Rethinking Tongues

By Stanley D. Toussaint

[Stanley D. Toussaint is Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

Looking primarily at the book of Acts, this article discusses the definition of New Testament tongues, the contents of speech in tongues, and the primary purpose of tongues. It explores alternatives and surveys grounds for understanding that New Testament tongues are human languages spoken by people who have not learned them, voicing prayers of request, praise, and thanksgiving to God, as a warning of impending judgment for first-century Israel.

The subject of tongues[1] in the New Testament is huge and the literature immense.[2] It seems that innumerable pamphlets, periodical articles, books, dictionary and encyclopedia articles, and discussions in commentaries consider the topic.[3] The goal of this study will be modest, focusing primarily on the book of Acts. Three facets of tongues are discussed in this article–a definition of tongues in the New Testament, the subject matter or contents of what was spoken in tongues, and very importantly, the purpose of tongues.

A Definition

Because of disagreement about what the New Testament means by the term “tongues,” a definition is essential, and some basic issues are settled when the term is defined.

All agree on two meanings for γλῶσσα, “tongue.” Agreement exists that the first meaning is “an organ of speech” (e.g., Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; 16:24; Acts 2:26; Rom. 3:13; 14:11; 1 Cor. 14:9; Phil. 2:11; James 1:26; 3:5, 6, 8; 1 Pet. 3:10; 1 John 3:18; Rev. 16:10). The word secondly is used of a language (Acts 2:11; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). A third meaning is in dispute. Some believe the word is used of strange words, spoken while in a spiritual ecstasy.[4] Sometimes this is referred to as glossolalia because of the combination of γλώσσαις λαλεῖν in Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12:30; 13:1; 14:2, 4, 5, 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39. Many say the tongues spoken on the day of Pentecost were known languages because the word διάλεκτος describes them in Acts 2:6 and 8.[5] This word is used also in Acts 1:19; 21:40; 22:2; and 26:14, where in each case it refers to a language then spoken. So the Day of Pentecost phenomenon would be classified as xenolalia. Schnabel represents this view in asserting, “The phenomenon that the believers experienced and that onlookers observed was xenolalia, the miraculous speaking in unlearned languages—here in the languages spoken in the regions mentioned in vv. 9-11, which Galilean Jews would not have spoken as part of their upbringing (in a multinational family) or as languages learned later in life (e.g., as traders).”[6]

It may be disputed whether the tongues spoken in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:46) and by the re-baptized “disciples” at Ephesus (Acts 19:6) were languages or ecstatic utterances. It would seem that the consistent usage of “tongues” would argue for the meaning of languages. If the tongues are clearly languages in Acts 2, it seems that this is likewise the idea conveyed by the term in Acts 10 and 19. This is apparently confirmed by Peter’s defense in Acts 11:15 and 17 that the Gentiles had experienced what the Jewish believers had “at the beginning” (ἐν ἀρχῇ). The identical experience of the believers in the house of Cornelius and the first recipients of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2 argues for this.[7]

It appears the tongues of Acts 10:19 were the same as at Pentecost. Haenchen, however, believes that although Acts 2 is describing known human languages, 10:46 and 19:6 look at ecstatic jargon.[8]

The miracle is not one of hearing of one’s own language, as might be inferred from Acts 2:6, 8, and 11. Verse 4 explicitly states that those who were filled with the Holy Spirit spoke in other tongues.

The question remains as to what Paul described in 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 with the word “tongues.” Some take the tongues in Acts 2 to be languages but understand the tongues in 1 Corinthians to be ecstatic utterances.[9] But did Paul describe the spiritual gift of tongues as nonintelligible and inarticulate jargon or actual languages?

For those who argue for ecstatic utterances several evidences are called forth.[10] The first is the prominence given to oracular utterances in the Greek-Roman culture. These were little more than gibberish.[11]To support this idea reference is made to 1 Corinthians 12:1-3, where people speak under some spiritual influence. In reply to this argument one should ask, “Would Paul the Apostle equate a gift of the Holy Spirit of God with the heathen practice of soothsayers wildly talking gibberish?” One would think not.

