The Content of the Ancient Gift of Prophecy

προφῆται δὲ δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν·

One of the greatest challenges to interpreting Paul’s letter to the Corinthians today is the tremendous temptation to do so in light of modern Charismatic practices and interpretations. The interpreter must work hard to ignore the noise coming from that quarter so as to allow proper exegesis to run its course. Only then are we in a better place to understand the truth revealed in the text. Perhaps then we are in a better position to discuss the question of NT prophecy.

Neither UBS nor NA28 lists any textual variants in this short sentence. Other than the fact that Comfort tells us in a note on p46 that δὲ was a superlinear addition, we have barely any work to perform from a textual critical standpoint.

Translating this text is also very straightforward. “But let two or three prophets speak and the others examine.” The NAS leaves the conjunction untranslated. I include it for the simple reason that it is there and I have no reason to exclude it yet, nor will I as far as the point of this post is concerned.

The Corinthian Church was founded by Paul in Acts 18. The work there seemed to begin to advance when Paul moved his work the house of Titus Justus. In fact, even the leader of the synagogue, Crispus, believed along with his household. Corinth was a very wealthy city, strategically located on the Peloponnesian peninsula. It controlled two harbors and all trade moving to Asia as well as to Italy. Corinth was a city of the strong. Wealth and strength quite naturally tend to produce pride. For the Corinthian, status was a prominent fixation. This creates an atmosphere where the virtue of humility and the idea of serving others are more than a little challenging. The occasion for this letter was one of rejoinder. The Corinthians had asked several questions of Paul and this letter is the product of that event.

Paul begins the larger literary context within which our text is located in 1 Cor. 12:1 with the phrase, “Now concerning the spirituals.” This indicates as in other places, that the Corinthians had questions concerning the spiritual gifts. Paul’s objective is to provide some clarity around the purpose and function of those gifts. It is in this context that our subject emerges.

The very first question that no one seems to be asking or answering in this discussion of the spiritual gifts is this: are there any differences between Christian living post the canon and Christian living during this period of the Church before the revelation had been completed? In other words, is there any difference between us, and the ancient Corinthian Church? Better yet, is there any difference between NT Christian living during the transition period and those living outside that transition period? I fail to see how the answer to that question could be anything other than, absolutely! Once that fact is established, we can then understand that drawing parallels between modern Christianity and transitional Christianity can be overly simplistic and even downright naïve. In reality, there are three periods that must be taken into consideration when examining God’s activity in the Christian Church. The transition period which is the period when revelation was still in progress. The second period is that period when the revelation was completed but was still being circulated and collected. The third period is that period of time that represents not only the completion of the revelation, but also the completion of the collection and recognition of that revelation in one document. It is the divine document of divine documents, known as the Bible. The transition period was completed at some point in the late first century. The second period was completed as all the writings made their way throughout the communities culminating in the fixed canon. The third period continues to present day.

The text I am examining is one that is used by many Continuationists to justify their conclusion that NT prophets were different, not authoritative, and non-binding. I will dispute the principle behind this view below. For now, I want to get back to our short exegesis of the text. The Greek word λαλείτωσαν, from λαλέω is a present, active, imperative. This indicates that Paul is issuing a straightforward command. It only appears in this form in the GNT in this text. It is a very common word used to mean, speak or talk. The second word we are interested in is far more nuanced that this one. The word διακρινέτωσαν, from διακρίνω, is also a present, active, imperative. Once more, Paul is issuing a command to the Corinthians. The root of this word is κρινω, which is the word commonly translated, judge. According to ANLEX (Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT), it means “(1) as evaluating the difference between things discern, distinguish, differentiate (MT 16.3); (2) as making a distinction between persons by evaluation make a difference, decide between, pass judgment on (AC 15.9); (3) as a legal technical term for arbitration judge a dispute, settle a difference (1C 6.5); (4) in the aorist tense, the middle sense is conveyed with the passive form; (a) as debating an issue dispute, contend, argue (AC 11.2); (b) as being undecided within oneself doubt, hesitate, waver (JA 1.6)” Louw-Nida says, to make a judgment on the basis of careful and detailed information—‘to judge carefully, to evaluate carefully.’ BDAG informs us, “to evaluate by paying careful attention to, evaluate, judge pass judgment on w. acc. ἑαυτόν on oneself.”

