Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

SPEAKING IN
TONGUES
Bblica! Spenking in Tonques and
Contemperan' Glossolalia
Gerhard F. Hasel
ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

MONOGRAPHS, VOL. 1
(ATSM, 1)
Adventist Theological Society Publications

Berrien Springs, MI 4 9 1 0 3
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Biblical Speaking in Tongues ai
Contem porary G lossolalia
Gerhard F. Hasel
Adventist Theological Society Publica!

Berrien Springs, MI 4 9 1 0 3
Cover design by
Giselle Sarli
by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1991

by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1994
All Rights Reserved
ISSN 1059-7905
To purchase a copy of this book

mail your prepaid order
($ 1 1 .9 5 , postage paid)
to:
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
9 9 8 4 Red Bud Trail
Berrien Springs, MI
4 9 1 0 3 , USA
CONTENTS
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
Chapter I
11
CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN AND NONCHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA

.
1. Glossolalia n Contemporary Christianity
2. Glossolalia n Contemporary Non-Christian
Religions
3. Glossolalia n Contemporary Linguistic Study
4. Glossolalia in Contemporary Experience
5. Glossolalia and Contemporary Doctrinal Disunity
6. Glossolalia and the Testing of Tongues
Endnotes
Chapter II
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE

1. Greek Usage of Glssa Lalen in the New
Testa me nt
2. Alleged Glossolalia Outside the New Testament
3. The Usage of Glssa and Lalo Outside the
New Testament
4. The Usage of Glssa Lalen in the Septuagint
5. Modern Hypotheses for Glossolalia as
Unintelligible Speech
6. Conclusions
Endnotes
17
20
24
27
31
35
35
37
41
43
47
49
51
52
54
55
Chapter III
SPEAKINGIN TONGUES IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Chapter IV
Historical Setting
Jess' Prediction of Speaking in New Tongues
The Meaning of the Word "Tongues"
The Meaning of the Word "New"
The Purpose of Speaking in New Tongues
59
60
61
61
63
Endnotes
64
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2
67
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
67
68
69
74
75
Historical Setting
The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit
The Nature of Speaking in Tongues
The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues
The Scoffers' Reaction to Speaking in Tongues
Speaking in Tongues and Modern Source
Hypotheses
7. Conclusions
Endnotes
Chapter V
Chapter VI
59
76
82
83
91
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Historical Setting
Linkages Between Acts 2 and Acts 10
The Nature of Speaking in Tongues
The Purpose of Speaking in Tongues
Conclusions
91
92
93
94
94
Endnotes
95
97
1. Historical Setting
2. Ephesian "Disciples," Christian Baptism
and the Holy Spirit
3. Speaking in Tongues and Prophesying
4. Does Spirit-Baptism Result in Glossolalia?
5. Conclusions
97
Endnotes
98
101
103
104
105
Chapter Vil
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14

1. Historlcal Setting
2. Surveyof 1 Corinthians 12-14
a. 1 Corinthians 12
b. 1 Corinthians 13
c. 1 Corinthians 14
3. Tongues-Speaking Language n Modern
Translations
4. Tongues-SpeakingTerminology
5. Tongues-Speaking and the Language of Angels
6. Tongues-Speaking and Speaking Mysteries
7. Tongues-Speaking and Understanding
8. Tongues-Speaking and Hellenistic
Mystery Religions
9. Tongues-Speaking and the Upbuilding of the
Church
10. Tongues-Speaking as a Sign for Unbelievers
11. Tongues-Speaking and Interpretation
12. Tongues-Speaking and Prophecy
13. Tongues-Speaking and Prayer
14. Tongues-Speaking and Orderly Worship
15. Conclusions
Endnotes
109
111
112
113
115
115
116
118
122
123
126
129
133
136
141
144
145
147
150
154
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
165
INDEX
174
PREFACE
There s nothing more pervasive n contemporary Christianity than "speaking in tongues," technically designated as
glossolalia. This topic s part of the larger context of the
charismatic movement. It has held the attention of the author
of this book for about three decades. He has studied this
topic over the years from the Scriptural evidence as well as
the mltiple and variegated aspects in contemporary discussions in church commissions, scholarly investigations, and
personal contacts around the world.
In the last thirty years the charismatic movement has
experienced three "waves" of development. The "first wave"
appeared around 1900 and manifested itself in the traditional
Pentecostal churches in which "speaking in tongues" is
perceived as the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the key to
greater spiritual power.
The "second wave" showed up in the 1960s when
"speaking in tongues" entered most traditional churches of
Christianity, including Methodism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, the Baptist denominations, the Romn Catholic Church
and so on. This wave is known as neo-Pentecostalism or the
charismatic renewal movement.
The "third wave" developed in the 1980s. It too is part of the charismatic movement
worldwide. It is characterized, among other things, by an
emphasis on so-called power evangelism where the forc of
prayer is utilized, particularly for the purpose of miraculous
healing. A significant part of the current "third wave" of the
charismatic renewal movement is the celebration church
movement. The inspiration of the latter is charismatic church
renewal as is noted by "third wave" writers.
It is mportant to recognize that these three "waves" are
a part of the charismatic movement in Christianity at large.
By means of these "waves" nearly every Christian denomina
ro n is being penetrated with the charismatic movement in its
various shapes and forms. The forces of the charismatic
movement are immense and often quite adaptable to new
settings. Thus there is this larger contemporary context of
"speaking in tongues" in the charismatic movement in
Christianity.
10
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Various parts of this book have been presented in formal

and informal ways in a variety of church settings. Appreciation goes to many people for the encouragement and support
for this project. I wish to thank Dr. Jack Blanco, chairperson
of the Adventist Theological Society Publications Committee
and its members, for the encouragement to have this book
appear in the series of the "Adventist Theological Society
Monographs." Dr. Gordon Hyde and William Fagal have gone
the extra mile in making this book more readable by going
through the manuscript and offering ma,ny learned and
valuable suggestions. Reinaldo Siqueira and Koot van Wyk,
doctoral students at Andrews University, have checked
references and engaged in other technical assistance. Mrs.
Betty Jean Mader has provided fine practical advice and
profound Computer skills without which this book would not
have seen such speedy publication. I greatly benefitted from
the suggestions of many people with whom I have discussed
aspects of this topic over the years and whose ames are too
many to mention. Of course, it is understood that I assume
all responsibilities for the content and the limitations of this
book.
Constant encouragement and understanding was provided
by my family. The preparation of this work has absorbed
more leisure time than one anticipates that rightly beionged to
my wife, Hilde. In a real sense her love and unselfishness are
a key contribution to this book. Thus I wish to dedcate this
book to Hilde as a worthwhile retum for her nvestment in
love and support for me and for God's cause.
Gerhard F. Hasel
Theological Seminary
Andrews University
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon of "speaking in tongues," technically

designated as "glossolalia," has been manifested n nearly
every Christian denomination in recent years. Some churches
have been divided on how to handle this manifestation. There
are churches where it has been totally rejected and n others
t has been uneasily tolerated or quietly supported. Other
churches again have embraced t wholeheartedly. Some
congregations have claimed a sweet enrichment and others
have been split over it. Glossolalia remains a controversial
subject despite its occurrence growth and popularity.
The widespread practice of "tongues" Is pervasive in
worldwide Christianity. It is unquestionable the fastest
growing phenomenon not only among the traditional Pentecostal churches and neo-Pentecostalists, but also among
various other charismatics and renewal movements. There
are estimates that between 140 and 370 million Christians
engage in glossolalia worldwide. These figures suggest that
between 7.7% and 20.5% of all Christians engage in glossola
lia, if one accept the figure of 1.8 billion as the total number
of Christians on this globe.
A whole new set of questions is being asked today
regarding glossolalia. Aside from the issues of whether the
Christian usage of glossolalia is from God or, as others hold,
from Satan or to be connected with the demonic; whether it
is a supernatural phenomenon; whether it is the result of a
trance-state, a stimulation of Boca's Area in the left cerebral
hemisphere, an altered State of consciousness, a form of
hypnosis or hysteria, or a process of learned behavior, there
is a another matter that cuts to the very core of the modern
concern-namely whether the modern phenomenon of glosso
lalia is identical with the gift of the Holy Spirit manifested on
the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Most modern charismatics
say that present day glossolalia is not identical with the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. They claim instead
that it is identical w ith Paul's descriptions of the spiritual gifts
12
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
in 1 Cor 12-14. Is contemporary glossolalia as practiced

among Christians different from the gift "speaking in tongues"
referred to in Acts 2? Are they affirming that there are tw o
different kinds of "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament, one in Acts 2 and another one in 1 Cor 12-14? Why do
modern glossolalists now usually suggest that they speak in
the "language of angels" whereas they said before that they
spoke in known foreign languages? Is t true that modern
glossolalia is a spiritual and not a rational language? These
questions and issues are but a small sample of those that
many Christians are asking about today. These matters and
many more deserve to be addressed with candor and honesty.
Charismatics usually consider "speaking in tongues" as
the fulfillment of the Latter Rain promised in Joel 2:28-29.
They believe that glossolalia is a final and massive manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the end of time before the Second
Corning of Christ. It is a major sign, and for some the sign, of
the end.
Thoughtful non-charismatic Christians everywhere, who
do not belong to Pentecostalism and have not become
engaged in neo-Pentecostalism, which developed from the
1960s onward, and are not part of the charismatic renewal
movements of the 1970s and 1980s, wonder how they
should understand these unique modern developments.
Laypersons, church leaders on all levels, theology students
and pastors of more traditional Christian churches ask what
to make of neo-Pentecostalism and the modern "charismatic
renewal movements" where "speaking in tongues," glossola
lia, is an essential f not the key element. People everywhere
ask about "speaking in tongues," its origin, its meaning in
personal life, its purpose for the church, and its extraordinary
explosin in nearly every denomination. Is this the foundation
of Christian and non-Christian ecumenism?
Many of the televangelists, radio preachers, faith healers,
and others who are Pentecostalists or charismatics engage
from time to time in glossolalic speech in their mass media
proclamations. They contribute in no small measure to the
INTRODUCTION
13
spread of and nterest n the phenomenon of "speaking in

tongues." More than ever before "speaking in tongues" is a
phenomenon that has aroused the interest of the masses.
The largest church in the world, which I was able to visit
once, is the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, Korea, with
400,000 members in 1984, pastored by Paul Yonggi Cho and
a pastoral staff in excess of 320 persons. A key element in
this congregation is an emphasis on church growth coupled
with glossolalia, faith healing and miracles. Other megachurches and metachurches are "tongues-speaking." Charismatic movements are so extensive that a professional society
under the ame of "Society for Pentecostal Studies" was
formed.
There is also an explosin of literature from so many
quarters that average Christians, even scholars, are overwhelmed. It has become nearly impossible for them to keep
up with the rapid pace of publications on the subject. We
have only to remind ourselves that a 1985 bibliography on
"speaking in tongues," which Watson E. Mills published under
the title, Glossolalia: A Bibliography, has no less than 1,150
entries. This does not account for the hundreds of tems that
have been published since. The field of Pentecostal and
charismatic renewal movements is so vast that the year 1988
saw a major publishing house in the United States come out
with a Dlctlonary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements,
eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Zondervan
Publishing House). I have greatly benefitted from a vast
number of these resources in the form of books and articles
that I have studied for more than tw o decades.
A t one time, people who were nonparticipants in the
charismatic movements designated those who were classical
Pentecostals in North America as "holy rollers," a term that
was used pejoratively. Today respectability for charismatic
tongues-speakers is higher than at any other time. When the
faith healer, Oral Roberts, left his Pentecostal denominaron in
1967 and joined a prestigious Methodist Church in Tulsa,
Oklahoma-subsequently building Oral Roberts University for
200 million dollarsit was clear that "tongues-speaking"
14
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
charismatics had achieved a new level of respectability.

This does not mean that all charismatics are welcome at
every place and n every denomination. In the latter 1980s
three faculty members of the large dispensationalist Dallas
Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, started "speaking in
tongues" as part of their charismatic experience. They
subsequently resigned under pressure from their institution.
Nevertheless, regardless of what one's personal convictions
or feelings are on the subject of "speaking in tongues"
(glossolalia), there is by and large a respectability accorded to
charismatic Christians that did not exist in the same way
before.
Very few people are aware of the newest developments
in traditional Pentecostalism and particularly in the recent neoPentecostalism. Fewer people yet are informed about the vast
number of new insights gained from the most recent literature
on "speaking in tongues," or glossolalia. Extensive research
has been done by psychologists and psychiatrists on persons
practicing glossolalia. Linguists of various specialties have
investigated the linguistic nature of glossolalia as a language
among Christians and non-Christians, including pagan glossolalists. On the sociocultural side studies have demonstrated
that glossolalia is not a uniquely Christian practice. Large
numbers of studies have investigated various Biblical aspects
of evidence on "speaking in tongues" using a variety of
approaches and methodologies. The conclusions of these
studies are by no means identical or uniform, reflecting their
respective methodological biases and other factors.
The approach chosen for the topics of this volume has
been to move into a description of the modern phenomena of
glossolalia as t developed in the twentieth century. Subse
quently we do turn to the New Testament in an endeavor to
discover what this part of the Word of God has to tell us
about Biblical "speaking in tongues." In accordance with this
methodology we depict in the first chapter the rise of "speak
ing in tongues" at the turn of the twentieth century, the
appearance of glossolalia in non-Christian religions and the
study of glossolalia in both Christian and pagan religions by
INTRODUCTION
15
various authoritative scientists and scholars. Then we turn

our attention to the practice of glossolalia n the experience of
many modern religious settings and follow up with the
questions raised regarding the disunity in teaching and
doctrine among those who engage n glossolalia. This chapter
concludes with a section on testing of tongues and the way
nterpreters of tongues engage in their art.
The second chapter gives major emphasis to a linguistic
study of the terminology used in the Bible for "speaking in
tongues." The purpose of this chapter s to discover what
language is used in the New Testament and whether the
usage of this language for this Biblical gift is employed in nonChristian texts of the surrounding ancient world. The ultmate
aim is to discover whether ancient religions, or practices
among ancients, are dentical to those in what the New
Testament describes as "speaking in tongues" and whether
the New Testament practice is in continuity with practices in
ancient pagan religions.
The remaining five chapters are devoted respectively to
a detailed study of the five passages in the New Testament,
Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1-13, 10:44-48; 19:1-7; and 1 Cor 1214, that deal directly and explicitly w ith "speaking in
tongues." The purpose of each of these five chapters is to
study each passage in its own context, to relate it to previous
investigations and yet to let it stand in its Biblical context.
Particular focus is given 1) to discovering the origin of
"speaking in tongues," 2) to determining from the Biblical
context the purpose for which this gift had been given, 3) to
relating it to the larger topic of spiritual gifts, and 4) to
ascertaining whether the "speaking in tongues" phenomenon
in the New Testament is the same in all passages or whether
the same word may mean something different, particularly in
1 Cor 12-14. Many charismatics and modern scholars believe
that there is a distinction between the passages in Acts and
1 Cor 12-14, even though the same original language is used
in them. This matter is sensitive but decisive, from many
points of view, to the modern debate on the nature of
glossolalia.
16
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
The overall purpose s to find out whether the modern

phenomenon of "speaking n tongues" (glossolalia), s to be
dentified with "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament.
If it is, then we seek to know whether it functions n the same
way now as in the New Testament. If it is not, then we need
to understand what modern glossolalia is and how the
Christian is to relate to it.
We trust that in this modest effort on our part our Father
in heaven and our Lord Jess Christ will be glorified. After all,
the Holy Spirit is promised to God's people in the last days
and the Latter Rain of that Spirit (cf. Joel 2:28-29) is desired
by every sincere believer.
CHAPTER I
CONTEM PORARY CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN

GLO SSO LA LIA
The contemporary phenomenon of "speaking n tongues,"

which s practiced by millions of Christians around the world
at present, is of recent origin n Christianity. Even though
there have been attempts by the score to demnstrate that
the phenomenon of glossolalia in modern times has roots
going back for centuries in Christian practice, it remains
certain that it is of recent origin, as will be shown below. The
practice of "speaking in tongues," or glossolalia, is part of the
Pentecostalism of the twentieth century and the charismatic
movement that has spread beyond traditional Pentecostal
churches since the 1960s. It is growing at a most rapid pace
and seems to have become a part of nearly every Christian
denomination around the world.
In view of this rapidly spreading phenomenon, there are
more and more Christians asking a set of new questions.
Bible-believing Christians are asking, Where does "speaking in
tongues" orignate from? Who engages in the practice of
"speaking in tongues"? Do all Christians need to "speak in
tongues"? Is this "speaking in tongues" necessary for a
person to be saved? Is "speaking in tongues" the same as the
baptism of the Holy Spirit? Is "speaking in tongues" the
outpouring of the Latter Rain before Jess Christ returns in
the clouds of heaven? Who endorses "speaking in tongues"?
Does "speaking in tongues" lead to a closer walk with Christ?
Does the Holy Spirit reveal "new truths" to the one "speaking
in tongues"? If "speaking in tongues" derives from the Holy
Spirit, does it lead into a full knowledge of all truth of Scripture? Is "speaking in tongues" the future means to unite all
Christians into one single church? These questions are but a
few of the ones most frequently asked today.
There is, however, another set of questions that is asked
regardingthiscontemporary phenomenon, becauseglossolalia,
or "speaking in tongues," remains for many people a modern
18
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
enigma.1 Bible-believing Christians ask one set of questions

which need to be answered from the Bible and a Christian
context.
In recent years glossolalia--as we shall cali the modern
phenomenon of "speaking in tongues"--has received much
attention from experts in various fields of study such as
scholars, linguists, anthropologists, and scientists. For nearly
a century these experts have engaged in scholarly and
scientific studies of the phenomenon of glossolalia. They
deserve to be heard as well. What have they found? How
does it relate to what s already known? What nfluence have
these studies had on those who engage in glossolalia?
For example, glossolalia has been studied by linguists and
anthropologists who attempt to discover whether and/or to
what extent it is linked to modern or ancient languages and
language structures. Glossolalia has been nvestigated by
psychologists and psychiatrists who wish to find out whether
it is an aberrant or semi-normal psychological form of human
behavior.2 Glossolalia has been scrutinized in recent years by
sociologists and behavioral scientists who seek to discover its
place in various areas of socio-behavioral patterns of human
behavior.3
Another group of researchers has nvestigated the
relationship of glossolalia as practiced by Christians with
glossolalic phenomena that seem identical in non-Christian
religions in the world. It is known now that priests of nonChristian religions, witch doctors, shamans, and other
religious persons speak on various ceremonial and religious
occasions in glossolalic utterances that have characteristics
identical w ith Christian glossolalia. These observations have
raised totally new issues and have put glossolalia in a much
broader religious context that can no longer be ignored.
It is an undeniable fact of the 1990s that scores of
researchers and scientists have made great advances in
unravelling the glossolalic experience in the modern world. Do
their voices deserve to be heard? Do they bring to the
attention of the serious person aspects of the phenomena of
glossolalia that should no longer be avoided or ignored? It is
our responsibility to inform ourselves on these new issues and
to bring them to bear on New Testament "speaking in
CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 19

tongues."
The essential question remains, Are New Testament
"speaking in tongues" and modern glossolalia dentical or is
there a radical difference between them? This vexing issue
deserves renewed attention n view of the new findings in so
many fields.
We need to define our terms now. The modern phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" is most appropriately designated
from a formal point of view as glossolalia (the ame of which
is derived from the Greek terms glssa, "tongue, language,"
and the verb lalo, "to speak"). Glossolalia is defined in the
recent authoritative Encydopedia o f Religin as a practice of
"nonordinary speech behavior that is institutionalized as a
religious ritual in numerous Western and non-Western religious
communities."4 This up-to-date definition, not typical of
older definitions and anomalous in terms of glossolalia is being
a typically Christian phenomenon, alerts the reader to the
broader picture that has emerged in very recent years in the
study of glossolalia.
A renowned linguist who has studied Christian glossolalia
extensively gave a similar defintion, describing it as "a
meaningless but phonetically structured human utterance
believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no
systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or
dead."5 This definition is based on a study of Christian
"speaking in tongues" that lasted for about a decade or more.
It has had a profound influence on Pentecostalism and the
charismatic community. Most charismatics today are aware
that what is happening in "speaking in tongues," or better,
glossolalia, can no longer be defined as the speaking of an
unknown living or dead language. Therefore, some have
suggested that they speak in the language of angels and not
of humans.
Both definitions indcate that glossolalia is "non-ordinary
speech behavior" in any Christian or non-Christian religious
community and that as far as Christians are concerned it is a
"human utterance" that bears "no systematic resemblance to
any natural language, living or dead."
Glossolalia is traditionally identified with "speaking in
tongues" mentioned in the New Testament. It has been held
20
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
widely that th phenomenon today is the gift of the Holy

Spirit manifested again n the Christian community at large.
For our purposes we shall refer to the modern phenomenon of
unintelligible utterances n religious communities as glossolalia
and to the New Testament phenomenon as "speaking n
tongues." This seems to be sound since the New Testament
itself uses the designation of "speaking in tongues."
This brief overview of some new matters involving
glossolalia w ith their wide-ranging implications calis for more
detailed attention which we attempt to provided in the
subsequent pages.
1. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY

For most Christians glossolalia6 is known as a typically
Christian phenomenon, i.e. an experience of the so-called
Pentecostal churches and neo-Pentecostal charismatics in
many denominations. Glossolalia is likewise a phenomenon
that is a characteristic of most churches, denominations, and
groups in the modern "charismatic movement." A general
umbrella term for all of the latter is "charismatic renewal
movement".7
Historically glossolalia and Pentecostalism are modern
phenomena,8 leaving aside the Shakers and Irvingites of the
nineteenth century, that are said to have begun in 1906 at
312 Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California, in an abandoned
African Methodist Episcopal church.9 Pentecostalism was
launched there as a worldwide movement from the Azusa
Street mission.
However, "speaking in tongues," or as we more correctly
desgnate it in harmony with the definition above, "glossola
lia," had its antecedent in 1900 in Kansas. A Methodist
minister. Charles Parham, who had started a Bible school,
Bethel College (which closed in 1901), in Topeka, Kansas,
was hoping to revitalize the church. On Dec. 3 1 ,1 9 0 0 , New
Year's night, he laid hands on some of his students. It is
reported that Miss Agnes Oznam "began to speak in tongues"
on that night.10 Others also began to "speak in tongues,"
that is, they engaged in glossolalic speech, "and making

sounds that were not discernible as normal language to the
others present."11 Later when Parham moved to Texas an
African-American student, William J. Seymour, was in contact
with him. On April 9, 1906, the "first Pentecostal effusion
carne"12 to Los Angeles at 214 Bonnie Brae Street.13 It
nvolved Seymour and the group moved soon to 312 Azusa
Street, "where the meetings continued for the next three
years."14 Aside from Seymour there was again Agnes
Ozman and also Jennie Moore, both of whom engaged in
glossolalia in the Azusa Street meetings.15 This is the
beginning of modern glossolalia in Christianity in which many
other people subsequently entered into from all over the
United States and the world.
Modern Pentecostalism with its most typical characteristic
of glossolalia was thus born at the turn of the 20th century.16 It had its roots in the 19th century Holiness Movement. Watson E. Mills States that from its beginnings
"certainly there was no more controversial aspect of charismatic [Christian] religin than speaking in tongues."17
An issue that most students of glossolalia in charismatic
Christian faith are hardly aware of is the historical fact that
the first persons who practiced glossolalia, that is, the
students of Parham, did not study the subject of tongues in
the Bible to begin with. Recent investigations demnstrate
that glossolalia did not happen as a result of the study of
Scripture. "Speaking in tongues," or glossolalia, simply
happened, and subsequently students of Parham studied the
Bible to find support for this new phenomenon that took place
in their meetings. A very early article entitled, "Tongues As
A Sign," from September 1906, finishes with a revealing
statement, "We have been running off w ith blessings and
anointings with God's power, instead of tarrying until Bible
evidence of Pentecost carne."18 A key Pentecostal historian
reports, "It is significant that this thought [that they spoke
w ith other tongues in Acts] developed, not in a revival
meeting, but in a Bible school [Parham's Bethel College], not
in the midst of camp meeting excitement, but in a group of
serious persons who were pondering thoughtfully the relationship of this experience [of glossolalia] to other events,
attempting to give it theological substance."19 In other
22
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
words, first carne the glossolalia experience, then students of

Parham's Bible school were asked by him to explore the book
of Acts to find Biblical evidence for the glossolalia experience.
Thus Parham and Seymour became convinced that glossolalia
was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that glossolalia was to
be identified with the New Testament phenomenon of
speaking n tongues.20
From the first occurrence of glossolalia there was the
personal conviction that it carne from God and that the Holy
Spirit was manifested through glossolalia. As a result, in the
mind of charismatics there are tw o sources for the belief that
glossolalia was Holy-Spirit-originated. The first was the
subjective and personal conviction that it derived from the
Holy Spirit and the second was the subsequent nterpretation
of Scripture that "speaking in tongues" in Acts and 1 Cor 14
s the same as the glossolalia now practiced.21
A t this point we need to draw tw o important conclusions
regarding Christian glossolalia: 1) Whereas Christian glossolalists have claimed from the beginning that there is Biblical
support for glossolalia, the fact is undeniable--and we do not
say this unkindly-that modern glossolalia does not derive from
the study of the Bible but the Bible has been used subsequently to give theological and scriptural support for its use and to
give it authenticity. 2) Charismatics who engage in glossolalia
point to tw o sources normally for the authenticity of "speak
ing in tongues." One is the source of personal conviction and
the other is the subsequent source of Scripture support.
These tw o sources are often in tensin with each other w ith
regard to which of them should have primacy or first rank.
Since, in historie Protestant Christianity, the Bible and the
Bible only is the source of all doctrine and practice, glossolalists usually find the source of personal experience taking
precedence.
In the 1960s the charismatic movement, with glossolalia,
entered a second stage or "second wave"22 in Christian
circles in that it broke out of the traditional Holiness23 and
Pentecostal24 churches and entered many traditional churches. This outbreak into more traditional churches is usually
referred to as neo-Pentecostalism, or "denominational Pentecostalism."25
It is also designated as the "charismatic

renewal movement."
Beginning n the year 1967, Romn Catholics have
become a part of neo-Pentecostalism.26 Glossolalia is part
of the "Catholic charismatic renewal movement."27 It seems
to have appeared first among students, priests and nuns of
Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana.28 From there
it spread to various campuses of Catholic universities in the
USA and beyond.29 At the ouset various Romn Catholic
bishops, while still cautious, said that "the movement should
a t-this point not be inhibited but allowed to develop."30
Shortly thereafter the Pope designated Cardinal Joseph
Suenens to take the leadership of Romn Catholic neoPentecostals.31 The Jesuit scholar P. Damboriena reported
some time ago, in the very early stages Catholic neo-Pentecostals, that Catholics would "get together in the chapis of
secluded monasteries, spend long vigils speaking and singing
in tongues."32 It is reported in 1991 that "in the nearly 25
years since it began, the charismatic renewal movement
within the Catholic church has grown to touch some 6 million
to 10 million Catholics around the w orld."33 Today prelates,
priests, nuns and Catholic lay persons are part of this renewal
movement. It has had the blessings of the various popes
since it began.
While there seem to be strains among some smaller neoPentecostal Catholic communities, there appers to be no
lasting change. It is reported that "over the years, the center
of Catholic charismatic renewal has shifted from covenant
communities to parish prayer groups and diocesan renewal
committees."34
There has also been much interest in the World Council of
Churches in the charismatic renewal movement.35 It would
take us too far afield to describe the large numbers of neoPentecostal advances made in recent years. It is pointed out
time and again that neo-Pentecostalism, or the "charismatic
renewal movement" as it is now often referred to, is the
fastest growing segment in Christianity at large. "Mission
statistician David Barrett estimates [in 1991] that of the 1.8
billion people who cali themselves Christians today, about 372
million identify themselves as charismatic/Pentecostal."36
Based on these statistics, about 20% of all who cali them-
24
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
selves Christians are Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal.

It s not our purpose to trace the phenomenal growth of
the glossolalic movement n Christianity at large. Many
experts conclude that neo-Pentecostalism, or the charismatic
renewal of the "second wave" of charismatics, s the fastest
growing "charismatic" element in Christian churches worldwide.
While this is true in the modern situation, it should not
deter us from recognizing that glossolalia does not seem to be
a uniquely Christian phenomenon. As we shall see below,
there are evidences that suggest that the "glossolalic"
phenomenon is practiced by persons in other living nonChristian religions also. This may come as a surprise to most
Christians who wish to see it purely in terms of the gifts-ofthe-Spirit passages in the New Testament and as a manifesta
ro n of the Holy Spirit or as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit."
It seems appropriate now to turn our attention to current
non-Christian religions and the manifestation of glossolalia in
them. Although it is not possible to be exhaustive here, we
may at least be representative in the following discussion.
2. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY NONCHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

Recent studies have indicated that glossolalia is not a
uniquely Christian practice. Glossolalia is practiced by a large
number of native non-Christian living religions around the
world. R. P. Spittler writes in the 1988 edition of the Dictionary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, "Whatever
its origin, glossolalia is a human phenomenon, not limited to
Christianity or even to religious behavior among humankind."37
Felicitas D. Goodman has engaged in extensive research
in glossolalia. She reports that glossolalia is found among
"the Inuit (Eskimos), the Saami (Lapps), Chukchi, the Khanty
(Ostiaks), the Yakuts, and the Evenki, [who] use in their
religious rituals secret languages that consist of a mixture of
nonsense syllables and the vernacular."38

There are many examples of unintelligible sounds or
glossolalia from all continents and the native religions practiced on them.39 For nstance, "in Japan glossolalia s
known to occur in small cultic groups, during sorcerous
seances in Hokkaido and northern Honsh, and in the postwar
sect known as the Dancing Religin. A full range of glossolalic phenomena is said to occur frequently during the ceremonies of the small cult led by a Genji Yanagida of Moj City,
Fukuoka Prefecture, and in other groups similar to t."40 It
is reported that among the Palaung peoples of Burma "a
person possessed by a Pal-speaking bre, or 'black magician,'
is impelled to talk in the magician's tongue, although at
ordinary times he is unable to speak it." 41
In Ethiopia in the zr cult, "the shamans talk to the zrs
(spirits) in a 'secret language'."42 In this nstance the picture
seems to involve spirit-worship.
Goodman notes, "Possession is one of the most frequent
ritual occasions for the use of glossolalia. In possession, an
entity from the sacred dimensin of reality is experienced as
penetrating the respective person."43 She points out that
the Spirit is experienced "as power, not as personality, but
other spiritsfor nstance, those of the dead of the Trobriand
Islanders, ancestral spirits in Africa, and various spirits in
Haitian Voodoo--have pronounced personality traits that are
expressed in glossolalia. . . . The voice of the possessing
being differs from that of the possessed practitioner."44 This
sounds much like the phenomena associated with seances in
spiritualism. " SpirituaUstic glossolalia and related phenomena
among spiritual mdiums were among the first studied by
psychologists near the beginning of the twentieth century,"
writes R. P. Spittler.45
These are but a few of the many known examples of
glossolalia from modern non-Christian religions.46 L. Carlyle
May shows that glossolalia in non-Christian religions is
present in "Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arctic regions, China,
Japan, Korea, Arabia, and Burma, among other places."47
It is also present extensively in African tribal religions.48 As
noted above it is not our purpose to be exhaustive, but to
reveal that the phenomenon of glossolalia is not unique to
Christianity.
26
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
The commonality of glossolalia n both Christian and living

non-Christian (pagan) religions raises a whole new set of
questions. What is the source or origin of glossolalia? What
is the purpose of glossolalia? What relationship exists
between glossolalia among Christian and non-Christian
practitioners? What spirit is at work? Is t the spirit of the
dead, as is claimed in some places? Is t of Satanic origin? Is
it but a human invention? These and other questions deserve
careful thought and study.
Is the glossolalic phenomenon, the "pagan glossolalia,"49
in these modern non-Christian religions the same glossolalia as
among Christians from the point of view of linguistics and the
structures it manifests? Or, is it different? This matter will
have our attention in the next part of our discussion, because
it may assist in answering another question: Is there a
distinction between Christian glossolalia and non-Christian
glossolalia? What is the origin of glossolalia? Where does it
come from? If there is a distinction, then one may indeed
claim that Christianity is unique in its manifestation and
Christian glossolalia could then more easily be thought to
derive from the Holy Spirit. If there is no distinction, then one
has to ask whether the Holy Spirit is the source of the
phenomenon in one religin and another spirit the source in
the non-Christian religions. Few would be willing to arge
that the Holy Spirit will manifest Himself within pagan ritual
and practice, within the crafts of witch doctors, shamans, and
priests of pagan religions, in the same way as in Christianity.
It now seems quite evident that the phenomenon of
glossolalia can no longer be isolated as a unique element of
Christianity. This seems to be a new, undeniable factor. Is
glossolalia the common experience that unites or combines all
religions? Is it the common element of the numinous and
supernatural linking Christian and non-Christian religions? If
it is the gift of the Holy Spirit, does the Holy Spirit manifest
Himself in these religions in this manner, even in sorcerous
seances? These questions are being asked today by many
people.
In view of these issues, can we detect any scientific,
linguistic difference between the glossolalic phenomena of
Christians and non-Christians? If so, what is it? And if not.

what are the implications for the use of glossolalia among
both Christians and non-Christians? Finally, the disturbing but
inevitable question must be raised, Is glossolalia really the gift
of the Holy Spirit?
3. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY
LINGUISTIC STUDY
The highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl
concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously
inspired [glossolalic] utterances have the same general
characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired."50
We should be reminded at this point that Kildahl compares
religious glossolalia w ith non-religious glossolalia. We have
not considered non-religious glossolalia, because t would lead
us into another area of study that we do not wish to pentrate
at this time. While our study cannot consider non-religious
glossolalia at this time, we are cognizant of the fact that
glossolalia is also practiced by non-religious people, including
atheists and agnostics.51 In other words, the modern
practice of glossolalia is not restricted to religious persons
alone. It is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity
or even to religious behavior."52
Modern linguistics is a subject area for scholars and
researchers to study of what is and what makes a language.
Experts in the field of linguistics have taken much pains to
study the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of many
years. One of the early investigations was made in the early
1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of
reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language.53
Another early study, that of W. A. Wolfram in the year 1966,
also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of
human language as a system of coherent communication.54
Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics published, after more than a
decade of careful research, a massive study of glossolalia
from a linguistic perspective.55 In this 1972 study Samarin,
together with other linguists, rejected the view that glossolalia
is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be
28
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
understood by another person who knew that language.