It is also contended from 1 Corinthians 13:1 that the gift included the ability to speak the language of angels (cf. 2 Cor. 12:4).[12] Of course this would be unintelligible to human ears. In response one should note that Paul was using hyperbole to the extent he doubted that anyone has attained this. In the next verse he referred to the gift of faith so great one could move mountains (the reference is not to one mountain but to mountains, plural). This is possible but highly improbable. Undoubtedly, the gift of prophecy referred to in the same verse is also a hyperbole.

It is contended that because the tongues of 1 Corinthians 12-14 needed to be interpreted, they must be unintelligible utterances. This is in contrast with Acts 2, where no translation was necessary. This argument is easily refuted by the circumstances. In Acts 2 hearers were present from areas whose native tongues were spoken by those who supernaturally spoke. In 1 Corinthians the congregation was from areas where the tongues were not spoken; therefore, interpretation was needed.

It seems best to say that the tongues of both 1 Corinthians 12-14 and Acts 2 were human languages.[13] As Garland argues, “Paul understands it to be a language inspired by the Spirit and not a noncognitive, nonlanguage utterance. It is not simply incoherent babbling in the Spirit (Schrage 1999: 161). ‘Language’ is the most natural meaning of the word γλῶσσα and best explains how tongues can be differentiated into various kinds (γένη).”[14] Those who take this position believe the gift was the supernatural ability to speak a foreign language without having learned it or being able to understand it.

Few if any instances of the word γλῶσσα or its compounds can be found that clearly refer to an ecstatic utterance. The fact that tongues could be translated implies they were languages. Another great evidence for saying the tongues of 1 Corinthians 12-14 are languages is the use of Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21. In Isaiah 28 the prophet warned the Southern Kingdom of coming judgment. They would be carried away to other countries, where they would hear foreign languages. The tongues in Isaiah 28 are languages, and that is the meaning Paul gave the term.

It seems almost inevitable to conclude that the gift of tongues refers to the supernatural ability to speak a foreign language without having learned it and without understanding what one is saying. The fact the speaker did not understand the language is seen by the need of a translator (cf. 1 Cor. 14:5, 13, 27-28). One must judge for oneself whether the “tongues” of the modern charismatic movement are ecstatic utterances with no relationship to human language or if they are translatable languages.

The Content of What Was

The question here is “What was the subject matter of those who spoke in tongues?” On the Day of Pentecost they spoke “of the mighty deeds of God” (τὰ μεγαλεῖα τοῦ θεοῦ, Acts 2:11).[15] What these mighty deeds were is not stated. Haenchen exercises discreet restraint when he writes, “The mighty ‘works of God’ are left in the abstract because the specific objects of praise—the sending and exaltation of Jesus—are reserved for Peter’s forthcoming speech.”[16] As Haenchen notes, it is unlikely that the content of the words was the gospel as such because this is the point of Peter’s sermon that immediately followed the speaking in tongues.[17] If the hearers of the tongues had already heard the gospel, Peter’s words would have been somewhat superfluous. It may be concluded the praise was of a general sort.[18] This is confirmed by Acts 10:46.

The content of what was said when tongues were spoken is stated more clearly in 1 Corinthians 14:2, 14-17. It is quite clear from verse 2 that the content of those who spoke in a tongue was not the gospel. Verse 2 says, “For one who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God.” Certainly one would not tell God what the good news of the gospel is! In addition, one may “pray in a tongue” (v. 14). The verb is προσευχομαι, the verb most commonly used for prayer.[19] In other words, when believers spoke in tongues they were addressing God to make requests. From verse 15 one gains the impression that a Christian could also sing in tongues. This does not give any insight into verse 16, where Paul discusses blessing in the Spirit. The verb is εὐλογέω, which basically means “to speak well of” and here connotes praise. Thanksgiving was also spoken in tongues (v. 16).

In summation tongues were addressed to God in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. This parallels perfectly with what was spoken at Pentecost, “The mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11). As Gordon Clark states, “The two verses (1 Cor. 14:16-17) also indicate that the tongues phenomena were mostly prayers, rather than preaching the Gospel to the heathen.”[20]

The Purpose Of Tongues

When studying the gift of tongues one may ask, “Whatever tongues or their content may be, why would God give such an apparently preposterous gift to the church?” It is necessary to begin the answer with the negative. In other words, one must begin by saying what the purpose is not.