It is for this reason that scholars like Wayne Grudem, believe that OT prophets and prophecy was fundamentally different from NT prophecy. After all, who are we to pass judgment on the Word of God? In our apologetic and theology, we repeatedly argue that the Word of God is self-authenticating and fully authoritative. The kind of judgment we see in 1 Corinthians is therefore new. Such a view fails to properly nuance what we mean when we say we hold the Scripture to be self-authenticating and authoritative. There is a distinction to be made between judging something to be the Word of God and judging the Word of God. Were OT prophets subject to the same kind of judgment? Deut. 13 provides for the clear judgment of dreamers and prophets who arise, even giving signs that come true. The test of whether or not they are true prophets is whether or not they point back to what has already been revealed. So the kind of judgment we see in the NT is not new at all. It has always existed since we learned about prophets thousands of years ago. Paul is not telling the Corinthians to do anything any differently than God, through Moses, had already told the ancient Hebrews to do. In addition, Jesus warned His disciples in Matt. 7 that many false prophets would arise and would deceive many. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Hence Paul was giving the Corinthians nothing new. In fact, the word προσέχω means to be in a continuous state of readiness to learn of any future danger, need, or error, and to respond appropriately—‘to pay attention to, to keep on the lookout for, to be alert for, to be on one’s guard against.’ To introduce a new concept in this text, that had not already been given by Moses and reinforced again by Christ Himself is clearly the product of eisgesis. It is understanding this word and this text through the modern Charismatic experience and interpretation. It is thoroughly anachronistic.

I would continue with a straightforward exegesis of the passage but I think we have gone far enough to recognize that there is no new concept or idea of prophecy revealed in this text. Moses had already established this very practice hundreds of years before Paul pinned the command. In addition, Jesus had also repeatedly warned of false prophets and clearly expected that any prophet and their prophecy would come under scrutiny.

So then, if what I have argued above is true, then one wonders, what was the likely content of these prophecies? First of all, we are not speculating on a teaching of Scripture. Scripture does not reveal the content of these prophecies. But let us see if we can eliminate some things that others think it might have been. Could it have been what we hear from modern Pentecostals today? For example, a prophecy comes out that Titus is to marry Mary. Now, how on earth could something like that be judged to from God or from man? The short answer is that judgment of such prophecies is impossible. We simply cannot know for sure. Therefore, the most important thing we learn about this text is that all NT prophecy was judge-able. In fact, all NT prophecies by divine command had to be judge-able. This is because Paul commanded the Corinthians to judge them all. No prophecy could escape scrutiny. Any prophecy that could be rendered unjudge-able would necessarily be judged false because it places the Christian in a position of not being able to obey the divine command. Most modern prophecies are not really prophecies. There are three popular types that come to mind. First, there are those prophecies that state what we already know from Scripture. For instance, someone may prophesy that I am going to be tempted to sin but that God is with me. Okay, thank you for telling me what God has already told me. Second, there are those prophecies that are predictive. These are the ones that never seem to pan out unless they are educated guesses and not really prophetic utterances. For instance, the church may have acknowledged that a young man has the attributes of a leader and someone prophecies he will become a leader some day and some day he does. Amazing! The third kind of prophecy concerns things that really aren’t judge-able. These prophecies are personal and instructive. They tell people what career to pursue, what job to take, who to marry, where to live, etc. We can rule them out as legitimate because they do not fall into the category of biblical prophecy because all biblical prophecies are judge-able. The first group of prophecies can be dismissed as well because they are simply the Word of God regurgitated. They are not legitimate, at the moment divine revelations or Words of God. One way to judge a prophet was first and foremost that he had to be recognized by the leaders as a prophet. Apostolic recognition was one criteria for judging prophets and prophecies. The apostolic component seems to be significant.

Agabus prophesied that Paul would be taken prisoner and amazingly he was. Predictive prophecies can be judged based on their fulfillment. Some prophecies can be judged based on their connection with apostolic authority. During this time of transition, prophecy played a critical role in the unfolding of divine revelation that came to be encapsulated in Scripture. In addition, it is quite possible, and highly probable that some prophecies contained what would eventually become encapsulated in Scripture. For instance, while Paul was writing to the Galatians his anathema upon all who preach a different gospel, a prophet in Corinth could have been giving the same light to the Corinthians. Another prophet completely unfamiliar with Isa. 53 could have been given that revelation someplace else to give to that local church. To speculate that these prophets were off giving revelation to these believers that no one else ever came to have is a fruitless exercise. If it is true, it is irrelevant. God withheld it from us for a reason, that is, if it is true which I doubt. Personally, I see no reason to embrace that view and I see no way it can be anything more than baseless speculation. The fact that God has given us everything we need for life and godliness in Scripture would indicate to me that what God revealed to them, he also revealed to us. Otherwise, we are back to the question of the universal sufficiency of Scripture. This would mean that some NT Christians needed more than we have in the text while the rest of us do not. I find that view enormously unappealing and relatively indefensible.