Samarin concluded that glossolalia s a "pseudo-language."
He said, "When the full apparatus of linguistic Science comes
to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade
language-although at times a very good one indeed. For
when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude
that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, s a specimen
of human language, because it is neither nternally organized
or systematically related to the world man perceives."56 He
defined glossolalia as "unintelligible post-babbling speech that
exhibits superficial phonological sim ilarityto language without
having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not
systematically derived from or related to known languages."57 The main point in his conclusin is that it is not
"derived from or related to known languages"--and that means
past or present languages. It is, however, "a meaningless but
phonetically structured human utterance believed by the
speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic
resemblance to any natural language, living or dead."58 The
various studies by Professor Samarin are published in many
scientific articles and are basic to much of the discussion of
the linguistic shape and language nature of glossolalia.
In the year 1985 tw o socio-linguists, well qualified
experts in the field, one of whom is himself a glossolalist,
surveyed the area of investigaron as to whether glossolalia is
intelligible human communication. H. Newton Malony's and
A. Adams Lovekin's survey of the studies on the nature of
glossolalia suggests that "glossolalia is, indeed, a language of
a different sense of the word! [namely in the sense of some
form of communication]." But they admit that "the weight of
evidence, however, suggests that although there is pattern
and form, speaking in tongues [Le. glossolalia] is most likely
not a known tongue or a human language as that term is
presently understood."59 This is an mportant conclusin
with regard to the debate on whether glossolalia is a known
human language. It is important to note that it is their
considered conclusin that it "is most likely not a known
tongue or a human language as that term is presently
understood." This conclusin must be a considerable blow to
those who still wish to claim that glossolalia is indeed some

form of ntelligible human language.
Another study done by Williams and Waldvogel and
published n 1975, a decade before the Malony-Lovekin study
was released, concludes that glossolalia "embraces every
ecstatic oral-auditory phenomenon . . . [including] verbal
effusions that are more likely to be psychological-spiritual
projections of inner speech than some authentic language
itself."60
Based on these recent conclusions of scholars and
researchers who studied glossolalia from a variety of angles
and methods of research, we may have no other recourse
than to admit that the phenomenon of "speaking n tongues,"
or glossolalia, is an experience other than speaking in a known
human language of the present or the past. On this point the
studies of Samarin and those of earlier and later researchers
coincide.
The psychological anthropologist and linguist, referred to
previously. Felicitas D. Goodman, has also engaged in a study
of various English- Spanish- and Maya-speaking Pentecostal
communities in the United States and Mxico. As others have
done before her, she compared tape recordings of nonChristian rituals from Africa, Borneo, Indonesia and Japan as
w ell.61 She published her results in the year 1972 in an
extensive monograph. Goodman concludes that "when all
features of glossolalia were taken into consideration--that is,
the segmental structure (such as sounds, syllables, phrases)
and its suprasegmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent,
and especially overall intonation)--they seemed cross-linguistically and cross-culturally dentical."62
What is so mportant in Goodman's study is the identity
of the linguistic phenomena of these comprehensive features
of glossolalia over various major parts of the world and from
different cultures, including both Christian and non-Christian
religions. It is Goodman's conclusin that there is no distinction in glossolalia between Christians and the followers of
non-Christian (pagan) religions. All forms of glossolalia are
"cross-linguistically and cross-culturally identical" as to their
segmental structure and suprasegmental elements. Goodman
provides another key element for the evaluation of glossolalia
as a universal phenomenon in any religin, whether pagan or
30
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Christian. She makes us aware that glossolalia among

Christians and non-Christians is the same. There s no
distinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia.
It seems that these nvestigations, carried on over several
decades, point conclusively in the same direction. What is the
implication of these studies for an understanding of modern
glossolalia? From a scientific and linguistic point of view one
can no longer conciude that Christian glossolalia is different
from that practiced in non-Christian (pagan) religions. All
forms of glossolalia are identical from the point of view of
their structures.
Goodman drew tw o additional conclusions from her
studies. She has established that glossolalia is not derived
from a State of hypnosis as believed by some earlier researchers. Goodman holds that glossolalia derives from "neurophysiological changes, collectively and popularly called trance, . .
,"63 Thus she defines glossolalia as "a vocalizaron pattern,
a speech automatism that is produced in the substratum of
the trance and reflects directly, in its segmental and suprasegmental structures, the neurophysiological processes present
in this changed State of consciousness [i.e. the trance]."64
The "association between trance and glossolalia is now
accepted by many researchers as a correct assumption,"
writes Goodman in the prestigious Encyclopedia o f Religin
[1987].65
Another important conclusin reached by Goodman
addresses the view that glossolalia is simply an involuntary,
spontaneous outburst or the like. Goodman indicates in
contrast that glossolalia "is, actually, a learned behavior,
learned either unawarely or, sometimes, consciously."66
Others have previously pointed out that direct instruction is
given on how to "speak in tongues," i.e. how to engage in
glossolalia.67
In short, we can summarize this part of our study of the
most current and authoritative as well as the most extensive
nvestigations of glossolalia from linguistic perspectives by
pointing out that from different avenues of research the
conclusin is reached that modern glossolalia, whether
Christian or non-Christian, whether Western or non-Western,
whether religious or non-religious, is not any known language

as had been commonly assumed or claimed for a long time.
Glossolalia is a form of linguistic expression that is crosscuiturally the same from a linguistic point of view, both in
Western and non-Western religions, both in Christian and nonChristian religions, both in relgious and non-religious settings.
It is a speech behavior that is learned or can be learned
cnsciously or otherwise.68
What are some implications of these findings for glossola
lia in modern Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism as well
as in the charismatic renewal movement? What kind of
experience is glossolalia as found in the modern charismatic
renewal movements? What kind of "language" is glossolalia?
Why is glossolalia practiced in so many religions today? Why
can relgious and non-religious persons practice glossolalia?
What is going on when a person nterprets someone else's
glossolalia?
4. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE

Since "speaking in tongues [glossolalia] is present in nonChristian religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, and in
cults such as Mormonism,"69 how can the modern practice
of glossolalia in the charismatic renewal movement have such
disturbing similarity, f not identity, to like phenomena in
pagan, non-Christian religions? Can this be of God? What is
the nature of the glossolalic experience?
How do charismatics respond to the fact that glossolalia
is no human language? J. R. Williams addressed this matter
recently: "Charismatics are not disturbed by linguists who
claim that glossolalia has no observable language structure,
for if such were the case, speaking in tongues would not be
spiritual but rational speech."70 He asserts further, "Speak
ing in tongues is thus understood to be transpsychical; it
belongs to the realm of the spirit (pneuma)."7' Thus Wil
liams plainly holds that modern "speaking in tongues" (glosso
lalia) is not rational speech. It is "spiritual speech" and
belongs to the realm of the spirit.
The issue before us is, therefore, if it were to be considered speech that originates from the Holy Spirit, how can it be
32
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
practiced in pagan, non-Christian religions as well? Is the

Holy Spirit speaking through the shamans, priests, and witch
doctors of other religions and the mdiums of sorcerous
seances? Not many Christians would feel comfortable in
affirming such a conclusin. How is it that a non-religious
humanities scholar "taught himself" to engage in glossolalia
and can continu to do so at will?72
The Holy Spirit is the "Spirit of truth" and is promised
only to the followers of Jess Christ (John 17). The Holy
Spirit is not assigned to be a part of any and every religin
that exists in the world today or that has existed in the past.
The Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated by non-religious and
religious persons as they wish. There is no teaching in the
New Testament or in the Od Testament to the effect that the
Holy Spirit is universally manifested in all religions or that He
can be manipulated at will. To the contrary, the Holy Spirit is
the third person of the triune Godhead and as such is a unique
Person in the trinity of Christian faith alone.
There seem to be but four major options in any attempt
to come to grips with the nature of glossolalia as a universal
phenomenon of Christian and non-Christian religions, of
religious and non-religious persons. The first option is to
suggest that glossolalia is derived from and provided by the
Holy Spirit. The second one is that it is derived from the
counterfeit source, Satan. The third possibility is that it is
produced by means of a human learning process (possibly by
some kind of a trance or altered State of consciousness)
regardless of a religious (Christian or pagan) or non-religious
(humanistic or other) environment. The fourth option is that
glossolalia may derive from more than one of these options.
The first tw o options see glossolalia as deriving from
"supernatural" sources. The first option derives it from the
Holy Spirit. Bible-believing Christians will agree that it seems
hardly feasible to claim that the Holy Spirit is manifested
universally in all religions or religious contexts since the Holy
Spirit is restricted as a gift to the believing community (1 Cor
12-14; John 14). The second option can be supported, if one
considers non-Christian religions to be used by Satanic
agencies. The Satanic cannot be ruled out as also intruding
into the sphere of Christian life and worship. Satan originated

glossolalia is accounted for as has been pointed out in the
studies cited above. The third option s a more "natural"
explanaron, accounting for the universal usage of glossolalia
as a learned behavior. The fact that glossolalia can be
learned, that t is even "taught" by Pentecostals and other
charismatics, that is can be self-taught, and so on, is of
utmost mportance. As has been stated in several studies, the
Satanic/demonic can take hold of a human being assumedly
w ith or without a learning process.
The fourth option in explaining the origin of glossolalia
holds that it can be of Satanic origin or that t is merely a
learned behavior; or that such learned behavior can be used by
Satan, and the like. Spittler, who is a charismatic himself,
writes that glossolalia "may rise from the speakers themselves, from a demonic spirit, or from the Holy Spirit." Then
he goes on to explain that "even f glossolalia occurs in a
balanced Pentecostal environment, any one of the three
sources [learned behavior, demonic spirit, Holy Spirit] may
apply. The discernment of the community is essential." He
points out in conclusin that "glossolalia of human [learned]
origin [among Christian charismatics] is probably more
frequent than recognized."73
Would the Holy Spirit use such a learned but unintelligible
form of speaking as one of His gifts? Would He use something that is identical with that used by witch doctors,
shamans, and priests of non-Christian (pagan) religions?
Would he use something that is also used in seances and in
sorcerous meetings by spiritualists? Few Christians would
feel comfortable answering this in the affirmative. Basic to
answering the question of the origin of glossolalia as deriving
from the Holy Spirit is the nature, function, and purpose of
Biblical "speaking in tongues" as described and used in the
New Testament church.
Based on the evidence presented above from these
extensive recent studies, contemporary glossolalia may be
best understood to be a learned behavior, but seemingly not
as one of the unique and universal supernatural gifts given by
the Holy Spirit. Glossolalia can be learned; it can be practiced
by many persons in many different religious and non-religious
settings; and thus can enter the religious arena in any religin,
34
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
or t can stay n the non-religious arena of human life as used

by humanists, agnostics and atheists. In these arenas t can
be employed for various purposes, particularly by the Prince
of evil n his deceptive ways.
5. GLOSSOLALIA AND CONTEMPORARY DOCTRINAL

DISUNITY
An issue that has troubled many people is the question of
the unity of the charismatics on most matters of Christian
belief and practice. An example of charismatic ecumenical
unity in evangelism is a case in point. In August 1991
approximately 3,000 delegates attended the International
Charismatic Consultaron on World Evangelisation in Brighton,
England.
This meeting was organized by the Anglican
charismatic leader Michael Harper. A Planning Committee
included Vinson Synan, head of the North American Renewal
Services Committee; Larry Christenson, renewal leader of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and also Romn
Catholic and Pentecostal leaders. It may be significant that
the Anglican Archbishop George Carey addressed the opening
session.
While not all Pentecostal denominations were
represented or all known major figures of neo-Pentecostalism
present, it is reported that "Catholic and Protestant charismat
ics carne together . . . , drawn past their denominational
differences by the goal of seeing half the world's population
confess Christ as Savior by the year 2000."74 It is the
doctrinal denominational differences that remain problematical.
A recent writer has raised the question of doctrinal
disunity among Pentecostalists and neo-Pentecostalist
charismatics: "Is it not inconsistent that a movement which
claims to be in direct contact with the Holy Spirit, to have all
gifts such as prophecy, apostleship, and the word of knowledge, to communicate directly with God by tongues-speaking
and other means, can at the same time inelude Romn
Catholics, conservative and liberis Protestants, amillennialists, premillennialists, Calvinists, Armenians, those who deny
the verbal inspiration of the Bible, and those who reject

Christ's vicarious atonement on the cross?"75 These questions are penetrating. They cut to the core of the problem of
the origin of glossolalia and its function n Christian life and
faith.
If the Holy Spirit were at work in all of these charismatic
groups of the various Christian churches, the Holy Spirit of
whom Christ said that He will "teach you all things (John
14:25) and "will guide you into all the truth" (John 17:13),
the very Spirit which is called "the Spirit of truth" (John
17:13), would He not be concerned to teach anyone among
those who engage in glossolalia any truth that would correct
any and all of these differences? Many of these differences
are foundational for Christian faith; some are actually errors.
Is the spirit claimed by Christian charismatics interested in
teaching the truth to charismatics? Should the Holy Spirit not
have taught them by now that the seventh day of the week
is binding upon all believers? Should the Spirit of truth not by
now have corrected unbiblical teachings such as incorrect
views of the atonement, eternal punishment, and so on? Up
until now the spirit claimed by charismatics, whether Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal glossolalists, remains uninterested
in producing unity among them based upon what the Spirit
has given the true believer in Scripture. Whatever spirit is at
work, that spirit seems indeed uninterested in bringing them
into all Biblical truth. Why are neo-Pentecostal Romn
Catholics better Romn Catholics, having greaterappreciation
for the Eucharistic Sacrifice (the mass),76 and tonguesspeaking Baptists are better Baptists, and tongues-speaking
Mormons are better Mormons, and so on?
6. GLOSSOLALIA AND THE TESTING OF TONGUES

However one may wish to respond to the various gnawing questions and issues, it seems certain that glossolalia has
to be understood in a larger context than that of the uniquely
Christian experience. It can no longer be seen as a normal
human language. Whatever one's final conclusions may be,
there is no doubt that anyone wishing to stay within the
confines of the New Testament principie of proving all things
36
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
and holding fast that which is good has to be aware that there
is no sure way to test tongues. Dr. Kildahl has run such tests
based on a tape recording of a tongue-speaker which he
played ndependently before several persons who were known
to have the supposed gift of interpretation. Here are the
results of his experiment:
In order to investgate the accuracy of these interpretations, we undertook to play a taped example of tonguespeech privately for several different interpreters of
tongues. In no instance was there any similarity in the
several interpretations. The following typifies our results:
one interpreter said the tongue-speaker was praying for
the health of his children; another that the same tonguespeech was an expression of gratitude to God for a
recently successful church fund-raising effort.77
When the interpreters were confronted with their disharmonious responses they offered "the explanaron that God gave to
one person one interpretation and to another person another
interpretation."78 This evidence of variety of interpreta
tions79 indicates that tongues-speaking and tongues-interpretation is beyond the realm of verifiability.
An interpreter of glossolalia responded to the Lord's
Prayer that was spoken in a Pentecostal meeting by one who
wished to test the interpretation. The Lord's Prayer was
spoken in an African language. The interpreter said that "it is
a message about the imminent second coming of Christ."80
Here again there is no consistent correlation in the testing
process of interpretation. Is this not another indication that
glossolalia is no normal human language and that the nterpretation does not correspond to what has been said?
The Biblically-oriented Christian will hold on to what the
Bible defines as "speaking in tongues". What does the New
Testament language mean? Is the expression "speaking in
tongues" used outside of the New Testament for a glossolalic
experience? Did ancient religions, which were in existence
when the early Christian community developed, such as the
Delphic oracle, practice "speaking in tongues"? Is there
anywhere in the New Testament any clear definition of the
"speaking in tongues" that derives from the Holy Spirit? Is t
perhaps provided in Acts 2 where it is a supernatural gift and
CHRISTIAN & N0N-CHRIST1AN GLOSSOLALIA 37

not a learned behavior? What s the purpose of this gift? To
whom s t given? Do all believers need to "speak in
tongues"? These and other questions shall have our attention
n the chapters that follow.
ENDNOTES
1 . H. Newton Malony and A. Adams Lovakin, G/ossola/ia.
Behavioral Science
Perspectivas on Speaking in Tongues (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) 3,
refer to it as "a modern enigma."
2 . For a current survey of research, see Cyril G. Williams, Tongues o f the Spirt. A
S tu d y o f Pentecostal G lossolaliaandReiatedPhenom ena (Cardiff: University of Wales
Press, 1981) 125-50.
3 .See for examples the recent survey by Malony and Lovekin, pp. 11-93.
4 . Felicitas D. Goodman, "Glossolalia," The Encydopedia o f Religin, ed. Mircea Eliade
(New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987) 5 :5 6 4 .
5 . William J. Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angeis.
Pentecosta/ism (New York, 1972) 2.
The Religious Language o f
6 . From now on in this study we will use the term "glossolalia," a term used in much
modern literature on the subject. We do not imply with the usage of this term that
it is identical or not identical with "speaking in tongues" as practicad by New
Testament believers on various occasions.
7 . J. R. Williams, "Charismatic Movement," Evanglica! D ictio n a ry o f Theology, ed.
W alter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1 9 8 4) 2 0 5 -2 0 8 .
8 . V. Synan, "Pentecostalism," Evanglica/ D ictionary o f Theology, ed. Walter A.
Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984) 8 3 6 .
9 . John P. Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues (New York: Harper & Row,
1972) 18.
10.Sarah E. Parham, The Life o f Charles F. Parham. Founder o f the A p o sto lic Faith
M ove m e n t (Joplin, MO, 1930) 3 8 .
11 .Watson E. Mills, "Glossolalia: An Introduction," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to
Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986) 5.
1 2 . William W . Menzies, A n o in te d to Serve. The S to ry o f the Assem blies o f God
(Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1971) 50.
1 3 . Charles S. Gaede, "Glossolalia at Azusa Street: A Hidden Presupposition?"
W estm inster Theological Jo u rn a l 51/1 (1989) 77.
14.lbid.
1 S.lbid., with primary sources.
38
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
1 6 . The vast literatura on Pentecostalism and more precisely the phenomenon of

glossolalia s collected in Charles Edwin Jones, A Guide to the S tu d y o f the
P entecostal M ovem ent, 2 vols. (Hamden, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1983); Walter
Hollenweger, The Pentecostals: The Charism atic M ove m e n t n the Churches (St.
Louis: Augsburg, 1972); Ira J. Martin, The G if t o f Tongues: A Bibliography (Pathway
Press, 1970); Watson E. Mills, Speaking in Tongues: A Classified Bibliography
(Sooiety for Pentecostal Studies, 1974).
1 7 . Watson E. Mills, Charism atic Religin in M odern Research. A Bibliography (Macn,
GA: Mercar University Press, 1985), p. 13.
1 8 . "The Apostolic Faith M ovement, The A p o sto lic Faith, no. 1 [Sept. 1906] 2, cited
in Gaede, p. 79.
1 9 . Menzies, A n o in te d to Serve, p. 37.
2 0 . Gaede, pp. 78-79.
21 .Ibid., pp. 78-82.
2 2 .5 0 C. Petar Wagner, H o w to Have a Heaiing M in istry W ith o u t M aking Your
Church S ic k l (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1988), pp. 12-23.
23.See Charles E. Goodwin, A Guide to the S tu d y o f the H oiiness M ove m e n t
(Hamden, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974).
2 4 .For bibliography, see David W . Faupel, The A m erican P entecostal M ove m e n t
(Society for Pentecostal Studies, 1972).
2 5 .See Russell Spittler,ed., Perspectivas on the N e w Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Book House, 1 976).
2 6 .See Vincent M. Walsh, A K e y to Charism atic R enew al in the Catholic Church
(Abbey Press, 1971); Kevin and Dorothy Ranagan, Catholic Pentecostals (Mahwah,
NJ: Paulist Press, 1971); Donald Gelpi, P entecostalism : A Theological V ie w p o in t
(Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1 971).
27.Edward D. O'Connor, C.S.C., "The Literatura of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal
1 9 6 7 -1 9 7 4 ," Perspectivas on Charism atic Renewal, ed. Edward D. O'Connor (Notre
Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp. 1 4 5 -8 4 .
28.See the detailed report in K. And D. Ranaghan, Catholic Pentecostals (Mahwah,
NJ: Paulist Press, 1969).
29.See note 19.
3 0 .50 K. McDonnell, "Catholic Pentecostalism: Problems in Evaluation," Dialog
(Winter, 1 9 7 0), 3 5 -5 4 , quotation from p. 54.
31 .Cardinal Joseph Suenens, A N e w Pentecost (Seabury Press, 1973).
3 2 . P. Damboriena, S.J., Tongues as o f Pire. Pentecostalism in Contem porary
C hristia nity (Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1969) 63.
3 3 . Julia Duin, "Catholic Renewal Charismatic Communities Split by Controversy,"
C hristianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 55.
3 4 .Ibid., p. 57.
3 5 .See Arnold Bittlinger, The Church is Charism atic (Geneva: World Council of
Churches, 1981).

36.
"Charsmatcs on Evangelism," C hristianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 52.
3 7 . R. P. Spittler, "Glossolalia," D ictio n a ry o f Pentecostal and Charismatic Movem ents, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1 9 8 8), p. 3 3 6 .
38.
Goodman, "Glossolalia, p. 56 4 .
3 9 . L. Carlyle, May, "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian

Rellglons," Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, pp. 53-8 2 .
40.lbid., p. 67.
41.lbld p. 65.
4 2 .Goodman, p. 565.
43.lbid.
44.lbid.
4 5 .Spittler in D ictionary o f P entecostal and Charism atic M ovem ents, p. 3 3 6 .
46.For a fine study of glossolalia in a non-Western culture, see A. F. Anisimov, "The
Shaman's Tent of the Evenks and the Origin of the Shamanistic Rite," Studies in
Siberian Shamanism, ed. Henry M. Michael (Toronto, 1963).
47.Summarized by Spittler, p. 3 3 6 .
48.lbid., p. 3 3 7 .
49.
Designation is that of Spittler, p. 33 6 .
50.
Kildahl, p. 81.
51 .See Spittler, pp. 3 3 6 -3 7 .

5 2 .Spittler, p. 34 0 .
5 3 . Eugene A. Nida, "Glossolalia: A Case of Pseudo-Linguistic Structure," unpublished
paper delivered at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Soclety of America in
New York, Dec. 28, 1964.
5 4 . W . A. Wolfram, "The Sociolinguistics of Glossolalia" (Master's thesis; Hartford
Seminary Foundation, 1966).
55.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and A ngels.
56.Samarin, Tongues o f Men and Angels, pp. 1 27-28.
57.Willam J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia, Language
in S ociety, ed. Dell Haymes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) 1 2 1-30.
5 8 .Samarin, Tongues o f M en a n d A ngels, p. 2.
59.
Malony and Lovekin, p. 38.
60.
Williams and Waldvogel (1 9 7 5 ), p. 61, as citad by Spittler, p. 3 4 0 .
61 .Felicitas D. Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A C ross-Cultural S tu d y o f Glossolalia

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).
6 2 .Goodman, "Glossolalia," pp. 5 6 3 -6 4 .
6 3 .Ibid., p. 564.
64.lbid.
40
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
65.lbd., referring to Cyril G. Williams, Tongues o fth e S pirt: A S tu d y o f Pentecostal

Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981).
66.
Goodman, "Glossolalia," p. 5 6 4 .
6 7 . For example, Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues, pp. 2-4.

6 8 . This is argued by Nida (1964) Wolfram (19 6 6 ) and J. R. Jaquith, "Toward a
Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviors: Glossolalia, A n th ro p o lo g lca l
Linguistics 9 (8) (1 9 6 7 ) 1-8.
6 9 . Thomas R. Edgar, "The Cessation of Sign Gifts," Blbllotheca Sacra 145 (1988)
383.
70.
Williams, "Charismatic Movement," p. 207.
71 .Ibid.
72.Referred to by Spittler, p. 3 4 0 .
73.Spittler, p. 3 4 0 .
7 4 . "Charismatics on Evangelism," C hristianity Today (16 Sept., 1991) 52.
7 5 . Edgar, "The Cessation of Sign Gifts," p. 38 5 .
7 6 .In an editorial n R enew ai (June/July, 1974) Michael Harper asked Pentecostal
Romn Catholics, "Is there anything whlch the Holy Spirlt has shown you which is
at variance with the infallibility of the Pope?" Cited in Williams, Tongues o fth e Spirt,
p. 103, who notes that Catholics who are tongues-speakers customarily testify that
they have "a new appreciation of the liturgy of their church and a profounder
experience of the sacraments" (ibid.).
7 7 .Kildahl, p. 63.
7 8 .Ibid.
7 9 . Malony and Lovekin, pp. 2 6 -2 7 .
8 0 . Kildahl, p. 63.
CHAPTER II
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE G REEK LANGUAGE
The purpose of this chapter s to investgate the New

Testamentterminology used for "speaking in tongues" and its
usage outside the New Testament. In the previous chapter
we have looked at the practice of glossolalia n modern times.
We have learned that t is a recent phenomenon that had its
beginning in modern times around 1900. It has also become
apparent that glossolalia is not restricted to Christians alone,
but that many other persons, among them priests, shamans,
sorcerers and others of other major religions of the world,
engage in glossolalia. Linguists and others who have studied
the glossolalia phenomenon have informed us that there is no
distinction between Christian and non-Christian glossolalia.
We have also seen that glossolalia as practiced today cannot
be identified with any known human language from the past
or the present. Its articularon and structure do not resemble
any human language. We have also found that glossolalia can
be learned.
This set of new facts, previously largely unknown, causes
us to return to the Bible for a new nvestigation of the
experience of "speaking in tongues." In view of this new set
of facts, the foremost question is to investgate anew what
the evidence for "speaking in tongues" is in the Bible itself
and how it is to be understood. We must be cautious about
the ready identificaron of modern glossolalia with New
Testament "speaking in tongues." This identificaron which
is so widespread today can only be supported f it can be
determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that New
Testament "speaking in tongues" is the same as the present
phenomenon of glossolalia.
It will be the purpose of this chapter to turn to the New
Testament itself and to investgate the Greek terminology
behind the expression "speaking in tongues." This will involve
some technical knowledge and will also involve the claims
42
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
made by others as to how the New Testament words

rendered "speaking in tongues" are used. It s customary in
such an investigaron to turn to the Greek literature outside of
the New Testament in order to discover, f possible, what
other ancient writers, more or less contemporary with New
Testament writers, meant when they used the same terms.
This assumes that they used the same terms, of course. This
background from contemporary writers is useful in illuminating
the language background of the New Testament. It may
provide options in understanding the New Testament terms
under investigaron. In the end it may limit the meaning of the
terms used in the New Testament. In this comparative
procedure we must not, however, read onesidedly from one
culture into another. This means that in the end the New
Testament must be interpreted on the basis of the Biblical
context. The Bible is its own interpreter.
The expression "speaking in tongues" is used in the New
Testament in only five passages, namely at the end of the
Gospel of Mark (16:17), in three places in the book of Acts
(Acts 2, 10, 19), and in 1 Corinthians 12-14.
Many modern scholars have suggested that the
expression "speaking in tongues" (g/ssa lalen) is not uniform
in its meaning.1
These scholars claim that there are tw o meanings
associated with this Greek expression. The first meaning is
found in the Pentecostal experience of Acts 2, where
"speaking in tongues" means the miraculous gift of speaking
foreign languages not known by the speaker previously. The
second meaning is allegedly employed in 1 Cor 12-14 where
it is said to be a technical term that refers to some kind of
ecstatic unintelligible utterance which is equal to modern
glossolalia.2 Other scholars, equally well trained, suggest
that the language in the New Testament is uniform and that
"speaking in tongues" in every text in the New Testament
means the speaking of genuine languages not previously
learned.
In view of these diverse claims it seems imperative to
investgate the expression "speaking in tongues" in some
detail in the Greek language. The issue under consideraron in
this part of our study is (1) to investgate the basis for the
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK
43
modern claim of tw o meanings in the New Testament by a

study of the language n the Greek New Testament tself, (2)
to study the similarity or variation of usage of the expression
"speaking n tongues," (3) to research the usage of the noun
g/ssa in the Greek language outside the New Testament, and
(4) to investgate the usage of the New Testament expression
g/ssa lalefn, "speaking in tongues," in the Septuagint (LXX),
the oldest Greek translation of the Od Testament (which
forms a background of much of the New Testament), and, if
present, in other Greek literature outside of the New
Testament. It is anticipated that a thorough investigation into
these linguistic usages and lexicographical backgrounds will
enable us to draw conclusions on the usage of the expression
"speaking in tongues" in the New Testament.
1. GREEK USAGE OF GLOSSA LALEIN IN

THE NEW TESTAMENT
The Greek expression g/ssa /a/en, literally translated "to
speak in tongues," is used infrequently in the Greek New
Testament. This may come as a surprise to many people who
assume that "speaking in tongues" is a pervasive New
Testament practice. This assumption regarding the allegedly
widespread use in the New Testament may rest on the
extensive use of modern glossolalia in recent years.
The statistical nformation for the usage of the Greek
expression g/ssa /a/en in the New Testament is as follows.
It is used in only three New Testament books:
1. Mark 16:17
2. Acts 2:4, 6, 8, 11; 10:46; 19:6
3. 1 Cor 12-14
a. 1 Cor 12:31
b. 1 Cor 13:1
c. 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 5 (2x) 6, 13, 18, 19, 21, 23,
27, 39
The noun g/ssa, "tongue, is found unmodified and in
the singular five times (1 Cor 14:2, 4, 13, 19, 27). It is found
44
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
nine times in the plural without modifiers (Acts 10:46; 19:6;

1 Cor 13:30; 14:5 (2x), 6, 18, 23, 39). It appears with
modifiers in the plural in a total of five passages (Mk 16:17;
Acts 2:4, 11; 1 Cor 13:1; 14:21).
It s suggested that there are eleven expressions in the
New Testament that have a relationship to the usage of
glssa lalefn.3 In Acts 2:6 the phrase "speak in his own
dialect/language"4 s used and in vs 8 the clause "in our own
language"5 appears. These additional phrases are specific
definitions, indicating that "speaking in tongues" is the
speaking of a known language that some of its hearers were
familiar with.
There are various phrases in 1 Cor 14, many of which use
a form of lalefn, "to speak," (vss 2 [twice], 15 [twice], 16
[twice], 17, 21, 28).
We also need to investgate the term glssa used by
itself, i.e. without the verb lalefn, as it appears in the New
Testament. The term glssa appears a total of 24 times6
outside the passages where it is associated with "speaking in
tongues."
Recent dictionaries of the Greek language inform us that
the Greek term glssa means (1) "tongue" as an organ of
speech (Luke 1:64; 16:24; Mark 7:33, 35; Acts 2:26; Rom
3:13; James 1:26; 3:5, 6 [2 times], 8; 1 John 3:18; 1 Pet
3:10; Rev 16:10), (2) "tongue" as in "tongues of fire" in a
figurative sense (Acts 2:3), and (3) "tongues" typically in the
sense of "language" as a normal means of communication
(Rom 14:11; Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7;
14:6; 17:15).7 It is noteworthy that in the New Testament,
outside the disputed "speaking in tongues" passages in 1 Cor
14, the term glssa does not in any case mean unintelligible,
ecstatic speech, heavenly language, angelic speech, or
anything like this.
We are now in a position to draw some initial conclusions:
1. The noun glssa by itself always means the organ of the
mouth known as "tongue" and in the other New Testament
instances it means "language."
2.
In but one instance it refers to "tongues as of fire"
(Acts 2:3) where a comparative particle is joined to the noun
and where it has a figurative meaning. The comparative
45
partile "as" (hose) is used to indcate its specific figurative

sense. In these New Testament passages there is no usage
of glssa with the meaning of glossolalia in the sense of
unintelligible speech or gibberish, leaving aside for the
moment the disputed usages in 1 Cor 14.
3. The Synoptic Gospels do not know anything of
"tongues" in the sense of glossolalia. Mark 16:17 does not
contain it either. However, there is no reason to read a
modern phenomenon back into Mark 16:17.
4. The Gospel of John speaks much of the Spirit (John
14, 17) but is totally silent about tongues in the sense of
unintelligible speech or as a gift of the Spirit.
5. In Acts 2 there is a clear-cut usage of "tongues." It is
clearly defined in both of its usages. The first is the figurative
usage of "tongues as of fire" (vs 3) with the usage of the
comparative particle as noted above whereby it is used in a
figurative sense. The second usage is predominant. It is of
"speaking in tongues" in the sense of speaking miraculously
intelligible languages understood by bystanders who speak
these as their native languages.8 What is meant here is that
the "Holy Spirit enabled the believer to talk in other languages,
that is, to speak a language which was different from the one
they normally spoke."9 It has been pointed out that in Acts
2 "the language is a meaningful language, fully intelligible to
the hearers, [which] is suggested not only by what comes in
the following verses [after vs 4] but by the word which Luke
chooses for 'speaking [apophthggomai].' This verb is used
both in the Septuagint and in classical Greek to indcate
solemn or inspired speech, but not ecstatic utterance."10 In
other words, what the tongues-speakers in Acts 2 were
speaking were "not ecstatic sayings that were unintelligible,
but were clearly discernible languages (glossaidios dialektos)
that were recognized."11 The tongues-speakers in Acts 2
are not glossolalists in the modern sense of the term. They
are speakers of human languages that they did not previously
know. The people present at Pentecost carne from Rome,
various other areas, including Mesopotamia and Arabia, and
testified as eye witnesses and ear witnesses that they heard
those imbued with the Holy Spirit speak their "own language"
(idia dialekto) as Acts 2:6, 8 emphasizes.
46
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
It has been our purpose so far to bracket out from our

discussion the disputed passage of 1 Cor 12-14. The reason
for this is summarized n a very recent dictionary (published in
1988) that s based on semantic domains:
Most scholars assume that the phenomena described n
Ac 2.4 and in 1 Cor 14.2 are significantly different in that
in one instance people understood it in their own regional
language or dialect and in the other instance an nterpreter
was required. It is for that reason that many interpret
glssa in 1 Cor 14.2 as ecstatic speech, which was also
an element in Hellenistic religions and constituted a
Symbol of divine inspiration.12
We have chosen to cite this most recent dictionary since
it summarizes the thinking of many. It summarizes the
understandings of various modern scholars regarding the tw o
types of "speaking in tongues" which are alleged for the New
Testament.
There has been a change over the last one hundred years
on this subject of New Testament "speaking in tongues." In
the year 1858, for example, a major Greek-English dictionary
of the New Testament concluded as follows:
Here, according to the two passages in Mark and Acts,
the sense obviously is, to speak in other living languages;
comp. Acts 2, 6. 8-11. Others taking the passage in 1
Cor. as the basis, suppose the sense to be, to speak
another kind of language, referring it to a person in a State
of high spiritual excitement or ecstasy from inspiration,
unconscious of external things and wholly absorbed in
adoring communion with God, and breaking forth in abrupt
expressions of praise and devotion, which are not
coherent and therefore not always intelligible to the
multitude; . . . Most interpreters have correctly adopted
the first meaning; while some again suppose a reference
to two distinct gifts.13
It is noteworthy that in 1858 when this dictionary was
published there were only "some" interpreters who went for
"tw o distinct gifts." The interpretation of glossolalia as
ecstatic speech in 1 Cor 14 was followed at that time, some
130 years ago, by but a few interpreters. Today, on the
contrary, the majority of scholars adopt the view of tw o
47
distinct gifts, one n Acts 2 and another in 1 Cor 14.

