TONGUES, GIFT OF (γλῶσσαι). One of the ninefold “gifts of the Spirit” (1 Cor 12:4-11), a list reiterated elsewhere in the NT in slightly varying form. The clearest exhibition of this gift in the NT is in Acts 2, describing the Day of Pentecost; the best extended treatment is in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Whether these two refer to the same phenomenon is sometimes disputed.
1. Tongues in the OT. The NT doctrine of tongues—ecstatic spiritual utterances not consciously or rationally controlled by the speaker, but believed to be a direct product of divine operation and Spirit-filling—has a long pre-history in the OT. When Peter explained this phenomenon to the crowds of Jewish pilgrims gathered at Jerusalem, he did so in terms of the words of Joel (Acts 2:15-21). Secondly, in 1 Corinthians 14:21f., Paul explained the evidential nature of tongues to the unbeliever from Isaiah (Isa 28:11).
Most scholars would agree that the ecstatic experience recorded of the seventy elders (Num 11:24-29) is an OT reference to “speaking in tongues,” although the word used in the text is “prophesied.” Clearly the phenomenon is, in this context, the outward sign of the Spirit’s coming and presence. This ecstasy is not directly attributed to Moses himself; indeed, his position is contrasted with that of the ordinary “prophet” (12:7, 8). It may be that the OT נָבִיא, H5566, (prophet) actually means “ecstatic speaker.” Samuel also was surrounded by a group of ecstatics (1 Sam 19:18-24); their infectious “prophesying,” which seems to have been at least akin to “tongues,” was held to be a sign of Yahweh’s presence; yet Samuel’s reputation as a prophet was based on something else (1 Sam 3:20). The same is true of Elijah and Elisha. There is also evidence for similar ecstatic behavior at this time on the part of the prophets of Baal, prob. included ecstatic utterances (1 Kings 18:28). In the later days of the great “writing prophets” of Israel, there is no reference to any such phenomena whatsoever, unless the “trances” of Ezekiel should be so considered.
2. Tongues in the gospels. There is no reference in the gospels to speaking with tongues, either actual or anticipated, with one exception (Mark 16:17 KJV). In view of the manifestations of the Spirit’s activity both in the life of John the Baptist (who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb, Luke 1:15), the life of Christ (on whom the Spirit was seen to descend at His baptism, Matt 3:16), and the life of the disciples (who performed miracles of healing and demon expulsion, Luke 10:17), this is remarkable but undoubted. There is thus no necessary connection between “tongues” and “filling with the Spirit” as far as the gospels state. Mark 16:17, in the midst of signs which are to accompany those who believe, lists “new tongues” (γλώσσαις καιναῖς, some MSS omit “new”). This is clearly a reference to glossolalia in some form; but as the ending does not belong to the original text of Mark, it may well have been added by the Early Church on the basis of Pentecost and subsequent apostolic history. The clause is placed between “cast out demons” and “take up serpents,” both of which signs did occur in the apostolic church (Acts 16:18; 28:5). It is not, therefore, independent evidence concerning glossolalia.
3. The experience of Pentecost. At first sight, the description in Acts 2 is crystal clear. All were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues—foreign tongues—hitherto unknown to the disciples, but meaningful to the pilgrims then gathered in Jerusalem. This seems proved by v. 6, “in his own language.”
Some scholars, however, feel that such a simple interpretation is inconsistent both with the vague term “noise” mentioned in v. 6 (a “noise” sufficiently unusual to attract a crowd) and the fact that others were able to interpret the whole expisode as drunken babbling (v. 13). They further point out that, elsewhere in the NT, the “tongues” spoken seem to be incomprehensible unless accompanied by a spiritual “interpretation,” and do not seem to be recognizably human languages (does 1 Cor 13:1 refer to them as angelic languages?). These scholars feel that Luke is describing an occurrence of ordinary glossolalia (as at Corinth) but in such a way as to show that Pentecost was the antithesis of Babel, where men’s tongues were confused (Gen 11:9) and also to demonstrate that Pentecost corresponded to the “giving of the law,” which, by standard Jewish tradition, was delivered simultaneously in all the languages of the world. Early Christian scholars suggested that the miracle was one of hearing rather than speaking; v. 8 would lend some support to this. Less convincing are the suggestions that Jews from all the above-mentioned lands would have understood Gr. or Aram., both of which tongues the apostles presumably knew well, and either of which they could therefore have used on this occasion; or that phrases from foreign languages, once heard but long forgotten, welled up from the subconscious and were spoken aloud for the first time, striking an answering chord in the hearers. When modern scholars speak of “intuitive understanding” or “thought rapport” or “thought transference,” they are either returning to the first explanation (the miracle of hearing) or else saying in Pauline terms that the hearers were given, on that occasion at least, the gift of interpretation.
