What Was Tongues? (Part 3)
March 13th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Thus far, we have attempted to make the case that (1) there is only one kind of ”gift of tongues” talked about in the New Testament; and (2) that gift consisted of the supernatural ability to speak in authentic foreign languages for the purpose of evangelism or (when translated) edification within the local church. This understanding of tongues, obviously, runs contrary to the contemporary charismatic understanding.
Today, we will look at some of the church fathers (orthodox Christian leaders in the first few centuries of church history) to see what they understood the gift of tongues to be. Did they see it as consisting of authentic foreign languages? Or did they believe it was characterized by ecstatic utterances?
(Though we’ve only listed a few of the church fathers today, we have studied this topic at length. These quotes are consistent with all of the other patristic evidence we have been able to find. To read our journal article on this topic in The Master’s Seminary Journal click here.)
THE CHURCH FATHERS (REGARDING THE NATURE OF TONGUES)
A. Regarding the cessation of the gifts in general
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): This whole place [speaking about 1 Corinthians 12] is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place.
Augustine (354–430): In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away.
Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466): In former times those who accepted the divine preaching and who were baptized for their salvation were given visible signs of the grace of the Holy Spirit at work in them. Some spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them, while others performed miracles or prophesied. The Corinthians also did these things, but they did not use the gifts as they should have done. They were more interested in showing off than in using them for the edification of the church. . . . Even in our time grace is given to those who are deemed worthy of holy baptism, but it may not take the same form as it did in those days.
B. The gift of tongues was closely associated with evangelism. It authenticates the message of the evangelist (cf. Heb. 2:2–3)
Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): It is not therefore necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, or raise the dead, or speak with tongues; but such a one only who is vouchsafed this gift, for some cause which may be advantage to the salvation of the unbelievers, who are often put to shame, not with the demonstration of the world, but by the power of the signs; that is, such as are worthy of salvation: for all the ungodly are not affected by wonders; and hereof God Himself is a witness, as when He says in the law: “With other tongues will I speak to this people, and with other lips, and yet will they by no means believe.”
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel.
Augustine (354–430): In the earliest times, “the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues,” which they had not learned, “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth.
Others agree including Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century), Hegemonius (before 350), Gregory of Nazianzen (c. 329–390), and Leo the Great (d. 461).
C. The gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages which the speaker had not previously learned. (Again the gift is closely associated with evangelism.) The content of tongues-speech was “the mighty deeds of God,” specifically with regard to the Gospel.
Gregory of Nazianzen (c. 329–390): They spoke with strange tongues, and not those of their native land; and the wonder was great, a language spoken by those who had not learnt it. And the sign is to them that believe not, and not to them that believe, that it may be an accusation of the unbelievers, as it is written, With other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people, and not even so will they listen to Me saith the Lord.
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), commenting on 1 Cor. 14:1–2: And as in the time of building the tower [of Babel] the one tongue was divided into many; so then the many tongues frequently met in one man, and the same person used to discourse both in the Persian, and the Roman, and the Indian, and many other tongues, the Spirit sounding within him: and the gift was called the gift of tongues because he could all at once speak divers languages.
Chrysostom [again]: “The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel.” (John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corithians, 35.1. Cited from 1–2 Corinthians, ACCS, 138 in reference to 1 Cor 14:2.)
Chrysostom (again): “For as the Apostles themselves had received this sign first, so also the faithful went on receiving it, I mean, the gift of tongues; yet not this only but also many others: inasmuch as many used even to raise the dead and to cast out devils and to perform many other such wonders: and they had gifts too, some less, and some more. But more abundant than all was the gift of tongues among them: and this became to them a cause of division; not from its own nature but from the perverseness of them that had received it.” (Ibid., 29.1. Cited from Schaff, NPNF, First Series, 12:168 in reference to 1 Cor 12:1–2.)
This is agreed on by Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202), Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236), Hegemonius (before 350), Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century), Augustine (354–430), Leo the Great (d. 461), and implied by others (such as Tertullian [c. 160–c. 220] and Origen [c. 185–c. 254]).
[Additional note:] The fathers equated the gift in Mark and Acts with the gift in 1 Corinthians 12–14. They did not see two types of the gift—one public and one private. They saw only one type of tongues—that as described in Acts 2.
D. The gift of tongues is given to select individuals by the Holy Spirit. Not everyone is expected to speak in tongues.
Hippolytus (c. 170–c. 236): It is not necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, raise the dead, or speak with tongues. But only such a one who has been graciously given this gift—for the purpose that it may be advantageous to the salvation of unbelievers.