The view that there is a new brand of prophet and prophecy in the NT is without exegetical support. The scrutiny originally given by Moses in Deut. 13 was reinforced by Christ in Matthew 7 and here by Paul. There is no good reason to think otherwise. The warnings against false prophets are abundant in the NT. That there was some criterion in place by which prophets and their prophecies were to be judged is evident. When Paul and Barnabas were separated for the ministry by the Holy Spirit, it was through prophecy in the presence and under the consent of apostolic authority. For the most part, modern prophecy is either restating what is obvious in Scripture, not subject to judgment for lack of a criterion, educated guesses, and mostly failed predictions.

The failure by Steve Hays, Wayne Grudem, Michael Brown, and others to recognize the transitional nature of the ancient Church and God’s dealings with men at that time has led to unnecessary confusion regarding the charismata. For example, Hays’ outrageous view that Jesus’ appearance to Paul should not be viewed as exceptional and instead, should be taken as normative, is just one example of the logical end of where this hermeneutic leads. With kind of interpretive method in hand, it is no wonder that Charismatics have been unable to contradict and refute error. My final point here is that this verse actually commands what the Strange Fire conference has set out to do: critically examine prophecy. It is a rare occurrence that you will find a Charismatic leader encouraging others to question their “Word from God!” In fact, most of them use their status as a way to discourage any questioning of their claims and prophecies. If you don’t believe me, just go to a Charismatic forum, pick a famous Charismatic leader, find a clearly unbiblical prophecy or sermon, and place him under scrutiny and see what happens. In other words, attempt to apply 1 Cor. 14:29 to the Charismatic prophets and watch what happens.

Seeing Tongues as Languages: An Alternative Approach in Exegetical Exercise

In my series of posts regarding NT tongues, I have argued repeatedly that the NT phenomena should be regarded as real languages. To reinforce that concept, this post will perform an interpretive exercise to see if it is possible for us to read 1 Corinthians 14 with the view that every time Paul refers to tongues, he means languages. In fact, many commentators believe it is unfortunate that English versions are still translating glossolalia as tongues. Now, the game I propose is that we make an honest effort to understand every occurrence of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 to mean languages and determine if it is possible to make better sense of the verse and the chapter looking through that interpretive grid. We should remember that the Corinthian believer would have understood Paul’s instructions and statements much more clearly than we do. Moreover, there is the tendency in such communication to leave minute details out because of this presumption of knowledge. We do not have the luxury of being the in the shoes of the Corinthian believer. Therefore, Paul is likely to have assumed a certain level of knowledge among the Corinthians that unfortunately we do not possess.

I also want to suggest that we interpret this NT experience in light of other NT experiences. Is it possible to understand the phenomena of tongues as real languages and nothing more without doing damage to the text of Scripture? In other words, is it safer to interpret Corinthians in light of Acts 2 and 10 without resorting to the practice of inventing an entirely new kind of tongue that is nowhere else mentioned in Scripture? Is it necessary for us to invent the PC “prayer language” position in order to give sound and adequate interpretation to 1 Corinthians 14? From the standpoint of the literary context, can we glean Paul’s main points in that chapter without inventing the “prayer language” idea? I believe we can. The best way for you to practice this exercise is to replace tongues with languages and to replace interpret with translate. Remember, resist the urge to return to modern tongues. Glossolalia means languages and diermeneuo means translate. When the Corinthian heard these words, that is the definition that came to mind.