It would seem from Acts 1:5 that the gift of tongues indicated Spirit baptism. Spirit baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit in uniting or identifying a believer or believers with Christ to form the body of Christ and to join believers with Christ in His death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of God.[21] In Acts 2 the speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit did occur simultaneously, but this does not mean tongues is an evidence of Spirit baptism. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians makes this clear. In 1 Corinthians 12:13 Paul states that all believers are baptized by the Holy Spirit into one body. But in the same chapter he asks the rhetorical question, “All do not speak with tongues, do they?” (v. 30). This translation correctly shows that Paul was expecting a negative answer. Furthermore, Spirit baptism is never repeated in a believer’s life, but the experience of speaking in tongues in the Apostolic Age was repeatable. This is seen in comparing the Book of Acts with 1 Corinthians 1:12-14. Converts who spoke in tongues are mentioned only in Acts 2, 10, and 19, but all who trusted in Christ were Spirit baptized.

Someone may assert that because of Acts 2:11 the purpose of tongues was to proclaim the gospel.[22] But as has been seen already, this is never the subject of tongues. In fact, Paul asserted in 1 Corinthians 14:23 that if an unbeliever should come into the assembly and see and hear Christians speaking in tongues, the unbeliever would assume the believers were mad.

Because Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:4, “One who speaks in tongues edifies himself,” one might conclude that the purpose of tongues is self-edification, but that is precisely what Paul was not saying. A spiritual gift is for the purpose of edifying others (cf. 1 Cor. 14:3-6, 19). It is true that anytime a believer uses a spiritual gift he or she is blessed. Spiritual gifts, however, are given for the benefit of others not just self. Although Garland does not view Paul’s observation negatively, he does acknowledge that “at best, it serves the corporate good only indirectly because it is meaningful only to the individual who experiences it.”[23]

Occasionally, in conversation, someone will say, “Oh, I don’t speak in tongues in public; I only do so in my private devotions. It is my own prayer language.” It is correct to say tongues may be used to express prayer (1 Cor. 14:14). The idea of tongues being used in private is somewhat fortified by 1 Corinthians 14:18, where Paul wrote, “I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all.” Two responses are in order. First, there is no instance in the New Testament of anyone speaking in tongues in private; it is always public. Furthermore, tongues “are for a sign” (v. 22), which indicates tongues were meant to be public. Second, when Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than all of them he was not necessarily talking about private devotions. He probably was looking back to 1 Corinthians 13:1, where he discussed the degree of the gift of tongues. This then would mean Paul could speak in more different languages than any of the Corinthians. No, the purpose of tongues was not for one to have a personal prayer language to be used in private.

What then is the purpose of tongues? The one passage that states this is 1 Corinthians 14:22, “So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers.” The ὥστε introducing verse 22 indicates that this is the conclusion to a preceding statement.[24]

Interestingly, the context of the prophecy of Isaiah 28:11-12 that Paul quoted compares the hearers of Isaiah to little children: “To whom would He teach knowledge? And to whom would He interpret the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just taken from the breast? For He says, ‘Order on order, order on order, line on line, a little here, a little there’ ” (vv. 9-10).[25]

Paul apparently paralleled this when he prefaced his quote of Isaiah by saying, “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature” (1 Cor. 14:20).[26] This comparison may or may not be significant, but both Isaiah and the apostle follow the references to childhood with a pronouncement of judgment. Isaiah said that if Judah would not listen to God’s simple, clear message, then God would address them through the tongue of a foreign conqueror. Just as the Northern Kingdom of Israel was carried into dispersion by the Assyrians in 722 BC, so the Southern Kingdom of Judah in the future would be judged by a foreign power. It is possible the foreign tongue Judah would hear was that of the Assyrians who would later engage Judah and ravage it (2 Kings. 18:13; Isa. 36:1-3). That “they will not listen” suits the idea that Isaiah was referring to the Assyrians rather than the Babylonians because even after the Assyrian invasion of Judah by the Assyrians, Judah did not repent. A century later they were deported to Babylon. It might be argued instead that the invader of Judah was Babylon because after the first deportation in 606 BC Judah did not repent.[27]

