Introduction and Critical Reflection on Biblical Meanings
The first mention of speaking in tongues in the Bible is found in Mark 16:17, where Jesus tells His disciples, “These signs will accompany those who believe… they will speak in new tongues.” In this context, “tongues” refers to languages (The Greek word for “tongues” in Mark 16:17, glōssa, refers specifically to known human languages, as seen in its usage during Pentecost (Acts 2), where the apostles spoke in real, intelligible languages they had not learned. This suggests that “new tongues” in the passage means new or foreign languages, not ecstatic or unintelligible speech.) However, this verse is also where Jesus mentions other miraculous signs: the ability to handle snakes, drink poison without harm, and heal the sick with a touch. If we are to take the promise of speaking in tongues at face value, we must also consider the implications of accepting the other signs mentioned alongside it.
If faith in Jesus (“these signs will accompany those who believe”) alone enables one to speak in tongues, as the passage suggests, should that same faith also extend to handling deadly snakes and drinking poison without suffering harm? After all, Jesus lists all these signs as manifestations of belief, not just one. If we embrace one sign by faith, doesn’t consistency demand that we believe in all of them equally?
This is not an attempt to discredit those who genuinely believe in the gift of tongues or other spiritual gifts. Rather, it is a call to reflect more deeply on the entire scope of these passages. Faith, while powerful, should not be blind to a broader context.
If we blindly believe in one aspect of the miraculous, we must thoughtfully consider the implications of blindly believing in the others as well. The challenge here is to move beyond a surface-level reading and engage with scripture thoughtfully, understanding that deeper examination is necessary to grasp the full meaning of these passages and Jesus’s words. Blind faith in isolation can lead to an incomplete understanding, and we should want to seek wisdom and discernment in interpreting these complex verses when applying them to our real everyday lives.
The Biblical Framework for Speaking in Tongues
The most well-known instance of speaking in tongues [glōssa (γλῶσσα)] happens on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts 2:1-4. During this event, the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in different languages. This allowed people from various nations to hear the gospel in their native tongues. The miracle of speaking in tongues here served as a sign to the unbelievers present, as they heard the apostles declaring the wonders of God in their own languages.
Further discussions about the gift of tongues [glōssa (γλῶσσα)], particularly its use and regulation, are found in perhaps the most cited and famous verse about this subject found in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul provides guidance on how this gift should be used during Christian gatherings. He stresses that any use of tongues in public worship must be accompanied by interpretation so that the church may be edified rather than left in confusion. Paul repeatedly emphasizes the need for understanding and clarity when tongues are spoken publicly. He even goes so far as to say that if you utter speech that is not intelligible, you will be speaking into the air as if you are a broken instrument no one can understand, and it will serve no benefit. (1 Corinthians 14:6-12)
Interpreting the Tongues of Men and Angels
For as long as these verses have been in the canon, there has been an ongoing debate about whether speaking in tongues refers to a “heavenly language” or something incomprehensible to human understanding. Some interpret Paul’s reference to the “tongues of men and of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 as a hint that tongues might involve a spiritual or heavenly language.
However, many scholars argue that Paul was using hyperbole—a rhetorical exaggeration to stress his point about love being superior to even the greatest of spiritual gifts. The “tongues of angels” reference is not meant to be taken literally as evidence of an angelic language but rather to emphasize that even if one could speak in the most extraordinary way, without love, it would be meaningless. Again, we must read these verses in their broader context. This interpretation aligns with Paul’s use of hyperbolic language in other parts of the same exact passage, such as when he speaks of having faith to move mountains, which is also figurative rather than literal.
On the flip side, Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 14:2 reinforces the other view, describing speaking in tongues as a form of communication where “no one understands him; he utters mysteries by the Spirit.” While this could imply an unintelligible language, Paul makes it clear that tongues spoken in public must have interpretation for the sake of the community. Without interpretation, the tongues only serve to edify the individual, not the church. (1 Corinthians 14:27-28 says, “If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three and each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God.”)
Juxtaposing Tongues in Acts and Corinthians
Juxtaposing two major instances of tongues in scripture—Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 14—helps clarify the distinction between them. In Acts 2, the tongues are obviously described as human languages spoken for evangelistic purposes. The apostles were enabled to share the gospel with people from different regions, sounding to them as if they were speaking their native language.
In contrast, 1 Corinthians 14 deals with tongues spoken in a church setting, where the language is not understood by others unless interpreted. Paul warns against using tongues in a way that does not benefit the church. He places a higher priority on prophecy, which builds up the church with clear and intelligible communication. He also says tongues, without interpretation, are like a musical instrument playing indistinct notes—they serve no real purpose except to solely build up the person speaking them and do nothing for others or the church community.
Paul’s overarching message in 1 Corinthians 14 is that spiritual gifts must benefit the entire church. Speaking in tongues without interpretation is unproductive and unwanted; as Paul says, if no one is interpreting the tongues, they should “be silent and speak to themselves.” This is in stark contrast to the situation at Pentecost, where tongues were a miraculous tool for evangelism, understood by all who heard.
Scientific Perspectives on Modern Glossolalia
Several studies have looked into whether modern glossolalia (speaking in tongues) is an actual language or simply vocalized sounds without structure. Numerous linguists, including William J. Samarin (Professor at the Hartford Seminary) concluded that glossolalia does not conform to any language Phonemic Inventory and is more like a pseudo-language, lacking any type of consistent Lexicon and syntax. Neurological research also suggests that glossolalia (speaking in tongues) is more of an emotional or trance-like experience than a structured form of language.
Numerous neurological studies, such as one by the University of Pennsylvania, show that glossolalia involves decreased activity in the brain’s language centers while emotional areas become more engaged, suggesting it is more of a trance-like experience than a structured language. The studies indicate that the phenomenon lacks the most typical linguistic patterns associated with language processing.
Despite these findings, no matter what you think about them, the clear biblical principle remains: The gift of tongues, if used today, should always come with interpretation to ensure that it serves a purpose beyond individual expression or edifying themselves, as Paul warns against in 1 Corinthians 14:4.
Closing
Speaking in tongues, as described in Acts, was a miraculous event meant to spread the gospel in a clear and intelligible way. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians adds a layer of caution, stressing that tongues in a church setting must be used with interpretation or not at all. The goal is always to edify the church, not create confusion or selfishly edify oneself. While tongues may still be practiced in some contexts, Paul’s words make it clear that without understanding and proper parameters, the exercise is meaningless to the broader church community and should not be practiced.