The first text that demands our attention is 1 Cor. 14:2, “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.” Notice the word “For,” which is an epexegetical. What this means is that we have to step back at least to the previous verse in order to understand why the “for” is there for. Paul begins this chapter with the command to pursue love and desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. The reason for this command is that Paul is concerned with those gifts that edify the body. This is the central concern of 1 Cor. 14. We must read 1 Cor. 14 with the understanding that Paul’s message to the Corinthian believer is that they’re goal is to edify one another. Now, with this understanding in mind, we can recognize that Paul is not describing the universal practice of tongues in general. He is dealing with tongues in Church. More than that even, he is specifically dealing with tongues in the Corinthian worship service. He begins by commanding them to seek out the gifts that edify and then he says “For” the one who is speaking in this language in your worship service is not speaking to men (because they can’t understand him) but to God (because only God can understand him). To miss the epexegetical in this verse is a serious literary misstep and it results in serious interpretive deviation. One misses the contextual meaning and significance of what Paul is getting at. This is reinforced by the next verse, which begins with the logical contrastive “but.” So we see that it is in fact possible to read 1 Cor. 14:2 with the understanding that “tongues” in this verse is a real language. Moreover, not only is it possible, it actually makes better sense than the alternative non-cessationist interpretation.

Now we turn to v. 4: “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself; but one who prophesies edifies the church.” This is not a good thing. Paul is after the edification of the church. In addition, can we read this as a real language? I think so. How can someone speaking in this language also engage in self-edification? The presumption is that they and only they can interpret it. In this case, edification takes place but only for the individual who is also interpreting the language. Those who cannot understand the language are not edified at all. And this is why Paul wants the practice to stop. Notice in the next verse that Paul makes sure he is guarding against a bad knee-jerk reaction where the pendulum swings to the other extreme. God gave the gift of tongues for a very specific reason and it is not to be neglected. What Paul wants is that it be used in the way God intended. Therefore, we can see how it is reasonable to interpret this verse to mean real languages.

Paul makes it clear in verse 9 that God is a rational communicator. He goes on to illustrate that the use of languages that others do not understand is indeed a waste of time. Others will think we are barbarians, or foreigners who do not understand our language. Then in v. 12 he once again restates his main concern, “So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek to abound for the edification of the church.” This is the central focus of Paul’s concern. Paul concludes that everyone that prays in tongues should also pray that they might be able to interpret it, or translate it. The better word for διερμηνεύω (diermeneuo) is translate. It means to translate from one language to another. You cannot translate a non-language. There is nothing to translate. The whole idea is to take what is being said in one language and translate it into another language. If some speech is non-language, there is no meaning there to translate. Our English bibles really should render the word “tongues” as languages and the word “interpret” as translate. That would go a long way to help mitigate the confusion introduced by the PC movement on this subject.

Now we come to another Pentecostal favorite in 1 Cor. 14:14, “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.” The PC movement claims that the purpose for tongues is so that they can pray directly to God. But can we take this verse to mean the supernatural ability to speak in a real language? I think we can. If I pray in the spiritual-gifted language, I don’t do so from my mind but from my spirit. My mind cannot generate this language because it was not acquired by the mind. Therefore, in this sense, my mind is unfruitful. What should I seek to do then? I should seek the gift of translating this language. So, as Paul says in the next verse, “What 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 saying, I will pray in the gifted language and I will seek to translate it. Why does Paul speak this way? We understand why when we read the very next verse; “Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?” This indicates that v. 15 deals not with private prayer, but public prayer and the Corinthian must translate any prayers or songs that he gives in his gifted language(s). That is the principle theme that continues to occupy Paul’s thought.

Paul then issues the most ignored principle among Pentecostals-Charismatics in v. 19. He says that he would rather speak 5 intelligible words in Church than ten thousand in the gifted languages so that others would be edified. I can tell you that PC Churches ignore this statement completely, arguing that Paul is not talking about the prayer language here, but rather the gift of tongues, which is different. Such an argument is completely arbitrary. It is interesting to note that Paul issues a pretty stern rebuke in v. 20 as one gets the sense that he is very annoyed with this subject: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.” It is apparent that Paul thinks the Corinthians should have been able to figure this out without his instructions.

We move to verse 22, which is the culmination or summary of Paul’s argument regarding the use of Tongues in the NT Church. Paul informs us in no uncertain terms of God’s purpose for tongues: “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophecy is for a sign, not to unbelievers but to those who believe.” It is easy to see now how this phenomenon of tongues had to be divinely gifted languages. There is no way that unintelligible gibberish could meet the definition of sign. It is simply untenable to contend that the modern gibberish we witness in the PC movement could be some sort of sign from God for unbelievers. How could it? Anyone can do it. Non-Christian pagan religions do it. Anyone can copy it. There is nothing supernatural about it. It has no distinguishable miraculous features. Therefore, Paul had to be speaking about a real language in this context. In addition, it is fool-hardy to attempt to arbitrarily claim here that Paul means the gift of tongues, but in the previous section he means the prayer language. PC Churches weave their way back and forth in this chapter, bending the text to mean whatever they need it to in order to support their modern practice of tongue-speaking. The Scripture becomes literally, putty in their hands.