In either case the foreign language was an indication of God’s judgment on His people. Isaiah 28:11 uses the singular “tongue.” Paul loosely quoted Isaiah 28:11 (he changed “He will speak” to “I will speak”), saying, “other tongues” (plural) rather than Isaiah’s “foreign tongue” (singular). Ultimately, because of their disobedience, God’s chosen people had a number of conquerors and consequently heard many languages.

It is important to observe that Paul accurately quoted the phrase “to this people.” In Isaiah it meant God’s people, Judah; Paul would carry over the same idea. “This people” would also mean Jews in the Apostolic Age. This would maintain consistency of meaning.

The conclusion then is tongues are “for a sign” (1 Cor. 14:22). The construction is εἰς σημεῖον.[28] The purpose of tongues was to serve as a sign for unbelieving Jews.[29] It would hardly be a sign for unbelievers in Corinth as described by verse 23.[30] Unbelievers would conclude the Christian assembly was mad if they came into a tongues-speaking church.

The word “sign” (σημεῖον) has served several uses. It may indicate: (1) a token, a mark, or proof, (2) a miracle or wonder, (3) a portent of a coming event or (4) an indication of God’s working.[31] Here it looks at an indication of God’s working both in tongues and prophecies. The gift of tongues would indicate God was working to display His judgment on unbelieving Israel. The gift of prophecy, however, was primarily for the benefit of believers, those who accepted the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

A word needs to be said about the “not . . . but” construction in 1 Corinthians 14:22. Syntax indicates that “not” is not totally exclusive. For instance, in Matthew 6:19-20 the Lord Jesus enjoins his disciples not to lay up treasures on earth, but to lay up treasures for themselves in heaven. This does not mean his followers are not to have savings accounts or investments. In 2 Corinthians 12:14 Paul wrote that parents are to treasure up for children. To do this parents must have an inheritance for children (cf. Prov. 13:22). The same principle of syntax is seen in 1 Peter 3:3-4. If one took the words of Peter literally Christian wives would be obliged to join a nudist colony! This syntax is also illustrated in Romans 14:17. In each of these cases the point is one of emphasis. No one should make a primary goal of laying up treasures on earth, but instead all should emphasize using money for the cause of Christ. The same may be said in 1 Peter 3 about a woman’s outward appearance and her inward spiritual disposition. Romans 14 says that God’s kingdom will not stress foods but righteousness, peace, and joy. Likewise in 1 Corinthians 14:22 Paul was not saying tongues have no benefit for believers. On the contrary, the apostle said in the same chapter that tongues were beneficial to the assembly when they were translated (vv. 5, 12-13).

If Paul stated that tongues were for a sign to unbelieving Jews, what do tongues signify? The answer is judgment. As the Assyrian or Babylon tongues were a sign of judgment on Judah, so tongues were an indication of coming judgment on first-century Israel.

But does this fit with the tongues-speaking in Acts? The answer is yes. First, in Acts 2 Peter addressed the Jews on the Day of Pentecost. Bock correctly asserts, “The speech is clearly for all Jews from start to finish.”[32] What many miss is the heavy thud of judgment in Peter’s discourse. He began his speech with a quotation of Joel 2:28-32. It is true Joel predicted the pouring out of God’s Spirit, but the quotation moves on to and climaxes in judgment. The coming of the Holy Spirit precedes the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord is followed by the kingdom. The reason the events of Acts 2:19-20 did not occur is that Israel failed to repent. The coming of the kingdom is contingent upon Israel’s turning to Christ (cf. Acts 3:19-20; Matt. 23:39).