4. Later evidence from Acts. If the gift of tongues had a peculiar evidential value as showing the initial coming of the Spirit, then it was appropriate that it should also appear at the Pentecost of the Gentiles (Acts 10:46, the Caesarean converts) and prob. at that of the Samaritans (8:17). Although tongues are not specifically mentioned, there are obviously some clear outward signs of the Spirit’s coming. It is also specifically mentioned of the Ephesian converts (19:6); if they were disciples of John the Baptist (and not merely illinstructed Christians, as is sometimes claimed) there would be an appropriateness here also.
Whether or not others spoke with tongues on receiving the Holy Spirit, is uncertain. It is possible (as being an outward sign clearly seen by all) but more cannot be affirmed, for Acts does not record it. For instance, Paul could speak with tongues later (1 Cor 14:18). Did he receive this at baptism? Or were these tongues after Pentecost foreign languages or mystic utterances? Lastly, there was no set rule: sometimes, as at Pentecost, the gift came to those long baptized; at Caesarea, it came before baptism, and indeed was the ground of baptism. At Samaria, if it came, it was at “confirmation.”
5. Tongues in the Pauline epistles. The classic treatment of this doctrine is in 1 Corinthians 12-14, under the general heading of “spiritual gifts” (1 Cor 12:1). It was obviously such a familiar part of Corinthian church life that Paul never explained exactly what it was, but assumed that his reader knew. Nor was this manifestation limited to Corinth among the Gentile churches. Romans 8:26 with its reference to the Spirit interceding for the saints, “with sighs too deep for words,” may possibly correspond to “praying with the spirit” (1 Cor 14:15), and thus refer to praying “in tongues.” Its occurrence at Caesarea and Ephesus has already been mentioned. The exact nature of the “tongues” in question is not clear. It does seem that, at Corinth at least, these were mystic utterances, not foreign languages (14:2), although some would quote 14:10 against this. At all events, they needed “interpretation,” without which they were unintelligible. Indeed, Paul seems to have stressed their very incomprehensibility as having a “sign” value to the outsider (14:22), and as being the fulfillment of an OT prophecy (14:21, quoting Isa 28:11), although he also admitted that this incomprehensibility may expose Christians to the charge of madness (1 Cor 14:23), as it had to the charge of drunkenness at Pentecost. Paul, also in the clearest possible terms, differentiated between “tongues” and “prophecy” (14:1-4). It is clear that, however much is comprehended under the term “prophecy,” it is not in a “tongue,” but is immediately understandable.
What, then, is Paul’s assessment of “tongues”? First, he freely admitted it as a spiritual gift, and indeed one in which he excelled (14:18), but one which, along with “interpretation of tongues,” he placed lowest on the list of spiritual gifts (12:10, 30) next to “healing” and “miracles.” He did not expect all to speak with tongues (12:30), nor did he associate this gift with the fullness of the Spirit or with special sanctity.
Paul, then, wanted to be sure that the source was indeed the Holy Spirit (12:3), a point made elsewhere in the NT as the “discernment of spirits” (12:10 KJV). All gifts, including this, are for the common good, and must be used accordingly (12:7). Where “tongues” are concerned, they must not be used in the church except where there is an interpretation, either by the speaker himself (14:13) or by someone else (14:28). God is a God of order; the use of “tongues,” even if interpreted, must be limited and controlled in the church (14:33, 40). The Christians should worship rationally as well as spiritually, using the conscious mind as well as the subconscious (14:14, 15). One should remember that all gifts as well as “tongues,” are but passing phenomena (13:8). All gifts should be exercised in love, and indeed swallowed up in love, the greatest spiritual gift of all (13:1).
Within these limits, Paul was happy that the Corinthians would exercise their gift of tongues, even if it be often only in the realm of private devotion (14:28). Certainly he did not have it forbidden—a point which is sometimes overlooked today.
6. Tongues in the postapostolic church. Perhaps owing to increased institutionalism, little was heard of tongues in the postapostolic age, except in “fringe sects,” of which the Montanists are a good example. Perhaps, official disapproval led to an unbalanced isolation of, and emphasis on, this spiritual gift. Certainly in these “fringe groups,” it was accompanied by great enthusiasm, coupled with lack of theological balance. By the 4th cent., it must have virtually disappeared, for most Church Fathers were utterly at a loss to understand the Biblical references (as can be seen from the commentaries produced). Nevertheless, in time of spiritual stress or renewal, it has frequently reappeared; the present age seems a clear instance of this. See Spiritual Gifts.
Bibliography Eusebius, History of the Church; L. Christenson, Speaking in Tongues (1963); J. L. Sherrill, They Speak with Other Tongues (1964); Standard Bible Commentaries on Acts and 1 Corinthians.