Walter Bauer's recent standard Greek-English Lexicn of
the New Testament, speaks of "a special problem" when t
refers to "speaking in tongues" n the New Testament and
maintains that in 1 Cor 14 "there is no doubt about the thing
referred to, namely the broken speech of persons in religious
ecstasy."14 This summarizes the majority view of modern
scholars today.
The issue before the discerning reader is, What has
brought about this change in interpretation? What are the
reasons that have led the majority of modern scholars of
today to posit tw o different experiences, one in Acts 2 and
another in 1 Cor 14, but with the same language? What
evidence is there for this change? Is there evidence in
Hellenistic religions for glossolalia? Is there evidence for
ecstatic unintelligible speech from sources outside the New
Testament? Our next section is devoted to these questions.
2. ALLEGED GLOSSOLALIA OUTSIDE THE

NEW TESTAMENT
What has brought about the change in interpretation in
the last hundred years of Greek-English lexicography and the
interpretation of tongues-speaking in the New Testament? Is
it a more extensive study of the Greek usage of glssa lalein,
"to speak in tongues," in other Greek literature? Is it the
discovery of new Greek texts that use the expression of
glssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," and that demnstrate
beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a phenomenon of
ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind? Is it a reinterpretation of the New Testament phrase glssa lalein, "to
speak in tongues," to bring it into harmony w ith the modern
practice of glossolalia among charismatic Christians? Is
something being read back into the New Testament?
These questions are raised in order to sensitize the reader
to various possibilities. In order to find a satisfying answer to
the change in the lexicography reflected in more recent GreekEnglish dictionaries, it is mportant to investgate the ancient
Greek language outside the New Testament. This seems
48
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
particularly mandated by the claim that "ecstatic speech" of

an unintelligible kind "was also an element n Hellenistic
religions."15
A study by a highly qualified scholar n ancient Greek
culture, Christopher Forbes, has produced an analysis of the
various arguments and suggestions made over the years by
scholars who favor the view that Hellenistic popular religin
influenced early Christian inspired glossolalic speech,
especially in 1 Cor 14 and other passages in the New
Testament that refer to "speaking in tongues."16 We will
refer to some of the major points made by Forbes.
The ancient philosopher Plato informs us about the
Pythian priestess at Delphi who is said to have engaged in a
frenzied ecstasy in giving her oracles.17 We must be aware
that the Delphic oracle is the major example referred to by
many scholars who hold that there is a Greek background for
unintelligible, inspired speech. It is customary to refer to the
Delphic oracle as the prime example for ancient glossolalia.18
Scholars have carefully restudied these alleged
"comparative phenomena."19 It may be surprising, but it is
at the same time undeniable, that "there is no decisive
evidence to indcate that the Pythian priestess ever spoke her
oracles in a form analogous to glossolalia."20 Another very
competent scholar, Joseph Fortenrose, who studied these
texts of ancient Greek authors independently, concludes that
the Pythian priestess at Delphi did not engage in a frenzied or
raving ecstasy. She did not take leave of her senses, and she
did not engage in "ncoherent babbling."21 To the contrary,
the priestess at Delphi could provide the oracles in oral or
written form in both prose or poetry.22 This is not the result
of glossolalic utterance given by inspiration or of ecstatic
speech. Furthermore, what the Pythian priestess engaged in
is never described in terms of g/ssa lalein, "speaking in
tongues," or in any other terminology of unintelligible ecstatic
speech.23
There is a statement to the effect that the Pythian
"oracles are obscure (asaphe)."24 Does this mean that the
Delphic oracles pass from unintelligible language to intelligible
language or that someone needs to transate what is obscure?
It does not mean this at all. It simply means that the oracles
49
become obscure as they pass from divine language into

human language. While they are in fully intelligible language,
these "oracles" are simply hard to understand, because they
are mysterious and in need of explanation. There is no
inference that what is difficult to understand, though
spoken/written in plain Greek, is unintelligible speech. What
is hard to understand in intelligible language is in no way
glossolalia or ecstatic speech. These recent studies of the
Delphic oracle remove much of the earlier misinterpretation by
scholars. It is demonstrated today that there is no conceptual
or linguistic evidence in the Delphic oracles of any glossolalia,
"speaking in tongues," or inspired ecstatic speech of an
unintelligible kind.
The recent reassessments of earlier claims by scholars25
who had argued that there is a linkage between glossolalia
and Hellenistic religin and who attempted to derive Pauline
usage in 1 Cor 14 from this source will not be supported by
an analysis of the evidence presently available. This is a
sobering assessment for anyone who seeks to interpret either
1 Cor 12-14, or Mark 16:17 and Acts 10 and 19, on the basis
of an lleged Hellenistic religious background. It does not
exist.
3. THE USAGE OF GLOSSA AND LALEO OUTSIDE

THE NEW TESTAMENT
What is the meaning of the noun g/ssa in the Greek
language outside the New Testament? Does the Greek term
glssa mean in any ancient Greek usage unintelligible speech?
The standard lexicons for the period of Greek in the
ancient world agree in their listings of meanings for glssa.
Our first attention will be directed to an investigation of the
papyri, ancient Greek documents written on material made
from reeds. It is widely employed and many texts have been
found written on papyri. Friedrich Preisigke's authoritative
dictionary of Greek papyri informs us that g/ssa means
"tongue, language" and nothing else.26 He lists for the term
lalo the meanings "to speak, to communicate, to tell."27
50
SPEAKIG IN TONGUES
There is no evidence for any glossolalic utterance n the

literature contained on papyri. Everything s on the level of
rational and intelligible speech.
Moulton and Milligan have assembled Greek terms from
papyri and other non-literary sources to Ilstrate the
vocabulary of the New Testament. Here too the term glssa
is an organ in the human mouth or in the mouth of animis,
namely the "tongue," or t has the meaning of intelligible
human "language."28
Moulton and Milligan note that "while lgo calis attention
to the substance of what is said, the onomatopoeic lalo
points rather to the outward utterance . . ." 29 Still there is
no evidence whatsoever that lalo has developed into an
expression for glossolalia in the ancient world. It remains a
term for intelligible speech. This is the case even in the very
chapter in which many modern scholars wish to find
unintelligible speech. In 1 Cor 14:19, 29 the verb lalo is
used for intelligible speech.30
Moving beyond the papyri and other non-literary sources
in our investigation of glssa, it is necessary to see whether
the Greek language that is later than the New Testament
knows this term to mean ecstatic utterance or unintelligible
speech. Thus we need to turn to patristic Greek literature.
The ancient Greek church fathers wrote extensively and left
a rich body of Greek literature.
In the patristic Greek language glssa means the "tongue,
[as an] nstrument of speech," or "language," and
metaphorically a "thong" or an "ingot" of gold.31
Investigations into the subject of "speaking in tongues"
among the early Church fathers prior to the third century have
led to the conclusin "that when the [early church] fathers
clarified the nature of the tongue-speech being practiced they
most usually specified them as being xenolalic [i.e. speaking
in a known language that the person has not learned by
mechanical methods]."32 In other words, the early Church
fathers saw the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues" in their
day as speaking foreign languages miraculously. They also
nterpreted 1 Cor 14 in that light.
It is noteworthy that the most extensive study that makes
a distinction between "speaking in tongues" as intelligible
51
speech and unintelligible speech in 1 Cor 14, produced by N.

I. J. Engelsen, concluded that the Greek expression "speaking
n tongues," glssa lalefn, s not found outside the New
Testament.33 A single exception has been discovered since
Engelsen's study was completed. However, t does not refer
to unintelligible speech.34
We have exhausted all ancient Greek texts presently
known. So far there s not even a single Greek text known to
the ancient world that uses the designaron glssa, the verb
lalefn, or the New Testament combination "to speak in
tongues," glssa lalem, in the alleged sense of ecstatic
"speaking in tongues." To this day no scholar has been able
to point to a single usage of these terms in non-biblical Greek
texts to mean glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible speech
or of ecstatic utterance. This is amazing in view of the ready
impression left by many writers on the subject of tonguesspeaking that the phenomenon of glossolalia was known
outside the New Testament in ancient pagan religions from
which it was introduced to the church in Corinth and
elsewhere.
4. THE USAGE OF GLOSSA LALEIN IN

THE SEPTUAGINT
Finally we turn to the usage of glssa lalefn in the
Septuagint, which during New Testament times was
Judaism's authorized Greek translation of the Hebrew (Od
Testament) Scriptures. The Greek language of the Septuagint
is widely used by New Testament writers in quotations from
the Od Testament. The question before us is, Does the
Septuagint use the expression glssa lalefn in the sense of
unintelligible speech and/or ecstatic utterance?
Professor Roy A. Harrisville summarizes the evidence in
his famous essay on the Greek language usage of glssa
lalefn: "In the Septuagint, the term glssa appears together
w ith the verb lalefn seven times, four times in the singular
unmodified [Job 33:2; Ps 36 (37): 30; 38 (39):4 (3); Jer
9:4(5)], and three times in the singular with modifiers [Ps
108(109):2; Isa 19:18; 2 8 :1 1]."35 Here is evidence of the
52
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
dentical usage of the phrase under investigaron in the New

Testament.
Regarding the entire Corpus of usage of glssa in the
Septuagint and also in those cases where it approximates
most closely the linguistic usage of the New Testament,
Professor Harrisville concluded that the "Septuagint translator
appears to have known nothing of a technical term for
speaking in tongues"36 in the sense of unintelligible speech.
In every instance of usage of g/ssa or the combination of
glssa lalein in the Septuagint, the reference is to a normal
"tongue" in the sense of language.
In no instance is
glossolalia in view. Thus the Septuagint usage is in harmony
with any other usage of these terms in Greek literature
outside the New Testament.
As a matter of fact the Septuagint usage of the
expression ^/dssa laletn supports the view that in other usages
outside the Septuagint, that is, in the New Testament, this
phrase simply means to speak in normal human languages.
We may summarize the evidence presented on the
expression glssa lalein, "to speak in tongues," by stating that
this phrase is never used outside the New Testament for what
is today designated as glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible
speech or ecstatic utterance. Such usage is not known in the
Greek language and literature of the ancient world, as the key
recent studies on this subject unanimously indcate. Thus it
becomes more and more difficult to interpret the Pauline
usage in terms of ecstatic unintelligible speech. There is no
outside support for this interpretaron contrary to what earlier
scholars were apt to claim.
5. MODERN HYPOTHESES FOR GLOSSOLALIA AS

UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH
It may be very surprising to the student of the modern
phenomena of glossolalia that there is no linguistic or other
evidence whatever for glossolalia or ecstatic utterances in the
world outside the New Testament. In view of this fact there
are not many options for persons who wish to interpret the
experience of 1 Cor 14 in terms of glossolalia. Professor
53
Harrisville has stated the ssue n precise terms: "Unless we

assign to the NT authors total responsibility for coining the
nomenclature under discussion, we shall have to continu our
search for that point at which the technical terms for speaking
in tongues penetrated the NT."37
There are tw o major hypotheses for assigning to the
Greek expression glssa lalen, "to speak in tongues," the
technical meaning of "an unintelligible utterance"38 in 1 Cor
14. One hypothesis suggests that the expression was
developed by Paul himself as a technical term to combat the
experience of some Christians in Corinth.
The second
hypothesis s that the "technical term had its birth in preChristian Judaism" particularly in pre-Christian Jewish sources
connected with Qumran.39
These hypotheses have immense difficulty. There is no
demonstrable step from any specific usage in Biblical or extraBiblical language or literature to show that the meaning of the
expression "speaking in tongues" moves from speaking
normal languages, to the meaning of a supposed unintelligible
ecstatic speech. The fact that Paul is credited with coining a
new technical term indicates that its supporters are forced to
admit that there is nothing outside the New Testament that
will support the view that glssa lalen, "to speak in tongues,"
means glossolalia anywhere in the ancient world. They are
forced to credit Paul with the innovation, because they have
been unable to find evidence elsewhere. Johannes Behm in
his article on glssa, "tongue(s)," written in the Theological
Dictionary o f the New Testament, arges that Acts 2:3, 4
cannot have given rise to the technical term glossolalia.40
He is undoubtedly correct.
Scholars who wish to suggest that the verb lalen, "to
speak," supposedly an onomatopoeic term, gave rise to
glossolalia41 have also no sound inguistic support for their
view, except some of their own guesses.42 Why should Paul
invent a technical meaning of some sort simply because he
combats a misuse of a spiritual gift?
Those who have argued that there is some sort of origin
for glossolalia in Jewish or Hellenistic circles are countered by
Engelsen's conclusin, "He [Paul] may have had predecessors
in this, but they have left no trace."43 This means that
54
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
hypotheses built on alleged analogues n the Jewish or

Hellenistic world of Paul lack any direct or indirect support
from any written ancient sources. Such material is not
available.
What about the sectarian Jewish community from
Qumran? Did t leave any trace of an experience of glossolalic
utterance or ecstatic speech? Although there is no evidence
for glossolalia from Qumran, it is suggested that glossolalia
arse out of the community of Qumran. Qumran neither
provides the "missing link" to the supposed Pauline usage of
glssa lalefn as a technical term for glossolalia or does it
support its hypothetical origin.44 No one has been able to
demnstrate any clear linkage from either Qumran or other
pre-Christian Jewish circles for the origin of glossolalia.
The fact remains that there is no evidence whatever n
Qumran or in circles connected with Qumran regarding
anything even similar to modern glossolalia or to what is
described in 1 Cor 14. In plain language, this means that the
hypothesis of an origin of alleged Pauline glossolalia being
dependent on Jewish or other circles still lacks the required
support from presently available sources. It is noteworthy
that those who have constructed the hypotheses under
discussion are the very ones who admit to the lack of
contemporary evidence that glssa lalen, "to speak in
tongues," ever meant glossolalia in the sense of ecstatic
unintelligible utterance outside the New Testament.
6. CONCLUSIONS
There is no consensus among modern scholars as to the
origin of an alleged glossolalia that Paul supposedly has in
mind in 1 Cor 12-14. To the present time there is no
evidence for the phenomenon of glossolalia from any of the
available written Greek or other sources. Neither is there
evidence to charge Paul with an invention of something,
namely glossolalia, in a form similar to or identical with what
is practiced today in certain Christian and non-Christian
religions. From the point of view of interpretaron, it does not
seem to be sound to read into the New Testament a modern
55
phenomenon--in this case glossolalia as practiced by

Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostal charismatics and as used n
other non-Christian religions on various continents. If this
procedure were to be followed we would engage in a method
of eisegesis (a reading into a text what is not there) and not
in proper exegesis (a reading out of the text what the text
itself has).
There is but one clear and definitive passage in the New
Testament which unambiguously defines "speaking in
tongues" and that is Acts 2. If Acts 2 is allowed to stand as
it reads, then "tongues" are known, intelligible languages,
spoken by those who received the gift of the Holy Spirit and
understood by people who carne from the various areas of the
ancient world to Jerusalem.
We may raise a question of sound interpretation. Would
it not be sound methodologically to go from the known
definition and the clear passage in the New Testament to the
less clear and more difficult passage in interpretation?45
Should an interpreter in this situation attempt to interpret the
more difficult passage of 1 Cor 12-14 in light of the clearer
passage of Acts 2? Is this not a sound approach?
Evidence outside of the Bible is not available to support
any glossolalia in the New Testament. It is methodologically
unacceptable simply to read today's practice of glossolalia in
the charismatic movement back into the New Testament. Let
us interpret the Bible by the Bible where the same linguistic
phenomenon is under discussion.
This methodology is
linguistically consistent and hermeneutically sound. It has
stood the test of time over the centuries.
ENDNOTES
1 .See, for example, standard dictionaries such as Johannes Behm, "glssa,"
Theologica/ D ictio n a ry o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publ. Co 1964) 1 :7 1 9 -2 6; J. B. Tyson, "Tongues, Speaking with,"
H arper's Bible D ictionary, ed. Paul J. Achtemaier (San Francisco: Harper & Row
Publisher, 1 9 8 5) 1 0 8 1-8 2 .
56
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
2.See W . Grundmann, "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte n seinem

theologisohen Sinn, Studia Theologica, ed. F. L Cross (Berln: Akademie Verlag,
1964) ll:584-94; Frank W . Beare, "Speakng in Tongues: A Critical Survey of the
New Testament Evidence," JBL 83 (I964) 2 2 9 -4 6 (reprnted in Watson E. Mills, ed.,
Speakng in Tongues. A Guido to Research on Glossoialia [Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986] 107-26); Stuart D. Currie, "Speaking in
Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament Bearing on G/ssais Lalein,
Interpretation 19 (19 6 5 ) 2 7 4 -9 4 (reprinted in Mills, ed., Speaking in Tongues, 83106); Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular
Religin," N ovum Testam entum 2 8 /3 (1986) 2 5 7 -7 0 .
3 . This information is provided by Roy A. Harrisville, "Speaking in Tongues: A
Lexicographical Study," Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Modern Research, ed.
Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 36, and n. 10, upon whom
we are heavily dependent for the statistical information and the summaries.
4 . Acts 2:6 t da diaikto lalonton.
5 . Acts 2:8 t da diaikto hemn.
6 . Mark 7 :3 3 , 35; Luke 1:64; 16:24; Acts 2:3, 26; Rom 3:13; 14:11; Phil 2:11;
James 1:26; 3 :5 (3 times), 8; 1 Pet 3:10; 1 John 3:18; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9;
13:7; 14:6; 16:10; 17:15.
7 . Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker, A GreekEnglish Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent and Other Early Christian Literatura (2nd ed.;
Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) 162; Walter Bauer,
G riechisch-deutsches W rterbuch zu den S chriften des Neuen Testam ents u n d der
frhchristiichen L iteratur, ed. Kurt Aland und Barbara Aland (Berln: New York: Walter
de Gruyter, 1988) 324; Joseph Henry Thayer, The N e w Thayer's Greek-English
Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981) 1100-
1101.
8.See among the many expositors, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A
T ransiator's Handbook on the A c ts o f the A p o stie s (London: United Bible Societies,
1972) 3 4 -3 6 .
9.lbid., p. 3 5 (emphasis in the text).
lO.lbid.
11 .William G. MacDonald, "Glossoialia in the New Testament," Speaking in Tongues,
ed. Watson E. Mills, p. 129.
12. Johannes P. Louw, Eugene A. Nida et al., Greek-English Lexicn o f the N e w
Testam ent Based on Sem antic Domain (London/New York: United Bible Societies,
1988) 1 :3 8 9 -9 0.
1 3 . Edward Robinson, Greek and English Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent (rev. ed.;
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1858) 149.
1 4 . Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, p. 162.
1 5 .Louw and Nida et al., pp. 3 8 9 -9 0 .
16.Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular
Religin,' Novum Testam entum 2 3 /3 (1986) 2 5 7 -7 0 .
57
17.lt s typical that interpraters by the soore assert that there was "eostatio speech"
or "speaking n an ecstatic manner" at the Delphic Oracle and/or in Pythian religin.
See, for example, C. M. Roebeok, Jr., "Tongues Gift of," The International Standard
Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1988) 4 :8 7 2 , and the
discussion in Forbes, pp. 2 6 9 -7 0 , who cites as typical examples such scholars as N.
I. J. Engelsen, L. T. Johnson, T. W . Gillespie, P. Roberts among others.
18.The widely quoted articleby F. Behm, 'g l ssa ," T he o lo gicalD ictionary o f the N ew
Testam ent, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19 6 4), l:72 2 , also refers to
Plato's reference to the Delphic Oracle in Phrygia, quoting the Greek text in extenso.
See als above n. 17.
1 9 .50 Behm, "glssa," p. 7 2 2 .
2 0 . Forbes, p. 2 6 0 .
2 1 . Joseph Fortenrose, The Delphic Oracle (Berkeley: The University of California
Press, 1 9 7 8) 2 0 4 -2 1 2 .
2 2 . Forbes, pp. 2 6 2 -6 3 .
23.lbid pp. 2 6 7 -6 8 .
2 4 . Cited from Dio Chrysostom by Forbes, ibid., p. 268.
2 5 . Typical for this is N. I. J. Engelsen, Glossolalia a nd O ther Forms o f Inspired
Speech A c c o rd in g to 1 Cor. 12-14 (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University,
1970), who arges extensively that Paul distinguishes between intelligible and
unintelligible speech. He has been followed uncritically by many writers. Forbes
concludes, "Engelsen's attempt to parallel Christian glossolalia in Greek and
Hellenistic religious phenomena is, however, marred by many errors of both method
and interpretation, and his conclusions are largely to be rejected" (p. 2 69).
2 6 . Friedrich Preisigke, W rterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Heidelbergr
Selbstverlag, 1924) 1:299.
2 7 . Friedrich Preisigke, W rterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden
Selbstverlag der Erben, 1925) 2:3 "sprechen, mitteilen, erzhlen."
(Berln:
2 8 . James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek
T estam ent lllu s tra te d from the Papyri and o th e r N on-Literary Sources (London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1952) 128.
2 9 .Ibid., p. 3 6 8 .
3 0 .50 correctly Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Jo urnal o f
Theological S tu d y 17 (1969) 3 0 4 .
3 1 . G. W . H. Lampe, A P atristic Greek Lexicn (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press,
1962) 3 1 6 .
3 2 . Harold Hunter, "Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis," Jo u rn a l o f the Evanglica!
Theological S ociety 2 3 /2 (1980) 1 3 5 . See also Currie, p. 105, with slightly different
conclusions. He points out, however, that t is not possible to determine whether the
Greek phrase glssa lalein in the NT "can be used appropriately to describe the
current 'speaking in tongues' phenomena" (ibid.).
3 3 . Engelsen, p. 2 0 . This is supported by Harrisville, p. 4 1 .
58
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
3 4 . Harrisvlle, p. 41, has found one instanoe of glssa lalein in profane Greek. It is
found in a reconstructed line of a hymn to Imouthes-Asclepius from the library of the
Oxyrhynchus Papyri citad in Harrisville, p. 41 n. 34.
3 5 . Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, 39.
36.lbid., p. 41.
37-lbid., p. 43.
38.So
Behm, p. 7 2 2 .
3 9 . Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, pp. 4 4 -5 0 .

4 0 . Behm, pp. 7 2 5 -2 6 .
41 .See for instance Bastiaan Van Elderen, "Glossolalia in the New Testament,"
Bulletin o fth e Evanglica! T heologicalS ociety 7 (1964) 5 3 -5 8 ; William E. Richardson,
L it rg ica i Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthians 14 :26 c-3 3 a and Its Im plications
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 1983) 8991.
4 2 . Harrisville, Speaking in Tongues, p. 50, rejects a Paulina origin by opting for an
origin "in pre-Christian, Jewish sources."
4 3 . Engelsen, p. 20.
4 4 . Harrisville, pp. 4 4 -4 8 .
4 5 . There are some scholars who on the basis of their form-critical and redactioncritical analyses of Acts 2 claim that the olearer passage is 1 Cor 1 4. They seek to
move on that basis from 1 Cor 14 to Acts 2. They claim that in Acts 2 there is a
deeper layer of tradition which is identical to the alleged glossolalia in 1 Cor 14, but
later editors have redactad Acts 2 to make the gift one of intelligible languages (see
Chapter IV below). This approach lacks the support of the plain meaning of the text
of Acts 2, it lacks the support of the ancient manuscript tradition, and it is solely
based on modern reconstructions that are too subjective to carry weight. It is best
to employ the "cise reading" approach to the text.
CH APTER III
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE G O SPEL OF MARK
In this part of our study, we shall investgate the New

Testament phenomenon of the promise of the gift of tongues
as stated by Jess Christ the risen Lord. This means that we
shall begin a careful study of the New Testament passages
that refer to tongues-speaking. In the succeeding chapters
we will continu with a study of New Testament references
to "speaking in tongues" in chronological order.1
1. HISTORICAL SETTING
The first individual to speakabout the gift of tongues was
Jess Christ himself. He referred to this matter only once,
according to the gospel record.
The passage under consideration is Mark 16:17. It
belongs to the so-called "longer ending"2 of the Gospel of
Mark. This "longer ending" has been the subject of study for
a long period of time. There are good reasons for this section
to remain in our modern Bible translations.3 It would be too
technical a matter to pursue in some detail the issues relating
to the debate about the "longer ending" of the Gospel of
Mark. For our purposes we consider it to be a genuine word
of the Risen Lord.
The setting of this prediction puts it in the context of
several statements made by Jess to His disciples after His
resurrection and shortly before His final ascensin. The
context reveis that it is spoken by Jess when He commanded His disciples to preach the gospel in all the world (vs. 15)
and when He promised them the power to perform miracles
(vs. 17). One of these miracles is the ability "to speak in new
tongues."
60
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
2. JESUS' PREDICTION OF SPEAKING IN
NEW TONGUES
Jess predicts the following:
And these signs will accompany those who have believed:
in My ame they will cast out demons, they will speak
with new4 tongues (Mk 16:17, NASB).6
With regard to Mk 16:17 a number of considerations should

have our attention:
a) This s the only reference to speaking in tongues n the
Gospels. Significantly, it comes from the mouth of the Lord
Himself. It unique appearance here should not diminish its
significance.
b) This reference to "new tongues" comes in the form of
a prediction made by the Risen Lord to His eleven disciples
(vs. 14) within the context of reaffirming the Great Commission to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all
creation" (vs. 15). Here Christ repeated the mndate to
evangelize the whole world. It is within this context of
evangelization that the Risen Lord speaks of the accompanying "signs" of casting out demons (cf. Acts 8:7; 16:18;
19:12) and the speaking in or with "new tongues." The
"sign" nature indicates in this instance that Jess is speaking
of a miracles which the disciples would engages in. Since
Jess is speaking to his disciples. He does not refer to the
sign-miracles of vs. 17 as something that will come to His
disciples when they began to believe. They are signs that will
manifest themselves as they remain in a State of faith and
faithfulness.
c) The reference is to a future occurrence as the future
tense of the verb indicates (Greek laesousin), i.e., during the
future, when Christ's followers would take up the commission
of the Lord, this sign of "speaking in new tongues" would be
manifested among believers.
d) The "sign" of "speaking in new tongues" is as much a
miracle as the other signs mentioned in vs. 17. Each one of
them is supernatural in origin and nature.
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN MARK
61
e)
The nature of the "sign" which would accompany the
future proclamaron of the Good News by believers, consisting
of an experience which would enable them to "speak with
new tongues" (Greek g/ossais la/esousin kainais).
What does the crucial phrase "new tongues" mean?
3. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "TONGUES"

The Greek word for "tongues" s glssa. We have
observed in the previous chapter that this word is used with
a variety of meanings in the New Testament and in the Greek
language n general. We may summarize as follows:
a) It is employed with reference to the "tongue" as an
organ of speech (so Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 1:64; Rom 3:13; 14:11;
Isa 3:5f.; 1 Jn 3:18; 1 Pet 3:10; Rev 16:10; Acts 2:26).4
*6 It
is, however, generally agreed that this is not what it means
here in Mark 16:17.
b) Another meaning of the word for "tongue" is "lan
guage" (Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6;
17:15; Acts 2:6, 11).7
The meaning "languages" is the meaning employed in
Mark 1 6:17 by the NAB (New American Standard Bible) which
translates "new languages."8 This versin seems to reflect
the intention of the original Greek word glssa. The Translator's Handbook on the Gospel o f Mark, published first in
1961, explains that "tongues" here means "languages" on the
basis that "the meaning here is the same as that in Acts 2:411, . . ." 9 This suggestion finds linguistic and contextual
support, as will be shown below.
4. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "N EW "

The adjective "new" in the phrase "speak in new
tongues translates the Greek adjective kainais10 which can
have a variety of semantic meanings.11 A few English
translations render this Greek term with the word "strange"
62
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
(NEB, TEV). These translations are based on the dynamic

translation method which does not follow the historie, literal
word-for-word translation. The dynamic translations have the
tendeney to introduce the translator's understanding.12 The
meaning "strange" s never used n the New Testament when
the Greek term s kainais, as is the case here.
This difference may be llustrated by the comparison
between the tw o words for "new" used n the Greek language
of the New Testament. One is the Greek word kainos, used
here n Mark 1 6:17 in the plural form kainais, and the other is
the Greek term neos. "Of the tw o most common words for
'new ' since the classical period [in Greek], namely neos and
kainos, the former signifies 'w hat was not there before,'
'w hat has only just arisen and appeared,' the latter 'w hat is
new and distinctive' as compared with other things. neos is
new in time or origin, i.e., young, with a suggestion of
immaturity or of lack of respect for the od . . . . kainos is
what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive,
better than the od, superior in valu or attra ctio n ,. . . " 13 We
have to balance this definitional distinction with the fact that
the Synoptics "use kainos from time to time with the same
meaning as neos in order to distinguish the new . . . from the
od already in existence, . . . 14 Based on these definitions
the term "strange" is ill-chosen.
The meaning of the Greek term kainais in Mark 16:17
seemsto indcate "new" in the sense of something unknown
in this manner and at the same time marvelous to the one
speaking t.15 It is "new" in the sense of a language which
the speaker had not learned previously.16 It is "new" in the
sense of a miracle that makes it possible to speak with
tongues not learned. It is a miracle joined to other miracles
that the Lord had promised in Mark 16:17.
The idea then is clear. To speak with "new tongues"
means to speak in "languages" which were "new" to the
speaker, i.e., those, which he had not acquired by normal
learning processes, though they could have been acquired in
this way under normal circumstances. There was also a new
quality to the language spoken.
63
5. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN "NEW TONGUES

It seems to be self-evident that Mark 16:17 s to be
closely linked with Acts 2, because the phraseology n both
passages s very cise. We read in Mark 16:17 "speak n new
tongues" and n Acts 2:4 "speak n other tongues." Only n
these tw o passages we find adjectives joined to the phrase
"speak n tongues" (cf. 1 Cor 14). This adjectival usage of a
term links these passages together from a linguistic point of
view .17
There s another linkage between Mark 16:17 and Acts 2.
These passages are linked together on the basis of the
theological principie of prediction and fulfillment. Mark 16:17
contains the Lord's prediction of this miracle. It finds its great
fulfillment in the miracle of tongues-speaking at Pentecost in
Jerusalem (Acts 2) a few weeks later.
The immediate context of this Markan statement on the
gift of tongues puts it undeniably within the framework of the
commissioning of the Lord's disciples between Jess'
resurrection and ascensin. Jess' disciples were to receive
the marvelous power of the gift of the Holy Spirit. They were
to go forth to proclaim the Good News of what Jess had
achieved for all mankind, first in Israel, and then to all nations,
tongues, and peoples. During their previous ministry the
disciples were restricted to Israel (Mt 10:1-11:1, esp. 10:6)
and Samara (Lk 10:1-16), but now the ministry of the
followers of Jess, "those who believe" (Mk 16:17), was to
go far beyond the borders of Palestine.
During their earlier, more restricted ministry, the disciples
were equipped by their mother tongue(s) to preach the gospel,
but now "a new endowment was promised. The disciples
were to preach among other nations, and they would receive
power to speak other tongues. The apostles and their
associates were unlettered men, yet through the outpouring
of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, their speech, whether
in their own or a foreign language, became pur, simple, and
accurate, both in word and in accent"8. The Risen Lord
64
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
made a prediction as far-reaching as the Great Commission

and thereby determined the purpose in the use of the gift of
speaking n tongues. It is suggested that a) the disciples
would be able to speak "new tongues," that s, foreign
languages which were "new" to them and b) that they would
be able to speak all languages with a flawless newness.
ENDNOTES
1 .We do not mean the chronology of the documents in which these passages are
found but the chronology of the development of the NT church.
2 . Mk 1 6 :9 -2 0 is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but are omitted by
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bobiensis (Od Latn), Sinaitic (Od Syriac) and some other
manuscripts (cf. E. Nestle, N ovum Testam entum Graece [25th ed., Stuttgart, 1963],
p. 1 36). Both Eusebius and Jerome attest that these verses were wanting in almost
all Greek MSS known to them. There are traces of these verses in Justin Martyr
(A p o l. i 45), but the earliest definite witness to this longer ending of Mark is in
Irenaeus (iii.10.6). Although many commentators hold that this longer ending of
Mark is not an original part of the gospel, M .-J. Lagrange, Evangile saln S aint M aro
(5th ed.; Paris, 1 929), pp. 4 5 6 -4 6 8 , affirms the canonicity of this passage.
According to the Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible Com m entary, ed. F. D. Nichol
(Washington, D.C., 19 5 6), V, 6 5 9 , the "Textual evidence favors the so-called Longer
Ending over the "Shorter Ending."
3 . For discussions on the longer ending of Mark, see B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort,
The N e w Testam ent in the O riginal Greek, With Introduction a nd A p p e n d ix (London:
Macmillan & Co., 1882) Appendix, 2:28-51; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels (New
York: Macmillan and Company, Limited) pp. 3 3 3 -3 6 0 ; B. B. Warfield, A n Introduction to the Textual Criticism o f the N e w Testam ent (London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1886) pp. 1 9 9 -2 0 4 ; C. S. C. Williams, A lte ra tio n s to the Text o f the Synoptic
Gospels and A c ts (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951) pp. 4 0 -4 4 ; R. G. Bratcher and E.
A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel o f M ark (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961)
pp. 5 1 7 -5 2 2 ; W . F. Farmer, The L a st Twelve Verses o f M ark (London/New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1974) pp. 1-124.
4 . The adjective "new (kainais) is omitted from certain MSS (Ephraemi Rescriptus
[original reading], Regius, St. Gall [037], Athos [044], Coptic Sahidic, Coptic Bohairic,
Armenian) but is attested in most of the best manuscripts and should be accepted
as original (so among many C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel A cco rd in g to S t.M ark
[CGTC; Cambridge, 1963], p. 4 7 4 ).
5 . KJV: "new tongues; RSV:new tongues"; JB: "new tongues"; NEB: "strange
tongues"; TEV "strange tongues"; NAB: "new languages"; NIV "new tongues"; NRSV
"new tongues."
65
6 . W . F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicn o f the N e w Testament

(Chicago, 1957), p. 161 (hereafter citad as Arndt and Gingrich). Also J. H. Moulton
and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testam ent (London, 1952), p. 128.
This meaning is attested also generally in Greek, so H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A
Greek-English Lexicn (Oxford, 1940), I, 353; F. Preisigke, W rterbuch der
griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Heidelberg, 1924), I, 2 9 9 , and E. Kiessling,
W rterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (Amsterdam, 1969), p. 58.
7 . This meaning is attested in all lexicons mentioned in note 6 above. Liddell and
Scott, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 3 5 3 , also gives the meanings of "an obsolete and
foreign word, which needs explanation" and anything shaped like a tongue such as
a "reed or tongue of a pipe," or the "tongue or thong of leather, shoe-latchet, or the
"tongue of land," or the divinatory "marking on the liver."
8 .Supra, note 5.
9.R. G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, Transiator's Handbook on the G o s p e io f Mark
(Leiden, 1 961), p. 5 1 2 .
1 0 .On the textual questions, see V. Taylor, The G o speiA ccording St. M ark (London,
1 963), p. 61 2 , omits this word from his Greek text, but Cranfield, St. M ark, p. 4 7 4 ,
defends its authenticity.
1 1 .See Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicn, pp. 3 9 4 f., and J. Behm,
"ka in o s ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testament, ed G. Kittel (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans 19 6 5), 3:4 5 0 ff.
1 2 .See Eugene H. Glassman, The Translation Debate.
W hat M akes a Bibie
Transiation Good? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981) pp. 4 8 -5 2 .
1 3 . Behm, "ka in o s ," 3:4 4 7 .
1 4 . H. Haarbeck, H.-G. Link, and C. Brown, "New," The N e w In ternational D ictionary
o f N e w Testam ent Theology Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), p. 6 7 1 .
1 5 . Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 3 9 5 . T. H. Thayer, Greek-English
Lexicn o f the NT (New York, 1 8 89), p. 119: "To speak with new tongues which the
speaker had not learned previously."
1 6 .See Thayer, Greek-English Lexicn o f the NT, p. 119: "To speak with new
tongues the speaker had not learned previously." See also Bratcher and Nida, Gospei
o f M ark, p. 51 2 .
1 7 . The authoritative Greek grammar of F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W . Funk, A
Greek G ram m ar o f the N e w Testam ent and Other Early Christian Literatura (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 254, explains that we have in Mk 16:17 an
ellipsis of an adjective where heterais, "other," which properly belongs to the phrase
"as it is designad in the narrative where the phenomenon first appears (A 2:4)."
According to this grammar Mk 16:17 and Acts 2:4 are closely linked together,
although the adjectives differ.
18. Ellen G. White, The Desire o f A g e s (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1940) p. 8 2 3 .
CHAPTER IV
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN A CTS 2
The most explicit and significant passage on the gift of

speaking in tongues is presented in Acts 2:1-13.1 In this
passage Luke, the associate of Paul, gives an account of the
great Day of Pentecost. It was a day of dramatic change for
the primitive Christian Church. The outpouring of the Holy
Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was the early rain experience
of the Holy Spirit. It enabled the first Christians to come
down from the Upper Room and to engage in the proclamaron
of the Good News as never before. This experience changed
the early Church into a true missionary movement, despite the
extraordinary obstacles it would face in overcoming tradition,
prejudice and other formidable obstacles.
God showed
Himself to be on the side of the new community and with the
power and presence of the third Person of the triune Godhead
God's cause would succeed. In the gift of "speaking in
tongues" God provided the means to overeme the natural
obstacle limitating the quick and efficient communication of
the Gospel.
1. HISTORICA!. SETTING
The Day of Pentecost took place on the 50th day after
the Passover (Lev 23:15f.; Num 28:16; Deut 16:9-12),2
placing the events of Acts 2 seven weeks after the crucifixin
of Jess. The Risen Lord appeared to His disciples over a
period of forty days (Acts 1:3; cf. 1 Cor 1 5:3-7)3 and spoke
to them about the "kingdom of God."
On the day of His ascensin Jess Christ gathered His
disciples together and in His last conversaron with them He
enjoined them to stay in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) until the
promised Holy Spirit (John 14) would come upon them.
The last words of the Risen Lord to His disciples were:
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come
68
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
upon you; and you shall be my witnesses n Jerusalem and n

all Judea and Samara and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:8,
RSV). After Jess Christ had thus assured the disciples that
they would receve the Holy Spirtthe sine qua non for the
fulfillment of their commsson2
*4--which conferred the
miraculous power to perform the "signs" promsed before (Mk
16:17f.), He was received out of their sght nto heaven (Acts
1:9-12).
The Hoiy Spirt was promised; the early Church was to
await His coming in Jerusalem, the last place they would have
chosen for themselves so soon after the terrible events
leading to the crucifixin of their Lord.5
The disciples, however, were obedient to Christ's
command. They waited with the women,6 Jess' mother,
and His brothers (cf. 1 Cor 9:5)7 in the Upper Room in
Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14) for the gift of the Holy Spirt. The
promise of the coming of the Holy Spirt would be experienced
in a few days' time.
The time of waiting was a time of preparation. The
followers of Jess devoted themselves to prayer (Acts 1:14),
numbering at that time in Jerusalem about a hundred and
tw enty. The infant community of faith was bound together
in a spirt of unity8 through prayer (Acts 2:1). The time was
ripe for the outpouring of the Holy Spirt.
2. THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

