Y Safle

Much of the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement in the church seems to assume that there are two kinds of speaking in tongues: that there is private speaking in tongues and public messages in tongues. Furthermore, they argue that public messages in tongues are like prophecies.

The argument is based on a reading of 1 Corinthians 14, but I do not see it myself. Now let us be clear on this, nowhere in 1 Corinthians 14 do we read that tongues is anything but a speaking to God enabled by the Holy Spirit. Thus all tongues must be prayer and praise.

How often in a Pentecostal church does someone stand up and deliver a “message” in tongues and someone else delivers an interpretation that goes on and on, and claims to be prophetic on the lines of “I am watching over you my children, do not worry, I will be with you and you will come to no harm”.

I note that these prophecies as given to us are so bland that I sometimes feel that I know why the sender wanted to give it away! They lack specifics, they fail to convict and sometimes cut right across what the preaching in the Church service was all about.

But could they be genuine?

I think they fail the scriptural test on several grounds. If unbelievers are not convicted by a message puportedly from God, then I have to doubt that it was from God that they came. But more specifically, I think such messages fail, because biblically tongues speaking is prayer and praise to God. The interpretation of that prayer and praise allows the congregation to say the ‘amen’ and join with the tongues speaker in that prayer and praise. That is why only interpreted tongues are allowed when we meet communally. Otherwise tongues simply excludes others, and the purpose of joining together is frustrated.

So in these same Pentecostal meetings, I suggest it is equally errant to all pray in tongues together (for what is the non tongues speaker to do?)

But someone might object:

1 Corinthians 14:21 states: ‘In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.’

Verse 21 is a quote from Isaiah, wherein we read a passage that speaks of judgement upon the Jews. It would seem then that Paul is saying that tongues are a sign of judgement.

Now consider Cornelius, who with his household did speak with tongues. We read of no interpretation here, and even if there had been I think the interpretation would have been praise of God, for these people had just received the baptism with the Spirit.

Nevertheless, the tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews (especially Peter) that God’s grace was poured forth upon all men. We thus see that the quote from Isaiah is not specifically saying the words of the tongues are prophecy, but rather when people speak in tongues they fulfill prophecy and are a sign to the unbelievers amongst the Jews.

Our objector might then continue:

Paul appears to be talking about two different aspects of speaking tongues. The first being, as you stated, the individual’s spirit speaking to God. The other aspect being God speaking to the unbeliever through tongues as in Acts 2. Verses 22-25 would make me wonder if Paul didn’t get ‘tongue-tied’ himself.  He states that tongues is a sign for the unbeliever. Then in verses 24-25 proceeds to explain that it is prophecy that will convict the unbeliever.

Paul did perhaps cause some confusion here, but I think that the best interpretation for this verse is that where Paul says “tongues are a sign for unbelievers” he is referring to the unbelief of the Jews (cf. The above, especially the Isaiah quote), whereas when he talks just one sentence later of prophecy being for unbelievers and tongues for believers, he has switched context.

He is now saying that prophecy is a sign to a total stranger who enters the church and has the secrets of his heart laid bare (as true prophecy should do). It is obvious here that an unchurched, and non Jewish stranger who entered the assembly would be convicted by words of prophecy, whereas if we all spoke in tongues he would think “Hold on here, these people are not entirely sane!”

Our objector may have finished up:

My conclusion is that the gift of tongues is related both to personal prayer and to prophecy. I feel, and my experience is that, what is spoken in tongues is similar to the content of the psalms where we find petitions, lamentation, praise, proverbs, intercession, prophecy, etc.

I feel that this gift is related most strongly to personal prayer, but I do not think the above is wrong in its analogy to the psalms. If there were a prophetic element to an interpreted tongue which was essentially of praise, worship and prayer then I would have no argument against such an interpretation.

Nevertheless, I have never heard an interpretation to a tongue which really sounded remotely like a psalm! (And I ought to perhaps say that I have heard a lot of these so called interpretations). The question we are left with is where do these tongues come from? If they are from God then why are they not more powerful, or at least “psalmlike”?

My conclusion is that much modern tongues speaking owes more to psychology and the expectations of the Pentecostal community than to God. On the other hand, I see no reason to preclude the possibility that God could gift people with a spiritual gift of tongues - and indeed I believe he does so.

So we should take seriously Paul’s words: “Prove all things, hold fast to what is good.”