisted of the same phenomena as that described in Acts. (As we will see.)
4) The exegetical and contextual evidence further indicates that, at least in its essence (or nature), there is only one gift of tongues being described in 1 Corinthians 12–14.
5) Thus, I conclude that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 12–14 was (as in Acts 2) the ability of select believers to speak in authentic foreign languages which they previously had not learned. To assert that the gift in 1 Corinthians 14 is something categorically other than that (as in a non-rational spiritual prayer “language” which can be learned, and should be sought by every believer) is exegetically and contextually untenable.
6) Because the purpose was to edify the body—a purpose which, in order to be fulfilled, demanded that the foreign language be translated so that those in the congregation could understand it, Paul emphasizes the importance of interpretation (translation) in 1 Corinthians 14.
“the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign.”
This spiritual gift surely was used by God to proclaim His Gospel and truth, and a “sign” to the unbelievers, and to those in the Body of Christ as well.
The whole praying in tongues for self-edification is alright, if you then know what you are saying to the Lord, is how I came to leave the tongues crowd. For many would say they have no idea what they are saying, and it’s yet a powerful experience, and it makes me feel more bold, joyful, etc.
Paul does say, “don’t forbid tongues, but do all things without confusion.”
Thanks for the excellent study.
I think donsands is right and is acutally (unknowingly?) saying something that is in 1 Corinth 14:
13Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
Paul is clearly pointing out here the necessity to pray again with your mind b/c praying in the spirit (w/o interpretation) is unfruitful! Yet many, as donsands say, are being edified though they have no idea (or shouldn’t anyway) what they just prayed about! I think we should as these ppl “is your mind fruitful when you pray with tongues” and if they say yes point them to this verse and if they say no ask, what is the point?!
A few thoughts:
First: I see two possible scenarios for what took place in Acts 2:
1. The Holy Spirit came and bunch of disciples started speaking in tongues and some understood and asked “how is it that we hear them in our own language?” And others did not understand and accused them of drunkenness.
2. But from the text in Acts 2, I would not presume that the Apostles or disciples spoke in any other language than their own. It says in Acts 2:8 “And how is it that we each HEAR them in own language to which we were born?”
Maybe I am just off my rocker, but it seems to me that there’s a possibility that Peter (and any other Apostle or disciple that might have been speaking) was speaking in his natural language, not in a foreign tongue. It was those that were listening who heard in their own language. It would be like sitting at the United Nations listening to a translation on a headset of the person speaking.
Peter certainly could not speak in all the foreign languages at the same time. But yet the text lists thirteen different languages. If tongues was limited to the Apostles (which would’ve been 11), then that left two languages out.
Second thought: What do we do about those that are genuine believers, bear good fruit and are doctrinally sound and yet still speak in tongues?
1. Is what they are doing man made? And if it is, how can we prove it?
2. Is it because they are influenced by Satan? If so, how can we prove it?
Final thought: When tongues cease?
It says that tongues will cease, not have ceased. It says they will cease when the perfect comes. As I recall perfect means complete are better yet mature. So tongues will cease when maturity comes. And I think that is a big part of Paul’s argument and discussion about tongues. The question is it the maturity of the individual, the maturity of the local body or the maturity of the entire bride? Since Paul is addressing a local body in Corinthians, I can see it being a combination of the individual and the local body
I know you guys are busy but can someone please interact with me on something?
In the post you said this:
“5. Acts – It was a sign for unbelieving Jews (2:5, 12, 14, 19).
1 Corinthians – As in Acts, the gift of tongues was a sign for unbelieving Jews (14:21–22; cf. Is. 28:11). Note that the gift is even called a “sign” in 14:22 (the word “sign” is from the same Greek word as “sign” in Acts 2:22). Thus, the Corinthian use of tongues was a sign just as the Apostles use of tongues was a sign.”
If we go on to verse 22-25 it says this:
“22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign [3] not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.”
If I am reading this plainly it never says anywhere that this was a sign for non-believeing Jews. It says it was a sign for “non-believers” in general. Why the huge leap? Nothing else in the following verses even hints towards a non-believing Jew but any non-believer that “enters” will be convicted. Can you elaborate on this point a bit more for me? I thin Paul is taking an Old Testament verse and applying it in general I don’t believe he is making a point for non-believeing Jews.
As a “Multi-lingual” speaker of “tongues” or languages, it really does come to the fore that the description of tongues does literally mean to say “speaking with a differing tongue= utterance= language”.
It is to me the strangest thing to see people wo speak only one language persue after “spiritual gifts” whereby THEY THEMSELVES can be glorified by God.
Wat a stark contrast to the Hebrew apostles who where given the gift of the languages of the Gentiles, so that the Gospel of the New Testament would be procliamed BEFORE the Inscription thereof, by those very same apostles.