When the disciples were all gathered together at the
dawning of the Day of Pentecost, suddenly the whole house9
where they were sitting was filled with a sound of a rushing
"wind" (pnoe).10
The celestial visitation was not only audible but also
visible.
There were "tongues as of fire distributing
themselves, and they rested on each of them" (Acts 2:3,
NASB). Both the rushing wind and the "tongues as of fire"
are emblems of the power of the Holy Spirt. They were tw o
signs11 which manifest the coming and continued presence of
the Holy Spirit.
The appearance of "tongues as of fire" does not mean
69
that fire fell down from heaven, but that the "tongues"
(g/ossais) looked lkeu flames of fire, forking in such a way as
to touch each one of them. It provides "visual evidence that
the Spirit is given them as individuis."13
Luke endeavored to avoid giving the mpression that the
noise from the sky (heaven) and the fire-like tongues were
mere natural phenomena. In each case he made the point that
the noise was "like" (hosper) that of a strong rushing wind
and the tongues were "like" (hose) flames of fire. That "the
wind and fire he mentions were not those known to
nature"14 is evident from the use of these tw o comparative
partiles.15
This emphasis of the report of Acts shows that the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit was no mere subjective
experience.16 This is further supported by the verb translated
"appeared" (ophthesan) in vs. 3a. This term was deliberately
chosen to suggest that what the followers of Jess witnessed
w ith their own eyes had a corresponding reality. The
experience cannot be explained away as the product of their
imagination.
The report in Acts 2:3b emphasizes that the Holy Spirit
"rested" (ekathisen) on each of them.17 The subject of the
verb "rested" could be either "tongue" (understood from
"tongues" earlier)18 or less possibly "fire ,"19 or most likely the
Holy Spirit of the next verse.20 Although the Greek is not
clear on the subject of the verb, the verb itself (kathizo)
means "to sit down, rest." It indicates through its meaning a
permanent settling down, while the aorist tense21 here
suggests the inception of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The phrase "and it rested on each one of them" implies
(a) that the Holy Spirit was received by each one individually
present in the house and (b) that this was no momentary
experience restricted to the Day of Pentecost. It was a
permanent endowment lasting throughout the lifetime of the
person who had received this g ift.22
3. THE NATURE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The audible and visible aspects of the presence of the
70
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost s evident. Now a third

aspect s added: "And they were all filled w ith the Holy Spirit
and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance" (Acts 2:4, RSV).
The word "gave" is used to depict the gift nature of
speaking in tongues.23 The gift of speaking in tongues is not
a learned experience. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit to
believers. This is in contrast to the practice in Pentecostalism
and neo-Pentecostalism with their so-called "tarrying"
meetings. In these meetings "groups of people would 'tarry'
and be taught how to expand their consciousness in order to
bypass the ntellect"24 so as to be able to engage in
glossolalia.
It is of crucial importance to inquire into the meaning of
the words, "they began to speak in other tongues." As soon
as the Holy Spirit filled those present in the Upper Room an
external effect was manifested. There was no period of
apprenticeship; there was no period of being taught, and there
was no time of learning: "They began" (erxanto) to speak25
right away.
The Holy Spirit causes the disciples to speak out boldly
(2:4c). The term used by Luke is rendered as "utterance"
(NKJV, NASB) or "ability"(NRSV). The actual word used is
apophthggesthai,26 and in non-biblical Greek it means "to
speak out loudly and clearly," "to speak with emphasis."27
The "bold" speech of those endowed with the gift of tongues
does not desgnate ecstatic speech, but a speaking that is
distinct, emphatic, loud and clear.28
The phrase of importance is that they spoke "in other
tongues." The NRSV, a dynamic translation, renders this
phrase with "in other languages." The first term which needs
careful attention is "tongues" (Greek g/ossais), the traditional
rendering of the original word in English translations.
The Greek word used here in Acts 2 is identical with the
one in Mark 16:17. In our discussion of Mark 16:17 in
Chapter III and in our linguistic discussion in Chapter II it has
been shown that the Greek term "glssa," that is, "tongue,"
in its various usages can mean in the Greek language (a)
"tongue" as an organ and instrument of speech and (b)
"language" in the sense of a native or foreign language or
71
dialect.29 In Chapter II above we have studied the broad

issues of the term "tongue" n the Greek language, to which
the reader may return for a review of the evidence.
The term "tongues" n vs. 4 s clearly defined by Luke n
Acts 2.
In vss. 6 and 8 he equates this term with
"languages." In the latter tw o verses we do not find the
Greek word glssa but the Greek term dialektos. The term
dialektos means "language of a nation or regin."30 In Acts
1:19 the term dialektos means the vernacular language of a
country.31 It has the same meaning in Acts 2:6, 8.
Some have suggested that no true foreign languages are
meant in Acts 2:6, 8, but "dialects,"32 an ecstatic spiritlanguage,33 a "supernatural Esperanto,"34 or an ordered
Hebrew recitation of fixed liturgical passages.35 These
proposals come to grief on the basis of the equation of
"tongue" and "language" in vss. 4 and 11 aside from vss. 6
and 8 in Acts 2.36 In Acts 2 there is a scholarly consensus of
opinin supporting the equation of "tongues" w ith "dialects"
that mean "languages."37 "By speaking other languages, the
believers provide the evidence that the Holy Spirit is
performing a miracle."38
Additional considerations lend strong support to the
position that the "tongues" are indeed "languages." First,
notice that the hearers who have not yet attained to faith are
not endowed with the gift of interpretation. They understand
the believers who speak in tongues without recourse to
interpretation or translation. Second, the people are amazed
and bewildered (Acts 2:7). "The crowd detects that the
speakers are not foreigners but Galileans"39 who could not
have learned these foreign languages in any natural way. This
demonstrates that the listening crowd does not think that they
are heafing a "spirit-language," "supernatural Esperanto," or
something else, or a speech a Galilean could engage in as well
as any other person. The utter amazement was caused by the
fact that these unlearned Galileans suddenly spoke in the
native mother tongues of the various listeners.
Luke was not recording a miracle of hearing, as has been
supposed by some, namely that the disciples spoke in their
own language, but people understood what they were saying,
each in his own tongue. This view was held by some of the
72
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Fathers of the Church, but t has not found serious support

subsequently. Luke explicitly records that "each one heard
them speaking in his own language" (Acts 2:6). The word
"them" indicates that they are hearing the Christians speak
each in the language of respective hearers.
An additional reason against the view that the miracle at
Pentecost was one of hearing rests in the problem that the
miracle is thereby transferred from the disciples to the
unconverted multitude. To this should be added the fact that
speaking in tongues began before there was an audience
(Acts 2:4).
This miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit carne upon the
believers only. It enabled them to speak in different human
languages, so that the nternational group of listeners (vss. 5,
9-11) heard them in their own mother tongues (vss. 6 ,8 ,1 1 ).
Those who do not believe do not particpate in this miraculous
gift of the Holy Spirit.
This point seems very important in view of the fact that
in modern times glossolalia is practiced by believers and nonbelievers, that is, by Christians and non-Christians, and even
by non-religious persons such as agnostics and atheists. The
gift of Acts 2 is not universal in nature; it is a gift restricted
to those who were waiting in proper preparation for the gift
of the Holy Spirit which had been promised only to the
followers of Jess.
In Acts 2 non-believers are privileged to hear the Good
News of "the mighty works of God" (vs. 11), so that they too
may join the fellowship of believers. However, non-believers
are not endowed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The adjective "other" (heteros) in the phrase "to speak in
other tongues" in Acts 2:4 deserves attention. The Greek
term heteros here has the meaning of "different, foreign,"40
so that the phrase has been properly translated as "to speak
in foreign tongues."41 The phrase "to speak in other
( = foreign) tongues," States H. W. Beyer, "means speaking in
various languages which were different from the mother
tongue of the speakers and which were previously unknown
to them ."42
This linguistic specification does full justice to the later
expression that each one heard them in his "own language"
73
(da dialekto), as vs. 8 explicitly States. It also fits the

enumeration of the languages of the nternational group of
listeners. To put t differently, Luke's use of "other" and
"ow n" mplies that he did not mean by "other tongues" at
Pentecost a type of glossolalia which is characterized by
narticulate, unintelligible speech which is in need of
interpretation because no one can understand it. Luke wishes
to communicate by ever so many means that the miraculous
gift of speaking in other languages at Pentecost was the
ability to speak articlate, intelligible, foreign languages which
had not been learned by the speakers previously and which
were not learned at that time.43
We may concluded from the testimony of those
enumerated in the long list of countries and peoples44 from
"every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5) that they were
witnesses of the miracle of the believers' speaking in
tongues.45 To say that the gift of speaking foreign languages
was quite superfluous at Pentecost since all who were present
would have been able to speak or understand either Aramaic
or Greek, is only to say what Luke himself must have known.
The point is that Luke was not so foolish as to suggest that
this gift was bestowed upon the disciples even though they
could make themselves intelligible to their hearers without it.46
The reaction of the listeners who were "hearing them
speaking in their own (hemeterais) tongues" (Acts 2:11)
testifies to their conviction that they as "Jews and
proselytes" (2:9) recognized what was spoken to be their
"own native language" (2:8). It is well to keep in mind that
the "proselytes" were not obliged to learn Hebrew or
Aramaic.47
The phenomenon of speaking in tongues at Pentecost is
depicted by a well-known writer in the following insightful
manner:
The Holy Spirit, assuming the form of tongues of fire,
rested upon those assembled. This was an emblem of the
gift then bestowed on the disciples, which enabled them
to speak with fluency languages with which they had
heretofore been unacquainted.... Every known tongue was
represented by those assembled.
This diversity of
language would have been a great hindrance to the
proclamation of the gospel; God therefore in a miraculous
74
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
manner supplied the deficiency of the apostles. The Holy
Spirit did for them that which they could not have
accomplished for themselves in a lifetime. They could
now proclaim the truths of the gospel abroad, speaking
with accuracy the languages of those for whom they were
laboring. This miraculous gift was a strong evidence to
the world that their commission bore the signet of
Heaven.48
This summary of the Pentecostal phenomenon reflects what

the text of Acts 2 says.
4. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

We must ask, What was the purpose for providing the gift
of speaking foreign languages? As we have seen in the
previous sections, the Holy Spirit carne upon the believers
gathered together in the Upper Room49 and each one was
endowed with the Holy Spirit. Thus they were enabled to
speak intelligible foreign languages.
Based on the prediction of Jess, as recorded in Mark
16:17 and its context, the purpose of the gift of tongues was
to provide the Communications means for the evangelization
of the world through the proclamation of the gospel (cf. Mk
16:16ff.). The words of Jess recorded in Acts 1:5, "You
will be baptized w ith the Holy Spirit in a few days," found
their fulfillment in Acts 2 in the Pentecostal outpouring of the
Holy Spirit.
Those assembled in the Upper Room carne down and
entered into the streets, miraculously speaking in foreign
languages previously unknown to them. As the crowds,
which included many from different regions and countries,
heard that "sound," undoubtedly the speaking of foreign
languages (vs. 4),50 they gathered together and witnessed the
proclamation of "God's deeds and power" (vs. 11). The
poclamation of God's deeds and His power nvolved the
"telling in all languages then spoken [of] the story of His
[Christ's] lite and m inistry."51
The final result of this experience and the preaching of
Peter at Pentecost (2:14-41) was that three thousand souls
were baptized on that day (vs. 41). The reaping of the first
75
fruits of the worldwide harvest was accomplished at

Pentecost through the miraculous gift of communicating the
Good News to all those from the various parts of the ancient
world who were present n Jerusalem at this festal occasion.
The purpose of the gift of "speaking in tongues" s to
emphasize that God had lifted any linguistic barriers to the
proclamation of the Good News. Furthermore, the gift of
tongues as manifested through the Holy Spirit reveis that by
means of this gift of audible communication the church has
become worldwide. The 120 that were assembled were
enlarged into a worldwide church with persons from all the
civilized world of that day.
5. THE SCOFFERS' REACTION TO SPEAKING

IN TONGUES
There were "some" (Greek heteroi)52 persons among the
hearers who contemptuously mocked by saying, "They are full
of sweet w ine"53 (2:13, NASB). These scoffers implied that
the tongues-speakers were drunk.
Who were the scoffers? "One may think of Jerusalem
Jews who did not know foreign languages"54 and of those
who dismissed the miraculous event w ith a sneer55 by
suggesting that the tongues-speakers were drunk.
There s an element here that made some hearers56
amazed and thoroughly perplexed. Some people continued to
be confused, for they were unable to account for this miracle
in a natural way. These unbelievers, or ancient secularists,
can be equated with "the world [which] begins w ith ridcule\
then afterwards it proceeds to questioning (4:7); to threats
(4:7); to imprisoning (5:18); to infHcting stripes (5:40); to
murder (7:58).1,57 As God performs miracles for all human
beings to see and to hear, there will always be unbelievers
who, while the evidence is before them, refuse to accept the
truth. In mocking and scoffing, such people harden their
hearts so that they cannot see and are unable to hear (Isa 6:910 ).
It is appropriate here to point to a relationship between
Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14. The fact that certain members of the
76
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
crowd were able to accuse those who first received the Spirit
of having had too much sweet wine appears to be related to
the charge of "outsiders" that church members speaking with
tongues n Corinth must be out of their minds (1 Cor
14:23).58 If a non-Christian comes into a congregation, the
unbelieving non-Christian may be led to conclude that the
Spirit-filled tongue-speaker is mad. In Corinth, however, there
was an additional confusin caused by the disorderiy way in
which things took place.
6. SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND MODERN

SOURCE HYPOTHESES
The relationship between the reaction of the hostile group
on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:13) and the reaction of the
non-Christian visitor in the Corinthian congregation with the
implied reference to "tongues" in each case has led certain
scholars to hypothesize that in its present form Acts 2:1-13
unites tw o different sources of the Pentecostal experience.
One announces the commencement of speaking in tongues in
terms of glossolalia, that is, inarticulate, unintelligible, ecstatic
utterance, and the other source consists of a miracle of
speaking intelligible, known, foreign languages.
Space does not permit a detailed discussion of the various
source hypotheses which have been developed by historicalcritical scholars over the years. Therefore, we will limit our
discussion to representative examples.
A t the end of the earlier high tide of source hypotheses
among historical-critical scholars appeared the study by F.
Spitta.59 He claimed as long ago as 1891 that there were
tw o basic sources.
The "historical source A" which
supposedly contained Acts 2:1a, 4, 11-36, reflecting
"speaking in tongues" in terms of unintelligible speech as he
supposed was the case in 1 Cor 14. The remainder of Acts
2 comes from a "legendary source B," namely the voice of
God which speaks to the Jewish people. Vss. 3b and 7f.
were inserted by a later editor who thus spoke of a human
linguistic miracle.60
O. Bauernfeind, in his 1939 commentary, ascribes to
77
Luke's source only the miracle of the descent of the Holy

Spirit and the miracle of the languages.61 He claimed that "t
is no long step" from the miraculous understanding of
glossolalia by a single "interpreter" (1 Cor 14:28) to the
"miraculous understanding on the part of a whole company,
or at least many of them ."62
Even critical scholars find the step rather long, the more
so since it merely leads to the conclusin proposed by H.
Wendt that the disciples spoke in an ecstatic "spirit-language"
which each hearer understood as if it were his mother tongue
even if he knew that it was not so!63
In 1957 C. S. C. Williams conjectured an original
(Aramaic?) source in which the Twelve are depicted as filled
w ith the Holy Spirit and were sent forth into twelve parts of
the world. Luke altered this source in order to let a gradual
progression of missions evolve.64
Different still s the hypothesis propounded by E.
Trocm65 in 1957. He suggests that in Acts 2:1-6, 12-13
Luke was ndebted to a source which reported how divine
grace had removed the confusin of languages ntroduced in
the Tower of Babel story (Gen 11:1 -9)66 by bestowing a
"supernatural Esperanto" based on a midrash of Ex 19.67
Luke then ntroduced the idea of foreign languages in vss. 7-8,
11 .
Lutheran bishop Eduard Lohse is much more cautious. He
postulates that Luke used only one oral tradition, but Luke
himself transformed the "speaking in tongues" from ecstatic,
unintelligible speech into the miracle of foreign language.68
In his recent commentary on Acts Emst Haenchen points out
that Luke "could not count on much help from sources: there
was no ancient or uniform tradition."69 But Luke was a
theologian who reshaped the idea of the Risen Christ's
transmitting to His disciples the Holy Spirit (John 20:22)
under the influence of the Jewish Pentecost experience into
a story with an ecstatic speech incomprehensible to most
listeners but comprehensible to some.70
Basic for our attempt to evalate the various written
and/or oral source hypotheses is the need to recognize the
assumptions and presuppositions at work among critical
scholars. It must be pointed out first of all that these
78
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
scholars, representative of a much greater number, share the

common conviction that the supposedly original Pentecostal
experience of "speaking in tongues" consisted of glossolalia
and not of known intelligible languages.
The question to be raised is, On what foundation is this
supposition based? The consistent answer is that 1 Cor 14
proves that the original gift was glossolalia, unintelligible
speech. In other words, historical-critical scholars wish to
know the precise nature of the experience in Corinth, derived
through an interpretaron of 1 Cor 14 with the aid of
reconstructed contemporary phenomena in pagan religions
which supposedly influenced the church in Corinth.
In
Chapter II above we indicated how this common suggestion
that glossolalia was known from pagan religions is without
support from ancient sources. It will not do to create a
background on which to interpret 1 Cor 14 and then to read
this reconstruction back into Acts 2. This smacks too much
of circular reasoning and using a hypothesis that remains
unproven as the foundation for another hypothesis.
Another basic assumption is that the Pentecostal
experience of Acts is to be nterpreted by means of 1 Cor 14-the key to the understanding of speaking in tongues in Acts
2 is the speaking in tongues in 1 Cor 14. In this way, the
movement in understanding begins in 1 Cor 14 and moves to
the earlier experience reported in Acts 2. In terms of the
chronology of events, however, Acts 2 is an experience that
precedes that of 1 Cor 14. There can be no doubt on this
issue.
No one wishes to deny a connection between the
experience of the Christians in Corinth and those in Jerusalem
at an earlier time.
There is indeed a connection on
phenomenological grounds, on linguistic grounds, on
theological grounds, and on missiological grounds. However,
on the basis of the chronology of the manifestations of
"speaking in tongues," there can be no question regarding the
fact that the initial experience took place at Jerusalem at
Pentecost. The experience of tongues at Corinth took place
about tw o decades later. On this basis alone the starting
point for the investigation and interpretation of the gift of
tongues has to be Acts 2, i.e., the earliest manifestation.
79
Every scholar who employs source hypothetical theories

is torced to come to the conclusin that the tongues-speaking
phenomenon in Acts 2 in the presently available Greek text,
which is very well supported textually, is to be understood in
terms of real languages. It is this inevitable conclusin that
does not seems to square in their mind with their
understanding of 1 Cor 14. Is it methodologically sound to
hypothesize that there are layers of sources and redactional
activity going on in Acts 2 simply because this earlier
phenomenon of tongues does not agree with a problematical
interpretaron of 1 Cor 14 by modern scholars? This matter
raises serious methodological questions.71
There is a time-honored principie of Biblical interpretation.
It has a history reaching back to the Reformation and into the
New Testament itself. It is the principie that the Bible is its
own interpreter. It is known from the history of Christianity
as the Protestant principie of sola scriptura-th e Bible alone.
Space does not permit a treatment of the various ramifications
of this hermeneutical principie.
Paul recommended
"comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor 2:13, KJV).
The idea is to put together spiritual things on the basis of the
inspired word of knowledge (12:8; cf. 10:12).
Peter's
injunction is that "no prophecy of scripture is a matter of
one's own interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20; RSV). Bible-believing
Christians have historically followed the principie of letting the
Bible speak in matters pertaining to spiritual things, letting it
be the sol rule of authority in matters pertaining to doctrines
and practice. The present writer maintains that we must
continu to let the Bible be its own interpreter, "comparing
scripture with scripture."72
The dea that the Bible is the only and unique "standard
of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms" applies in the
strict sense to everything that claims to be a hermeneutical
key for the interpretation of Scripture. This means that
tradition does not determine the correct interpretation of
Scripture.73 It also means that philosophy does not provide
the key to the interpretation of Scripture, or does the
comparative approach of the history-of-religions school, or
any other external key extraneous to the inspired Revelation.
To put it differently, experience, tradition, philosophy, Science
80
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
or extra-Biblical religions do not determine the correct meaning

of Scripture. The reason for this rests n the fact that, as the
uniquely nspired Divine revelation, Scripture is to speak for
itself and must be allowed to speak for itself. Most generally
this means that interpretation is nothing else than allowing the
text to speak for itself; t is the process of making t clear and
establishing what the text actually says, and thus enabling it,
as it were, to speak for itself, taking it as it reads in its
obvious meaning. It must not be assumed that in every case
or in most instances the meaning of a Scriptural passage is in
every case or in most instances so obviously clear as to
render hard effort and devoted labor for its understanding
unnecessary. The subject matter is Scripture as the Word of
God. As such it must interpret itself. The contrast is
between the Word of God and a word of man (experience,
tradition, philosophy, Science, etc.). The latter is not the
ultmate key for the meaning of the Bible as the Word of
God.74
These hermeneutical considerations provide the basic
framework and the sure foundation for the discussion of the
respective Biblical texts on speaking in tongues. As stated
above, this study contines to move in chronological order
and at the same time from the clear passage of Acts 2:1-13
to the less clear or obscure ones in other parts of the New
Testament.
Another consideraron, and possibly one of the most
important in the minds of scholars, is to follow the hearers
who were perplexed by the experience of the tonguesspeaking believers (Acts 2:13). This perplexity is used by
modern scholars to insert in Acts 2 the view of unintelligible
speech, that is, glossolalia. This has led them to hypothesize
"that in its present form Acts 2 unites tw o different accounts
of which one narrates the commencement of speaking with
tongues in the early Church and the other a miracle of
speaking in foreign languages."75 It must be pointed out
that there is no objective evidence for reading an unintelligible
type of speech into Acts 2:13. Neither this text or any other
text in Acts 2 makes a claim for unintelligible speech.
Perplexity at people suddenly speaking the languages of other
people does not make such speaking into unintelligible speech.
81
A foreign language that s not understood by another

person s still a foreign language, but not ecstatic, unintelligible speech. If someone spoke in Nabataean76 which was
intelligible by those in the crowd who carne from Arabia (Acts
2:11), then it could hardly be expected that it was understood
by those who carne from certain parts of Asia. Some of the
latter may have had a knowledge of Lydian, or other local
languages, which others could not understand, and so on. In
addition, there were undoubtedly some in the crowd who
were ll-disposed toward the Galilean Christians (Acts
2:17).77
Only fifty days earlier key Jewish leaders
succeeded in their plot to kill Jess. Now some hearers who
may have plotted to murder Jess could not admit that a
miracle had taken place. Therefore, the malicious declaration
was voiced that these men were drunken with new wine.78
There is no contextual support for the claim that those
who charged that the disciples were drunk understood the
disciples to practice unintelligible speech, i.e., glossolalia. If
it would have been an ecstatic, unintelligible speech, Galileans could have spoken this as well as any other person, but
Galileans could not have learned foreign languages in any
natural way. The foreign Jews, however, testify: "Each one
of us is hearing the language proper to the country in which
he was born" (Acts 2:8).79 Unless one accepts the assumption that there was no miracle of foreign languages at Pentecost, which runs counter to the express testimony of the
hearers, there is not the least support for the assumption of
sources. Hypotheses based on such assumptions do not
create confidence in the soundness of the conclusions of
such research.
Various source hypotheses of some historical-critical
scholars raise the serious problem of ntegrity. Since the
historical-critical scholars mentioned above assume that the
original experience at Pentecost consisted of something other
than real human languages, and since the present, final text
of Acts 2 unmistakably indicates that the experience was the
miraculous speaking of foreign languages, the conclusin
needs to be drawn is that Luke (or some editor) deliberately
misrep-resented what he knew to have been glossolalia or
some other form of unintelligible speech.80 The idea of a
82
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
willful distortion on the part of the Biblical writer s not

convincing.
There were too many eyewitnesses and
earwitnesses to tell the truth, if the truth had not been
reported correctly by a Bible writer. The recent trend in many
circles of scholarship is to consider the author of Acts as a
reliable historian.81 This militates against making Luke (or an
editor) a willful distorter of actual facts. History writing in
Acts is sound.82
The question as to whether or not there are underlying
detectable sources83 behind the account of Acts 2:1-13 has
been the subject of some studies. NI. Adler has demonstrated
against the supporters of earlier source-hypotheses that the
report of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which resulted in
the permanent endowment of the disciples to speak foreign
languages in Acts 2:1-13 is as a whole linguistically Lukan.84
Eduard Lohse has recently concluded that "literary criticism is
unable to disentangle the written source or sources which
Luke might have had before him. Both linguistically and
stylistically the account is wholly Lukan, . . ," 85 The recent
negative reaction to source hypotheses by another critical
scholar may be added. Ernst Haenchen writes that Luke
"could not count on much help from sources"86 for they
cannot be traced.
It is inevitable to conclude that the source hypotheses
developed by various historical-critical scholars concerning the
passage of Acts 2:1-13 do not commend themselves. They
have led to radically contradictory results and are based on
unproven assumptions and presuppositions. They reflect the
subjective nature of the source-critical enterprise.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Let us summarize our major findings on the origin, nature,
function, and purpose of "speaking in tongues" in Acts 2:113 :
1)
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was a
fulfillment of the coming of the Spirit promised by Jess
Christ himself (Lk 24:36-51; Mk 16:15-17; Acts 1:1-11; cf.
Jn 14:15-17, 25f.; 15:26f.; 16:5-11, 12-15).
83
2) The reception of the Holy Spirit by the believers in the

Upper Room was a real and not an maginary phenomenon.
It actually happened and changed the early Church from a
largely Jewish community into a community of faith
consisting of believers from the known civilized world of that
day.
3) The Holy Spirit was received individually. The gift of
the promised Spirit was not a manifestation on the masses as
such, but it was a gift to the 120 who were in the Upper
Room and who were of one accord, seeking and waiting for
the Lord to bestow this gift on each one individually.
4) The external and audible effect of the reception of the
Holy Spirit was the ability of the believers in the Upper Room
"to speak in other tongues" (Acts 2:4).
5) The ability "to speak in other tongues" means a
miraculous enabling to speak fluently living foreign languages
previously unlearned and unknown to the speaker.
6) The purpose of the spiritual gift of miraculously
speaking foreign languages as a continuing gift was meant to
provide the infant Church with the means of communicating
the Good News to the world.
7) The spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages by
Jess' followers was a sign to unbelievers that their
commission was of divine origin.
8) The gift of speaking foreign languages was permanent
and not a temporary or unrepeatable event.
ENDNOTES
1 .We agree with other Interpreters in maintaining a cise relationship between all five
NT passages referring to speaking in tongues (cf. J. Behm, "g lssa," Theological
D ictonary o f the N e w Testam ent [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964], 1 :7 2 2 ). Acts
2 is the second passage to be considered in chronological order, because the
Pentecostal experience was the first manifestation of the gift of speaking in tongues.
"Whatever the date of Acts, its early pictures of the Church and her doctrine are prePauline," States C. S. C. Williams, A Com m entary on the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (New
York, 1 9 5 7), p. 61. See also W . L. Knox, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Cambridge,
19 4 8), pp. 8 0 ff. There is still much difference of opinin on the date of Acts. The
"age of tendency-criticism" which compromised the historical reliability of Acts and
argued for a 2nd cent. A.D. date is now over and its thesis refuted (cf. Ernest
84
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Haenchen, The A c ts o f the A postles. A Com m entary [Philadelphia: Fortress Press,

1971], pp. 15-24). See also P. Feine, J. Behm, and W . G. Kmmel, Introduction to
the N T (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966), p. 132. A number of other scholars who
claim that Acts was written ca. 70 after Luke was written (W. Michaelis, A.
Wikenhauser, C. S. C. Williams, 0 . Michel, P. Benoit, T. W . Manson). There are a
number of scholars who place Acts shortly before A.D. 64, i.e., before Paul's death,
so earlier Sahlin and Koh and from different points of view more recently, see F. F.
Bruce, The A c ts o f the A postles. The Geek Text w ith Intro d u ctio n and Com m entary
(2nd ed.; London, 1951), pp. 1 ff.; dem, Com m entary on the Book o f A c ts (London,
1968), pp. 20ff.; E. M. Blaiklok, The A c ts o f the A p o stle (London, 1 959), pp. 16ff
J. Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Anchor Bible; Garden City, N.Y., 19 6 7), pp.
XLVI-LIV.
2 .See also Josephus, A n tiq u itie s III, 2 5 2 .
3 .See C. F. D. Moule, "The Post-Resurrection Appearances n the Light of Festival
Pilgrimages," NTS, 1 (19 5 7 ), 5 8 ff., for the various localities where Jess appeared.
4 . K. Lake and H. J. Cadbury, eds., The Beglnnings o f C hristianlty (London, 1933),
IV, 8.
5 . J. A. E. Hull, The H o ly S pirt n the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Cleveland, 1968), pp.
4 7 f., 81 f f .
6 . The "wom en (Acts 1:14) were in all likelihood those who supported Jess (Lk
8 :2 f.; 2 3:49, 55; 2 4 :10) and not the wives of the disciples or of Jess' brothers.
7 . At first Jess' brothers were antagonistic to Him (Mk 3:21; Jn 7:5) but later they
changed (1 Cor 9:5). The natural inference is that not only James but Jess' other
brothers attached themselves to the infant church in Jerusalem.
8 . Earlier jealousies, such as were revealed in their failure to heal the demonpossessed boy (Mk 9 :1 4 -2 9 ), their striving for high positions (Lk 2 2 :2 4 ), and refusal
to wash one another's feet (Jn 13:3-7), had been removed by the increased
understanding which Jess provided them during the forty days of post-resurrection
instruction (Acts 1:3ff.) and the ten days of earnest prayer during their period of
waiting for special endowment of the Holy Spirit (1:14 ff.).
9.Some have taken the term "house" (o lko s) to refer to the temple precincts (Th.
Zahn, Ole A p ostelgeschlchte des Lucas [Leipzig, 1 919], l:77; H. J. Holtzmann, Die
A p o ste lg e sch lch te [HKNT; Tbingen/Leipzig, 1901], 1:31). If Josephus on one
occasion {A n tiq u itie s, VIII. 3 .2 65 ff.) employs the term "house" {olkos) for the
Temple which he elsewhere designates naos, the context clearly indicates what he
means. Here this s not the case. Luke consistently refers to the Temple as fo hieron
(22 times). The only other locality where the disciples met during the ten day period
of waiting n Acts is the Upper Room (1:13). According to Lk 2 4 :5 3 , they were
"continually in the temple, blessing God." Holtzmann (p. 26) suggested that the
Upper Room is to be located in the Temple. Haenchen, A c ts , p. 153 n. 2, points out
that this rests upon "the false equatlon of Acts 1:13 with Luke 2 4 :5 2 f.... In fact
Luke 2 4 :5 3 would seem to correspond with Acts 2 :46." So also H. H. Wendt, Die
A p o stelgeschlchte (Gottingen, 1913), p. 7 2 .
10-This term means either "wind" or "breath." See Arndt and Gingrich, A GreekEngllsh Lexicn, p. 6 8 6 . For speakers of the Greek language this term and the Greek
word for spirit/wind {pneum a) were closely related, so Haenchen, A c ts , pp. 167f.
85
11 .Hull, The H o ly Spirit, pp. 58f.

12 . The Greek reads hosei, danoting comparison, cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek
G ram m ar o f the NT, p. 219 # 4 2 5 (3 ).
1 3 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 168.
1 4 . Hull, The H o ly Spirit, p. 59.
15. The frequent reference to the phrase "tongues of fire" n Enoch 14:8-15; 71:5,
does not prvida a real parallel to the phrase "tongues like of fire" in Acts 2:3 . The
former denotes an element of divinity but the latter is a descrlption of a phenomenon
which in its physical appearance may be compared to fiery tongues.
1 6 . Cf. H. J. Cadbury, "Acts and Eschatology," The Background o f the N T and its
Eschatology, eds. W . D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge, 19 5 6), pp. 3 0 3 f.
1 7 . NEB translates with a participle, "and resting on each of them," and thereby
misses the faot that in the Greek the word is not a participle but a main verb.
1 8 .50 Munck, A c ts o f the A postles, p. 13.
1 9 .Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 8 2 , suggests both "tongue" and "fire" as
possible subjects.
2 0 .50 Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 3 9 1 ; Hull, The H o ly Spirit, p.
58.
21 .On the basis of the Greek grammar and syntax one may best understand this as
an "ingressive (inceptive) aorist" whereby the action may be contemplated to denote
entrance into that State or condition. Cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek Grammar
o f the NT, p. 171 # 3 3 1 ; A. T. Robertson, A G ram m ar o f the Greek N T in the Light
o f H ist rica ! Research (London, 19 1 4), # 834; E. de W . Burton, S yntax o f the M oods
a nd Tenses in N T Greek (Edinburgh, 18 9 8), # 41; C. F. D. Moule, A n Idiom-Book o f
N T Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1959), p. 10.
2 2 .Hull, The H o ly Spirit, p. 58: "The mention o f 'restin g on each one' strongly implies
that this was no momentary lapse of the Spirit but one that was permanent (cf. John
1:32)." F. D. Nichol, ed., SDABC, VI, 137: "Even though the fiery-appearing tongues
remained upon the believers for only a brief time, the effects of the visitation lasted
for the lifetime of the faithful Christians who received the Spirit."
2 3 .50 correctly Gottfried Schille, Die A posteigeschichte des Lukas "Theologischer
Handkommentar zum NeuenTestament" (Berln: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983),
p. 96.
2 4 .G. R. Osborne, "Tongues, Speaking in, Evangelical D ictio n a ry o f Theology, ed.
Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 19 8 4), pp. 1 1 0 2 -1 1 0 3 .
2 5 .Sea H. Jaeschke, "Lalein bei Lukas," BZ 15 (1971), 1 0 9 -1 1 4 .
2 6 . The term apophtheggom ai means to speak in a bold or inspirad way, but not
ecstatic speech. See Haenchen, A c ts , p. 168; J. Behm, "apophtheggom ai," TDNT,
I (1 9 6 4 ), 4 4 7 ; Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 101.
2 7 . Behm, p. 4 4 7 .
2 8 .Schille, Die A p osteigeschichte des Lukas, p. 96.
86
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
2 9 .Supra, n.21. In Patristic literatura these two meanings are also the only ones
known.
Sea G. W . H. Lampe, A P atristic Greek Lexicn (Oxford, 1968), p.
3 1 6 .2 9 .2 2
30.Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-Engiish Lexicn, p. 184; of. R. Munz, "ber glotta
und dialektos," G lotta, 11 (1 9 2 1 ), 8 5 -9 4 .
3 1 .50 correctly Haenchen, A c ts , p. 169 n. 2.
3 2 . H. E. Edwards, "The Tongues at Pentecost; A Suggestion," Theology, 16 (19 2 8 ),
2 4 8 -2 5 2 ; R. O. P. Taylor, "The Tongues at Pentecost," Expository Times, 40
(1 9 2 8 /2 9 ), 3 0 0 -3 0 3 ; R. F. Stoll, "The First Christian Pentecost," Ecclesiastical
Review, 108 (1943), 3 3 7 -3 4 7 .
3 3 . A. Wikenhauser, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te (4th ed.; Regensburg, 1961), pp. 3 9 f.,
who follows Wendt.
3 4 . E. Trocm, Le Livre des A c te s ' e t Thistoire (Paris, 19 5 7), pp. 2 0 2 ff.
3 5 .50 first G. J. Sirks, "The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,"
HTR, 50 (19 5 7 ), 8 5 f., followed by C. S. Mann, "Appendix III. Pentecost in Acts," in
Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 2 7 5 .
Mann himself admits that "this
hypothesis,... must remain sub ju d ic e , because there is no evidence for the kind of
liturgical readings presupposed for the hypothesis.
36.There is a general consensus of opinin among scholars of all schools of thought
that Luke wishes us to understand that those endowed with the gift of tongues were
enabled to make themselves understood in all languages.
3 7 .50 again Schille, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te des Lukas, pp. 9 3 -9 6 .
3 8 .Simn J. Kistemaker, N e w Testam ent Commentary, Exposition o f the A c ts o f
A p o s tle s (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990) p. 8 1 .
39.lbid.
40.A rndt and Gingrich, A Greek-Engiish Lexicn, p. 3 1 5 .
41 .So the NAB and F. J. Foakes-Jackson, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (London, 1945),
p. 10.
4 2 . H. W . Beyer, "heteros," Theological D ictlonary o f the N e w Testam ent (Grand
Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1964) 2 :7 0 3 .
4 3 . Among the large number of scholars who have interpreted the speaking in
tongues at Pentecost as referring to intelligible, foreign languages are: D. Brown,
"The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter ii, The Day of Pentecost," Expositor, 1 (1875),
3 9 2 -4 0 8 ; J. Behm, "glssa," Theological D ictio n a ry o f the N e w Testam ent (Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1964), I, 7 2 5 ; A. Beel, "Donum linguarum juxta Act. Apost. i. 1-13,"
Collationes Brugensis, 3 5 (1 9 3 5 ), 4 1 7 -4 2 0 ; S. Lyonnet, "De glossolalia Pentecosts
euisque significatione," Verbum Dom ini, 2 4 (1 9 4 4 ), 65 -7 5 ; E. Andrews, "Tongues,
Gift of," In te rp rete r's D ictio n a ry o f the Blble (Nashville, 1962), IV, 671; F. W . Beare,
"Speaking with Tongues. A Critical Survey of the NT Evidence," JBL 83 (1964), 237;
J. D. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia," Jo u rn a l o f Theological Studles, 3 (19 5 2 ),
2 2 8 -2 3 1 ; R. H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)," Jo u rn a l o f Theological
Studies, 17 (19 6 6 ), 2 9 9 -3 0 7 ; S. Aalen, "Zungenreden," Biblisch-historisches
H andw rterbuch (Gottingen, 1966), III, 2 2 4 9 f.; Th. Zahn, Die A p o ste lg e sch ich te des
Lukas (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1 9 1 9), pp. 9 3 ff.; A. Steinmann, Die Apostelgeschichte
87
(Bonn, 1 934), p. 29; Foakes-Jackson, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 11; HermannW.