We now come to the very next verse, which seems somewhat confusing and contradictory. Verse 23, “Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?” The only way to take this is that Paul means in one sense, men who do not understand the language but in the other, some men do understand the language. Tongues can only serve as a sign for those who actually speak that language. So then, tongues are a sign to unbelievers as was demonstrated in Acts 2. But if men do not understand those tongues, then they will think you are mad. This is also a response we see in Acts 2. Paul’s point is that everything in the Church should be done with the goal of edifying the body. Tongues clearly do not do that. Tongues would typically be used outside the Church service in evangelism of the unbeliever. In this way it can serve as a sign. In the Church however, you should refrain from such practices, seeking to edify the other. Tongues are a sign for the unbeliever. They only edify when they are translated into an intelligible dialect, be it for the speaker or for the hearer.

I am not so naïve as to think that I have cut a new path through the maze of the ancient practice of glossolalia. I fully recognize that my interpretation is not without its difficulties. However, I have yet to investigate an interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 that was without difficulties. They are all filled with difficulties. The difficulties are the result of the distance of time, the distance of culture, and the distance of experience. However, I do think my interpretation has the following advantages:

·         It allows me to retain the more descriptive definition of tongues given by Luke in Acts 2.

·         It avoids the arbitrary and baseless view that invents a new kind of tongue known as the “prayer language.”

·         It does no violence to the text of 1 Corinthians even if it might leave some things open for discussion.

·         It contains no contradictions.

·         It retains the basic purpose of tongues given by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:22 as a sign for unbelievers.

·         It avoids the lack of distinction between the Christian phenomenon and the pagan parallel.

·         It avoids the conclusion of linguists that modern PC tongues are no different from tongues in other non-Christian mystic cults and religions.

From my perspective, it seems only reasonable that we hold this interpretation until better evidence can be given for why we should conclude that the tongues in 1 Corinthians were somehow different from the tongues mentioned in the rest of the NT text. This latter view is anachronistic, looking at ancient tongues through the grid of modern tongues. The fact that modern tongues are not real languages in any since of the word is not a legitimate reason for us to postulate that the same is true of ancient NT tongues at Corinth. The contrary should be our response. Why it is not is nothing short of baffling.

If it were true that modern tongues are the heavenly language mentioned in 1 Cor. 13, then linguists should at least be able to connect American tongues with Chinese tongues with Russian tongues, and with all tongues across all dialects. It should be something uniquely differently even if not entirely explicable. The Russian sounds should be the same as the Americans and the Chinese and the French and everyone else who speaks in tongues. The reason is that heaven has only one language. Moreover, that language is rational the same as our own. Man was created speaking that language if you remember. It wasn’t until the curse at Babel that that changed. No matter how you slice it, modern PC tongues is remarkably different from what was witnessed and experienced in the NT Church.

The Pagan Problem of Pentecostal - Charismatic Tongues

Chrysostom writing as early as the 380s, just 300 years after Paul’s correspondence to the Corinthians says this in his comments on 1 Cor. 14:2:

“At this point he makes a comparison between the gifts, and lowers that of the tongues, showing it to be neither altogether useless, nor very profitable by itself. For in fact they were greatly puffed up on account of this, because the gift was considered to be a great one. And it was thought great because the Apostles received it first, and with so great display; it was not however therefore to be esteemed above all the others. Wherefore then did the Apostles receive it before the rest? Because they were to go abroad every where. And as in the time of building the tower 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. See accordingly how he both depresses and elevates it. Thus, by saying, “He that speaketh with tongues, speaketh not unto men, but unto God, for no man understandeth,” he depressed it, implying that the profit of it was not great; but by adding, “but in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries,” he again elevated it, that it might not seem to be superfluous and useless and given in vain.”^[1]

It is clear that Chrysostom considered the Corinthian Glossolalia genuine human languages as opposed to the claim that it was some sort of mystical prayer language. This view is in direct contradiction to widespread view in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. For the remainder of this article, I will focus on some of the more significant problems with the claim that modern tongue speaking is identical to the Corinthian Glossolalia.