From the Joel quotation, which warned of a future judgment, Peter moved on to accuse Israel of putting Jesus the Messiah to death: “This one . . . you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death” (Acts 2:23). After describing the Lord’s resurrection and ascension, Peter declared, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (v. 36). Peter not only blamed the leadership but the whole house of Israel. The message is concluded with a plea in verse 40: “Be saved from this perverse generation!” The whole setting breathes of coming judgment. It is exactly as Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 14, tongues were a sign to Israel of coming judgment.

The second occurrence of tongues takes place in Acts 10 when Peter gives the gospel to the household of Cornelius. His sermon was interrupted by Gentiles speaking in tongues, a sign that Gentiles could be saved by faith as well as Jews (Acts 10:44-46; cf. 11:15-18). How is this an indication of judgment on Israel? The preceding chapters in Acts reported opposition by the leadership of Israel to the Christian movement (5:17-40; 6:12-8:3). Already in 6:12 the people themselves are implicated, but the blame is on the rulers. However, in 12:3 the people of Israel were pleased with the execution of James. Quite clearly, Israel’s leaders and the populace itself were in the process of rejecting the Messiah. The gift of tongues spoken by Cornelius and his household was a mark of judgment on Israel. It was a stage in the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy in Matthew 21:43, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” The conversion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 opened the floodgate for the world to trust in Christ and it was a portent of God’s turning from Israel (Rom. 11:25-36).

A third reference to tongues is in Acts 19, which involved twelve disciples in Ephesus who had known only of the message and ministry of John the Baptist. When they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and Paul laid his hands on them, they spoke in tongues (vv. 1-7). It may be assumed that these twelve were Jews.[33] The following paragraph discusses how Paul ministered in the synagogue for three months until Jewish opposition became so strong that Paul abandoned that venue. Paul normally would begin his ministry in a city by speaking first to Jews, and when they rejected his message, he would turn to the Gentiles. Furthermore, it is probable that the ones who would know about John the Baptist’s ministry would be Jews. A parallel exists with Apollos, a Jew (18:24-26). For these reasons it is most plausible and logical to assume these twelve in Ephesus were Jews.[34] If this is a correct conclusion, the number twelve would become significant. It would indicate that although the majority of Jews in Ephesus were rejecting Jesus as their Messiah (cf. 19:9), a remnant of Israel did believe. Luke, a disciple of Paul, would be well aware of Paul’s doctrine taught in Romans 11:1-5 that “there has come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice” (v. 5).

Why then did these twelve speak in tongues? It would be a sign of God's judgment on the majority of Israel as stated in Romans 11:25. The judgment would have been both present and future. Even to this day the Jews as a people have hardened hearts. But as the Lord Jesus prophesied, there was a judgment that would fall on Israel in AD 70 (cf. Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6). For the Jews who heard tongues, the gift would be a sign of judgment on Israel.

Conclusion

This article has attempted to show the gift of tongues was first given by the Holy Spirit to the church at Pentecost. The gift was the ability to speak a foreign language without having learned it or understanding what was spoken. The content involved praise of God and prayer. The reason God gave this gift was primarily to be a mark of judgment on Israel.

These conclusions have significant implications for today. First, meaningless gibberish is not a genuine manifestation of the gift of tongues. Second, because it was not to be used privately, one should not claim to use “tongues” in one’s personal devotional time. Thirdly, if tongues were a sign of judgment on Israel, in particular the destruction of Jerusalem, the purpose of tongues ceased in the first century.[35]