Beyer, "h a te ro s ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testam ent, G. Kittel (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 2 :7 0 2 -7 0 4 ; E. Lohse, "Die Bedeutung des
Pfingstberiohtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes," EvTh, 13 (1953),
4 2 4 ; G. Kretschmar, "Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten," ZKG, 61 (1 9 5 4 /5 5 ), 235; Bruce,
C om m entary on the Book o f A c ts , pp. 59ff.; Munck, The A c ts o f the A postles, pp.
14f.; G. Sthlin, Die A postelgeschichte (Gttingen, 1 967), p. 33; Hull, The Holy
S pirit, p. 62; Haenchen, A c ts, pp. 168f.; Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 81.
4 4 . Kretschmar, "Himmelfahrt und Pfingsten," 23 5 , emphasizes that "Luke put equal
weight upon the meaning of glossa as language, which is shown primarily in the
catalog of nations,...."
4 5 . For studies on the regions of the world mentioned by Luke, see Haenchen, A c ts ,
pp. 16 5 ff.
4 6 . Hull, The H oly Spirit, p. 62.
4 7 .So Philo, cf. Haenchen, A c ts , p .1 7 1 .
4 8 . E. G. White, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s (Mountain View, Calif., 1 9 1 1 ), pp. 39; 40;
cf. E. G. White, The S tory o f Redemptlon (Washington, D.C., 1 9 4 7), pp. 2 4 2 -2 4 4 ,
24 6 .
4 9 . Acts 1 :13. According to H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, K o m m e n ta r zum Neuen
T estam ent aus Talm ud und M idrasch (Mnchen, 1 9 7 2ff.), II, 5 9 4 , upperrooms used
to "serve the learned as a place of assembly, study and prayer." They were normally
rooms in the upper story of large houses. Sometimes they were also let as dwellings.
In the home of the mukhtar's house of an Arab village today there is likely to be an
upper room, medhafeh, for entertainment of guests. See 0 . R. Sellers, "Upper
Room," IDB (19 6 2 ), IV, 73 5 .
5 0 . With Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 8 3 . It could include also the "sound"
of vs. 2.
51 .White, A c ts o f the A postles, p. 40.
5 2 . The Greek term suggests "others of a different kind" not "others of the same
kind" as would be suggested by alio!. This indicates that a different class of
speakers is meant in vs. 13 as compared to that of vss. 5 -12.
5 3 . The term gleukos occurs only here in the NT, but is found in Aristotle (3 8 4 -3 2 2
B.C.) with the meaning "must" in the sense of unfermented grape juice (M eterologica
3 8 8 .b.9 -1 3 ). Since the vintage of the new year carne not till August, it has been
suggested that this must refer to fermented wine sweetened with honey (so Strack
and Billerbeck, K om m entar zum NT, II, 614). It is not necessary to assume that this
was fermented wine because new wine could be kept from golng sour. Columella,
an agriculturalist living at the first century A.D., preserved instructions on how to
keep unfermented grape juice (On A g ricu ltu ra 12, 21, 1). The same is true of Virgil
(70 -1 9 A.D.), who provides information in Georgis 1, 2 9 5 -9 6 , and Pliny, N aturaI
H is to ry 14, 11, 8 0 . See Samuele Bacchiocchi, VJine in the Bible. A BblicaI Study
on the Use o f A lc o h o llc Beverages (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectivas, 1989),
pp. 1 7 9 -8 2 , for the proof that gleukos in Acts 2:13 means unfermented grape juice.
88
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
5 5 .lt may be suggested that some with vastad nterest were eager to explain the
miraculous natura of the observable phenomenon in a natural way. Cf. Bruce, The
Book o fA c ts , p. 65.
5 6 . Ths means that there are two opposlng groups among the hearers: one defending
the miraculous experience of the early believers as recognizing their glft as foreign
languages and the other hostile to the gift. Luke frequently introduces two opposing
groups, see Acts 5 :3 4 ff.; 14:4; 1 7 :1 8ff.; 23:6ff.; 28:2 4 .
5 7 . John Albert Bengel, Gnomon o f the N ew
(Edlnburgh: Clark, 18 7 7), 2 :5 2 6 .
Testament, ed. A. R. Fausset
5 8 . This parallel is further suggested on the basis that in the pagan mystery religions
the prophetic oracle was believed to come through the "Spirit" but manifestad itself
as if the "inspirad" person were full of wine. Ecstasy and drunkenness are important
aspects in the interpretaron of pagan ecstatic phenomena. Cf. H. Conzelmann, Der
erste B re f an die K ornther (Gttingen, 1969), p. 2 86 n. 25.
5 9 . Friedrich Spitta, Die A p ostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen u nd deren g e schichtlicher
W ert (Halle, 18 9 1).
6 0 . Recently Haenchen, A c ts , p. 29, expressed his amazement to "how ingeniously
the whole of Acts has been dismembered into these two sources without leaving too
much of a surplus to be attributed to the editor.... Spitta's skill in dissection is as
astounding as his trust in the editors skill in comblnation."
6 1 .0 tto Bauernfeind, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te (Gttingen, 1939), p. 55.
6 2 Jbid., p. 56.
6 3 . H. Wendt, Kritisch-Exegetisches Handbuch ber die A p o stelgeschichte (7th ed.;
Gttingen, 18 8 8), pp. 6 4 f. Cf. Haenchen, A c ts , p. 172.
64.
Witliams, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, pp. 6 1 -6 5 .
6 5 . Trocm, Le Livre des A c e s', pp. 2 0 2 -2 0 6 .

6 6 . The dea that the speaking in tongues s a reversal of the confusin of tongues at
the Tow er of Babel receives increasing attention by scholars. See Davies, JTS, 3
(1 9 5 2 ), 2 2 8 ff.; Bruce, The Book o f A c ts , p. 64: "The event was surely nothing less
than a reversal of the curse of Babel." So already K. Lake, "The Gift of the Spirit on
the Day of Pentecost, The Beginnings o f C hristianity (London, 1933), 5 :1 1 4 f .
6 7 .lt is claimed that Philo could already be dependent on this supposed midrash.
6 8 . E. Lohse, "Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen
Geschichtswerkes," Evangelische Theologie, 13 (19 5 3 ), 4 2 4 ff.; dem, "p e n te ko ste ,"
Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testament, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Raplds Mi:
Eerdmans, 1 9 6 8), 6 :51.
7 0 Jbid., pp. 174f.
7 1 .See Gerhard F. Hasel, B iblical In te rp re ta ro n Today (Washington, DC: Biblical
Research Instituto, 1 9 8 5), fordetailed informatlon on historlcal-critlcal methods and
their implications for faith.
72.Ellen G. White, The G reat Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1905)
p. 5 9 5 .
89
73.This was the problem against which the reformer Martin Luther fought. The sola
scrip tu ra principie refuted the Catholic hermeneutical principie which claimed that the
revelation to which Scripture bears witness cannot be rightly understood apart from
the Tradition representad in the Church and its Magisterium.
74.See Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Totality of Scripture versus Modernistic Limitations,
Jo u rn a l o f the A d v e n tls t Theological S ociety 2/1 (1991) 3 0 -5 2 .
75.Beyer, "h a te ro s," 2:703.
7 6 .In NT times Arabia referred to the kingdom of the Nabataean Arabs, then at the
height of their power under Aretas IV (9 B.C.-A.D. 4 0 ), with its famous capital Petra.
7 7 . The reference to the fact that the infant church in Jerusalem was made up of
Galilean disciples is interesting from the point of view that the Eleven were all from
Galilee (Mk 3:14). The Risen Lord appeared to the disciples in Galilee as well as in
Jerusalem. The Galileans were known to have had peculiarities of speech (cf. A.
Neubauer, "The Dialects of Palestina in the Time of Christ," Studia Bblica, 1 [1885],
51), and could therefore be easily identified (Mt 2 6 :7 3 ). The stressing of the Galilean
origin of those who now spoke foreign languages meant to guarantee that they could
not have learned the different foreign languages as their mother tongues (cf.
Haenchen, A c ts , p. 169 n. 3).
7 8 . E. G. White, A c ts o f the A post/es (Mountain View, Calif., 1 911), p. 40: "The
priests, determined to account for the miraculous power of the disciples in some
natural way, declared that they were drunken from partaking largely of the new wine
prepared for the feast."
7 9 . The present writer's translation.
8 0 .On this problem, see Hull, The H o ly Spirit, pp. 62ff.
81 ,C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent S tu d y (2nd ed.; London, 1970), pp.
2 6 ff., contains a useful summary of the views of a number of modern scholars.
Attention should be given also to H. J. Cadbury, The Book o f A c ts in H isto ry (New
York, 1 955). On the subjects of historiography and sources in Acts, see D. Guthrie,
The Gospeis and A c ts . N ew Testam ent intro d u ctio n (London, 1 965), pp. 3 2 1 -3 4 4 .
8 2 .See particularly, W . Ward Gasque, A H isto ry o f Criticism o f the A c ts o f the
A p o stle s (Tbingen: Mohr, 1975); Jacques Dupont, The Sources o f A c ts (New York:
Herder & Herder, 1964); Conrad H. Gempf, ed., The Book o f A c ts in the S etting o f
H ellenistic H isto ry (Tbingen: Mohr, 1989).
8 3 . Dupond, The Sources o f A c ts , p. 166, writes, "Despite the most careful and
detailed research, it has not been possible to define any of the sources used by the
author of Acts in a way which will meet with widespread agreement among critics.
8 4 . N. Adler, Das erste christliche P fingstfest, Sinn und Bedeutung des
Pfingstberichtes, A g 2, 7-f3(Neutestam entliche Abhandlungen, 18,M nster, 1938),
pp. 3 2 -3 5 .
8 5 . Lohse, "p en te ko ste ," 6:51.
CHAPTER V
SPEAKING IN TON GUES IN A C T S 10
The third passage n the New Testament which mentions

speaking n tongues takes us to Acts 10. Thus the reader of
the book of Acts is transferred from the first manifestation of
tongues among Jews in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost
(Acts 2:1-13) to the Gentile city of Caesarea (Acts 10:1,24).
The first baptism of Gentiles is mentioned in Acts 10 as
taking place in the city of Ceasarea. It was performed after
the conversin of Cornelius, a Romn centurin (vs. 48), and
only after many difficulties had been overeme in breaking
down the barriers which Judaism had built up between Jews
and non-Jews.
An ngel appeared to Cornelius, a pious man who as a
"God-fearer" (vs. 2)1 took part n synagogue Services.2 In
the eyes of the Jews such people were still considered
unclean and profane and could not associate w ith Jews in
normal life.3 Therefore, Jews would not fellowship at a table
with such non-Jews, even a God-fearer. It is not that they
were unclean or profane from the point of view of the Hebrew
Bible, the Od Testament, but from the perspective of Rabbinic
traditions which separated Jews from their non-Jewish
contemporaries.4
The ngel ordered Cornelius to send for the apostle Peter
who was in Joppa. In the meantime Peter, still steeped in
traditional Jewish taboos regarding non-Jews, was prepared
through a visin to overeme his inherited Jewish Rabbinic
prejudices and consent to visit a Gentile (vss. 10-16). When
the Holy Spirit ordered Peter to go with the messengers, he
willingly obeyed and entered the house of Cornelius (vss. 2325). After Peter had reported his experience (vss. 26-29) and
Cornelius his (vss. 30-33), Peter "opened his mouth" (vs.
92
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
34),5 preaching a sermn "peculiarly appropriate to the

occasion."6 He proclaimed the life and work of Jess before
the Cross, and also His death and resurreccin, including
Christ's commission to preach to the people (vss. 34b-43).
As Peter was still preaching "the Holy Spirit fell on all
who heard the word" (Acts 10:44). The hearers upon whom
the Spirit had fallen were "Cornelius, his kinsmen and cise
friends" (vs. 24). The Holy Spirit did not fall on Peter and the
other Christians who had come with him from Joppa.7
2. LINKAGES BETWEEN ACTS 2 AND ACTS 10

The experience of "speaking in tongues" in Caesarea s
very significant. It contains crucial parallels to the experience
of the original followers of Jess in Jerusalem on the Day of
Pentecost. They may be listed as follows:
1) Both groups were believers.8
2) The Holy Spirit "fell" (epepsenf suddenly10 on both
groups.
3) Both groups experienced the same outward manifestation among others, namely "they heard them speaking in
tongues" (vs. 46).
4) Both groups spoke for God and what He had done.
5) The designation "speaking in tongues" is employed in
both situations.
6) Both groups experienced something that was "heard"
(akouo) by others.
7) Both groups experienced something new from the Holy
Spirit which they had not experienced in this way before,
although the Holy Spirit was already at work in them.
8) Both groups function in major cities in which there
were populations of differing language backgrounds.
The expression "speaking in tongues" (lalounton glossais)
of vs. 46 is explicitly identified with the manifestation of
tongues-speaking at Pentecost through the words "just as we
have" ( / j o s kai hemeis)" in vs. 47. This linkage is of true
importance in identifying the experience of the household of
Cornelius (Acts 10) with the experience on the Day of
Pentecost.
93
In Acts 2:11 the hearers report that they "heard" them

"telling . . . the mighty works of God." This phrase s
equivalent12 to what was "heard" in Caesarea, namely
"glorifying God" (Acts 10:46, NAB). The connection here s
found in a) the fact that in both experiences something
specific was "heard" (akouo) and b) what was heard was
what God had accomplished in Jess Christ.
Both groups of believers received the gift of speaking
foreign languages in cities of mportance, Jerusalem and
Caesarea respectively. The City of Jerusalem was the wellknown Jewish city with minority segments of population who
spoke foreign languages. At the annual feast days Jerusalem
was filled with people from the entire Jewish Diaspora, from
the civilized world of that day.
Caesarea was the Romn metrpolis of Judea on the
Mediterranean shore. It was located in the great caravan
route between Tyre and Egypt and was thus a celebrated
commercial and maritime trading center. It was given to
Herod the Great by Ceasar Augustus in 30 B.C. Herod rebuilt
it into a showcase of the East. A mixed population was
produced by Greek culture and Romn influence. There was
also a powerful minority of Jews n the city.
A knowledge of foreign languages by believers would aid
them in the proclamation of the gospel message in Caesarea
and among the people traveling through this metropolitan
center.
3. THE NATURE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The identity of the tw o manifestations of tongues in both
Acts 2 and 10 is further stressed by Peter, the eyewitness in
Acts 11:15: "The Holy Spirit fell on them [in Caesarea] just as
on us in the beginning." Peter made the connection between
the tw o events when he reported to the brethren n Jerusa
lem. He affirmed that "God gave the same gift to them as he
gave to us [at Pentecost] when we believed in the Lord Jess
Christ" (vs. 17). Peter was convinced that the gift of speak
ing in tongues by the believers in Caesarea was "the same
gift" (Greek ten sen dorean) of miraculously speaking foreign
94
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
languages as the gift which he and the other followers of

Jess received on the day of Pentecost.13
4. THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING IN TONGUES

The bestowal of the same gift--speakng foreign languages--upon the Gentile believers n Caesarea served as an
irrefutable outward sign for Jewish Christians of God's
acceptance of the Gentiles on an equal basis,14 especially
since the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon believers only.15
The descending of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles "indicates that
the Gentiles are part of the church and on equal footing with
the Jewish Christians. 16
The gift of tongues signifies that both Gentile and Jewish
Christians share alike n the task of evangelizing the world.
Both have also been endowed with the same spiritual gift
which breaks down the language barrier and makes possible
fluent communication of the Good News among all men.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Acts 10 reveis the following points:
1) The barriers developed in Jewish tradition between
Jews and Gentiles are removed in the church. The Holy Spirit
s no respecter of persons.
2) As Peter and the other Jewish believers had experienced the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pente
cost, in the same manner the Gentile but "God-fearing"
Cornelius and his household experienced the outpouring of the
same Spirit in the same way. Both outpourings, one on
Jewish believers and the other on Gentile believers, belong to
each other in terms of their origin, nature, and purpose.
3) Speaking in tongues in Acts 2 and Acts 10 consists of
the same gift of which the apostle Peter is a witness. It s the
miraculous speaking of foreign languages for the purpose of
proclaiming the Good News to everyone.
4) The Holy Spirit comes to Gentile "God-fearers" in
95
Caesarea before they are baptized, ndicating that a) the

baptism of the Holy Spirit and water baptism may go together
and b) that the rite of circumcision s no longer needed for
new Christians. What counts for Christians s the circumci
sion of the heart.
5)
Luke does not need to explain the phenomenon of
speaking in tongues, because Peter himself malees the linkage
between the Pentecostal experience and the experience of the
Gentiles in Caesarea. Both phenomena are idntica! and both
are manifestations of the Holy Spirit on believers. Peter
indicates that in Acts 2 and 10-11 the coming of the Holy
Spirit s a gift.
ENDNOTES
1 .The God-fearers were Gentiles who worshiped God but who were not integrated
into Jewish society. See Emil Schrer, The H isto ry o f the Je w ish People in the A ge
o f Jess Christ (17 5 B.C.-A.D. 135), rev. by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 3 :1 7 3 -7 4 ; T. M. Finn, "The God-Fearers: Some
Neglected Features," J o u rn a l fo r the S tu d y o f the N e w Testam ent 32 (19 8 8 ): 17-26;
Colin J. Hemer in The Book o f A c ts in the Setting o f H eilenistic H istory, ed. Conrad
H. Gempf (Tbingen: Mohr, 1989), pp. 4 4 4 -4 7 .
2 . Bruce, The A c ts o f the A post/es, p. 215.
3 . Haenchen, A c ts , p. 3 4 6 ; Kirsopp Lake, "Proselytes and God-fearers," The
Beginnings o f C hristianity (London, 1933), V, 7 4-96.
4 . Colin House, "Defilement by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of
ko inos/koinoo in Acts 1 0-11," A U S S 21 (1983) 1 4 3 -5 4 , shows that this was a
defilement of Rabbinic tradition and not supported by the OT.
5 . Bruce, The Book o fA c ts , p. 22 4 , makes the point that this expression "s one that
is used to introduce some weighty utterance."
6 .So Foakes-Jackson, The A c ts o f the Aposties, p. 9 3 . This sermn is not a Lukan
interpolation in the Cornelius story as argued by M. Dibelius, Studies in the A c ts o f
the A p o s tie s (London, 1956), pp. 1 10f., and accepted by Haenohen, A c ts , p. 3 5 1 ,
among others. Against the form-critical approach to this sermn see C. H. Dodd, The
A p o s tlic Preaching and its D eveiopm ent (London, 1 936), p .5 6 ; Bruce, The Book o f
the A c ts , pp. 22 5 f.
7 . With Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stie s, p. 95; Haenchen, A c ts , p. 353; e t al.,
against Wendt, A p ostelgeschichte, p. 185.
8 . Although there is no explicit reference to faith in the immediute context of Acts
1 0 :4 6 f., it is inevitably implied. It is definitely indicated in Peter's report of Acts
1 1 :1 7 with his words "when we believed in the Lord Jess Christ" clearly meaning
that the Holy spirit carne upon the Gentiles when they believed. Cf. Bruce, The Book
96
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
o f the A c ts , p. 230.
9 . The same verb is used for the descending of the Ho|y Spirit both at Pentecost n
Jerusalem (Acts 11:15) and here in Caesarea (10:44).
1 0 . Cf. W . H. Lampe, The Seal o f the S p irit (London, 1951), p. 66.
11 .So correctly Wendt, Handbuch ber die A postelgeschichte, p. 254; Zahn, Die
A postelgeschichte des Lukas, p. 3 6 1 .
1 2 . Bruce, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 22 8 .
1 3 . Munck, The A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 95: "The talking n other languages is
described in terms similar to those in ii 11; . .
1 4 . F. H. Chase, The C redibility o f the A c ts o f the A p o stle s (London, 1902), p. 79,
has made the suggestion that the experience of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in
Caesarea was the "Pentecost of the Gentile world." This will have to be qualified.
In spite of the many distinct parallels between Pentecost and the experience in
Caesarea, the bestowal of the Holy Spirit in Caesarea is subordnate to Pentecost and
intimates the significance of Pentecost for the salvation of the Gentiles (cf. N. B.
Stonehouse, "Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Spirit," W estm inster
Theological Journal, 13 [1 9 5 0 /5 1 ], 8) and signifies that the Gentile believers are also
included in the Great Commission to evangelizo the whole world.
1 5.See above, n. 8.
16.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 3 9 9 .
CHAPTER VI
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN A C T S 19
Speaking n tongues appears in the book of Acts for the

third and last time in chapter 19:1-6. Again it appears in
connection with a major metropolitan city, Ephesus. The city,
however, is in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and not in Palestie where Jerusalem and Caesarea were located. Now
speaking in tongues appears with the Gentile mission under
the leadership of Paul. Thus in Acts 19 we have a change of
location and a change of the missionary.
Christianity seems to have gained a foothold in Ephesus
through Aquila and Priscilla, staunch friends of Paul (Acts
18:1-3; 1 Cor 16:9), who had to leave Rome when all Jews
were expelled by the edict of Claudius (ca. A.D. 49).2
Paul made a short visit to Ephesus on his Second Mission
ary Journey (Acts 18:18-21). While Paul was prevented by
the Holy Spirit on an earlier occasion from entering Asia (Acts
1 6:6), there is ampie evidence that Paul considered Ephesus
an important city for spreading the Good News.
Paul carne again to Ephesus on his Third Missionary
Journey and stayed there for over tw o years (Acts 19:8, 10).
During that time the experience of speaking in tongues took
place.
Ephesus was a major city of the ancient world. Ephesus
had surpassed Pergamum in significance when the Romans
made it the capital of the province of Asia. It was the province's most important city, on the west coast of what is now
Asiatic Turkey.
Ephesus was located on the Cayster River and was a
crossroad for the Coastal highway that went from south to
north. This highway stretched east to Laodicea and to the
regin of Phrygia where Pisidian Antioch was located.
Ephesus was the leading commercial center; just three miles
98
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
from the city was a large harbor. A t one time the sea had
reached Ephesus but in Paul's day silt had closed the city's
original harbor to ships. Ephesus served both as a great
export center at the end of the Asiatic caravan route and also
as a natural port for ships from Rome.
The goddess Diana made the city famous (Acts 19:27,
35), but the emperor cult was not neglected. The goddess
Artemis, identified by the Romans as Diana, was the goddess
of wild animis, wild nature, and particularly of fertility and
childbirth. Artemis, or Diana, was the Anatolian Magna
Mater, the Great Mother, and she is also known as Cybele,
the goddess of fertility and fructification.
The temple of Artemis was the most important structure
in Ephesus. It is reported that it took 120 years to build and
was destroyed and rebuilt seven times. It was one of the
seven wonders of the ancient world. It had 127 columns,
each of which was 60 feet in height and represented a king.
The complete temple was 425 feet by 225 feet in size.
Contributions and visitors to the temple carne from all of Asia
Minor and beyond.
A second major building in Ephesus was the amphitheater, which seated an estimated 24,000 persons on sixty-six
tiers of seats. The stage area measured 115 feet by 70 feet.
The population of Ephesus at the time of Paul is estimated
to have been more than 200,000. Ephesus contained a large
colony of Jews.3 Ephesus was of strategic importance as a
commercial, political and religious center in the ancient
world.4
2. EPHESIAN "DISCIPLES," CHRISTIAN BAPTISM

AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
Paul arrived for a second time in Ephesus in ca. A.D. 54,5
having visited the churches in Galatia. Now he meets twelve
"disciples" (Acts 1 9 :1 ,7 ). The term "disciples" is of consid
erable interest, because these twelve persons had been
"baptized with the baptism of John" (Acts 19:3). Luke
usually uses the term "disciple" in the book of Acts as a
designation for Christian believers. Inasmuch as Paul asked
99
whether they received the Holy Spirit when they "believed,"

he seems to consider them as believers. Surely they were
believers with partial knowledge.
These Christian brethren6 had no knowledge of the
existence of the Holy Spirit (vs. 3). This became apparent
through Paul's question whether or not the Holy Spirit was
given "when they believed" (vs. 2).7 When these believers
professed complete gnorance of the work of the Holy Spirit,
Paul was led to question them right away concerning the kind
of baptism they received. This line of questioning is sound,
because n the New Testament "anyone who has not received
Christian baptism does not belong to the community at all."8
They responded that they were baptized "into John's bap
tism " (vs. 3). Paul then proceeds to explain the relationship
between John's baptism and Christian baptism (vs. 4).
John's baptism was anticipatory of what Christ would
achieve; Christian baptism rests on what Jess Christ has
accomplished on earth in His life, death and resurrection.
Thus Paul was leading these "disciples" into a full faith in
Jess Christ in whom they put their trust. As these twelve
believers listened to the instruction provided by Paul, they
heard and understood the Good News. The message of the
gospel entered fully into their hearts. In faith they accepted
the word of salvation and were baptized.
On the basis of Paul's instruction, these believing brethren
were willing to submit to the only appropriate and adequate
baptism. It is the true baptism "in the ame of the Lord
Jess" (vs. 5).9 "The baptism of John points toward Christ,
but the baptism in the ame of Jess looks back to Christ's
accomplished w ork."10
Following the baptism Paul laid his hands upon them and
"the Holy Spirit carne on them" (vs. 6b). There seems to be
a parallel between the laying-on of hands on these twelve
Ephesian believers by the apostle Paul and the laying-on of
hands by Peter and John on the Samaritan converts (Acts
8:17). The laying-on of hands was not only a Symbol of the
baptism of the Holy Spirit,11 but here, as for the Samaritan
believers earlier, it was a sign that they too had received the
commission to evangelize the w orld.12 Just as Jerusalem
was the nucleus from which the mission was to advance
100
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
(Acts 1:8; 2:1 f f .), so Gentile believers were drawn into the
missionary activity at Caesarea in Judah (Acts 1:8; 10:46f.),
and then it proceeded to Samara (Acts 1:8; 8:13 ff.) wth
Samartan Christians jonng the task.
Now Ephesus was to be "another decsive moment n the
missionary history"13 w ith the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon these twelve newly baptized disciples. Under
the endowment of the Holy Spirit the mission of Christianity
advanced as predicted by the Risen Lord along the line of
Jerusalem-Judea-Samaria-beyond (Ephesus) to the end of the
earth (Acts 1:8).
A t various major centers (Jerusalem, Caesarea, Ephesus)
the Holy Spirit was manifested in a special way. This
progression in evangelizing the world demonstrates the basic
continuity of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the book
of Acts. F. F. Bruce notes incisively that Ephesus s "the new
center for the Gentile mission."14
There s another link between the manifestation of the
Holy Spirit in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) and the manifestation of
the Holy Spirit earlier. The first time the Holy Spirit carne
upon Gentile believers (other than Samaritans) was in connection w ith the work of an apostle.15 As Peter was instrumen
tal for the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius, his
household and friends (Acts 10:44-46), so Paul dispenses the
Holy Spirit upon the twelve Christians in Ephesus (Acts
19:1 ff.).16 This linkage of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit
with the apostles is summarized as follows, "The four
outpourings of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts are confirmed
by the apostles: in Jerusalem by the Twelve, in Samara by
Peter and John, in Caesarea by Peter, and in Ephesus by
Paul."17
It should be made clear that the Holy Spirit was mparted
in the Caesarea experience without the laying-on of hands. It
is evident from the book of Acts that the Holy Spirit could be
mparted without the laying-on of hands (Acts 2:1 ff.; 9:10 ff.;
10:46ff.).18 There is no evidence that all the believers in
Ephesus received the gift of the Holy Spirit when Paul laid his
hands on the twelve disciples. Thus it is not a biblical
teaching that the Holy Spirit can only be mparted by the
laying on of hands. Furthermore, the New Testament lacks
101
support for the contention that the reception of the Holy Spirit
results n speaking in tongues.19
3. SPEAKING IN TONGUES AND PROPHESYING

The external sign of the reception of the Holy Spirit in
Ephesus are the same as in Caesarea and Jerusaiem, Le.,
those who received the Holy Spirit "spoke with tongues and
prophesied" (Acts 19:6).20
We must give attention first to the phrase "spoke in
tongues." The same Greekverb for "spoke" is used as earlier
in Acts, in connection with speaking in tongues. The imperfect form of the Greek verb lalen is used. This form indicates
that Luke intended to emphasize a continuous or protracted
action in the exercise of this g ift.21 The experience of
speaking in tongues at Ephesus was not a one-time matter of
a single event.22 Those upon whom the gift was bestowed
with possessed t for continuous usage. It was a permanent
gift, as dentical to that found to be true in Acts 2 and Acts
10.
The term for "tongues" is again the plural of the customary Greek term glssa which we have met in Mark 16:17;
Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46.23 Luke, Paul's companion, reported
the endowment of the gift of speaking in tongues in Ephesus
w ith the dentical terminology in which he reported the
manifestation of tongues earlier in the Pentecostal experience
of Jerusaiem and subsequently in the city of Caesarea. Undoubtedly he wanted his readers to understand that the gift to
the believers in these three cities, Jerusaiem, Caesarea and
Ephesus, was the same, namely, that of miraculously speak
ing foreign languages.24 This conclusin is based on contex
tual, historical, linguistic, and phenomenological evidence.
The purpose of the gift was to make it possible to communicate the gospel message in Ephesus and in Asia Minor. As
has been stated above by F. F. Bruce, the respected commentator on the book of Acts, Ephesus was now the center for
the mission to Gentiles.25
The second aspect of the outward sign of receiving the
Holy Spirit was the ability to "prophesy." This new aspect is
102
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
of importance for a number of reasons. Acts 19:6 s the first

New Testament passage which places n cise proximlty the
tw o spiritual gifts of speaking in tongues and prophesying,
and in connection with a church where Paul labored extensively. An mmediate relationshlp to 1 Corinthian 14 s apparent
where Paul deais both w ith tongues and prophecy.
It would, however, be erroneous to conclude that tongues
and prophecy are only associated in connection with Paul, and
thus separating Acts 19 and 1 Cor 14 from other New
Testament passages dealing with tongues-speaking. It has
been pointed out above that in Acts 10:46 the content of
speaking in tongues was defined as "glorifying God." The
latter is identical in meaning with the proclaiming of "the
mighty works of God" in Acts 2:11. Just as Acts 10:46 is
linked to the miracle of foreign languages in Acts 2, so the
experience of "prophesying" (epropheteuon)26 in Acts 19:6
has its counterpart in the twofold mentioning of "prophesy"
in Acts 2:1 7, 18.
Having shown the connection of prophesying and
proclaiming the deeds God performed in Christ in other pars
of the book of Acts, it remains for us to pursue the dea
expressed by "prophesying." The idea might be entertained
that the cise association of speaking in tongues and prophe
sying in Acts 19:6 should be understood in the sense that
both are the same.27 This dea--though it has been maintained by various people--is hardly likely. In 1 Cor 12:28-30
and 14:1-5 Paul makes a clear distinction between the two.
There is no reason to suppose that the tw o gifts are actually
only the same g ift.28 Luke refers to tw o gifts of the Holy
Spirit, namely, speaking in tongues and prophesying. Both of
these gifts appear separately in the New Testament lists of
spiritual gifts. They should not be identified with each other
and made into a single gift.
Another hypothesis that needs to be mentioned briefly is
that prophesying refers to prophetic ecstasy. There is no
evidence in the New Testament that would give any reason to
perceive that "prophesying" involves an ecstatic experience.
Such passages as 1 Cor 12-14 and 2 Pet 1:21 reveal that
Christian prophecy is non-ecstatic in nature. The speaking in
tongues experience in Acts is also non-ecstatic.29
103
The activity of "prophesying" may be taken to mean that

by means of the Holy Spirit God gave these believers in Christ
the ability to have a word of revelation from the Holy Spirit
that en^bled them to proclaim the Good News with power and
conviction. The evidence n the book of Acts is that all
"Christians who were filled with the Holy Spirit witnessed
intelligibly for Jess Christ."30
4. DOES SPIRIT-BAPTISM RESULT IN GLOSSOLALIA?

