The gift of tongues remains one of the most discussed and debated spiritual gifts within Christian circles today. As someone who has observed fellow believers experiencing this phenomenon firsthand, I find myself in a position of thoughtful uncertainty – not disbelief, but careful consideration of both historical evidence and contemporary experience.
The personal testimonies of many Christians who have received this gift cannot be dismissed lightly. Their experiences often reflect profound encounters with God, accompanied by a genuine sense of spiritual empowerment. These testimonies deserve respectful consideration, as they represent authentic expressions of faith and devotion. Some popular figures within Christendom would be Dr. Michael Brown and Sam Storms from Western world while Dr. Bhojraj Bhatt, Late Ps. Robert Karthak, Dr. Balkrishna Sharma, etc. from our own soil.
However, the historical context seems to present some intriguing questions. The modern understanding of tongues, particularly its manifestation as a kind of ecstatic speech, appears to have gained prominence primarily during the Azusa Street Revival in the 19th century. This raises important historical considerations, as the early church fathers predominantly interpreted the gift of tongues as the miraculous ability to speak in existing human languages, rather than unknown heavenly languages.
The theological landscape became more complex with the rise of the Pentecostal movement, which introduced a distinct association between speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This connection, while deeply meaningful to many believers today, represents a relatively recent theological development in church history.
Examining the biblical text itself, careful exegetical study suggests that the gift of tongues primarily referred to human languages which are unlearned but spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The often-cited reference to "tongues of angels" in 1 Corinthians 12-14 appears to be using hyperbolic language to emphasize excellence in speech rather than describing literal angelic communication. This interpretation gains further support from the absence of evidence that Paul's understanding was influenced by extra-biblical sources referring to actual angelic languages although this argument isn't beyond theological and contextual criticism.
When comparing various theological positions, the arguments supporting tongues as earthly languages appear more robust than those defending ecstatic speech. This view also finds support in missionary accounts where the gift manifested as the ability to speak in recognizable human languages. Yet, we must acknowledge the reality that many contemporary experiences of tongues often appear as speech that is incomprehensible to human ears, creating an apparent disconnect between historical understanding and modern practice.
It would be simplistic to suggest that we should either blindly follow biblical interpretation without theological analysis or uncritically accept all spiritual experiences without biblical scrutiny. Such approaches could lead to either rigid fundamentalism or undiscerning acceptance of potentially non-biblical practices. Instead, we must pursue a balanced approach that honors both careful biblical study and genuine spiritual experience.
This position of thoughtful uncertainty need not create conflict within the Christian community. As a non-essential doctrine, it should not divide believers or diminish our fellowship. Whether or not the contemporary manifestation of tongues matches its biblical counterpart, the focus should remain on using our gifts – whatever they may be – to serve others and glorify God.
The genuine Christian life is not ultimately measured by the presence or absence of particular spiritual gifts. Rather, it is demonstrated through faith, love, and service to others. If today's experience of tongues is genuine, it neither enhances nor diminishes the fundamental aspects of Christian living. The essential question becomes not whether we possess certain gifts, but how we use whatever gifts we have received to build up the church and honor God.
In maintaining this position of humble uncertainty, we can continue to study, learn, and remain open to God's working while staying grounded in biblical truth and historical understanding. This approach allows us to engage with different perspectives respectfully while maintaining our commitment to biblical faithfulness and spiritual authenticity.
***
Here's a thoughtful dialogue between two Christians - Sarah, who has experienced speaking in tongues, and Michael, a seminary student researching the historical and biblical context of this gift:
Sarah: I really want to understand your perspective on the gift of tongues, Michael. I know you've been studying this extensively.
Michael: I appreciate you asking, Sarah. I know this is a deeply personal topic, especially given your own experiences. I want you to know that when I raise questions, it's not about doubting your faith or experiences.
Sarah: That means a lot to hear. Yes, speaking in tongues has been a powerful part of my walk with God. When it happened, I felt such an overwhelming presence of the Holy Spirit. It's hard to explain, but it was transformative.
Michael: I can hear the sincerity in your voice. Would you mind if I shared some historical context I've discovered in my research? I think it might add an interesting dimension to the conversation.
Sarah: Of course! I'm always eager to learn more about our faith's history.