A thought occured to me just as I was reading:
The Apostles where Hebrews travelling into Asia, Rome, Greece and Turkey, aswell as other parts of the world (As evidenced in Acts with the Ethiopian officer). How amazing it was for them to be able to speak or translate (Without prior training) the Gospel into the languages of Unbelievers to see the effect that the Spirit would have in redemption. Imgine going to say, Mongolia and just pitching up without any prior language training and procliam the Gospel to people who have NEVER heard or read it before?
Equally what vain idle babblings of “Selfish” personal edification would do to GLORIFY God, I would NEVER know?
Paul esteems arightly that they are “mad”. What GLORY does our Saviour or His Spirit derive from personal languages? Is the purpose of anguage r tongues not to edify BY TRANSFERRING Truth in Love?
What would it profit a man to speak a personal “utterance” TO A LOST SINNER, WHEN NOBODY understands what is said? Does this Gorify God? I would contend NOT SO.
I thank the LORD for the responsibility He has placed upon us to study, to apply our talents or “gifts”, but let us not presume ourselves higher esteemed than what we are: Redeemed sinners…Repentant and saved with a mission to be wells of living waters. If a fountain where to block its water for itself and not to OVERFLOW with the waters of life, what business do we have to seek gifts for our OWN BENEFIT, when lost sinners are dying about us?
Thank you NATHAN.
SOLA DEO GLORIA!
Chris,
Thanks for your comments. Time only allows a brief response, but hopefully it will be helpful.
1) The gift of tongues was a gift given to the speaker, not to the hearers (who were unbelievers). If the apostles simply spoke in their own language (Greek or Aramaic), but were understood in other languages (like Egyptian or Phrygian) the “gift” would actually be a gift of hearing on the part of the unbeliever. But the text presents the “gift” as a gift of speaking on the part of believers (in this case the apostles and their associates).
According to Acts 1:15, there were around 120 persons who were in the upper room on the day of pentecost. So, I don’t think we have to limit the number of tongues-speakers just to the 12 apostles (though they played the most prominent role, of course).
I might add that, historically, the church fathers understood Acts 2 as a gift of speaking, not a gift of hearing. (We will talk more about them on Thursday.) There is, moreover, nowhere else in the NT (Mark 16, Acts 10, 19, 1 Cor. 12-14) where tongues is described as a gift of hearing. It is always a speaking gift.
2) You also asked about how to respond or view fellow believers who differ with us in their understanding of the spiritual gifts. Provided their views do not violate first-level doctrines (see yesterday’s post), I think we reason with them through the Scriptures so that we might each have a better understanding of God’s revealed truth. Paul does not reveal the source of the Corinthian confusion in 1 Corinthians 12-14, he simply seeks to instruct them as to what is right.
3) Regarding 1 Corinthians 13 and the perfect, we would direct you to a three-part series we did on that subject:
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Thanks,
NB
Hi Lionel,
Great question. The answer is found in verse 21 of chapter 14, which is a quote from Isaiah 28:11.
That verse (Isaiah 28:11) is specifically speaking of the fact that the sound of foreign languages will be a sign to Israel — demonstrating to them that they are under God’s judgment.
That prophecy came true, in an immediate sense, in the Babylonian captivity — since the Jews were taken captive to a foreign land where Hebrew was not spoken.
But the prophecy also applied in an extended sense to Pentecost — when the Jews again heard foreign languages spoken. This time it was a sign of God’s judgment on their nation for rejecting their Messiah.
The fact that Paul quoted from Isaiah 28:11 indicates that he had this background in mind in 1 Corinthians 14. Whether or not Paul is expanding this OT reference to include Gentile unbelievers is something commentators debate. But the reference primarily refers to unbelieving Jews — given Paul’s use of Isaiah 28:11.
Hope that helps,
NB
I see what you are saying Nate but I still don’t see Paul having a Jewish context in this at all. Paul used plenty of OT references but in the NT applied a totally different meaning. Romans 3 is a set of OT verses that Paul applies in general and not to Jews especially when it comes to “there is none righteous”. Now a person with OT knowledge would have known immediately the context but a gentile unfamiliar to such a reference would have easily understood that this verse was speaking to them. So I am confused on why the different hermeneutical approach here when it isn’t done in Romans 3 or am I missing something? I don’t see anyone saying Romans 3 applies to unbelieveing Jews or at least I haven’t heard that one yet.
Lionel,
Thanks for your comment. Good discussion.
The discussion of Paul’s use of the NT in other passages is an involved one, and outside of what we can respond to here. However, Matt Waymeyer has done a helpful job in a series of articles that can be found here. We would recommend them.
We would still suggest that in quoting from Isaiah 28:11 Paul was particularly focused on unbelieving Jews – as those who were intimately acquainted with the book of Isaiah.