Ambrose (c. 340–c. 397): Not all, says he, have the gift of healings, nor do all, says he, speak with tongues. For the whole of the divine gifts cannot exist in each several man.
Others agree including Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), Jerome (c. 345–420), Augustine (354–430), and Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466).
E. The gift of tongues was never intended to be the hallmark of the church or its most prestigious spiritual gift. Rather, the gift of prophecy is preferable because it does not require interpretation or translation in order to edify the church.
Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century): The pursuit of prophecy is more acceptable [than the pursuit of tongues] because it is more useful.
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): The Corinthians thought that speaking in tongues was a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the apostles got it first was because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel. [Chrysostom taught that tongues is only equal to prophecy if it can be interpreted.]
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407): Paul does not forbid speaking in tongues, however much he may belittle the gift, but he insists that it be kept under control and used for the edification of the whole church.
F. The purpose of the gifts (within the church) is to edify the body (cf. 1 Pet. 4:10–11 ). The ideal use of tongues, therefore, is when the gift is interpreted (translated) so that fellow believers are edified.
First Epistle of Clement Regarding Virginity (from third or fourth century): With the gift, therefore, which thou hast received from our Lord, serve thy spiritual brethren…and declare the gift which thou hast received in the Church for the edification of the brethren in Christ (for good and excellent are those things which help the men of God), if so be that they are truly with thee.
Basil (c. 239–379): Since no one has the capacity to receive all spiritual gifts, but the grace of the Spirit is given proportionately to the faith of each, when one is living in community with others, the grace privately bestowed on each individual becomes the common possession of the others…. One who receives any of these gifts does not possess it for his own sake but rather for the sake of others.
Others agree including Irenaeus (c. 140–c. 202), Tertullian (c. 160–c. 220), Origen (c. 185–c. 254), Novatian (d. c. 258), Hilary (c. 291–371), Ambrosiaster (mid-fourth century), John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), Theordoret of Cyrus (c. 393–c. 466), and John Cassian (360–435).
G. The gift of tongues, if used in church, was to be used in an orderly manner.
Severian of Gabala (d. c. 408): The person who speaks in the Holy Spirit speaks when he chooses to do so and then can be silent, like the prophets. But those who are possessed by an unclean spirit speak even when they do not want to. They say things that they do not understand.
John Chrysostom (c. 344–407), commenting on 1 Cor. 14:40: Again giving a blow to them who chose to behave themselves unseemly without cause, and to incur the imputation of madness; and who keep not their proper rank. For nothing doth so build up as good order, as peace, as love; even as their contraries tend to pull down.
A BIBLICAL / HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF TONGUES
Summary: The gift of tongues was a supernaturally endowed ability, given by the Holy Spirit to select Christians, enabling those believers to speak in previously unlearned human languages. The ideal use of the gift involved the translation of the message for the general edification of fellow believers or evangelism of unbelievers. This ability was not given to all Christians nor were they commanded to seek it. It was not considered the hallmark of the early church, nor is it ever highlighted as a normal part of the Christian experience.
Hasel, The Gift of Tongues: “The contemporary phenomenon of ‘speaking in tongues,’ which is practiced by millions of Christians around the world at present, is of recent origin in Christianity. Even though there have been attempts by the score to demonstrate that the phenomenon of glossolalia in modern times has roots going back for centuries in Christian practice, it remains certain that it is of recent origin.”
Geisler, Signs and Wonders: “Even those who believe in tongues acknowledge that unsaved people have tongues experiences. There is nothing supernatural about them. But there is something unique about speaking complete and meaningful sentences and discourses in a knowable language to which one has never been exposed. This is what the real New Testament gift of tongues entailed. Anything short of this, as ‘private tongues’ are, should not be considered the biblical gift of tongues.”
Geisler: “Even those who believe in tongues acknowledge that unsaved people have tongues experiences. There is nothing supernatural about them. But there is something unique about speaking complete and meaningful sentences and discourses in a knowable language to which one has never been exposed. This is what the real New Testament gift of tongues entailed. Anything short of this, as ‘private tongues’ are, should not be considered the biblical gift of tongues.”
I’m not sure why one has to conclude tongues are not supernatural. If, as I understand it, authentic glossolalia is verbalizing from one’s spirit rather than one’s mind (as opposed to faking such speech using one’s mind…which might also be possible), then it becomes a matter of what sentient spirit is occupying or influencing the speaker’s spirit.