Notes

1. The term “tongues” is used in this article in the sense of a spiritual gift given by the Holy Spirit to a believer. Not all agree with this. Cf. Kenneth Berding, “Confusing Word and Concept in Spiritual Gifts: Have We Forgotten James Barr’s Exhortations?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43 (2001): 37-51.
2. Although it needs updating, see Watson E. Mills, Glossolalia: A Bibliography, Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 6 (New York: Mellon, 1985). Mills lists over 1,100 sources. Among recent commentaries in Acts, Craig Keener’s has the most extensive discussion on the topic at twenty-six pages, divided into the following sections: introductory remarks, proposed Jewish setting for tongues, Greek paganism, tongues in early Christianity, studies of modern glossolalia, other tongues as foreign languages, meaning and function of tongues in Acts, and tongues as Spirit baptism (Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 1, Introduction and 1:1-2:47 [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012], 806-31).
3. The references in this article give examples of various views.
4. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 201; G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1952), 93; A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, translated and revised from Grimm, Clavis Novi Testamenti by Joseph Henry Thayer (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 118; William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), 142; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 286, 299, 315, 327; Johannes Behm, “γλῶσσα,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1964), 1:722.
5. Joseph Addison Alexander, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Company, 1875; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 44-45; Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 93, 99-100, 102, 106; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles, trans. James Limburg, Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 17; Ernest Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 168-69; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker 1990), 78, 81; Gerhard Krodel, Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 78, 81; I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 69-71; David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 134; John B. Polhill, Acts (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 99-100; Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Acts of the Apostles (Chicago: Moody, 1961), 19.
6. Eckhard J. Schnabel, Acts (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 115.
7. Contra Ben Witherington, who asserts, “It is thus very possible, perhaps even probable, that Acts 10 is about ecstatic speech while Acts 2 is not because Acts 10 is not about breaking the human communication barrier caused by human languages” (The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998], 134). Witherington also suggests that Acts 2 does not describe the same phenomena as 1 Corinthians 14 but that Acts 10 does (ibid., 135).
8. Haenchen, Acts, 354; Bock, Acts, 401; and Kistemaker, Acts, 400, are not sure if the tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 are the same. Peterson is confident that the phenomena in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 are dissimilar (Acts, 134).
9. F. W. Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 288-89, 300, 317; Kistemaker, Acts, 78; Krodel, Acts, 19; Polhill, Acts, 99; Charles H. Talbert, Reading Corinthians (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 89.
10. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 286, 299-300, 327; Roy A. Harrisville, 1 Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), 229; Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1953), 301, 306, 308, 311. Godet takes it to be a supernatural language produced by the Holy Spirit. It would sound like something between singing and speech. The references to tongues in Acts have the same meaning (Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957], 320). Although Gordon Fee argues that the question of the nature of the languages is “irrelevant,” he ultimately concludes that the evidence favors nonhuman languages (The First Epistle to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], 598).
11. It seems soothsayers of all ages have resorted to such a method (cf. Isa. 8:19).
12. There is some evidence for speaking an angelic language in pseudepigraphic Jewish literature (e.g., Testament ofJob 48-51, Apocalypse of Zephaniah).
13. Gordon H. Clark, First Corinthians (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1975), 194, 205; Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 248-52; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Columbus: Wartburg, 1957), 504-11; Alfred Martin, First Corinthians (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1989), 109. Anthony Thiselton notes that it is commonly held that the Church Fathers, medieval authors, and Reformers held the human languages view (The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 973-74).
14. David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 584.
15. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 353. For literature discussing whether γλῶσσα is used of “mysterious utterances,” see William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952), 161. This is a translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen unchristlichen Literatur.
16. This is the only occurrence of μεγαλεῖος in the New Testament. It describes something that is magnificent. Bock states, “The term . . . is frequent in the LXX (Deut. 11:2 [cf. exodus and wilderness events]; Ps. 70:19 LXX [71:19 Eng.]; Sir. 18:4; 36:7; 42:21; conceptually Jer. 33:3)” (Bock, Acts, 104). Haenchen believes the reference is to “the sending and exaltation of Jesus” reserved as matter for Peter’s forthcoming speech (Acts, 171).