Having considered all passages in the book of Acts on
speaking in tongues, we are now in a position to ask the
question, Does the baptism of the Holy Spirit result in glossolalia? This isthe claim of many Pentecostalists, neo-Pentecostalists and charismatics today.
First, we have seen that the book of Acts does not know
glossolalia as t is practiced today, that is, glossolalia as
unintelligible speech.
Secondly, the baptism in Ephesus is a baptism in the
ame of Jess and not a baptism in the Holy Spirit. Subsequent to the baptism Paul lays his hands on the newly
baptized believers who receive the Holy Spirit. The result is
that they both speak in tongues and prophesy. Thus it does
not seem warranted that Spirit-baptism results in glossolalia
only. It should result, if it were correct, in both speaking in
tongues and prophesying. Why should it result in only one of
the gifts today? On the other hand, there is nothing in Acts
19 that would point to what may be called Spirit-baptism.
The gift of the Holy Spirit is the token of true conversin.
Baptism is by water.
Thirdly, the book of Acts reports that numerous people in
various settings were baptized without speaking in tongues.
We think of the 3,000 at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), the Ethiopian
eunuch (Acts 8:38-39), Paul himself in Damascus (A cts9:18),
Lydia and her household (Acts 16:15), and the jailor in Philippi
and his household (Acts 16:33).
Finally, there were people who were filled with the Holy
Spirit but they were not reported to speak in tongues--such as
Peter before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8), Stephen also before the
104
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Sanhedrin (Acts 7:55), and the apostle Paul as he confronted

Elymas (Acts 13:9).
5. CONCLUSIONS
Briefly summarized, the spiritual gift of speaking in
tongues in Acts 19:1-7 has the following characteristics:
1) The gift of tongues appeared in Ephesus, the most
mportant city of Asia, as it had appeared before in Jerusalem
and Caesarea. Each city was a center of evangelism and
outreach ministry.
2) The gift of tongues was an audible outward sign of the
reception of the Holy Spirit.
3) The gift of tongues carne through the apostle Paul,
similarly to the earlier manifestations of the Holy Spirit
through Peter and John (Acts 8:14 f f 10:45f.). This links the
three leaders of the early church together.
4) The gift of tongues is the miraculous gift where
baptized believers speak foreign languages.
5) The spiritual gift of speaking foreign languages is not
non-repeatable but permanent.
6) The gift of tongues is not given to every believer.
There were other believers in Ephesus who did not have the
gift of tongues.
7) The purpose of this spiritual gift was to enable the
recipients to evangelize the city and its hinterland.
8) The spiritual gifts of tongues and prophecy appear
together in cise proximity, as in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14.
These characteristics demnstrate the confluence of
deas, concepts and motifs which link into an inseparable
Chain the several passages on the manifestation of the gift of
tongues in the book of Acts.
105
ENDNOTES
I.E . M. B. Green, "Ephesus, The N e w Bible D ictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (2nd ed.;
Grand Rapids, Mich., 1965), p .381.
2.S. H. Horn, Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible D ictionary (Washington, D.C., 1960), p.
61; M. J. Schroyer, "Aquila and Priscilla," In te rp rete rs D ictio n a ry o f the Bible
(Nashville, TN; Abingdon Press, 19 6 2), 1:176.
3.Josephus, A n tiq u itie s, xiv. 10. 12, 25.
4 .0 n Ephesus, sea F. V. Filson, "Ephesus and the NT," BA 8 (1 9 4 5 ), 73-80; M. M.
Parvis, "Archeology and St. Paul's Journeys in Greek Lands. Part IV: Ephesus," BA
8 (1 9 4 5 ), 6 6 -7 3 .
5 . William M . Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and the Romn Citizen (3rd ed.; Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1965), pp. 2 6 5 f., 2 6 9 -2 8 2 , believes that Paul could have arrived in
Ephesus as early as October A.D. 5 3 . The date of autumn 53 is also suggested by
G. B. Caird, "Chronology of the NT," IDB, I, 60 7 . There are those who place it in the
fall of A.D. 5 4 , so G. Ogg,"Chronology of the NT," The N e w Bible D ictionary, p. 228,
and many others.
6 . Many commentators have pointed out that for Luke the Greek term mathetes,
"disciple, invariably signifies "Christian." Cf. J. Wellhausen, K ritische Ana/yse der
A p o ste ig e sch ich te (Berln, 1914), p. 39; A. Loisy, Les A c ta s des A p o tres (Pars,
19 2 0), p. 7 1 8 ; Zahn, A posteigeschichte, p. 673; Lake and Cadbury, The Beginnings
o f C hristianity, 4 :237; E. Ksemann, "The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus,"
Essays on N e w Testam ent Themes (London, 19 6 4), p. 136; Bruce, The A c ts o f the
A p o stle s, p. 353; Haenchen, A c ts , p. 5 5 3 .
7 . This phrase is a translation of the Greek aorist participle pisteusantes which,
according to J. H. Moulton, A Gram m ar o f the N e w Testam ent Greek (3rd ed.;
Edinburgh, 19 0 8), I, 131 n., is a "coincident aorist participle" which "is doctrinally
important." Accordingly the idea is that the Holy Spirit would come upon them when
they would become believers and be baptized. The relation between receiving of the
Holy Spirit and believing is indicated better by ERV, RSV, NEB, NAB, NASBthan by
AV: "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed." Robertson, A Grammar
o f the Greek N e w Testament, pp. 8 6 0 f., 1113, explains that "the tw o aorists point
to one definite occasion," the aorist participle pisteusantes expressing "simultaneous
action."
These grammatical and syntactical observations do not support the
Pentecostal interpretation of the teaching of "the second blessing." See Hoekema,
W hat A b o u t Tongue-Speaking?, p. 66; M. F. Unger, N e w Testam ent Teaching on
Tongues (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich., 1972), pp. 68-7 3 .
8 . Ksemann, "The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus," p. 144. See also F. W.
Norris, "Christians only, but not the only Christians (Acts 19:1-7)," Restoration
Q uarterly 28 (19 8 5 -8 6): 9 7 -1 0 5 .
9 . To cali this "the only account of re-baptism that we find in the NT" (so Bruce, The
Book o f A c ts , p. 3 8 6 ) seems to be claimlng too much. The baptism by John was
certainly a baptism by immersion but an anticipatory baptism. The baptism by Paul
was not a "re-baptlsm of someone who had already been baptized into the ame of
Jess previously. It was the first Christian baptism experienced by the "disciples."
106
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Thus one cannot speak of re-baptism in an unqualified sense, because the first
baptism was not identical in ts natura to the baptism into Jess.
lO.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 6 8 0 .
11 .White, A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 28 3 .
12. White, Early W ritings, p. 101.
1 3 . Lampe, The Seal o f the Spirit, p. 76.
1 4 . F. F. Bruce, The Book o f A c ts (rev ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), p.
36 5 .
1 5.When the Samaritan believers received the Holy Spirit both Peter and John were
involved. The Samaritan converts, however, had a share in the Jewish faith, which
was not true of the Romn centurin Cornelius, who was a true Gentile although he
was a "God-fearer."
1 6.Luke manifests the desire to point to parallels between the ministries of Paul and
Peter. Compare for Paul Acts 13:6ff.; 14:8ff.; 16:18; 1 6:25ff.; 2 0 :9 ff and for
Peter 8 :1 8ff.; 3:2 ff.; 5:16; 12:7ff.; 9 :3 6 ff.
17.Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 6 8 1 .
18.See Bruce, The Book o f the A c ts , p. 182 n. 35, for authorities who support the
view that the imposition of apostolic hands was necessary to the gift of the Holy
Spirit. This view is correctly criticized by Lampe, The Seal o f the Spirit, pp. 69ff,
19.See A. A. Hoekema, H o ly S p irit Baptlsm (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), pp.
4 4 -4 5 .
2 0 .The translation of the NEB, "they spoke in tongues of ecstasy and prophesied,"
supplies the words "of ecstasy" which are in no known manuscript. This is pur
interpretaron without any textual support. The translation known as TEV (or Good
News Bible) renders this part of vs. 6 as follows: "they spoke in strange tongues and
also proclaimed God's message." The word "strange" is not in any G reektext. The
last phrase "and also proclaimed God's message" is a free expansin of the literal
words, "and prophesied." Both NEB and TEV are examples of dynamic translations
which do not seek to give a word-for-word translation, but use a thought-for-thought
method that does not intend to be literal.
21 .Moule, A n Idiom-Book o f N T Greek, pp. 8f.
2 2 . The attempt to capture the linear A k tlo n s a rt of the imperfect is manifestad by the
NAB and NASB with the translation: "and they began to speak in tongues."
2 3 . Here we have an ellipsis of the adjective heterais ("other) as also in Acts 10:4b
according to Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A Greek G ram m ar o f the NT, p. 2 5 4 # 4 8 0 (3).
The adjective heterais has only weak support from ancient versions both in Acts
10:46 and 19:6. See Zahn, A p o stelgeschichte, p. 361 n. 8 4 .
2 4 . This view is supported by Zahn, A p o stelgeschichte, p. 102; Davies, JTS, 3
(19 5 2 ), 2 2 8 ff.; Unger, N T Teaching on Tongues, p. 79; S. L. Johnson, "The Gift of
Tongues and the Book of Acts," Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct., 19 6 3), 3 1 1 ; and others.
2 5 . White, A c ts o f the A p o stle s, p. 2 8 3 , States, "They [disciples of John] were then
baptizad in the ame of Jess, . . . they received also the baptism of the Holy Spirit,
by which they were enabled to speak the languages of other nations and to
107
prophesy. Thus they were qualified to labor as missionaries in Ephesus and its
vicinity and also go forth to proolalm the gospel in Asia Minor."
26.This s an mperfect form of the Greek verb whioh ndicates that this gift was of
a continuous nature as well.
2 7 .So A. Loisy, Les A c te s des A p o tre s (Pars, 1920), p. 7 2 3 .
2 8 . With Wayne A. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington, DC:
University of America Press, 1982), p. 174.
2 9 . Terrance Callan, "Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Romn Religin and 1
Corinthians," Novum Testam entum 27 (19 8 5 ), 125-40; see also Robert H. Gundry,
"'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)? Jo u rn a l o f Theological S tu d y 17 (1966), 299-307;
Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, 1 7 4-76.
3 0 . Kistemaker, A c ts , p. 682.
CHAPTER Vil
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14
The New Testament passages which have held our

attention previously were Mark 16:17; Acts 2:1-14; 10-11;
19:1-6. There s but one other passage that has the topic of
speaking n tongues as a central theme. It is in Paul's first
letter to the Corinthians, chapters 12-14. This section
requires careful and meticulous study. It is also the most
highly disputed as to its exact meaning.
Commonly Pentecostal/charismatic Christians claim that
1 Cor 14 is the key to identifying glossolalia today. They
usually suggest that what Paul describes in 1 Cor 12-14 is
some form of ecstatic speech of an unintelligible kind,
produced by the Holy Spirit, which remained unintelligible to
both speaker and listeners. This is the reason for the need of
an interpreter. If there is no interpreter, it is suggested that
"speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 14 may be practiced in prvate
as a form of prayer which God understands. Some classical
Pentecostalists suggest that the "speaking in tongues" of 1
Cor 14 is actually a rarely used human language that is
spoken somewhere in the world, but a growing number of
Pentecostalists and charismatics of today feel, on the basis of
recent studies done by linguists and others1 in regard to
modern glossolalia, that the Biblical phenomenon is best
understood as an angelic language. In support of the latter
view they point particularly to 1 Cor 13:1.
There is a second major approach by which the Biblical
data on tongues-speaking are interpreted. Interpreters of the
modern liberal tradition of Progressive scholarship, that is,
scholars who use the historical-critical method of
interpretation, take 1 Cor 14 as New Testament evidence of
unintelligible ecstatic speech, some kind of cadenee of
vocalizaron, allegedly known in ancient times as glossolalia.2
This is usually done in conjunction with the usage of the socalled history-of-religions approach where comparative
materials from ancient pagan religions are used as the
110
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
background for nterpretating the Biblical phenomenon of

tongues-speaking.3 This means that historical-critical scholars do not interpret the Bible by the Bible. They nterpret
Biblical events--in this case tongues-speaking--on the basis of
reconstructed contexts of surrounding socio-cultural phenomena from the ancient world.4
There is a third major view held today. This view has had
the support of the vast majority of nterpreters of Christianity
from the early Church Fathers through the Reformation,
including John Calvin and other reformers, to the beginning of
the twentieth century. It is still supported at present by
nterpreters equally as qualified as the previous group but
holding to a high view of Scripture and the principie that
Scripture interprets Scripture. These nterpreters understand
1 Cor 12-14 with its emphasis on "speaking in tongues" as
referring to the genuine spiritual gift of speaking genuine
foreign languages not previously learned.5 They see in 1 Cor
14 a picture of the misuse of a genuine spiritual gift, misused
for personal edification and benefit. They do not see Paul
endorsing a pagan practice in the church at Corinth, but see
him regulating a true spiritual gift of the Holy Spirit for the
building up of the church as the body of Christ. It is
suggested that in the church in Corinth, when the saints were
assembled, various Christians who had received the gift of
miraculously speaking foreign languages used this gift in the
assembled congregation simultaneously without regard for
order or for using it for its appointed purpose, that is, the
benefit for proclaiming the Good News to non-believers for
whom it was given in the first place. This simultaneous
speaking of various languages by different Christians leaves
the impression on non-believers who enter into the assembly
that tongues-speakers are mad. In an attempt to correct this
misuse, Paul points out that each gift is for the upbuilding of
the church and not for selfish use. He thus lays down rules
for order, and recommends that when there is no nterpreter
present who can transate these languages for the benefit of
those who do not understand them, then the tongues-speaker
should be silent in church. He may wish to speak as it were
to himself and to God.
The divergence of major opinions among scholars and
SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 COR 12-14
111
readers of the New Testament demands that we give very

careful attention to what Paul actually wrote. The fact that
Paul never explained exactly what "speaking n tongues" was
in 1 Cor 12-14 leaves the reader of these chapters with the
task of proceeding with caution and deliberation in the study
of this mportant passage.
Sound interpretation will avoid isolating 1 Cor 14 from the
previous tw o chapters in the same letter and from the
"speaking in tongues" phenomenon in the remainder of the
New Testament. Careful attention will also have to be given
to the alleged parallels in Hellenistic pagan religions to which
modern scholarship has frequently pointed and which have
been widely used to interpret tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 1214.
1. HISTORICAL SETTING
In order to reach a measure of clarity in this extensive
discussion of 1 Cor 12-14, t is necessary first of all to
attempt to orient oneself to the general historical situation
prevailing in Corinth and its Christian community.
It is particularly striking that "speaking in tongues" is
once more manifested in another major metropolitan city of
New Testament times. Corinth is located in Europe. It is one
of the famous ancient Greek cities.
Corinth was the capital of the Romn province of Achaia.
Thus Corinth is joined to Ephesus, Caesarea and Jerusalem as
the fourth metropolitan city in which "speaking in tongues"
was manifested in the New Testament record.
Corinth commanded the trade route between Northern
Greece and the Peloponnesus, and through the harbors of
Lechaeum on the west and Cenchreae on the east it became
an emporium of Mediterranean trade. Its maritime commerce
brought great prosperity and luxury. Corinth became
proverbial for sexual license.
Sevearl centuries before Paul's time the temple of
Aphrodite had been staffed with 1,000 female slaves
dedicated to licentious worship.6 In 46 B.C. Julius Caesar
founded Corinth anew as a Romn colony. As such its
112
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
citizens were Romans, probably freedmeri from Italy, but the

population was augmented by Greeks and Levantines,
ncluding Jews.
The diversity of population s reflected in its religious lite.
Corinth contained many sanctuaries of foreign deities, such as
Isis and Serapis.7 Of special fame also was the temple of
Apollo. I vislted Corinth on several occasions and saw these
temple ruins. An impressive sight indeed.
Paul carne to Corinth on his Second Missionary Journey.
He spent eighteen months in the city (ca. A.D. 51-52) during
which time he founded a church (Acts 18:1-18). Later
Apollos worked in Corinth with considerable success (Acts
18:24, 27f.; 19:1; 1 Cor 3:4).
After Paul's departure from Corinth a number of doctrinal
and ethical problems arse. During Paul's ministry at Ephesus
(ca. A.D. 54-57) he received Communications from "Chloe's
people" (1 Cor 1:11) which indicated the growth of a partyspirit in the Corinthian church. The Corinthian church also
turned to Paul with certain questions which he received from
them in a written communication (1 Cor 7:1).
Paul answered these questions successively with the
ntroductory formula "now concerning,"8 which appears in 1
Cor 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, and 16:12. The matters
discussed in these sections deal with marriage and divorce
(7:1-40), food offered to idols (8:1-13), spiritual gifts (1 2:114:40), collection for Jerusalem (16:1-4), and Apollos
(16:12). This letter of Paul to the Corinthians was probably
written in the spring of A.D. 57.9 Paul probably also answers
other questions in 1 Cor 7-16, although their treatment is not
introduced w ith the same ntroductory formula.10
2. SURVEY OF 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14

For a proper understanding of the subject of speaking in
tongues in 1 Corinthians t is wise to keep in mind that a
problem had arisen in the church at Corinth concerning the
spiritual gifts in general (1 Cor 12-14). Paul responds to this
issue.
It is within the answer to this general problem that Paul
113
then evaluates the various gifts of the Holy Spirit (12:31).

Although we do not know the exact content of the question
which carne to Paul, t may have dealt w ith the question of
the rank of the spiritual gifts (12:28), especially the
relationship between prophecy and speaking in tongues (14:140).
a.
1 Corinthians 12. The opening section of 1 Cor 12-14
introduces the subject of "spiritual gifts" (12:1)11 and
climaxes in explaining what a person "speaking by the Spirit
of God" is able to say (12:3). Paul immediately comes to
speak about the source and content of "speaking." It has its
origin in the Holy Spirit. Although "speaking in tongues" is
not directly mentioned with the typical terminology, there can
be little doubt that this is what he had in mind.
When Paul speaks about the pagan religious background
of the Corinthian believers, namely the dolatry of pagan cults,
he uses the words "however you were led" (vs. 2, NASB) or
"led astray" (NRSV).
There is no unanimity of opinin on what this expression
means. It has been suggested that the leading by idols refers
to a rulership of the idols over the Corinthian believers in their
previous pagan life. They were enslaved to the idols.12
Some interpreters wish to see here a reference to ecstasy
or enthusiasm, an ecstatic enthusiasm usually assigned to
various pagan cults.13 It is now known that "speaking in
tongues" or glossolalia was not manifested in ancient cults as
we have already seen14 and as will be discussed in further
detail below.
Thus it is unlikely that Paul referred to
something of this sort. It is important to note that there is no
evidence for any pagan ecstatic manifestation equal to
modern glossolalia in non-Christian (and Christian) religions.
Paul distinguishes carefully between a genuine gift bestowed
by the Holy Spirit and phenomena in pagan religions.
In 1 Cor 1 2:4-7 Paul moves on to speak of the triune
source of all spiritual gifts: Spirit-Lord-God. This is Paul's first
statement of a general principie. All spiritual gifts must derive
from this triune source or there is no room for them in the
Corinthian community of faith.
The purpose of the spiritual gifts in the church is "for the
114
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
common good" (12:7). No gift is for prvate use; all gfts are
ntended for the "common good" of the body of believers (cf.
1 Cor 6:12; 10:23). Paul comes back to this emphass15 n
1 Cor 14 where he stresses repeatedly that all spirtual gfts
must serve for "upbuldng and not for self-edfcation.
In 1 Cor 12:8-11 Paul provides a lst of nne forms of
manifestations of the Holy Sprit. The theme s many gfts
(charismata) of one Holy Sprit. The last tw o spirtual gfts are
"varous knds of tongues" and "interpretaton of tongues".
Dd Paul menton them last because "tongues" was the gift
most hghly regarded by the Cornthans? Dd he menton
"tongues" last because it sthe least sgnficant spirtual gift?
After Paul dwells upon the subject of the unty of the
body of Chrst, despte the diversity of offices and Services of
the members of the church body (1 Cor 12:12-31), he
focuses upon eight types of members, each of whom is
endowed wth a particular spirtual gift. It is strking that
"knd of tongues" (vs. 28) and "interpretaton" (vs. 30)16
agan come at the end.
Paul concludes ths unt wth the exhortaron that the
believers should strive for the "greatest gfts" (1 2:31). These
are the ones toward the top of the lst and are especally
emphaszed by the numbers "first. . . , second. . . , third
(12:28). The emphass is clear. Paul attempts to show the
Cornthans believers that what they consder to be the most
important gift, namely, speakng in tongues, is really not at
the top of the lst.
Paul uses the seven questons (vss. 29, 30) to inclcate
the principie of the diversity of spirtual gifts among various
members while stressing the unity of their source. He also
refutes any tendency toward claiming that all Spirit-filled
persons must manifest speaking in tongues.
It is noteworthy that among the four New Testament lists
of spirtual gifts the gift of tongues is listed in only tw o (1 Cor
12:10; 12:28, 30) and always last. On the contrary, the only
spirtual gift which appears in all four lists is "prophecy" (Rom
12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; 1 2:28f.; Eph 4:11). In one list prophecy
has first place (Rom 12:6), in tw o it has second place (1 Cor
12:28f.; Eph 4:11), and in one list it appears in the middle of
the list (1 Cor 12:10). The early place of prophecy and the
115
last place for tongues and their interpretaron can hardly be

coincidental; it is undoubtedly Paul's delibrate plan, in order
to reglate the gift of tongues and to assign it its proper place
in the order of spiritual gifts for the upbuilding of the church.
b. 1 Corinthlans 13. In 1 Cor 13 Paul shows a more
excellent way. It consists of the way of "love". It is agapelove. It is the highest kind of love, the love that was
demonstrated by the Father when He gave his only begotten
Son (John 3:16).
The first part of 1 Corinthian 13 stresses the superiority
of love (vss. 1-3), the middle part the necessity of love (vss.
4-7), and the last the eternal duration of love (vss. 8-13). In
the context of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are variously
apportioned, Paul points out that the grace of love is "the fruit
of the Spirit" (Gal 5:22-23). It cannot be compensated for by
the most lavish exercise of any spiritual gift.
The fruit of love is given by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). It
is even greater than "prophecy" and "tongues" (1 Cor 13:1).
Both will disappear, but love will never end (vs. 8).
c. 1 Corinthians 14. Paul sums up the exhortation to
love in 1 Cor 14:1 with the words, "Make love your aim."
The remainder of 1 Cor 14 speaks about the spiritual gifts
of prophecy and tongues, expressing the hope that the
believers "earnestly desire the spiritual gifts" (14:1). It is
Paul's purpose to place prophecy above tongues.
1 Cor 14 can be divided into tw o major parts. The first
section treats the subject of prophecy and speaking in
tongues (vss. 1-25).
The second section (vss. 26-40)
addresses the subject of proper order in Christian worship.
This chapter contains Paul's most profound teaching of
speaking in tongues. Our attention will now be given to a
study of this subject in 1 Cor 14.
On the basis of the contextual setting of Pauls
instruction, we are now in a position to discuss what Paul
says with regard to speaking in tongues in this disputed
chapter.
There is no indication in 1 Cor 12-14 that the
phenomenon of speaking in tongues at Corinth is a Satanic
116
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
counterfeit. Paul Usted "tongues" among the spiritual gifts

which have their source in the Spirit of God. Note that
throughout the discussion Paul refers 23 times to speaking n
"a tongue" or "tongues."17
3. TONGUES-SPEAKING LANGUAGE IN
MODERN TRANSLATIONS
English translations as well as those of other modern
languages reveal the complexity of the matter of "speaking in
tongues" in 1 Cor 14. We find time and again that translators
insert words into the translation that are not present in the
original text, or that they use different words for the same
Greek word in the original text.
There are also other
variations. They deserve our attention now.
The adjective "unknown" which the King James Versin
(KJV) supplies in 1 Cor 14:2, 4, 14, 19, 27 has no support in
the original Greek text. It is supplied by the translators. The
New King James Versin (NKJV) is correct in omitting this
adjective as is the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and
the Revised Standard Versin (RSV) and the New Revised
Standard Versin (NRSV).
The New English Bible (NEB) renders the Greek term
"tongue(s)" w ith "ecstatic utterance/speech/language"18 or
"speech/language of ecstasy."19 There is likewise no textual
support for the words "ecstatic" or "ecstasy."20 These
terms are problematical interpretations of the word
"tongue(s)."
The Jerusalem Bible (JB) has another variation. In every
nstance when the Greek original uses the term "tongue(s)"
the Jerusalem Bible uses "the gift of tongues." Thus the
words "the gift of" are supplied and the distinction between
the singular usage of the term "tongue" and its plural usage
"tongues" is obliterated in this translation.
The Good News Bible, also called Today's English Versin
(TEV), w ith counterparts in many other modern languages,
also insers a word which does not appear in the Greek text.
The adjective "strange" is inserted every time before the word
"tongue(s)" in 1 Cor 14. This word puts the subject of
117
tongues in a light that Paul may or may not have ntended,

depending on the interpretador! given by modern scholars. It
s not supported in the original Greek text and must be seen
as an interpretaron by the translators.
The New International Versin (NIV) uses the term
"tongue(s)" consistently in 1 Cor 14, but provides the
marginal reading of "another language" for vss. 2, 4, 13, 14,
19, 26, and 27 and "other languages" for vss. 5, 6, 18, 22,
23 and 39. These altrnate readings of "language(s)" are
"underscoring itsunderstanding of tongue-speaking asspeech
in predictable human languages rather than as non-sense
ecstatic speech."21
The New Revised Standard Versin (NRSV) uses the noun
"language(s)" in every instance in Acts 2 where the original
text employs the word glssa, "tongue(s)." In 1 Cor 14,
however, the NRSV employs the word "tongue(s)" in every
instance where the same Greek term appears. To the unwary
reader it gives the impression that there may be tw o different
words used in the original text in the tw o passages of Acts 2
and 1 Cor 14. This versin leaves the impression that in Acts
2 and 1 Cor 14 there are tw o different gifts, unrelated to each
other.
It may be of nterest that the revised Germn Bible known
as the Elberfelder Bibel (produced in 1986), which has the
reputation of being the most literal translation available in the
Germn language and known to be the most faithful to the
original text, employs in every instance in 1 Cor 12-14 the
word "language(s)" (Germn "SprachefnJ") where the Greek
uses the term glssa. In other words, this translation seesthe
gift of tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 to consist of real languages.
These examples of variations in modern translations with
the insertion of terms which are not in the original language
and the substitution of the term "tongue(s)" w ith other words
provide ampie evidence that 1 Cor 14 is a problem passage.
Therefore, it is not sound from a methodological perspective
to interpret the entire phenomenon of tongues-speaking in the
New Testament from the admittedly difficult passage in 1 Cor
12-14, or 1 Cor 14 alone, simply because this is the longest
passage on the subject. This part of Scripture alone hardly
lends itself to be considered as the single key to
118
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
understanding the New Testament subject on speaking n

tongues.
This survey on translation differences also nforms the
reader on the distinction between a "formal translation"
approach, which rendersthe original text in a "word-for-word"
correspondence, and the "dynamic translation" approach,
which employs a thought-for-thought correspondence and
provides much freedom to the transistor.22 In the latter case
translation becomes a more extensive interpretaron or even
a mini-commentary. We may do well to look at the language
of 1 Cor 12-14 in the original text.
4. TONGUES-SPEAKING TERMINOLOGY
Does the language that is employed by Paul in describing
the phenomenon of tongues-speaking differ from that of other
New Testament descriptions of "speaking in tongues"? Is the
language that Paul employs for tongues-speaking dentical
with religious ecstatic speech in surrounding Hellenistic pagan
religions? Does Paul describe a phenomenon in 1 Cor 12-14
that has been adopted by the Christians in Corinth from their
pagan surroundings? These are the kinds of questions and
issues that are in the mind of the discerning reader of these
chapters in 1 Corinthians. It is necessary, therefore, that we
give heed to the language that Paul uses when he refers to
tongues-speaking. It needs to be compared to the language
in the remainder of the New Testament and in the culture
surrounding the Corinthian church.
The word "tongue(s)" is used four times in 1 Cor 12,23
tw o times in 1 Cor 13,24 and seventeen times in 1 Cor
14 ,25 making a total of twenty-three times. Significantly, in
each case without any exception, the word for "tongue" is the
Greek word glssa, the very word which is used in Mark for
Jess' prediction of "new tongues," and in Acts by Luke
when he describes the Pentecostal experience and the
manifestations of this gift of tongues at Caesarea and
Ephesus.
Another observation is in order. Every time the phrase
"to speak in tongues" appears (12 times)26 the verb "to
119
speak" s a form of the same Greek term lalefn, the very verb
which is used by Luke n Acts for "to speak" n tongues and
by Mark n Mark 16:17. This means that there is full and
complete identity of language in every New Testament
passage that treats the subject of "speaking n tongues."
Some scholars interpret the Greek term glssa,
"tongues," in terms of antiquated, strange, or mysterious
utterances of an ecstatic nature.27 In the Greek language
the term glssa can refer to an "obsolete or foreign w ord."28
This, however, is still different from what is meant by the
supporters of this hypothesis. As a matter of fact, the use of
the term glssa as a designaron for understandable,
intelligible language far exceeds its use in non-biblical Greek
for strange and obsolete speech.29
What is the evidence of the Greek Bible (Septuagint and
New Testament) in support of the hypothesis of glossolalia as
a form of speech that is unintelligible? As was demonstrated
in Chapter II above, an investigaron of the usage of the term
glssa throughout the New Testament, shows that it is only
used for the "tongue" as an organ of speech30 and for
intelligible human language.31 This is true also for the usage
of this term in the Septuagint. Even in Isa 29:24 and 32:4,
where the term glssa seems to refer to stammering, there is
no indication of ecstasy or the like.32 Even in these tw o
cases "it refers to language."33 Thus there is little doubt
that the Biblical use of the noun glssa does not support the
idea of ecstatic utterance.
It has been noticed that the Greek adjective heteros,
"other" (Acts 2:4), is lacking in 1 Cor 12-14. Some scholars
have, therefore, argued that the language of Paul differs from
Acts. Is this lack of the adjective "other" so decisive that the
tw o phenomena of speaking in tongues have to be separated?
We have to keep in mind that heteros, "other," is not found
in 1 and 2 Thess, Titus, in John (except in 19:37), Mark
(except 16:12), 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John. It is not
necessary that it be used again after Acts 2:4 in the
expression "speaking in tongues" because in this text it
dentifies the tongues-speaking as something that is "other"
in the sense that those who had received the gift at Pentecost
were "speaking in various languages which were different
120
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
from the mother tongue of the speakers and which were

previously unknown to them ."34 It needs to be stressed that
the Greek expression g/ssa lalen, literally "to speak n
tongues," also appears in Acts 10:46 and 19:6 without the
adjective. This may indcate that after the Pentecostal
experience "speaking in tongues" became a technical
designation35 w ith a fixed meaning where the adjective
"other" is understood without having to be repeated. It is
very likely that the short form "speaking in tongues" without
an article in Greek and without an adjective ("new" or "other")
is an abbreviated expression of the longer phrase "speaking in
new/other tongues" used only in Mark 16:17 and Acts
2:4.36 Henee the usage in Acts 10 and 19 and in 1 Cor 1214 may be an ellipsis, that is, a shorter form of the originally
longer phrase. Engelsen suggests that the original term lies in
the unrecoverable past,37 but it may rather be that it rests in
Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4 where in both cases an adjective is
present. It seems unavoidable to conclude that Christian
tongues-speaking--and there is no other such phenomenon
known in the ancient world--"apparently had its beginning in
the Pentecost."38
The gift experience of Pentecostal
tongues-speaking is a "new creation"39 of the Holy Spirit.
We do not need to rehearse what has been stated in
Chapter II above regarding the unique usage of the language
for "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament. The Greek
expression is totally lacking outside the New Testament. For
this reason several hypotheses have been created which
suggest that the tongues-speaking phenomenon in 1
Corinthians is glossolalia in the sense of unintelligible and
inarticulate speech of nonsense syllables. Among the major
hypotheses is one which interprets the New Testament
phenomenon by means of religio-historical parallels. We will
turn to this once again later, but we have already touched on
this in Chapter II above.
Another hypothesis suggests that the supposed
glossolalic experience in Corinth can be explained
terminologically from the Greek term lalo. The ancient
Church father Origen already speculated about a kind of
"lalling." In recent times it has been suggested again that
lalo points to some kind of "lalling" or the like that is inherent
121
in this term.40 While this hypothesis inherently seeks to

explain tongues-speaking as glossolalia in the sense of
narticulate, unintelligible speech, it admits that glossolalia
cannot be derived from the term "tongue" (Greek glssa).
However, t overlooks some important facts about the usage
of lalo in 1 Cor 14. In 1 Cor 14:9 Paul uses lalo when
speaking about that which is to be "known" in the sense of
the activity of the mind. In 1 Cor 14:29 the nstruction is
given for tw o or three "prophets" to "speak" (lalo) and they
speak ordinary languages. In 1 Cor 14:34, 35 women are not
permitted to "speak" (lalo). This is once more ordinary
speech in normal human language. Thus the verb lalo is
employed by Paul in 1 Cor 14 in the context of tonguesspeaking (vs. 9), speaking by prophets (vs. 29), and women
speaking in church (vs. 34, 35). These contexts demand that
lalo refers to ordinary human language. We may agree with
the conclusin of J. M. Ford that "Paul's use of laletn [the
infinite of lalo] does not militate against the argument that
tongues are a human language."41
This conclusin is confirmed by the quotation of Isa
28:11 in 1 Cor 14:21 where the lips of strangers, that is, the
Assyrians, will "speak" (lalo) to the people of Israel in "other
tongues," which are languages42 that are not understood by
those who speak only Hebrew.
We may suggest on the basis of the foregoing
considerations that there is no compelling terminological
reason leading to the conclusin that the terminology of
"speaking in tongues" in 1 Cor 1 2-14 is in any sense different
from the remainder of the New Testament. There is likewise
no compelling reason for tongues-speaking in Corinth to refer
to glossolalia in the sense of "the broken speech of persons
in religious ecstasy"43 or the like.
We will remain with the definition of the locus c/asslcus
on tongues-speaking, namely the Acts 2 passage which
relates the events of the Day of Pentecost. It is the only New
Testament passage which contains a definition of tonguesspeaking. It is our suggestion (1) that there is but one gift of
tongues provided by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, (2)
that tongues-speaking is the same in the entire New
Testament, which is supported by the same terminology, the
122
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
context of the Holy Spirit's work, and the uniqueness of early

Christian tongues-speaking, and (3) that it s non-ecstatic in
nature.44
The following parts of our investigaron of
tongues-speaking in 1 Cor 12-14 will reveal whether this
suggestion, based on linguistic and terminological fields of
study, is sound.
5. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND THE LANGUAGE

OF ANGELS
One hypothesis for interpreting Pauline "speaking in
tongues" employs 1 Cor 13:1 as a key. It claims that
speaking in tongues is "the speech of angels in which the
secrets of the heavenly world are revealed."45
Is Paul really attempting to equate speaking in tongues
with tongues of angels? His words read, "If I speak in
tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy
gong or a clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1).
What is known about the language of angels? A few
passages in Jewish literature speak of the speech of angels.
This language is said to be an "angelic dialect" (Greek aggelike
dialekto)46 found in the apocryphal Testament of Job, dated
to either the first century B.C. or the first century A.D.47 In
this document there is a reference to three daughters, one of
whom makes an "utterance in the speech [Greek dia/ektos] of
angels" (48:3).48 Further reference is made to "the dialect
of archons" (49:2), the "dialect of the cherubim" (50:2) and
the "distinctive dialect" (57:2) in which each daughter
speaks.49 It is to be noted that in every instance in this
Jewish document the designation for "speech/dialect" is the
Greek word dia/ektos. Paul, on the other hand, does not use
this term in 1 Cor 13:1 in his reference to the tongues of
angels. Paul employs the term g/ssa, "tongue," instead of
dia/ektos, "dialect." Thus, in this single document from the
ancient world which refers to the language of angels, there is
no genuine parallel on terminological grounds, to say nothing
of ideological grounds.
Stuart Currie's study of angelic language reveis that
there is no evidence for the use of angelic language by
123
humans and there s no guidance as to how it might be

recognized.50 F. F. Bruce suggested that one need not infer
that the power to speak with angels' tongues was actually
claimed by Paul or the Corinthian church.51
We must recognize that Paul spoke hypothetically52 n
1 Cor 13:1, as the Greek conditional clause ndicates. Paul
uses the conditional partile ean,53 "if," followed by the
subjunctive /a/<5.54 This type of conditional clause in the
Greek language is one that does not speak about reality. Paul
seems to say with hyperbole that if all linguistic possibilities,
including angelic speech, were at his disposal and yet he
lacked love, it would mean nothing. "The supposition is that
Paul does not speak in the tongue of angels, . . ."55
The nature of the conditional clause w ith the hypothetical
nature of Paul's sentence in 1 Cor 13:1 makes it clear that the
key to Paul's understanding of "speaking in tongues" is not
found in this text. Thus modern glossolalists will find it
difficult from a syntactical, linguistic, and comparative point
of view to appeal to this sentence as a proof for the identity
of the glossolalia they practice.
6. TONGUES-SPEAKING AS SPEAKING MYSTERIES

Paul develops the preference of prophecy by contrasting
it throughout 1 Cor 14 with tongues-speaking. In 1 Cor 14:2
the person who "speaks in a tongue" is "speaking mysteries
in the Spirit" (NRSV ).56
The NASB translates "in his spirit he speaks mysteries."
This versin allows the alternative translation in the
margin,57 but it takes the term "spirit" as the human spirit in
which the tongues-speaker speaks.
The KJV reads simply "in the spirit" (so also the NKJV,
JB and other versions), leaving undecided whether it is the
human spirit or the Holy Spirit. The translation "in the spirit"
is possible, but it is unlikely that "in his spirit" (so also NIV) is
correct, because the word "his" is not present in the original
Greek text.
Paul maintains that speaking in tongues at Corinth is a
spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30) prompted by the Holy
124
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Spirit.58 Therefore, the reference to "spirit" within this larger

context s best taken to be the Holy Spirit. In this case the
Holy Spirit is the source of speaking "mysteries."
The "mysteries" which the tongues-speaker speaks are
not secrets or "secret truths." The word "mysteries" in the
writings of Paul is a very important term. This is true also of
the New Testament as a whole.59 Paul is the one who most
extensively explains the "mystery."
The term "mystery" (Greek mystrion) is employed
several times in 1 Corinthians (2:[1 ], 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2;
15:51).
"But the word attains its most significant
development in Colossians and Ephesians, where it is used no
less than ten tim es."60
It is instructive to see how Paul employs this term, and
more precisely, the plural form which is also used in 1 Cor
14:2. The plural form is used in but three instances in 1
Corinthians and no more in the New Testament. It appears
first in 1 Cor 4:1. Paul insists in this text that he and his coworkers be recognized as "stewards of God's mysteries"
(NRSV). God has "mysteries" which Paul and his fellow
workers have been installed to oversee as stewards. These
divine "mysteries" are the full "breadth of Christian
teaching."61
The second passage is found in 1 Cor 13:2. It refers to
"mysteries" in the context of Paul's claim that "f I understand
all mysteries and all knowledge, . . . but do not have love, I
am nothing." It has been suggested that "Paul uses the word
[mysteries] for the eschatological decree of God . . ." 62 This
implies that God has made known by revelation His decree
and plan that once was hidden from man.
"Mystery" is used in the singular in 1 Cor 15:51, "Listen,
I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trumpet" (NRSV). The "mystery" here is the revelation of the
fact that some will not die and that all will be changed in a
moment's time when Christ comes for the second time.
1 Cor 2:7 employs the term "mystery" for the first time
in this letter. Paul affirms, "But we speak God's wisdom in a
mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before
the ages to our glory" (NASB). In the larger context of his
125
argument n chapter tw o, Paul uses the term "mystery" to

subsume the whole divine plan of salvation as disclosed by
God within this single comprehensive term.63 A "mystery"
s invariably something that is revealed by God with regard to
Christ and the proclamation regarding Christ.64 This idea of
revelation is basic to the idea of mystery.
These usages n 1 Corinthians show that "mysteries" are
something positive. A mystery was once hidden by God and
has since been revealed by Him. This is in harmony with the
usage of the singular in other Pauline writings. A. Robertson
and A. Plummer seem to be right on the mark when they
explain, "mystrion in the N.T. commonly means 'truth about
God, once hidden, but now revealed'."65 Here in 1 Cor 14:2
the "mysteries" are the truths of God once hidden by Him
about the plan of salvation that are now known and revealed
in their fullness. By means of the Holy Spirit the tonguesspeakers speak these "mysteries," that is, God's truth and the
message about Christ once hidden and now fully revealed.
But these "mysteries" are not "understood." Paul means that
the tongues-speakers may speak indeed the very "mysteries"
or truths of God which were once hidden and which are now
revealed, but even if they speak them, as they do by means
of the Holy Spirit, they will not be useful, if they are not
understood.
The key idea in 1 Cor 14:2 is that people, the hearers,
must receive a benefit from the spiritual gift of speaking in
tongues. If there is no understanding, then the one who
speaks in a tongue speaks to God only, because humans are
unable to understand the tongues-speaker who proclaims
divinely revealed "mysteries."
If rightly understood, this important opening verse on
tongues in 1 Cor 14:2 does not suggest that the tonguesspeaker speaks in his own spirit only to God and that this is
the purpose of tongues-speaking. It does not mean that his
tongues-speaking is ecstatic in nature as a production of
nonsense syllables, simply because it is not understood by the
hearers. It does not say that what is spoken are "mysteries"
or unknown "secrets" and therefore are unintelligible
productions brought forth by babblings.
We have seen that the "mysteries" that were once hidden
126
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
are true supernatural disclosures by God about Christ. The