It is not a very radical idea in Christian thought to believe the Holy Spirit is present in our own spirits, as a teacher and comforter and counselor. Why should He not also be able to “give utterance” to that which we can’t ourselves express (I Corinthians 1:5), especially in prayer to the Father?
With regard to interpretation of tongues, or prophecy, or other recognizable speech that still has a supernatural origin, I would say it falls into the “in part” category of I Corinthians 13:9. The Spirit (or spirit) within someone provides an idea to their mind, perhaps even wording, but there is always an admixture of the person’s own thought processes. Hence the necessity for prophets to judge amongst themselves that which is spoken (I Corinthians 14:29).
I have only known of one instance personally where a person’s tongues were understood by someone nearby (and it was actually the gospel message). I consider this to be a truly miraculous event, and not normative for those of us who speak in tongues.
Nathan,
I am curious about a translation issue about this that hasn’t been addressed. I am on board with your understanding on this issue. My question involves why glossa wasn’t translated “languages” instead of tongues? I am thinking that there was some reason for it based upon the first english translation.
My theory about this translation revolves around the fact that other Bible translators don’t want to change well known phrases that people have been accustomed to. Any thoughts?
Steve
Hi Diane,
Thanks for your comments (both here and on previous posts). I appreciate your willingness to discuss these things.
In our view, the issue really comes down to what the gift of tongues is. Is it the ability to speak in previously unlearned human foreign languages for the purpose of evangelism and others-edification? Or is it a non-intelligible, non-rational devotional speech for the purpose of self-edification?
The New Testament and historic evidence overwhelmingly points to the former. But this goes contradictory to contemporary charismatic practice.
When Geisler writes that contemporary “glossolalia” it is not a supernatural phenomenon, he is pointing out that — because contemporary “glossolalia” does not fit the New Testament depiction of the gift of tongues — we have no biblical precedent for assuming that the Holy Spirit is behind the contemporary phenomenon.
As we noted yesterday, the context of passages like Romans 8:26 and 2 Corinthians 5:13 makes it clear that the gift of tongues is not in view in those passages.
Thanks again for your comments. We hope this is helpful.
- NB
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your comment.
My guess is that it was simply the way the King James translators chose to translate glossa, which in fact does mean “tongue” (referring to the organ) and by extension “language” (such as mother “tongue”). In the seventeenth century, it was not terribly confusing to use the term “tongue” because the modern Pentecostal movement had not redefined it to mean anything other than an authentic “language.”
Modern translators have kept the King James usage — in part because of familiarity, and in part (I think) because a large segment of broader Christianity (the charismatics … beginning in 1901) have built a good portion of their theology on the ambiguity of that term.
Of course, it is not inaccurate to translate “glossa” as “tongues.” But it can be misleading, since the New Testament usage clearly speaks of real “languages” and not gibberish; and since modern English usage does not often speak of foreign languages as foreign “tongues,” though it is not incorrect to do so.
But I’ll have to do some more checking into this.
Thanks,
NB
Thanks for the thorough study.
The Scripture is deep, and tongues is one of the deepest areas.
The most difficult thing for me to understand is, who are these interpreters? This is a gift from the sovereign Spirit as well.
Paul says three persons with the gift of tongues may speak in turn. And then he says, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” 14:28
I suppose I will never understand this, until i leave this earth and arrive in glory. But you never know with God, and I’ll keep searching and listening, and hopefully learning according to His will.
Hello Nate,
I do appreciate your graciousness in letting me be part of this discussion.
With regard to self-edification, I don’t see it as an either-or proposition. What edifies me can also edify another, because God works that way. The self-interest Paul is opposing in I Corinthians seems to me more a matter of showing off, competitiveness, and that sort of thing, and he rightly draws them back to God’s agenda in their meetings. But just because tongues were being abused in the public context doesn’t invalidate their private effectiveness.
I’m curious about your reference to Romans 8:26. It seems simply to say that when we pray in the spirit we are (He is) making intercession for the saints, including perhaps ourselves. The words “for us” aren’t in the Greek, I don’t think. Thus it may be right to distinguish between public edification and private, but I’m not persuaded that spirit prayer is only for the self.
Diane
ON you last post in this series, could you link to all the other blog posts on that post?
Thanks!