Michael: What's fascinating is that the contemporary understanding of tongues, especially as ecstatic speech, seems to have really gained prominence during the Azusa Street Revival in the 19th century. Before that, most church fathers interpreted it primarily as the ability to speak actual human languages for evangelism.
Sarah: That's interesting... I hadn't realized the historical context was so specific. But wouldn't you say that the Bible itself talks about speaking in the tongues of angels?
Michael: That's a great question! In my studies of 1 Corinthians 12-14, many scholars suggest Paul was using hyperbolic language there - like when we say "she has the patience of a saint." They believe he was emphasizing excellence in speech rather than describing literal angelic language.
Sarah: Hmm... that's different from what I've always understood. But what about all the missionaries who've experienced speaking in tongues?
Michael: Actually, many historical missionary journals record experiences of receiving the gift as earthly languages - being able to suddenly communicate with people they'd never studied the language of. Though I acknowledge that many contemporary experiences, like yours, seem different from this.
Sarah: This is giving me a lot to think about. But if my experience wasn't the same as what you're describing from history... does that mean it wasn't genuine?
Michael: I don't think we need to jump to that conclusion at all. God works in complex ways that we don't always fully understand. What I believe matters most is how any gift serves God and builds up the church. Would you share how your experience has impacted your faith journey?
Sarah: It deepened my relationship with God immensely. It made prayer feel more intimate, and I felt more empowered to serve in ministry. Though I have to admit, hearing this historical perspective raises questions I hadn't considered before.
Michael: And that's okay. I think we can hold space for both careful theological study and authentic spiritual experiences. It doesn't have to be either-or.
Sarah: That's comforting to hear. How do you suggest moving forward when there's this uncertainty?
Michael: I try to stay humble about it. Since it's not an essential doctrine for salvation, I think we can remain open to learning while focusing on what we know matters - loving God and serving others with whatever gifts we have.
Sarah: That really helps put things in perspective. The gift itself isn't as important as how we use it to glorify God, right?
Michael: Exactly! Whether it's tongues or teaching or hospitality, every gift should point back to God and serve His kingdom. And we can keep studying and learning together while maintaining that focus.
Sarah: Thank you for this conversation, Michael. It's given me a lot to think about, but in a way that doesn't invalidate my experiences. I appreciate how you've helped me see both the historical context and the bigger picture of using our gifts for God's glory.
Michael: Thank you for being so open to discussing this, Sarah. Your willingness to engage with different perspectives while holding onto your faith is really inspiring. Want to keep studying this together?
Sarah: I'd like that. It's refreshing to be able to discuss these complex topics without feeling pressured to change my views immediately. We can learn from each other.
- Abingdon Bible commentary
- Commentary by Gordon D Fee
- An Evaluation of Speaking in Tongues as Angelic An Evaluation of Speaking in Tongues as Angelic Language from the Judaean and Early Christian Language from the Judaean and Early Christian Perspectives Perspectives by Eben jager
- Hard sayings of the Bible, Walter Kaiser
- Dr. Michael Brown
- Sam Storms
- Sam Shamoun
- Ps. Robert Karthak Nepali videos in three parts on speaking in tongues
***
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
2 Comments
hank you Kevin for that wonderful write up on this topic.
ReplyDeleteMy position has been that except for Acts 2, the Bible does not appear to support tongues to be historical human languages. Even for Acts 2, the miracle is in everyone hearing the speakers in their own languages. Which means when a persian heard Peter speak, he understood in persian but the greek standing besides him heard him in greek and so on and so froth. So far as Peter is concerned, he is not speaking in any one particular or multiple human languages for them to understand him. Other passages also have stronger leaning toward unknown tongues than human languages. Whereas from the historical context; they were all as uncertain as we are today. If you read the experiences of Moravian revival of 1720s in Germany, you see there also speaking in tongues where no one understood. So, it goes beyond Azuza street experience.
Having said that, i like you conclusion of humble uncertainty.
I think the heart of the matter is; whether we would like to be affective believers or cognitive. Both are essential in their own right. Speaking in tongues or any other such spiritual gifts are matters of the heart and feelings. They bring us into the intense and intimate sense of knowing God. It is because of such emotional attachments that many a times Charismatics have problem. On the other hand, if I want my relationship with God to remain in the cognitive domain, that too is a safe place. In that case, my understanding of the text and history become my guiding light and I do not go overboard into some extreme like the Charismatic.
Sir, thank you for your comment! I appreciate your view and conclusion.
Delete