Below is an extended section from John MacArthur’s commentary on 1 Corinthians. I hope it will be helpful in providing some clarification for our view:
Tongues was clearly a sign for unbelieving Jews
(1st Corinthians 1:22 coupled with 1st Corinthians 14:22KJB)which is the correct interpretation, and is NOT a private interpretation.
Those who were under the LAW(Jews) required signs to beleive something was authentically of God. The Nation of Israel began with the SIGN of circumcision. Tongues were
for a sign, were said to be a sign gift, and were prophesied to CEASE, when the saints at Corinth would “grow up” and get them a “perfect understanding” of this tongues business(1st Corinthians 2:6 KJB).
The collective consciousness of the other churches needed
not be admonished further concerning this matter of tongues(1st Corinthians 2:6)because they had a copy of the letter Paul wrote Corinth and they believed the things Paul taught (1st Corinthians 14:32-38 KJB) were the
very commandments of “THE LORD”.
All the rest of the churches had a copy of the Lord’s rules concerning tongues(1st Corinthians 14, and they would indeed FORBID A WOMAN from diong such in the assembly, for they had a “perfect understanding” that it was againts the Law and the commandment of the Lord Jesus
Christ to ever allow a woman to do such in the church.
The charismatic movement would cease to exist, if those who participate in such shameful lasciviousness would immediately quit trusting their feelings and begin to believe what the Scriptures alone testify concerning that which they erroneously claim to be tongues.
That which the charismatics erroneously call the gift of tongues is no doubt clearly identified as …………….. profane an vain babblings,
which are supposed to be shunned.
The tongues crew today are not wise(Romans 1:22 KJB).
They are terribly misled and misleading others. They are indeed ignorant and blind as they follow false teachers
and their feelings instead of that which God has preserved for us in the VOLUME OF BOOK.
I have judged for many years that the tongues babblers
are for sure led by “a spirit”, but that the “spirit” by the which they are led is most certainly not the Holy Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you for allowing me to have my say.
Sincerely,
Brad
I’ve never understood how good exegetical preachers and teachers like JMAC, who i respect immensely, could ever come to the conclusion that 1 Cor 13 argues for the cessation of togues. Bizarre. I think the emotion and the antipathy towards the extreme pentecostal view has clouded the judgement of cessationists. Tongues are essential for world missions. For example, i recently travelled to Asia with a group that I later found out were all Pentecostal. In the prayer meeting everyone began babbling in “tongues”- vowel, consonant, vowel consonant- as in shadhabad mata. My One year old has a better concept of how language works in the way that he babbles. Ironically, when we arrived at our Asian desitnation, not a single one of those “tongue” speakers made any effort to learn the language. Whereas, I, with three days, had picked up enough of the language to have some conversations with the locals. I believe i have a natural inclination to learning languages, but also that the Spirit was enhancing my abilities with the gift of tongues. In fact, I believe i was the only one of our group with the gift.
Hi everyone.
I have a question. Sorry for being so late in this discusion.
I have a theory but don’t have the study background to prove it. I am very familiar with John’s work in regards to tongues.
Here goes…
When God confused the language back in Genesis, is it possible that up until Pentecost, no one could understand any language other than that which was their own native language from their own people?
All the warnings in the OT about the coquring nations that God would bring against Israel always state something to the effect of “a language that you will *not* understand.” Maybe, at the very least, it was Israel only who could not understand while other nations could understand each other.I don’t know.
It would seem to me that this would answer a lot of questions.
Two things…if it is true that up until Pentecost that one could only understand his native language, this would be very well understood by all. The Jews would also know the history behind this. The lifting of this communication road block, if you will, would be known by them to have only come from God because He Himself put it up. This allows for the gift to be in the hearing at Pentecost, and unique only to Pentecost, and still be a sign of God’s judgment on Israel. Some may say at this point that maybe it could have been taken as a removal of God’s judgment from Genesis. But there is one more element that changes that. The communication road block would need to be lifted for the Gospel to be preached to all nations and all peoples. This is the inclusion of the Gentiles as per “Romans 11″, which is part of God’s judgment on them to “But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles.” Even though it was miraculous at Pentecost, it does not need to be after that point with exception made to some for a brief time in history.
Marc 16, before Jesus ascends, there is a prophecy that states that believers “will speak with new tongues”, not ‘they will speak in tongues’, but they will speak in *new* tongues (languages). This fits right in line with the healings, in fact, they are listed together, so in my mind this may limit the use of tongues in the same way, or at least we must consider to allow for that.
Any thoughts?
I guess what I’m asking is if the limitation set in Genesis carried over all the way to Pentecost, at least, possibly, in part, to a degree?
Here’s a good link on the history and the significance of languages and how God used it as a sign of his judgement to the unbelieving nation of Israel. I agree with a lot of it, but not all.
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/tongues/tongues9.htm