Pastor Steve
About the glossa = tongue thing… I don’t know if this will help. I think Nate’s totally on the money with response. Couldn’t have said it better myself. But I’m a student of linguistics and know a few other languages. The language-tongue distinction isn’t even really made in modern European languages.
In Italian, it’s lingua. That’s how you would talk about your tongue in your mouth, as well as how you would refer to the French language.
In Spanish also, it’s the same thing. Lengua.
Same with French. Langue.
Don’t know if that’s helpful. Hopefully it is.
Nathan, what would you say regarding the work that men like Storms have done regarding the gifts in church histroy? When I look at his information on the topic there seems to be a good compilation of church Fathers that believed the gifts were evident among them. http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/gifts-in-church-history
Furthermore, when I read Augustine, its pretty clear that he had some “charasmatic” type experiences. He documented them quite vividly all throughout The Confessions and City of God. Perhaps not speaking in tongues, but clearly things such as visions and healings are recorded numerous times. The vision his mother Monica had concerning the fact that he would one day stand in the faith with her could even be labeled prophetic could it not?
Finally, doesnt Chrysostom relate the absence of the gifts to the church having backslidden? I have not researched this as in depth so perhaps you could provide some clarification.
“What now can be more awful than these things? For in truth the Church was a heaven then, the Spirit governing all things, and moving each one of the rulers and making him inspired. But now we retain only the symbols of those gifts…they thus used to speak, not of their own wisdom, but moved by the Spirit. But not so now: (I speak of mine own case so far.) But the present Church is like a woman who hath fallen from her former prosperous days, and in many respects retains the symbols only of that ancient prosperity; displaying indeed the repositories and caskets of her golden ornaments, but bereft of her wealth: such an one doth the present Church resemble. And I say not this in respect of gifts: for it were nothing marvelous if it were this only: but in respect also of life and virtue.” (“Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians,” Phillp Schaff, 1889. Homily 36, NPNF 219-220).
Thanks!
Dear sister Diane,
As I shared before I have had years of talking in tongues and resting on scriptures such as Romans 8:26.NKJV
Rom 8:22 For we know that THE WHOLE CREATION GROANS and labors with birth pangs together until now.
Rom 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even WE OURSELVES GROAN WITHIN OURSELVES, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Rom 8:24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?
Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
Rom 8:26 LIKEWISE THE SPIRIT also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, BUT THE SPIRIT HIMSELF MAKES INTERCESSION FOR US WITH GROANINGS WHICH CANNOT BE UTTERED
Rom 8:27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
“For us” huper(5228), hemon(2257) in the greek is in the text by the way.
The term “cannot be uttered” in verse 26
G215
ἀλάλητος
alalētos
al-al’-ay-tos
From G1 (as a negative particle) and a derivative of G2980; unspeakable: – unutterable, which cannot be uttered.
So Diane it means that the Spirit Himself, on his own without our help prays in an inaudible—NO NOISES
In verse 23 it says we groan within ourselves….this word for groan is:
G4727
στενάζω
stenazō
sten-ad’-zo
From G4728; to make (intransitively be) in straits, that is, (by implication) to sigh, murmur, pray inaudibly: – with grief, groan, grudge, sigh.
Diane , again this groaning is without any sound, no speech, no room for tongues if you are willing to put the word first and not the fact that you can make noises.
The creation groans inaudibly, we groan inaudibly, and then finally the Spirit Himself groans inaudibly…..BUT GOD KNOWS the mind of the Spirit and he hears His creations groans…He Himself is interceding on our behalf INAUDIBLY!!
Rom 8:34 Who5101 is he that condemneth?2632 It is Christ5547 that died,599 yea1161 rather,3123 that(2532) is risen again,1453 who3739 is2076 even2532 at1722 the right hand1188 of God,2316 who3739 also2532 maketh intercession1793 for5228 us.2257
Jesus Himself makes intertcession for us as well.
The consensus here seems to be that New Testament tongues were an actual language, foreign and unknown to the speaker, spoken to edify or preach to someone present who actually knew the “unknown” language being spoken.