In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God, whom also the apostle terms “spiritual,” they being spiritual because they partake of the Spirit, and not because their flesh has been stripped off and taken away, and because they have become purely spiritual.^[2]

Now I should mention that the phrase “do also hear” literally means, “have heard.” We cannot be sure that Irenaeus of Lyons is speaking about a firsthand contemporary account or something he heard about from history or from other communities. What we can be sure of is that he calls them languages just as Chrysostom did.

Now, I want to point to the historical fact that mystical tongue-speaking like that spoken among modern Charismatics did not originate in and is not unique to the Charismatic community. The practice of mystical-glossolalia, so called, exists in other religions, such as Paganism, Shamanism, and other mediumistic type religions. In fact, channeling has been one of the egregious next steps that can easily be traced to the roots of Charismatic theology. It is the natural progression of mystical emphases. Suffice it to say that modern Charismatic tongues are not unique to the Charismatic version of Christianity. They are shared by several other religions. That this could be true and that Paul teaches that tongues are a sign for unbelievers remains an irreconcilable mystery. What is so amazing about a phenomenon that is commonly practiced among other religions? How could such a thing be a sign in any sense of the word sign? If other religions were experiencing the same miraculous phenomena as Christianity, then Christianity would be illogical to point to such phenomena as a distinguishing feature of its religion.

The heretic Montanus is documented by Eusebius as having some kind of ecstatic experience. Here is how he records it: “He became possessed of a spirit, and suddenly began to rave in a kind of ecstatic trance, and to babble in a jargon, prophesying in a manner contrary to the custom of the Church which had been handed down by tradition from the earliest times.” Hildegard of Bingen, a Catholic mystic, is said to have spoken in tongues. The LDS Church has numerous historical events of speaking in tongues. Brigham Young spoke in tongues at the dedication of the Kirkland Temple. The Moravians are also said to have spoken in tongues. Oneness Pentecostals, who deny the triune God, speak in tongues. Appalachian snake-handlers speak in tongues. In fact, it was not until the late 19^th and early 20^th century that glossolalia become associated with Pentecostalism.

Most Pentecostals recognize Charles Parham as the leader through whom God brought the renewal of the gifts. Parham was so excited about this new move of God that he declared the movement would send out missionaries around the world to declare the gospel in their respective languages. So, as it goes, the founder of modern Pentecostalism also thought they were speaking in known languages. The idea of the speech was entirely unintelligible never crossed his mind. However, when associate A.G. Garr traveled to India to preach the gospel, he was extremely confused when he found out the Indian people could not understand his gibberish.

Now, in addition to Parham’s misguided optimism, there was a host of other, far more serious problems with Parham’s theology. Parham believed in the annihilation of the damned in hell. He believed in two separate creations. He held that Adam and Eve were a different race from us. Parham claimed that men living before the flood did not have souls. What is amazing is that even Charles Parham condemned, in no uncertain terms, the Asuzu St. Revival to which most Pentecostal denominations trace their origin.

In addition to these facts, there is the issue of William Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto. In 1972, Samarin published a study containing the results of his intensive research into the phenomena of modern tongues. He study uncovered several stunning facts that many continuationists and Charismatics ignore to this day. His study covered groups like the Appalachian Pentecostals that practice snake-handing, groups in Italy, Canada, Jamaica, and even the Netherlands. What did he discover?

·         While glossolalia resembles a language in certain ways, it is not a real language. It only resembles a language because the speaker wants it to.

·         The sounds are taken from sets of sounds already known to the speaker.

·         The sounds of speech of Glossolalia reflected the speech of the individual’s native language. In other words, English speaks speak in English syllables, Russian speakers in Russian and so forth.

·         In her book, Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cultural Study in Glossolalia, Felicitas Goodman studied a number of Pentecostal communities in the US, the Caribbean, and Mexico. These groups spoke English, Spanish, and Mayan. She compared what she found in these recordings with non-Christian groups she studied from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia, and Japan. Her conclusion was there was no distinction between what was practiced in the Pentecostal communities and what was practiced in the non-Christian communities.