"mysteries" "denote the Christian preaching by the apostles
and teachers"66 n 1 Cor 4:1. In another letter Paul himself
asks the Ephesians to pray for him to be able "to make known
with boldness the mystery of the gospel" (Eph 6:19, NRSV).
1 Cor 14:2 then does not suggest that tongues-speaking
is glossolalia in the sense of unintelligble speech of nonsense
syllables in which "mysteries" in the sense of hidden
"secrets" are spoken that are only known by God. This text
is in harmony with tongues-speaking as a speaking of a
predictable known human language by which God's revealed
"mysteries" are made known to humankind.
7. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND UNDERSTANDING

The concept of understanding has emerged as a theme of
great importance for Paul's entire discussion on speaking in
tongues in 1 Cor 14. Verse 2 States, "for no one understands
him" (NIV) or "them" (NRSV). The words "him/them" are not
in the original text and are supplied by translators.
We need to investgate carefully what is meant by the
word "understand" and who it is that does not understand.
On the latter point, the text is explicit that those who hear the
one speaking in a tongue do not understand the tonguespeaker. Since there is no "understanding" by the hearers,
the tongues-speaker speaks to God but not to people. Even
though the tongues-speaker speaks, and he is heard, he is not
understood. He speaks with the proper intention of the gift of
tongues only when people, the listeners, also understand.
The fact that the people do not understand what the
tongue-speaker says does not mean that his speech is
ecstatic, or that it is unintelligble babbling, or that he is using
meaningless nonsense syllables. It simply means that there
is no one is there who understands the foreign language that
he speaks. Therefore, Paul insists that there be one present
who is able to "interpret" (vss. 13, 27). We will address the
issue of "interpretation" in detail below.
The issue of understanding is related to a verse that
comes later in the chapter but deserves consideraron now.
127
1 Cor 14:9 States, "If in a tongue you utter speech that is not
intellgible, how will anyone know what s being said?"
(NRSV). The first part of the sentence is more correctly
translated "unless you utter by the tongue speech" (NASB,
NKJV), indicating that the "tongue" is the organ in the mouth
of the speaker67 by which words or speech comes forth.
The "speech" is said to be "unintelligible" (NRSV, NIV,
etc.) or not "clear" (NASB), not "easy to be understood"
(KJV) or not "easy to understand" (NKJV). The Greek word
eusemos, which is used in this text, appears in no other place
in the New Testament. In the Greek language outside of the
New Testament it means, "easily recognizable, clear,
distinct."68
Is this "speech" of which Paul speaks, which literally
translated means "word" (Greek lgos), glossolalia in the
sense of "unintelligible babblings of nonsense syllables thrown
together in meaningless combinations by the subconscious
workings of man's mind?"69
Is the "speech/word,"
"unintelligible," or difficult "to understand" or not "easily
recognizable," or not "clear," because only God understands
it and it is inaccessible to human understanding? Is it not
understood because the "speech/word" is unintelligible in
itself?
These questions focus on the nature of the unintelligibility
of the "speech/word." There is no evidence that would
suggest that the Greek term lgos, normally meaning
"w ord,"70 used by Paul here and normally translated
"speech" in this text, ever has the connotation of being
unintelligible in itself. It may be suggested on the basis of the
usage of the term lgos that the "speech/word" is not
"unintelligible" in itself as if it were garbled speech. But it is
not "recognizable" and "clear," because the hearer does not
understand it to be part of his native language. He hears
something, a "sound" (Greek phon), as vs. 11 states--and
the same word means "language" in vss. 12-13--but unless the
"speech/word," which is a phon in the sense of
"language,"71 is nterpreted in the sense of being translated,
it is not understood and remains unclear and unintelligible to
the hearer.
These considerations lead to the conclusin that the
128
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
matter of understanding is hearer-based and not speakerbased. What the tongues-speaker speaks s n itself neither
garbled babbling or nonsense syllables. It is speech in a
language which is not understood by the hearer. This concept
seems to assist further in clarifying the issue of the nature of
tongues-speaking. The unintelligibility rests with the hearer(s)
and not necessarily in what is spoken by the tongues-speaker.
The verb translated "understand" in 1 Cor 14:2 is the
Greek term akoo. This Greek term has special connotations
which throw much light on the issue of understanding. It
contains the thought that the "people" actually heard the
"speech/word" (lgos) and
"language" (phon) of the
tongues-speaker, but they were unable to understand its
meaning. It is correct to conclude that the Greek phrase
"does not mean that tongues were inaudible, or that no one
listened to them, but that no one found them intelligible."72
The intelligibility of what was spoken did not seem to rest in
the nature of the "sound" (phon) or "speech/word" (lgos),
but in the nature of the people's ability to understand them,
as we have already seen.
The same Greek terms, that is, the verb akoo,
"understand," together with the nouns "tongues" (glssa) and
"language" (phon), are used in the Septuagint, the oldest
translation of the Od Testament into the Greek language, in
a very important passage. These combinations of words are
used together in Gen 11:1-9 in connection with the story of
the confusin of tongues at the Tower of Babel. In Gen 11:7
the Septuagint reads that God "confused their tongues (Greek
glssa), in order that they shall not understand (Greek akoo)
each the language (Greek phon) of his neighbor."73
The fact that Paul used terminology employed in his own
Greek Bible in this unique combination and in this special
manner seems to demnstrate that the unintelligibility of what
was spoken does not mean that human languages were not
used. As a result of the confusin of "tongues" (glssa) at
the Tower of Babel the new "language" (phon)7* of each
neighbor was simply not "understood" (akoo) by others. For
hearers to be unable to "understand," then, means that they
particpate n an audible hearing without perceiving the
meaning of the language spoken. This parallel from the Tower
129
of Babel experience ndicates that the tongues-speaking gift

is a reversal of the confusin of tongues/languages brought
about at the Tower of Babel, in order to faciltate the will of
God in the communication of the Good News to people of all
tongues/languages.
Another important insight emerges.
1 Cor 14:2, if
correctly understood, does not teach that speaking in tongues
is intended as speech directed to God.
Many modern
glossolalists suggest that glossolalia is a gift that is directed
to God based on 1 Cor 14:2. This text, however, does not
make this claim. In this text speaking in tongues is audible
communication of the divine "mysteries" of the plan of
salvation as embodied in Christ that is now revealed by God
by means of the Holy Spirit. It remains meaningless for the
hearers as long as there is no nterpretation, that is,
translation, to make this "language" (Greek phon) of the
tongue-speaker accessible to those who do not understand
the "speech/word" (lgos) spoken.
Paul makes the point that due to certain circumstances
which make it impossible for those who hear a person
speaking in a tongue/language the speaker speaks to God
(14:2, 28), because God is not limited to a given human
language. God is the originator of all spiritual gifts and if
there is no one who understands the speaker's
tongue/language, it is still understood by God. Let us
remember that Paul's whole point in 1 Cor 14 is that speaking
in tongues is for the upbuilding of the church and not for
prvate edification.
8. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND HELLENISTIC

MYSTERY RELIGIONS
A widely practiced method in the modern period of biblical
interpretaron is to interpret 1 Cor 14 with the aid of religiohistorical parallels from Greek mystery religions.
Thus
historical-critical scholars seek to interpret 1 Cor 14 on the
basis of certain religious surroundings in Hellenism from the
time before, during, and even after Paul.
Long ago R. Reitzenstein claimed that "one has to admit
130
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
that the 'manifestatons of the Spirit' in Christianity are not

unique but belong to the mystical ecstasy of Hellenism. It s
characteristic that Paul recognized so clearly the danger which
rested n the adoption of this form of the [pagan] cult without,
however, daring to remove it completely."75 Reitzenstein
made Paul into a man who compromised n the area of
religin. Was Paul that kind of a man?
An article by Johannes Behm in the Theo/ogicalDictionary
o f the New Testament may serve as another typical example
in which parallels are used to establish that tongues-speaking
in Corinth was ecstatic speech associated with the
surrounding culture.
He writes, "In Corinth, therefore,
glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance. One of its
forms of expression is a muttering of words or sounds without
interconnection or meaning. Parallels may be found for this
phenomenon in various forms and at various periods and
places in religious history."76 He refers to Greek religin
where there is supposedly "a series of comparable phenomena
from the enthusiastic cult of the Thracian Dionysus . .. to the
divinatory manticism of the Delphic Phrygia, of Bacides, the
Sibyls e tc."77 Behm cites a number of texts in the Greek
language. While he speaks of "parallels" and "comparable
phenomena," none of the examples he cites ever uses the
expression "speaking in tongues," referring instead to
manticism and various forms of divination.
Is Behm
comparing apples with oranges?
The recent commentary on 1 Corinthians by Christian
W olff refers to examples of religious enthusiasm in ancient
writings such as those of Eurpides, Plato, Aeschylus, Livius,
and Plutarch.78 W olff is nontheless unable to cite a single
example of glossolalia or speaking in tongues from the ancient
Hellenistic world.
Hans Conzelmann, who wrote a prestigious commentary
on 1 Corinthians, States that if one desires "to unlock [the
phenomenon of tongues], one is to proceed on the basis of
the religio-historical parallels, . . . which are expressed
especially in mantic divination as it is especially connected
w ith Delphi."79 Aside from the hermeneutical problems
raised by this approach, scholars are not united on the
question of whether Hellenistic parallels are to be sought in
131
the mantic divination of the cult of Apollo at Delphi or in the

orglastic cult of Dionysus.
Gerhard Delling, who himself resorts to this method,
nevertheless cautions that "t is from the New Testament that
the crucial material must come for the drawing of a clear
picture. With regard to this question parallels from other
religions permit of only limited conclusions as a help in
evaluating the occurrences in the primitive Christian
congregations."80 Delling is aware that the alleged parallels
are not really describing the same phenomena.
H. Kleinknecht considers "speaking in tongues" at Corinth
as "a reflection of Pythian prophesying."81 A t Delphi the
Pythia, or priestess, stammers forth obscure expressions as
well as understandable prose when caught up in the "spirit"
and moved to ecstasy (Greek ekstsis). The physical effects
of Pythian ecstasy are "streaming hair, panting breath, violent
filling or seizing or snatching away in a Bacchantic frenzy."82
In Delphi that which Pythia brings forth is nterpreted by
priests who are in a State of self-control (Greek sophron).63
If Paul had described in 1 Cor 12-14 phenomena such as
these would he not have chosen at least some of the
terminology connected with these concepts from the
surrounding religions? The nature of the cult at Delphi is
consistently described as the work of the mantis or
"soothsayer, diviner." Paul never uses this word. He does
not use any of the terms known to describe the activity in
Hellenistic cults.
The physical experience of the mantis or "diviner" is
"ecstasy" (Greek ekstsis) so that once caught up in a frenzy
he is incapable of assessing what he sees and says.84 In
contrast, Paul shows that the one speaking in tongues is
always in control.85 He says that only tw o or three should
speak in sequence and then be nterpreted. The tonguesspeaker can keep silence (1 Cor 14:28) and tongues can be
controlled so that they can come in orderly succession (vs.
27).86
Various ancient writers refer to ecstasy and manticism.
These terms and concepts are not used anywhere in the New
Testament in passages that refer to speaking in tongues.
There are, of course, a variety of definitions of ecstasy.87
132
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
The prime example is the reference by Plutarch to the Delphic

oracle.88 It is often claimed that n the oracle at Delphi "a
mantic .. . sought divine inspiraron that enabled her to speak
n an ecstatic manner."89 This kind of statement is typical
and could be duplicated many times. However, recent
reevaluation and renewed study of this phenomenon n the
Delphic oracle has led to the considered conclusin that "there
is no decisive evidence to indcate that the Pythian priestess
ever spoke her oracles [at Delphi] in a form analogous to
glossolalia."90 The priestess at the Delphic oracle was able
to communicate her oracles in either oral or written form and
in either prose or poetry.91 The fact that these oracles were
perceived to be "obscure" (Greek asaphe) does not mean that
translation was needed or that the oracles were in
unintelligible language. It simply means that it was difficult to
figure out what the plain words in which the oracle was
delivered really meant when applied to an individual
situation.92
Examples which are cited by various scholars as
"parallels" from the ancient Hellenistic world need careful
reassessment. They do not deal with tongues-speaking or
glossolalia but with prophecy and mantic manifestations. The
plain fact is that there is no example known to this day from
the ancient world which uses the language that Paul or other
New Testament writers employ when they refer to "speaking
in tongues." Despite the fact that even respected new
resources refer to unintelligible "ecstatic speech" as "an
element of Hellenistic religions,"93 no scholar yet has
brought forth any evidence for an ancient practice that equals
modern glossolalia or that is identical with or truly parallel to
the New Testament "speaking in tongues." Evidently the
alleged "parallels" are lacking the essential elements to be true
parallels.
Whether the gift of tongues in 1 Cor 12-14 is interpreted
as glossolalia or as speaking previously unlearned human
languages, the gift of speaking in tongues in 1 Corinthians
remains unique in the ancient world. This gift is, therefore,
unable to be interpreted on the basis of alleged "comparable
phenomena,"94 which in reality do not exist. Paul does not
share the notion of the Greek mystery religions in which the
133
dark utterances of the possessed person are "obscure" even

for the one who utters them.95 These crucial differences
must neither be overlooked or must they be allowed to be
pushed nto the background. Sound scholarly methodology
will always be sensitive to similarities as well as differences
in comparative methodology. If this proper methodology s
not given due recognition, a distorted picture arises. Thus we
would caution readers on the subject of tongues-speaking to
be careful regarding claims of parallels found in ancient
Hellenistic or other religions.
9. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND THE UPBUILDING

OF THE CHURCH
Paul employs three pictures from the realm of
communication (1 Cor 14:6-8), in order to characterize
"speaking in tongues" as practiced in the Corinthian
congregaron and the benefit it is to be to the church.
The first argument comes from his own visit to the
Corinthian believers. "But now, brethren, if I come to you
speaking in tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speakto
you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of
prophecy or of teaching?" (1 Cor 14:6, NASB).
The fourfold listo f "revelation, prophecy, knowledge, and
teaching" consists of foundational ways of communicating the
truth of God to the Corinthians. It has been suggested that
revelation and prophecy make a pair that refers to "the
reception or possession of information (it is in prvate that
men 'receive' or 'have' revelations, and only God gives them:
1 Cor 2.10, Phil. 3.15; . . .)."96 This point has much merit.
The second pair of terms, that is, knowledge and
teaching, "refers to the communication of information (a
prophecy or teaching is publicly spoken or written by men to
others: 1 Tim. 1.18, 2 Pet. 1.21, Rev. 1.3; Mk. 4.2, Ac.
5.28, Rom. 16.17, 2 Jn. 10)."97 Here Paul is coming back
to speaking in tongues, that is, to the communication of the
conten of God's revelation. If speaking in tongues does not
serve to communicate, how can it benefit the church?
Speaking in tongues is for the benefit of the church; it is not
134
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
for the benefit of the person who is the tongues-speaker.

The key dea is, "What shall t profit you. Paul nsists
that tongues-speaking s to profit the church. If it is mere
speaking without achieving the desired result of profiting the
church, what benefit is there in it? In tongues-speaking the
speaker is to communicate a "revelation, prophecy,
knowledge, and teaching," that is, a message from God that
is provided for the upbuilding of the church. Thus the
tongue/language in which the tongues-speaker speaks is to be
understood; if it is not understood, then an interpreter or
transistor is to be used so that it reaches its intended goal and
functions for its designed purpose.
The other tw o arguments of Paul in 1 Cor 14:7, 8 come
from tw o spheres where musical Instruments are used to
communicate a message to others. Musical instruments,
whether flute or harp, may produce an ordered sequence of
distinguishable notes, i.e., a recognizable tune, and thus may
speak to a person's very soul. "An aimless jangle means
nothing."98 A soldier must recognize whether the trumpet
is blown for the purpose of calling advance or retreat, if it is
to be of any use.
The issue is intelligibility and unintelligibility. What good
is there in speaking in a tongue itself, if it is unintelligible to
those for whom it is intended?
It does not serve its
designated purpose. Speaking in a tongue/language is to
serve the purpose of being intelligible.
The aim of these examples is clear. The decisive point is
that the meaning of what is spoken be comprehensible from
the "sounds" made. The purpose is that the content of the
message can be taken up into the hearers' consciousness and
appropriate actions may follow. But these characteristics are
absent from the one who "utters by the tongue speech" (1
Cor 14:9). This "speech" (/gos) is "not clear" (eusemon) or
"distinct" or "easily recognizable."99 It has been pointed out
that this speaking in tongues "was not a matter merely of
stammering, but the inspired person in the church at Corinth
spoke a language which was unintelligible to most of the
others."100
Due to the fact that it could not be understood by others,
it could not bring about its desired results. Therefore, he who
135
is speaking n a tongue/language s "speaking into the air" (1

Cor 14:9). The latter expression was proverbial101 and
meant that if no nterpretation is provided such speaking does
not profit the hearers. "The other man is not edified" (1 Cor
14:17), says Paul later. The only one edified is the speaker
himself (1 Cor 14:4), but this is not the purpose for which the
gift of tongues was bestowed.
Paul's third illustration comes from the realm of human
communication (1 Cor 14:10-12).
All kinds of human
languages were spoken at the commercial and political
metrpolis of Corinth with its tw o adjoining harbors, "and
difference of language was a frequent barrier to common
action. Moreover, it was well known how exasperating it
could be for tw o intelligent persons to be unintelligible to one
another." 102
Paul writes, "How many different kinds of sounds103
there are, or may be, in the world" (vs. 10, NEB), but no
race104 is "speechless [aphonon]"'105 (vs. 10b). The dea
of vs. 10 is that there are so many kinds of speeches, sounds,
and languages in the world and that no man knows them all.
On the basis of this picture Paul proceeds to show that if a
person does not know the meaning of the speech in which
he/she is addressed, "I shall be to the one who speaks a
barbaran [foreigner, NRSV], and the one who speaks will be
a barbaran [foreigner, NRSV] to me" (vs. 11, NASB).
The designation "barbaran" is an onomatopoeic term
used for a person who speaks a strange language, i.e., he is
a non-Greek person, simply a "foreigner."106 The idea is
that the language of a Greek person was "Greek" to anyone
who did not understand it and vice versa; the language of a
"foreigner" was "Greek" in the sense of being foreign to the
native Greek speaker, who did not have any knowledge of the
language of the "foreigner." Paul's remark recalls the selfpitying complaint of Ovid while in exile on the Black Sea: "I
am a barbaran here because no one understands me, and the
stupid Getae laugh at my Latn speech."107 This illustration
regarding the "foreigner" reveis once again that in 1 Cor 14
Paul means language when he writes about "tongue."
Paul's illustration indicates that if someone gives a speech
in a language which is not understood by the hearer, no
136
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
meaningful communication takes place. This he applies to the

situation n the church at Corinth. He acknowledges (vs. 12)
the eagerness of the Corinthians for spiritual gifts
(,pneumatikon).108 He himself had just urged them "to
desire the spiritual gifts" (vs. 1). However, if no meaningful
communication takes place by means of a "revelation or
knowledge or prophecy or teaching" (vs. 6), t s not serving
its specific public purpose of building up the church (vs. 12).
Paul does not condemn speaking in tongues, but he points
out its limitation when it s not understood and when it does
not serve its designed purpose in upbuilding the church.
Repeatedly Paul emphasizes that the spiritual gifts,
whether speaking in tongues or prophecy or any other gift, are
to have one primary function and that is the "building up" of
the church (1 Cor 14:3, 5, 12, 26). This recapitulates the
argument of Paul in 14:1-5. Paul exhorts the church member
who has the gift of speaking tongues/languages to build up
and to edify the church and to refrain from self-edification.
10. TONGUES-SPEAKING AS A SIGN

FOR UNBELIEVERS
In 1 Cor 14:20-25 Paul comes to speak for the first time
about the impression gained by unbelievers when they enter
a church assembly and hear church members simultaneously
speaking in tongues. The reaction of the unbelievers will not
be favorable. "If, therefore, the whole church comes together
and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter,
will not they say you are out of your mind?" (1 Cor 14:23,
NRSV). Paul appears to be describing a hypothetical case for
the sake of Ilustraron.109
The "all" that speak in tongues in vs. 23 can hardly mean
that every single member of the Corinthian congregaron
spoke in tongues, because the word "all" is used again in the
case of prophesying in vs. 24, where it is used approvingly
with regard to this g ift.110 If the word "all" means loosely
that there were many who spoke in tongues, then the
impression is left that various members spoke in tongues and
what was said could not be understood by "outsiders or
137
unbelievers," because there was too much confusin from the

simultaneous speaking of foreign languages.
The "outsiders" (Greek idiotai) mentioned here in 1 Cor
14:23 are neither Christians from other congregations or are
they catechumen of the Corinthian church.111 Light is shed
on this group of people by the present context. It mentions
them in combination with "unbelievers" (Greek apistoi). The
latter term is self-explanatory. Since the "outsiders" are
mentioned together with the "unbelievers" the "outsiders"
seem to be non-Christians.112 The term "outsider" is the
objective description of the one who is not a Christian and the
designaron "unbeliever" may denote a person's subjective
experience to what has been communicated from the
gospel.113
These "outsiders or unbelievers" may be of Greek or nonGreek background. These tw o terms do not specify whether
they are only Greek or also non-Greek foreigners. They are
not to be construed as identical with the "foreigner" (Greek
barbaros) of vs. 11. The picture that Paul draws is clear. If
unbelieving outsiders, on entering a church meeting, hear the
members of the congregation speak in tongues or languages
which they do not know, they may conclude that the speakers
are "mad" (NASB) or "out of your mind" (NKJV, NRSV).
The Greek word used for "mad" or "out of your mind" is
mainesthe. It can refer to a person who has brought
incredible news (Acts 12:15) as a statement of surprise. He
is called "mad/out of his mind." Paul protested in his defense
before Festus that he was not "out of his mind" (Acts 26:25).
These examples, in which the same term is employed, indcate
that this word does not refer to madness in the sense of
insanity as such.
There is a twofold line of connection between this
passage in 1 Cor 14:22, 23 and Acts 2:13. The first pertains
to the reaction of unbelievers when exposed to speaking in
tongues. In Acts 2:13 a particular group charged mockingly
that the ones speaking foreign languages were drunk. This is
stated by those who could not (and/or did not want to)
understand what the disciples on the Day of Pentecost were
saying. Here in 1 Cor 14:23 Paul warns that the unbeliever
or outsider might be adversely affected, if he listens to what
138
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
he does not understand in a disorderly church Service.

The picture that Paul draws of such a church Service may
be depicted in the following way. If a member of the
Corinthian church would speak in a tongue/language (Coptic,
for instance), and there were no "outsiders or unbelievers"
who would know this tongue/language, how would the
outsider know what is said (1 Cor 14:9) and how would God
be benefitted? And if another tongues-speaker arises to speak
the language of the Nabateans simultaneously, and a third one
to speak a language of the Parthians, and so on, unbelieving
outsiders, visitors to the church, would listen to them, but
since they speak simultaneously and since outsiders would
not necessarily understand any of these languages, they
would be led to conclude that these people are "mad."
Paul's yardstick for the evaluation of spiritual gifts,
particularly tongues, is the edification or building up of the
church. Since such usage of tongues/languages as Paul
described does not produce a positive result in unbelieving
outsiders, they are neither "convicted" and "called to
account" (1 Cor 14:24) or are "the secrets of the h e a rt. . .
disclosed" (1 Cor 14:25a). Thus the purpose of speaking in
tongues/languages, namely building up the church, is not
achieved. The unbelieving outsider is not "falling on his face,
. . . [does not] worship God and declare that God is really
among you" (1 Cor 14:25b). This is the crucial end result
that is to be achieved. It is the very purpose of tonguesspeaking. The "outsiders or unbelievers" are to be brought to
conversin and ought to acknowledge and worship God. But
if they cannot understand what is being said, what good is it?
How can it achieve its God-given purpose? How can it build
up the church?
Paul notes with emphasis that these things are
accomplished by prophecy, but should also be accomplished
by speaking in tongues. The decisive criterion remains the
"building up" of the church. Paul is at pains to make clear
that speaking in tongues is an activity engaged in for the
church. It is to have a positive effect for the mission and
advancement of the church.114 It is to contribute to the
church's growth.
The second direct connection of tongues-speaking in 1
139
Cor 14 with Acts 2:1-13; 10:45-46; and 19:1-6 pertains to

the ultmate am of speaking in tongues. It s to serve the
mission and the evangelistic thrust of the church, namely, the
wtness to and the conversin of the "outsider or unbeliever."
Therefore, Paul insists that tonguse-speaking s not a sgn for
believers (vs. 20). Speaking in tongues/languages was not
given to be a prvate, personal matter as such; it is rather a
matter of a spiritual gift whose real purpose could only be
realized if it would result in the "building up" of the church by
bringing "outsiders and unbelievers" to conversin and the
worship of the true God.
Paul makes the point that "tongues are a sign not for
believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is not for
unbelievers but for believers (vs. 22, RSV). The Greektext
is actually even more precise. It does not say that "tongues
are a sign," but that they "are for a sign." This means that
tongues are intended to serve the purpose of a sign.115
They have the function of a sign.
The word "sign" (Greek semeion) has a particular
significance in the New Testament. It is primarily a token
which has behind it a particular message to be conveyed (cf.
John 20:30, 31). The gift of tongues has a particular object.
It has a specific function and intention as a sign for
"unbelievers" who may be either Jews (Acts 18:1-17; 1 Cor
14:21) or Gentiles.116 Though Paul does not explicitly State
what kind of "sign" it would be, the context helps in defining
its function and purpose.
1 Cor 14:21 is closely connected with the following
verse. In vs. 22 Paul uses a citation somewhat freely taken
from Isa 28:11.117 He writes, "In the Law it is written,
'W ith men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this
people; And yet for all that, they will not hear me,' says the
Lord" (vs. 21, NKJV). What point does Paul make with this
citation from the Od Testament?
A detailed study would be needed, but space does not
allow it to be done extensively now. The context in Isaiah
indicates that the men with the "other tongues" are the
Assyrians. The designaron "other tongues" is the compound
Greek term heteroglssois, which is ncorrectly rendered into
English as "strange tongues" (NASB, NRSV, etc). In the
140
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Greek of Paul's day t actually refers to a "foreign

language"118 and is so to be understood here. The "other
lips and the "foreign tongues" are, n the words of Wayne
Grudem, "the lips and tongues of foreign (Assyrian)
invaders,"119 whom the hearers will not understand. The
Hebrew hearers do not know the "foreign languages" of these
invading Assyrian forces .
This quotation makes some important points that cannot
escape our attention.
First of all, t refers to "foreign
languages" as a means of communication which hearers do
not understand. This comparison is revealing, because t
seems to imply that what is happening in Corinth is the same.
"Foreign languages" are brought in by means of the tonguesspeakers, but they do not bring about the desired results since
they cannot be understood by the hearers. Paul makes the
point that in the past God used other languages with a
purpose. He used the Assyrians to speak to the Israelites,
who did not understand the languages spoken by them. They
needed a translator.
Now God uses the gift of
tongues/languages to convince the unbelievers that the Gospel
message bears the signet of Heaven.120
The second point is unusually important. Behm States
that "tongues are a legitmate sign of overwhelming power
(1 4 :2 2)."121 To some who will be convinced and convicted
among the "unbelievers" to whom this sign of speaking in
tongues is directed, it will be a sign of salvation, but to others
who refuse to listen, it will be a sign of judgment.122 This
dual result on the part of unbelievers is after all dependent on
their own reaction to the message which is to come to them
through those speaking in tongues.123
In this case again it appears that there is a connection
with tongues in Acts 2. Many were saved but others refused
to listen and turned in derision against those who spoke in
tongues.
The mission purpose of tongues is again
emphasized: Tongues are to be for a "sign" by which
unbelievers are confronted with the Good News. They reveal
themselves in the way they react to what they hear either by
becoming believers or by rejecting the gospel invitation. It is
the intention of the gift of tongues/languages that there will
not be a false reaction (1 Cor 14:23). Therefore, there must
141
be certain requirements of order and so on which will make

this spiritual gift most effective.
One of them is
interpretation. We shall turn our attention to this next.
11. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND INTERPRETATION

How can tongues--whch are not readily understood by
the members of the church and certainly not by unbelieving
outsiders for whom they are primarily intended--be made to
serve the church for their intended missionary purpose?
Paul's consistent answer is that f no one in the congregation
understands what is said in tongues, then "let one interpret"
(1 Cor 14:27). This counsel is specific. If speaking in
tongues is to benefit the believing community, and especially
the unbelieving outsider, that is, if tongues-speaking is used
for its appointed purpose--which is the edification and the
building up of the church (vss. 3, 5, 12, 26)~then the speaker
"in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret" (vss. 13,
15),124 or some other member of the church is to "interpret"
(vss. 27-28). As a matter of fact, "interpretation" is also a
spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:10, 30).125
In our attempt to determine the nature of tonguesspeaking in 1 Cor 12-14, and what Paul understood t to be,
we must also determine the exact meaning of the term
"interpret" as used by Paul. In 1 Cor 12-14 Paul employsthe
Greek verb diermeneuein, "interpret," four times (1 Cor
12:30; 14:5, 13, 27).
This same verb is employed outside of the New
Testament in 2 Mace 1:36. In this text it has the meaning "to
transate" a Hebrew term into a Greek term .126 In the New
Testament the same word is also used with the meaning "to
transate" in Acts 9 :36.127 The meaning "to transate" a
normal language into another normal and known language is
typical for the usage of this verb inside the New Testament
and outside of it.128
Paul employs the Greek noun hermenea, "interpretation,"
tw o times in 1 Cor 12-14 (1 2:10; 14:26). This noun is not
employed elsewhere in the New Testament. This term
appears three times in the Septuagint. In tw o of the three
142
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
usages t means "translation" (Dan 5:1; Prologue to Sirach,

14),129 and once it means "satire" (Sirach 47:17).
Paul once uses the Greek noun diermeneuts (1 Cor
14:28) which is usually translated "nterpreter" in English
Bibles. It is a word that is not known in the Greek language
outside of the New Testament until it appears again centuries
later, in Byzantine writers. The standard Greek-English
dictionary by W. Bauer gives the meanings for 1 Cor 14:28
"nterpreter/ translator."130 In the Septuagint of Gen 42:23
the cognate term hermeneuts is rendered as
"tra n sla to r/'131
A study of the Greek verb hermeneuen and its cognates
in the Septuagint and New Testament,132 apart from the
seven usages in 1 Cor 12-14, reveis that in nineteen of the
twenty-one cases it refers to "translation."133
This
evidence134 warrants the conclusin that the terms used by
Paul for "interpreting" speaking in tongues carry with them,
in the words of Professor J. G. Davies, "the strong suggestion
of translatihg a foreign language."135
This conclusin of "interpretation," meaning "translating"
speaking in tongues is further supported by Paul's quotation
of Isa 28:1 1 in 1 Cor 14:21. As we have seen above, the
Assyrians w ill speak to the Israelites in "foreign languages,"
because the latter rejected the plain and clear message of the
prophets in their own Hebrew language.
To this s to be added that 1 Cor 14:10, 11, in which one
does not uhderstand a speaker of a foreign language, carries
with it the emphasis that foreign languages are involved.
Even a scholar such as Behm, who suggests that "in Corinth
. . . glossolalia is an unintelligible ecstatic utterance,"136 is
forced to note that "an impression is left of speaking in
foreign languages (14:10 f 21 )."137 This is not only an
impression, it is a very strong case that Paul made through
the choice of the terms he employed.
We need to address the issue that the Book of Acts
makes no mention of the "interpretation/translation" issue
which is important in 1 Cor 12-14. In Acts 2 no translation
is needed because there were hearers in the crowd for whom
these tongues were native languages in which the tonguesspeakers spoke the Good News to them. In 1 Cor 12-14 the
143
situation is different not because the Corinthian Christians

speak in unintelligible glossolalia,138 but because there are
no hearers who speak the languages spoken by those who are
engaged in tongues-speaking. The tongue-speaker who
speaks a language not understood by the hearers needs a
translator. Although Luke in Acts does not refer to the cluster
of words connected with hermeneia, "translation," in his
reports of tongues-speaking, he nevertheless uses one word
from this cluster for the idea of translation from one language
to another. In Acts 9:36 it is stated that "a certain disciple
[is] named Tabitha, which istranslated [diermeneuo] Dorcas"
(NKJV). Thus Acts supports the idea that the cluster of
words based on hermeneia means to "nterpret" in the sense
of "transate."
On the basis of our investigation of alleged parallels of
tongues-speaking with phenomena in Greekreligions, we have
come to recognize that there are no true parallels for the New
Testament phenomenon. On the one hand, there is no
glossolalia of unintelligible speech known in these religions
which any scholar has been able to document and, on the
other hand, there is no miraculous speaking of normal foreign
languages known in them either. Our investigation of the
terminology for "interpretation" in the New Testament and
outside of the New Testament favors the conclusin that
tongues-speaking in Corinth is the miraculous speaking of
unlearned foreign languages.
It is appropriate at this time to return to the diviner or
mantic (called mantis139 in Greek enthusiastic religions) who
utters obscure and dark sayings w ithout seemingly being
capable of assessing what he sees and says. He is joined by
a person called sophron,140 a self-controlled man who
stands at his side, prays,141 and then proceeds to give the
"exegesis" (Greek exegetai) of the pronouncements and
visions.142 There is a decisive difference in the language
used by Paul in his choice of words for "translating" or
"interpreting," which is not duplicated in Hellenistic
enthusiastic religions. For his emphasis on "translating" or
"interpreting", Paul does not use the language of the
phenomena in these religions where the term "exegesis"
appears. Does the difference between the terminology of
144
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Greek enthusiastic cults and the terminology used by Paul not

suggest that Paul is ndeed speaking about somethlng which
dlffers fundamentally from the phenomena of enthusiasts in
pagan religions? One can hardly avoid this conclusin.
14. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND PROPHECY

It may be helpful to investgate first how Paul's language
and emphasis differed from that of phenomena of pagan
religious cults of his day when it come to the topic of
prophecy.
In both the cult of Delphi and the cult of Dionysus mantic
divination is identified as prophesying.143 Paul, on the other
hand, makes a clear distinction between "prophecy" and
"speaking in tongues." They are completely seprate spiritual
gifts (1 Cor 12:8-11, 28-31; 14:1-5).144
A crucial distinction appears also with regard to the
possession of the spirit (Greek pnema).
In Dionysian
possession the sacred spirit comes "when the god fully enters
the body [and] he gives the ecstatic power to declare the
things to come [in the future]."145 The "spirit" in 1
Corinthians is not called "sacred" (Greek hiereu) as in the cult
of Dionysus.146 It is called "holy" (Greek hagion) as in all
of Paul's writings and notably in 1 Cor 6:19; 12:3 (cf. 10:122; 12:4-13). Paul distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the spirit
of paganism by his use of a decisively different adjective.
The goal of the orgiastic Bacchic nights is
mainesthai,147 "to be out of one's mind."
This is the
opposite of what Paul desires for the one speaking in tongues
(1 Cor 14:23). Let it be said clearly that those who seek to
interpret 1 Cor 14 with the aid of ecstatic cults of Hellenism
are forced-against the distinctions stressed by Paul--to
transfer phenomena of pagan mantic "prophecy"148 onto the
ones speaking in tongues in Corinth. But the tw o experiences
are completely seprate and distinct from each other.
The designation for the frenzied phenomena of the god
Apollo at the shrine of Delphi is "divine frenzy" (Greek theia
mana).149 In this State of mantic frenzy a revelation from
the gods will comes forth in oracular words, but still in normal
145
language. Likewise with the Sibyls who engaged n prophecy.