In that context, can anyone shed some light on what donsands said: Paul says three persons with the gift of tongues may speak in turn. And then he says, “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.” 1 Corinthians 14:28
In the context accepted in this topic, it seems that Paul is allowing three people to get up and speak in a language foreign to the speaker. Presumably because someone who understands that foreign language is in the audience and will benefit from hearing the message in his own language. I understand the “let someone interpret part” – since that would be necessary for the rest of the audience to understand the message spoken. But I don’t get the part about, if no one can interpret, don’t nobody speak. Doesn’t that cheat the foreigner out of hearing the message in his own language? And if said foreigner is actually not present, what is the point of allowing three to get up and speak in a foreign language that then must be interpreted? If the foreigner is not present, why would the Holy Spirit lead three people to get up and speak in an actual foreign language that nobody understands? Plus – does anyone get that the tongues-speaker must know, before he speaks, that there is someone present who knows the foreign language he is about to utter and can interpret it? And why does Paul say to pray silently to God in a language that you do not understand – if the entire point of the gift of tongues was to preach to someone whose language you did not know? If you must pray silently, why not just pray to God in your own language?
There is much in this Corinthian transaction that donsands points to that has not been addressed in this series. If you take Paul’s words seriously, and my questions seriously, you can’t help but understand there is a logic going on in Paul’s words that points to a different interpretation than what has been given in this series. Either the Holy Spirit was doing something more than what has been allowed here (maybe tongues is a heavenly prayer language), or this issue of tongues in 1 Corinthians is more about the multiple languages spoken in Corinth at that time than it is about a particular “gift” from the Holy Spirit. At any rate – while I enjoyed the scholarship of this series, nothing said in this series yet helps me make sense of 1 Corinthians 14:28.
http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086%7CCHID560462%7CCIID1415642,00.html
This fellow has some interesting things to say. He gets to the meat of his argument a bit more than half-way down the page. He lays the groundwork for his argument in the first half. If I’m not allowed to accept the concept of tongues as a prayer-language gift from the Holy Spirit, then what this fellow says makes more sense of 1 Corinthians 14:28 than most of the comments here.
I have not read all of the links provided in this series. If this link has already been provided, I apologize.
Yes I see what you are saying there about speak to himself….I dont have any solid answer for that…other than to say that unless one understands what he prays then he cannot be edified in the sense that I believe Paul is saying. Charismatics, of which I was one for 13 years , say that just the act of speaking in tongues builds up their spirit man…nonsense really…we are to be strong in the Lord by faith alone, not by a technique which gives no understanding to our mind.
There is another question that goes unanswered as well by a lot of tongue talkers…that is the problem verse for them of 1 Cor 12:29-30
Not all speak in tongues.
I have been visiting this site for a number of months reading articles and most of the posts. I have been studying different views on tongues and reading and re-reading and doing a lot of bible studies in Corinthians on the Spiritual gifts.
I have recently left a pentacostal church here in Australia because of this issue. I found that the tongues being spoken in a lot of pentacostal church’s here are not biblical and are not ever interpreted by any one. The fact that the pentacostal church also says that speaking in tongues is a sign of the Baptism Holy Spirit makes me feel very in adequate because I had never spoken in tongues, I was made to feel that my salvation was not genuine. But studying 1 Corinthians 12 has shown me that not all people have this gift and that it really has nothing to do with salvation.
Thank you for these articles they are a help and very encouraging for me.
Hi Kim,
I live in Western Australia and was involved in the Pentecostal church for 13 years before leaving in 2003. I agree with you about none of the tongues being interpreted, and the idea that unless one speaks in tongues he is not saved. I have never believed that or been in a group that has. But I had some friends who were involved in the Revival Centre. That group believes strongly that if one does not speak in tongues then you are not saved. That is a grave error as you know. Tongues was never meant to be the main thing. Jesus is!!
We ended up going to the other end of the doctrinal pendulum. I threw the baby out with the bath water I’m realising. We fellowship with Independant Bible Baptists in Manjimup, who are thoroughly opposed to any thing slightly Charismatics.
But through the exchange of ideas here the Lord has opened my eyes to the reality that there is no reason to think that the gifts have ceased, in fact, they will be evident until we see Jesus return..1 Cor 13.
I pray that God would lead you to a group of like minded believers who will love and nurture you, where the unmerited favour of God is preached.
Bless you
Dennis
Kim, I, too, was told by a pastor that if I didn’t speak in tongues I wasn’t saved…that it was evidence of the manifestation of the Spirit. Long story short, I have left that church. The greatest healing came when I started to pray for that pastor in love. God wants things in order. I still believe in the gifts but desire more wisdom. Abuse abounds. Read Seeking Him in the Scriptures, Sarah C.
Dennis and Sarah C.,
Thanks for your encouragement and yes I do believe that the gifts are still in operation today. I am going also to a Baptist church in the Coffs area of NSW just not as regular as I would like to.
Thanks Kim