Paul’s concerns in 1 Corinthians 14 had to do with how the gift was inappropriately being used in the Church service. It seems that the Corinthians were operating in this gift arrogantly. Apparently, they held the gift in high esteem likely because it was the first one received by the Apostles at Pentecost. At any rate, Paul’s concerns are for the edification of the body of Christ. It should not slip one’s notice that nowhere does Paul say that tongues are for the purpose of edifying the speaker. He never says that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God, not men. However, he does say that tongues are given for a sign to the unbeliever. Now, that sentence is a purpose sentence as opposed to some of the other sentences that are simply statements.

Pentecostals interpret 1 Cor. 14:2 as if it means that tongues are for the purpose of speaking to God not men. They insist that men must be taken in a universal sense. But when we read that text in the context of Paul’s concerns around edification and then in the broader context of the meaning of glossolalia, we realize a different interpretation works much better. We realize Paul is not actually saying this is how it should be or even that it is a good thing. We realize that men must be understood as men in the local Church service. We also realize that the reason the person is speaking only to God is because no one in the Church service understands the language, therefore, only God could be the hearer.

In addition, I think we need to examine what Paul means when he uses the word οἰκοδομέω, oikodomeo, which is translated edify. This word carries the sense of enablement. It means to build up or enable, to increase one’s potential. Paul then links one’s understanding of the language to its ability to edify. In other words, Paul says the reason he does not want the Corinthians to use tongues in the Church service is because they do not edify those who do not understand them. He also says if a person prays in tongues and does not understand the language they are speaking, their own understanding is fruitless. This must mean that when Paul says that praying in tongues edifies the individual, that the individual understands the language he prays in. So there is praying in tongues that is edifying because one understands it, and praying in tongues that is not fruitful, and therefore not edifying, because the speaker does not understand it. It is as this point that we must remember that this phenomenon was remarkably different from anything we have ever experienced and therefore, our understanding of exactly what was going on remains somewhat limited.

Paul tells the Corinthians emphatically and with great clarity that tongues are a sign for unbelievers. This word sign has bound up in it the idea of miracle. If an unbeliever is aware of the pagan practice of ecstatic and unintelligible noises in the practice of their religions, how could the very same practice with the very same sound distinguish the Christian practice as something supernatural? Clearly, gibberish in religious worship, be it pagan, or in the Christian service does not meet the definition of a miraculous sign.

In conclusion then, l want to make the following observations:

·         Tongues in Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, and 1 Cor. 12-14 were actual languages given supernaturally to those who spoke them.

·         Pagan religions were practicing ecstatic gibberish prior to the Christian experience at Pentecost.

·         Paul states that the purpose for tongues was to provide a miraculous sign to unbelievers. Unintelligible gibberish fails to meet the standard of miracle.

·         Simon, even though he witnessed Phillip’s miracles, only offered money to have the ability to impart this particular gift of tongues. That he would have offered money for gibberish and not other miracles is simply untenable.

·         Modern tongues have their root in leaders that held to damnable heresies.

·         Modern tongues are the same gibberish spoken by various other non-Christian and pagan religions.

·         Modern tongues are bits and pieces of the respective language of the speaker. Russian Charismatics speak in Russian tongues, English in English, Spanish in Spanish and so forth.

·         If modern tongues were heavenly languages, there would be no association with one’s native language and linguistic studies would be able to capture the very same sounds across language families. There is no reason to think that heaven has more than one language. The reason humans have multiple languages is due to the curse of sin at Babel.

The fact is that Pentecostals and Charismatics have no objective way of knowing if the tongues they speak are the same one's spoken in Scripture. The practice disappeared for centuries. There is no unbroken succession of tongues-speaking from Pentecost to today. Since PC tongues are not actual languages, the PC movement has no criteria by which they can distinguish fake or demonic tongues from biblical tongues assuming they're theology is correct. In fact, they can't even validate if the other person, any other person has the same gift they do or if that person is faking it because they are limited to experience in their validation of the practice. If Benny Hinn is a charlatan, then his tongue must be fake! But there are millions of Charismatics that claim Hinn is a great man of God. Therefore, his tongues are genuine! How could we ever know? It is an array of confusion and chaos and the truth is, given their own theology, the possibility of discernment is virtually impossible. And that, ladies and gentlemen makes it abundantly clear that it cannot be of divine origin. Any practice that cannot be tested, that creates confusion and chaos, and that eliminates the possibility of discernment cannot be biblical.

---

^[1] John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Hubert Kestell Cornish, John Medley, and Talbot B. Chambers, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 208–209.

^[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus Against Heresies,” in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 531.