17. Contra Schnabel who argues that the mighty deeds “proclaim God’s new intervention in history—the powerful salvation through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah” (Acts, 120).
18. Haenchen, Acts, 171.
19. Bock draws a parallel with Luke 19:37-38 (Acts, 104).
20. It is quite impossible to defend the concept fully here, but prayer is simply making a request of God. Two factors lead to this conclusion. First, the sample prayer in Matthew 6:9-13a. It is composed of six requests—(1) “Make your name to be sanctified” (cf. Ezek. 36:23; Mal. 1:11), an event that will take place when Christ inaugurates his kingdom on earth. (2) “May your kingdom come” (3) “May your will be done as in heaven so also upon earth.” (4) “Give us today our bread for next day.” (5) “And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.” (6) “And do not lead us into temptation [evidently done by Satan], but deliver us from the evil one.” All six parts of the model prayer are requests—the first three for the coming of God’s kingdom on earth and the last three for the needs of the disciples until the kingdom comes. Again, this is a model prayer; this is how the Lord’s disciples are to pray! A second factor leads to the conclusion that prayer is simply asking God for something—the words for prayer all have in them the idea of requesting or asking. Interestingly in Philippians 4:6 Paul makes a distinction between “prayer and supplication” and “thanksgiving.” This implies thanksgiving is not the core of prayer, even though it is an essential for a walk with God. If prayer is defined as asking God for something, one could conclude that prayer is purely selfish. Of course it should not be so (cf. James 4:3). It is, however, a display of faith. Furthermore, the purpose of prayer ultimately is to glorify the Father (cf. John 14:13). God’s response to prayer reveals who he is.
21. Clark, First Corinthians, 236. See also Harold J. Ockenga, The Spirit of the Living God (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1947), 167, 171; Rene Pache, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody, 1954), 70-79; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 362-65; Merrill F. Unger, The Baptizing Work of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton: VanKampen, 1953), 7-27; John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit (Wheaton: VanKampen, 1954), 138-50.
22. Craig Keener suggests that tongues are evidence that “Luke’s particular emphasis regarding the Spirit is empowerment for cross-cultural prophetic witness (Acts 1:8), and nothing could better symbolize empowerment to cross such barriers than the ability to speak by the Spirit’s inspiration in languages one has not learned” (Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Volume 1, 804-5).
23. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 634.
24. Lenski, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 600.
25. Delitzsch says, “They sneer at the prophet, that intolerable moralist. . . . Are they little children that have just been weaned . . . and who must let themselves be tutored?” (Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah, transl. James Martin [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954], at 2:6-7).
26. There is a spiritual principle that those who do not claim to be wise and intelligent are the ones who become mature. The wise in Judah did not look down on Isaiah’s teachings; likewise the spiritually mature would accept Paul’s words (cf. Matt. 11:25-26; 1 Cor. 1:18-31; 2:6-9). The Corinthians were not to be proud of the gift of tongues; their humility would be childlike.
27. Lenski takes the foreign power to be Assyria (1 and 2 Corinthians, 599); John MacArthur believes it is Babylon (1 Corinthians [Chicago: Moody, 1984], 381).
28. The construction εἰσιν εἰς signifies “to serve for” (F. Blass and E. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. Robert W. Funk [Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1961], 80).
29. MacArthur comes to the same conclusion, but he adds two more purposes—a sign of blessing and a sign of authority (1 Corinthians, 381-83). It would seem better to say these were things that accompanied the gift of tongues but hardly purposes of the gift.
30. Lenski takes the view that the tongues were a sign to unbelieving Corinthians. He explains verse 23 by saying, “While it is God who speaks through tongues in Corinth even as he did in Judea through the Assyrians, the Corinthians must now see that the more this unintelligible speaking is increased, the effect produced upon unbelievers must of necessity be the reverse of what they would desire” (1 and 2 Corinthians, 602). Garland argues that “glossolalia as a sign is to be taken in a negative sense with regard to unbelievers because it hardens them in their unbelief, as it did Israel in Isa. 28 (Rengstorf, TDNT 8:259; Sweet 1966-67: 244-45; Dunn 1975: 230-32; Grudem 1979: 390-91). It is a sign of alienation that will lead to judgment. On the other hand, glossolalia cannot be a negative sign for believers, because they are already believers. To Christians, speaking in tongues is a manifestation of the Spirit, though they may not understand what is said” (1 Corinthians, 584).
31. Cf. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 405; Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 920-21; Hodge, First Corinthians, 294-96. See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 649.
32. Bock, Acts, 110.
33. So Paul Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 128-29. However, the issue of identity is debated.
34. “If these men were Jews, which is probable” (Everett F. Harrison, Interpreting Acts: The Expanding Church [Grand Rapids: Academie, 1986], 288). Bock does not say these are Jews, but he does acknowledge many Jews made Ephesus their home (Acts, 586).
35. MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, 382.