These women, when caught up in sudden trances, changed
color, had dishevelled hair, panting breasts, foaming mouths,
and engaged n frantic gestures.150 They uttered mystic
sayings in oracular form. These pagan ecstatic phenomena
are part and parcel of heathen "prophecy" or divination, but
no glossolalic experience is ever recorded or hinted at n these
pagan religions.
As regards the Pythia's trance-like State in the oracle at
Delphi, E. R. Dodds notes that "the god entered nto her and
used her vocal organs as if they were his own, exactly as the
sorcalled 'control' does in modern spirit-mediumship."151
The picture of the Delphic oracle drawn by this scholar is the
same as in medium-possession in spiritualism. This is, of
course, not what we discover to be the case in the New
Testament in general or in 1 Cor 12-14 in particular.
N. Engelsen, following others,152 maintains that
speaking in tongues and prophecy in Corinth are not distinct.
This is important for him, because there is no special word for
unintelligible inspired speech in ancient Greek. From this
Engelsen postulates that intelligible and unintelligible inspired
speech were not distinguished in Christian times and
before.153 He also concludes that speaking in tongues in
Corinth is the result of a trance State and that tonguesspeaking is thus an ecstatic experience of unintelligible
speech, or glossolalia.154
These suggestions by Engelsen have been refuted by
studies indicating that New Testament prophecy is not the
result of a trance experience.155 Paul, it must be noted,
does not link tongues-speaking to any trance experience. He
avoids any such association. Both prophecy and tongues are
spiritual gifts; they are seprate from each other, but they
derive from the same Holy Spirit source. Prophecy is the gift
the Corinthians are to strive for more than tongues (1 Cor
14:1).
13. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND PRAYER

The phrase to "to speak . . . with my mind" in 1 Cor
146
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
14:19 deserves attention. Invs. 19 "speaking w ith my mind"

is not contrasted w ith "speaking with my spirit"156 but with
"speaking in tongues."157 The term "mind" (nos) refers to
the thinking, reasoning, reflective, and purposing aspect of
man's consciousness. It is part of man's ntellectual nature as
such.158 It is evident then that Paul intended to say that in
a congregation he would rather speak a few words with
rpan's rational, reflective, and purposing aspect for the sake
of building up the members of the church than many words in
a "tongue/language" which does not communicate with them
because it is not understood.
In 1 Cor 14:14 Paul States, "For if I pray in a tongue, my
spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful." Here and in the
following verse "mind" and "spirit" are contrasted. The words
"my spirit" (vs. 14) and simply "spirit" (Greek pneuma) in vs.
15 are best understood to be "the Holy Spirit as given to
m e ."'59 It is the divine Spirit at work in the individual.160
The prayer spoken in "a tongue" is Spirit-given just as
tongues-speaking itself is a gift of the same Spirit. As it is
w ith prayer so it is with singing (vs. 15). Both "to pray" and
"to sing" in "a tongue" are Holy Spirit derived. The Holy
Spirit provides the "tongue/language" and by means of that
tongue/language the Holy Spirit provides either prayer or
singing.
The tw o texts (vss. 14, 15) under discussion do not limit
tongues-speaking to prayer and singing. But neither do these
texts affirm that prayer and singing produced with tonguesspeaking are only for the tongue-speaker alone. Uninterpreted
and untranslated Spirit-inspired tongue-speaking may edify the
tongue-speaker (vs. 4), but in the assembly of the church
where this gift manifests itself the one who "prays" and
"sings" in a tongue/language does so to bring a blessing to
others who are to give their assent by their "Amen" (vs. 16).
But if the ones attending the church Service do "not know
what you are saying" (vs. 16), then the purpose of tonguesspeaking is unfulfilled, that is, "the other man is not edified"
(vs. 17). The edification of the church is primary.
What does it mean for the "mind to be unfruitful" (1 Cor
14:14) when a tongues-speaker prays or sings in a
tongue/language? Paul insists, "I shall pray with the spirit [i.e.
147
Holy Spirit which s n him] and I shall pray with the mind
also; I shall sing with the spirit [i.e. Holy Spirit which is n him]
and I shall sing with the mind also" (vs. 15).
The term "mind in these texts is a translation of the
Greek word nos, a rich term with twenty-four usages, of
which twenty-one are in Paul's letters. The point that Paul is
making in 1 Cor 14:14, 15 is that the person who speaks in
a tongue/language is not "out of his mind," rather he "retains
his nos [mind] even though he is seized by the pnema
[Spirit]. The nos [mind] is present, though inactive."161
Does Paul not stress the idea that when complete
communication takes place, the mind is to function? It has
been emphasized that "it must not be overlooked that
speaking with the mind is also a work of the Holy S pirit."162
There is thus no contrast between the work of the Holy Spirit
and the functioning of the human rational capacity of the
mind.
It appears that the context of 1 Cor 14:14, 15 is again of
primary significance in the understanding of these texts. It is
unwise to interpret them by means of philosophical or
Hellenistic religious backgrounds.163 In vs. 13 Paul writes,
"Therefore let the one who speaks in a tongue pray that he
may interpret." Paul says that speaking in a tongue is from
the Spirit. "For f I pray in a tongue, my spirit [the Holy Spirit
which is in me] prays, but my mind is unfruitful." For the
"mind" to become fruitful, it seems, means that
interpretation/translation is to take place.
Through
"interpretation/translation" thechurch is edified (vs. 12). This
is precisely the point of vs. 16 also, where the ungifted is to
say "Amen," but is unable to do so, because "he does not
know what you are saying. If there is "translation" of the
tongue/language, then "the other man" is "edified" (vs. \7).
In the context, the issue remains the matter of understanding
what is said and the matter of the edificaron of the church.
14. TONGUES-SPEAKING AND ORDERLY WORSHIP

Two mistakesare made regarding tongues-speaking; both
must be avoided. One is to overemphasize the importance of
148
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
"speaking in tongues." Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals of

the charismatic renewal movement are bound together by the
common bond of glossolalia. They identify speaking in
tongues w ith glossolalia and place unusual emphasis on this
practice for the believer. Such emphasis does not harmonize
with the rarity of the gift depicted in the New Testament.
The other mistake s the opposite tendency to deprecate the
Pauline and Lukan passages of the New Testament on
tongues-speaking,164 in order to attack the charismatic
renewal movements and Pentecostalism of today.
The careful student of Scripture will be aware of these
temptations and attempt fully to let the Biblical text speak for
itself.
We have seen from many angles and various
co n sid e ra tion s-'lin g u istic, term inolgica!, contextual,
exegetical, comparative, and so on--that Paul s best
understood when one does not equate speaking in tongues
with glossolalia. The manifold reasons for this are stated in
the various sections above.
Paul stresses repeatedly that tongues-speaking originates
from the Holy Spirit just as any other spiritual gift (1 Cor
12:10f., 28, 30; 14:1 ff.).
Paul does not consider "speaking in tongues" at Corinth
as a counterfeit manifestation.165 First, Paul wants all of
the Corinthians believers "to speak in tongues" (1 Cor 14:5b).
Paul's criterion for measuring the valu of prophecy and
tongues is the edification and building up of the church (1 Cor
14:4, 5, 26).
Secondly, Paul commands, "Do not forbid speaking in
tongues" (1 Cor 14:39).166 He warns of its misuse and
provides rules for its proper use.
In the second part of 1 Cor 14 Paul writes on a subject of
major concern. The gift of tongues-speaking should be
regulated and not be misused for selfish purposes. If there is
no interpreter/translator in public meetings, it is best to keep
"silent in the church," because in this case the tonguesspeaker speaks only "to himself and God" (1 Cor 14:28).
This cali for orderly worship does not mean that this
spiritual gift is to be hindered by prohibiting its practice. Paul
thus contines to maintain that legitmate "speaking in
tongues" has a legitmate place, if its proper function and
149
designed purpose are maintained.

Thirdly, Paul thanks God "that I speak in tongues more
than you all" (1 Cor 14:18). This affirmative reference proves
that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, himself possessed the
gift of speaking n tongues. One cannot help but be reminded
mmediately of Peter, the apostle to the Jews, who also
possessed the gift as it was manifested at Pentecost (Acts
2 :2 ff., 14 f f 10:46; 11:15). Is this not another link between
the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Cor 14?
If Paul were to speak in 1 Cor 14 about a counterfeit gift,
it would be most incongruous for him to dar to claim that it
comes from the Holy Spirit, should be desired, and that he
possesses it himself. This can hardly be inspired diplomacy
through which Paul put himself on the same level as Jhe
Corinthians in order to bring them to higher ground. Paul
surely wants to bring them to a regulated, proper use and a
right purpose in their practice of speaking in tongues.
Although Paul speaks in tongues more than all the
Corinthians, and thus as a missionary to Gentile peoples and
nations he has much use for this gift, he says that "in the
church I would rather speak five words167 with my mind, in
order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue"
(1 Cor 14:19). Though Paul has the occasion more often to
speak in tongues,168 his primary concern is "to instruct
others" in the church. This is an application of the criterion of
the building up of the church. Paul knows that 10,000 words
spoken in a tongue/language not understood in a given
congregaron will not profit that church. By contrast, a short
message that is understood will achieve the goal of any
speech in church, namely its edification.
Paul shows that the gift of tongues in Corinth is genuine
but misused, for it does not fulfill its designed purpose of
building up the church. Accordingly Paul introduces regulating
principies which would assure and maintain orderly worship (1
Cor 14:26-28):
1) All things should be done for edification, namely the
building up of the church (vs. 26). This is the basic principie
of the entire instruction on tongues in 1 Cor 14, which we
have explored above.
2) There should be only tw o or three speakers in tongues,
150
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
"at most three" (vs. 27). This restriction indicates that there
were larger numbers of tongues-speakers in Corinth. Paul
scales down the number of tongues-speakers n the church
Service to at most three.
3) Tongues-speaking should by done "by course" (KJV),
or "each [shall speak] n turn" (RSV, NRSV), or "one at a
time" (NEB, NIV), or "one after the other" (TEV) as vs. 27
indicates. Paul establishes a regulation that there shall be
sequential order and not simultaneous tongues-speaking.
There shall not be more than one tongues-speaker at one
time.
4) There should be an nterpreter/translator present so
that the matter spoken in a tongue/language in the church
may be translated and all be blessed and edified by it (vs. 27)
5) If there is no transistor available, tongues-speakers
should keep silent in the church, and speak to themselves and
to God (vs. 28).
Evidently the orderliness of the Service is to contribute to
the worship attitude of the entire congregaron. The God to
be worshiped is a God of order (1 Cor 14:40). He is "not a
God of confusin but of peace" (vs. 33). This instruction on
liturgical order in worship is given for "all the churches of the
saints" (vs. 33). It is universal for all early Christian churches
and for all churches in the future. Paul's teaching is still valid
and carries its own Biblical authority for today.
15. CONCLUSIONS
The contextual study of 1 Cor 12-14 which we have
engaged in throughout this chapter gives full support to the
identity of terminology and usage of tongues-speaking in the
entire New Testament. The above study has shown that it is
sound to consider speaking in tongues as the same spiritual
gift throughout the whole New Testament.
It is most
reasonable to conclude that tongues-speaking throughout the
New Testament is the same gift of miraculously speaking
unlearned foreign languages.169
Undeniable links bind together the entire New Testament
phenomena of speaking in tongues nto one unbreakable
151
chain.
1. Jess predicted that believers "will speak with new
tongues" (Mark 16:17).
This was fuifilled not only at
Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost, but also in such other
metropolitan centers as Caesarea n Judah, Ephesus n Asia
Minor, and Corinth in Greece. Each of these cities was made
up of inhabitants and visitors that were separated by language
barriers. People from many countries and regions, each
having their own native tongues, would pass through these
places. Jess not only commanded that the Good News
should be preached to all mankind but He also provided
through the Holy Spirit the gift of miraculously speaking
foreign languages to accomplish this goal and teach these
people of different language backgrounds the way of Christ.
2. According to Mark 16:17 Jess stated that among
other things the speaking of new languages would be a "sign"
(Greek seme/oo) in the sense of an occurrence that is contrary
to the usual course of nature for those who would thus hear
the gospel message. It was to be a "sign" of a miracle for
unbelievers that the commission was of divine origin. In 1
Cor 14:22 Paul explains that "tongues are a sign (semeion)
not for believers but for unbelievers." He makes the point
that the gift of speaking foreign languages is to convince the
unbelievers with overwhelming power that the proclamation
of the kerygma bears the signet of heaven. Anyone who will
be convinced can gain salvation; for the person who derides
this manifestation it will mean judgment.
3.
- In Acts 2:13 some contemptuously mocked the
disciples who were speaking in foreign languages by charging
that they were drunk. Unbelieving outsiders might react
similarly, if they were to attend the disorderly tonguesspeaking meeting of the church at Corinth. Paul notes that if
the tongues are not understood by the outsider, he may think
that the speakers are mad (1 Cor 14:23). False impressions
could arise and the genuine manifestation of speaking foreign
languages could be misinterpreted.
4. This bring us to another link in the chain that connects
and unifies the New Testament phenomenon of speaking in
tongues, i.e., its purpose. The Risen Lord had connected the
speaking in tongues w ith the Great Commission to evangelize
152
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
the world (Mk 16:15-18). A t Pentecost the first fruits of the

promise were experienced when 3,000 were added to the
infant church (Acts 2). Then the gift carne to the Gentile
Christians ncorporating them in the task of evangelism both
n Caesarea and Ephesus (Acts 10:45, 46; 19:1-6). In 1 Cor
14 Paul emphasizes time and again that speaking in tongues
should be used for the building up of the church (14:4, 5, 12,
26). This is why he says that this gift s for unbelieving
outsiders. They too should be drawn into the fellowship of
believers and all should experience further growth in their
Christian experience and engage in evangelism.
5. Luke reports in Acts 19:6 that after the twelve
"disciples" in Ephesus were converted and had received the
Holy Spirit they were enabled to speak in tongues and they
also prophesied. It is significant that here in Ephesus tongues
and prophecy are associated with Paul. This finds its direct
correspondence in 1 Cor 14 where Paul repeatedly speaks
about both. The link between prophecy and tongues is
established by the fact that both are a manifestation of the
Holy Spirit in Ephesus and Corinth. The cise association of
tongues and prophecy goes all the way back to the first
manifestation of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost where Peter
tw ice referred to prophesying (Acts 2 :1 7,18). However, Paul
makes it abundantly clear that the gift of tongues and the gift
of prophecy are tw o distinct spiritual gifts, by no means
identical.
6. It can hardly be accidental that the tw o great giants of
the early church, Peter and Paul, the proclaimers of the Good
News to the Jews and the Gentiles respectively, are both
associated in Acts with the manifestation of speaking in
tongues, about which Paul again speaks in 1 Cor 12-14. God
used those occasions and the prestige of these pillars of the
early Church in order to spread the Good News with tongues
supernaturally bestowed by the Holy Spirit.
7. Internal indications in 1 Cor 14 point strongly in the
direction of identifying speaking in tongues with the Holy
Spirit's supernatural ability of speaking foreign languages not
learned previously, as it had been dentified explicitly in Acts
2. The striking identity of terminology and linguistic usage of
the expression "speaking in tongues" both in Acts and 1 Cor
153
12-14 put this dentification on sure footing.

8.
Other links between the Gospel of Mark, the Book of
Acts, and 1 Corinthians extend from the origin, nature,
function, purpose, and persons nvolved with the sign
character of this spiritual gift.
On this basis the New
Testament phenomenon of speaking in tongues in these three
documents of the New Testament-Mark, Acts and 1
Corinthians--is presented as one single spiritual gift of
speaking unlearned languages bestowed for the purpose of
evangelizing the world. It was to demnstrate that God is on
the side of the infant church, to get it going, to break down
barriers between Jews and Gentiles, and to provide a token of
His mltiple gifts for the upbuilding of the church as the body
of Christ.
Our investigation into all major ramifications of the issue
of "speaking in tongues" in the New Testament has revealed
that it is given by the Holy Spirit to believers for a specific
purpose and that it is His design that it should be used in this
way. We have seen as well that tongues-speaking in the New
Testament is not given to everyone, but to those whom the
Spirit chooses. There is no command that every believer is to
engage in tongue-speaking. There is no statement in the New
Testament that tongues-speaking is the key to greater spiritual
power. There is a statement that tongues-speaking should
cease (1 Cor 13:8). The specific meaning of this particular
statement is much debated. It has been argued that it was
only needed in New Testament times (B. B. Warfield) and that
tongues-speaking would cease in and of itself (M. F. Unger).
A truce proposal for the tongues controversy suggests that
contemporary glossolalia should neither be sought or should
it be forbidden. This compromise has found support from
various quarters. If any contemporary glossolalia is to be
identified with the New Testament gift of tongues-speaking,
then it will have to be demonstrated that it matches the New
Testament definition and specifications for "speaking in
tongues," including its source, its purpose, its nature, its
orderliness, its outreach design and so on. The proof for this
dentification cannot rest in personal experience or in
ecclesiastical approval, but must be securely grounded inhe
total witness of Scripture on this subject. The Bereans "were
154
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things

were so" (Acts 17:11). Every responsible Christian will do
likewise and hold on to that which is found to be sound on
the basis of Scripture.
ENDNOTES
I.S e e above Chapter I for details of these modern investigations.
2.The reader may wish to consult the representativo bibliographies in the following
dissertations: N. I. J. Engelsen, Glossolalia and Other Forms o f Inspirad Speech
A c c o rd in g to 1 Cor. 12-14 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1970);
W illiamE. Richardson, L it rg ica ! Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthlans 14 :2 6 c -3 3 a and
Its Im plications (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1983).
3 .See P. C. Millar, "In Praise of Nonsense," in C lasslcalM editerranean S pirituality, ed.
A. H. Armstrong (London, 1986); A. C. Thiselton, "The 'Interpretaron' of Tongues;
A New Suggestion in the Light of Greek Usage in Philo and Josephus," Jo u rn a l o f
Theological S tu d y 3 0 (1979), 15-36.
4 . For a penetrating study on this by a former historical-oritioal scholar of major
standing, see Eta Linnemann, W issenschaft oder M einung?
A n fra ge n und
A lte rn a tlv e n (Neuhausen-Stuttgart: Hnssler Verlag, 1986); Engl. translation by R. W.
Yarbrough, M s to ric a l Criticism o f the Bible. M ethodology o r Ideology? (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1990).
5 . For a representativa listing of scholars holding to this view, see the final note in this
chapter.
6.Strabo, Geography, VIII, vi, 20.
7 . H. S. Robinson, "Excavations at Ancient Corinth, 1 9 5 9 -1 9 6 3 ," Klio, 46 (19 6 5 ),
2 8 9 ff.
8 . H. Conzelmann, D ar erste K o rin th ar (Gdttingen, 19 6 9), p. 139; F. F. Bruce, 1 and
2 C orinthians (New Century Bible; London, 1971), p. 66.
9 . This is the most widely held date and is adoptad by Hom, Seventh-day A d v e n tis t
Bible D ictio n a ry, p. 224; D. Guthrie, The Paulina Epistles. N e w Testam ent
In tro d u ctio n (2nd ed.; London 1 963). Earlier dates have been suggested recently by
C. K. Barrett, The F irst Epistle to the Corinthians (New York, 1968), p. 8; "early
months of 5 4 , or possibly even 53"; Conzelmann, D er erste K orinther, p. 16 n.31,
spring of 55; Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 25, "probably A.D. 55."
10.So
Bruce, 1 a nd 2 Corinthians, p. 66.
11 .David L. Baker, "The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1 2-1 4 ," EvanglicaI Q uarter/y

4 6 (19 7 4 ) 2 2 8 , writes, "In 12:1 to n p n e u m a tikon has sometimos been taken to refer
to 'spiritual men' but more often to 'spiritual gifts' and, although either translation is
possible, the use in 14:1 and the parallelism with charism ata (esp. 12:31) favor the
latter . . . ."
12.K. Maly, M ndige Gemeinde (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), p. 186.
155
13.See W alter F. Otto, Dionysius (2nd ed.; Leipzig, 1939). Christian Wolff, Dererste
B rie f des Paulus an da K o rin th er "Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen
Testament, 7/II" (Berln: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1 9 8 2), pp. 9 8 -9 9 .
14.See above Chapter II.
15.Conzelmann, D ar erste K orinther, p. 2 4 6 , rightly points out that in vs. 7 Paul's
emphasis is placed upon the words "common good."
16.lnterpreters of "tongues" are not included separately in this list, but they are
mentioned in 12:30.
17.1 Cor 12:10a, b, 28, 30; 1 3 :1 ,8 ; 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 26,
2 7 , 39.
18.1 Cor 12:10, 28; 14:6, 9, 13, 19, 26, 27, 39.
19.1 Cor 12:30; 13:8; 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 23.
20.Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Jo u rn a l o f Theological Study,
N.S. 1 7 (1 9 6 6 ), 2 9 9 -3 0 7 .
21 .C. M . Robeck, Jr., "Tongues, Gift of," The In ternational S tandard Bible
Encyclopedia, ed. G. W . Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19 8 8), 4 :8 7 2 .
22.See E. A. Nida and C. R. Tabor, The Theory and Practica o f Translation (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1969); Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Living W ord o f God (Mountain
View , CA: Pacific Press, 1 980), pp. 1 0 0-105.
23.1 Cor 12:10a, b, 28, 3 0 .
2 4 .2 4 .1 Cor 13:1, 8.
25.1
Cor 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 6, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, 23, 26, 27, 3 9 .
26.1 Cor 12:30; 13:1; 14:2, 4, 5a, b, 6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 3 9 .
2 7 . Among those who have interpreted the term glssa as ecstatic unintelligible
utterance are: C. Clemens, "The 'Speaking in Tongues' of the Early Christians,"
Expository Times 10 (1 8 9 8 /9 9 ), 3 4 4 -3 5 2 ; Lindsay Dewar, "The Problem of
Pentecost," Theology 9 (1924), 2 4 9 -2 5 9 ; W . S. Thomson, "Tongues at Pentecost,
Acts ii," Expository Times 38 (1 9 2 6 /2 7 ), 2 8 4 -2 8 6 ; F. C. Synge, "The Spirit in the
Pauline Epistles, Church Q uarterly fe v ie w 119 (1 9 3 4 ), 7 9 -9 3 ; Ira J. Martin,
"Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church," JBL 63 (19 4 4 ), 1 2 3 -1 3 0 .
2 8 . Lddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicn, I, 3 5 3 . On this point, see F. Lbker,
Reallexikon des klassischen A lte rtu m s (8th ed., 1914), 4 1 8f.
2 9 . Robert H. Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Jo u rn a l o f Theological Study
17 (19 6 6 ), 2 9 9 -3 0 7 .
3 0 . Lk 1:64; 16:24; Mk 7:3 3 , 35; Acts 2:26; Ro 3:13; 1 4 :11; James 3:5f.; 1 Jn
3:1 8 ; 1 Cor 14:9; 1 P e t3 :1 0 ; Rev 16:10.
31 .Acts 2:6, 11; Phil 2:11; Rev 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15.
3 2 . Gundry, "'Ecstatic Utterance'," 2 9 9 -3 0 2 .
3 3 . Ford, "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues'," p. 2 7 7 .
3 4 . H. W . Beyer, "heteros," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. G.
Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 2 :7 0 3 .
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
156
35.Delllng, W orshp in the N e w Testam ent, p. 32: "Clearly glossais lalein is a

technical term (it is used without the article)."
3 6 .Seo A. Blass, F. Debrunner and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar o f the N e w Testam ent
a nd O ther Early Christian Literatura (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1 961),
p. 2 5 4 # 4 8 0 (3), on Acts 2:4.
3 7 . Engolsen, Glossolalia, pp. 9 2 -9 3 , 100, 161, 176, 191.
3 8 . L. Carlyle May, "A Surveyof Glossolalia and Relatad Phenomenain Non-Christian
Rellglons," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research in Glossolalia, ed. Watson E.
Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 54. Mays deais wlth varlous ancient
phenomena which he sees parallel to glossolalia, but he s unable to polnt to a single
direct analogy.
3 9 . J. Goettmann, "La Pentecote premeos la nouvelle cration," Bible e t vie
chrtienne 27 (19 5 9 ), 5 9 -6 9 .
40.See Rlchardson n note 2 above.
4 1 . J, Massyngbaerde Ford, "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues',
Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 277.
4 2 . Theodor Zahn, Die A po ste lg e sch ich te des Lucas (Lelpzlg/Erlangen, 1922), p. 104.
4 3 . Arndt, Glngrlch and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 162.
4 4 . David L. Baker, "The Interpretatlon of 1 Corlnthians 1 2-14," Evanglica!Q uarterly
4 6 /4 (1 9 7 4 ), 230 n. 23, polnts out that Paul understood speaking in tongues
probably "to involve speaking n foreign languages." He arges against the ecstatic
nature of speaking in tongues: "But the rules which Paul glves for the control of the
gift in 1 Cor 1 4 :2 6 -3 3, together with the experlence of those who exerclse t,
indcate that it is something which s under the indlvidual's control, and that t should
not therefore be described as ecstatic" (pp. 2 2 9 -3 0 ).
4 5 . W . Bousset as quoted by Behm, ''g l ssa ," 1 :726 n. 20. Reitzenstein also favors
thls derivation and assoclatlon, see Arndt, Glngrich and Danker, Greek-English
Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent, p. 1 6 2 . See also Stuart D. Currie, "'Speaking in
Tongues', Interpretation 19 (19 6 5 ), 2 7 8 -7 9 , reprlnted in Speaking in Tongues. A
Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
19 8 6), pp. 9 1 -9 2 .
4 6 .See Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 93.
47.So R. Thornhill, "The Testament of Job," n The A p o cryp h a l Od Testam ent, ed.
H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1 9 8 4), p. 618; R. P. Splttler,
"Testament of Job," The Od Testam ent Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: A p o ca lyp tic
L ite ra tu re a n d Testam ents, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1 983), p. 8 2 9 .
4 8 . Translation of Thornton, p. 6 4 6 . The renderlng of Splttler (see prevlous note),
"she spoke ecstatically n the angelic dialect" (p. 8 66), s nexact.
4 9 . These translations are from Splttler, pp. 8 6 6 -6 7 .
5 0 . Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 94.
51 .So
Bruce,
1 a n d 2 C o rin th ia n s ,
p.
1 2 5 .
157
5 2 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Cornthians, p. 3 1 4 .

5 3 . The AV translation "though I speak" s not supported by the Greek conditional
clause, unless t is understood n a subjunctive sansa, "though I should speak."
5 4 . Conzelmann, Dar erste Korinther, p. 2 62 n. 27, says that "the language does not
require an equation of speech of angels and speaking n tongues." E. Andrews,
"Tongues, Gift of," IDB (1962), 4 :7 6 2 , States with regard to this allegad equation:
"Thls is meanlngless speculatlon."
5 6 . There is an interesting Western textual variant: "but the Spirit speaks. Thls
varlant is not original but reflects an early understandlng of the original text. See K.
Aland, M . Black, B. Metzger and Alien Wikgren, The Greek N e w Testament
(Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelgesellschaft, 19 6 6), p. 60 8 .
5 7 . NASB margin reads, "Or, by the Spirit.
5 8 .50 rightly Bruce, 1 and 2 Cornthians, p. 130; Barrett, The F irst Epistle to the
Cornthians, p. 315; F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible Commentary, VI,
7 8 8 : "That is, under the influence of the Spirit,. . ."
5 9 . G. Bornkamm, "m usterion in the New Testament," Theological D ictionary o f the
N e w Testam ent, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19 6 7), 4 :8 1 7 -2 4 .
6 0 . G. W . Barker, "Mystery," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G.
W . Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3 :4 5 3 .
61 .Ibid.
62.W olff, Der erste B rie f des Paulos an die Korinther, p. 121.
6 3 .50 R. E. Brown, "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion,"
Bblica 39 (1 9 5 8 ), 4 3 7 .
6 4 . Bornkamm, "m ysterion in the New Testament," pp. 8 1 9 -2 0 .
6 5 . A. Robertson and A. Plumm er,/) Critica! and Exegetical C om m entary on the First
Epistle to the Cornthians (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 19 1 4), p. 306.
6 6 . William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W . Danker, Greek-English
Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent a n d Other Early Chrstian Literature by W . Bauer (2nd
ed.; Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1979), p. 5 3 0 .
6 7 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Epistle to the Cornthians, p. 3 0 9 .
6 8 . Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 3 2 6 .
6 9 . William G. MacDonald, "Glossolaliain the New Testament," Speaking in Tongues.
A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1986), p. 139.
7 0 . Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, pp. 4 7 7 -7 9 .
71 .So Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 8 7 1 .
7 2 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Cornthians, p. 30 6 .
7 3 . Alfred Ralphs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1962),
1:15: deute ka l katabntes sugchom en eke i autn ten glssan, hia m akososin
hkastos ten phonn to pleson."
156
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
35.Delling, Worship in the N e w Testam ent, p. 32: "Clearly glossais lalein s a

technical term (it is usad without the article)."
3 6 .Sea A. Blass, F. Debrunner and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar o f the N e w Testam ent
and O therE arly Christian Literatura (Chicago, IL: Univarsity of Chicago Press, 1 961),
p. 2 5 4 # 4 8 0 (3), on Acts 2:4.
3 7 . Engelsen, Glossolalia, pp. 9 2 -9 3 , 100, 161, 176, 191.
3 8 . L. Carlyle May, "A Survey of Glossolalia and Relatad Phenomena in Non-Christian
Religions," Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research in Glossolalia, ed.W atson E.
Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 5 4 . Mays deais with various ancient
phenomena which he seas parallel to glossolalia, but he is unable to point to a single
direct analogy.
3 9 . J. Goettmann, "La Pentecote premices la nouvelle cration," Bible e t vie
chrtienne 27 (1959), 5 9 -6 9 .
40.See Richardson in note 2 above.
4 1 . J. Massyngbaerde Ford, "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues',"
Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 2 7 7 .
4 2 . Theodor Zahn, D ie A p o ste lg e sch ich te des Lucas (Leipzig/Erlangen, 1922), p. 104.
4 3 . Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 162.
4 4 . David L. Baker, "The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1 2-1 4 ," Evanglica! Q uarterly
4 6 /4 (1 9 7 4 ), 2 30 n. 23, points out that Paul understood speaking in tongues
probably "to involve speaking in foreign languages." He arges against the ecstatic
natura of speaking in tongues: "But the rules which Paul gives for the control of the
gift in 1 Cor 1 4:26-33, together with the experience of those who exercise it,
indcate that it is something which is under the individuaos control, and that it should
not therefore be described as ecstatic" (pp. 22 9 -3 0 ).
4 5 . W . Bousset as quoted by Behm, "glssa," 1:726 n. 20. Reitzenstein also favors
this derivation and association, see Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, Greek-English
Lexicn o f the N ew Testam ent, p. 162. See also Stuart D. Currie, "'Speaking in
Tongues'," Interpretation 19 (19 6 5 ), 2 7 8 -7 9 , reprinted in Speaking in Tongues. A
Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1 986), pp. 9 1 -9 2 .
4 6 .See Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 93.
4 7 .So R. Thornhill, "The Testament of Job," in The A p o cryp ha ! Od Testament, ed.
H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19 8 4), p. 618; R. P. Spittler,
"Testament of Job," The Od Testam ent Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1: A p o ca lyp tic
Literatura and Testaments, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
19 8 3), p. 8 2 9 .
4 8 . Translation of Thornton, p. 6 4 6 . The rendering of Spittler (see previous note),
"sha spoke ecstatically in the angelic dialect" (p. 8 66), is inexact.
4 9 . These translations are from Spittler, pp. 8 6 6 -6 7 .
5 0 . Currie, Speaking in Tongues, p. 94.
5 1
. So
Bruce,
1 a n d 2 C o rin th ia n s ,
p.
1 2 5 .
157
5 2 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Corinthians, p. 3 1 4 .

5 3 . The AV translation "though I speak is not supported by the Greek conditional
clause, unless t is understood in a subjunctive sense, "though I should speak."
5 4 . Conzelmann, D er erste K orinther, p. 262 n. 27, says that "the language does not
require an equation of speeoh of angels and speaking in tongues." E. Andrews,
"Tongues, Gift of," IDB (1962), 4 :7 6 2 , States with regard to this alleged equation:
"This is meaningless speoulation."
5 5 . Ford, "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues', p. 2 7 7 .
5 6 . There is an interesting Western textual variant: "but the Spirit speaks." This
variant is not original but reflects an early understanding of the original text. See K.
Aland, M. Black, B. Metzger and Alien Wikgren, The Greek N e w Testament
(Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelgesellschaft, 1966), p. 6 0 8 .
5 7 . NASB margin reads, "Or, by the Spirit."
5 8 .50 rightly Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 130; Barrett, The F irst Epistle to the
Corinthians, p. 315; F. D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible Commentary, VI,
7 8 8 : "That is, under the influence of the Spirit,. . ."
5 9 . G. Bornkamm, "m usterion in the New Testament, Theological D ictionary o f the
N e w Testam ent, ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1 967), 4 :8 1 7 -2 4 .
6 0 . G. W . Barker, "Mystery," The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. G.
W . Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3 :4 5 3 .
61 .Ibid.
62.W olff, Der erste B rie f des Paulus an die Korinther, p. 121.
6 3 .50 R. E. Brown, "The Semitio Background of the New Testament Mysterion,"
Bblica 39 (1 9 5 8 ), 4 3 7 .
6 4 . Bornkamm, m ysterion in the New Testament," pp. 8 1 9 -2 0 .
6 5 . A. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Crtica! and Exegetical C om m entary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 19 1 4), p. 306.
6 6 . William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrioh and Frederick W . Danker, Greek-English
Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent and Other Early Chrstian U te ra tu re by W . Bauer (2nd
ed.; Grand Rapids, MI:Eerdmans, 1 979), p. 53 0 .
6 7 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 3 0 9 .
6 8 . Arndt, Gingrioh and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 3 2 6 .
6 9 . William G. MaoDonald, "Glossolalia in the New Testament," Speaking in Tongues.
A Guide to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1986), p. 139.
7 0 . Arndt, Gingrioh and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, pp. 4 7 7 -7 9 .
71 .So Arndt, Gingrioh, and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 8 7 1 .
7 2 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Corinthians, p. 306.
7 3 . Alfred Ralphs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1962),
1:15: dete ka katabntes sugchom en e ke i autn ten glssan, hia me akososin
hkastos ten phonen to p lo s i n .'
158
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
7 4 . The Greek term phon s the word used for "language" at the introduotion of the
Tow er of Babel experienoe in the sentenoe, "And all the earth was of one lip, and
there was one language (phon) to all (Gen 11:1, Septuagint).
7 5 . R. Reitzenstein, Poim andres (Leipzig, 1904; repr. Darmstadt, 1966), p. 5 8 .
7 6 . Behm, "glssa," Theological D ictio n a ry o f the N ew Testam ent, 1:722.
77.lbd.
7 8 . Wolff, Dar erste B rie f des Paulus an die Korinther, pp. 9 8 -9 9 .
7 9 . Conzelmann, D er erste Korinther, p. 276.
8 0 . Dellng, Worship in the N e w Testam ent, p. 3 2 (talics his).
81 .H. Kleinknecht, "pne um a ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. G.
Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 4 :346; so also S. Eitrem, "Orakel und
Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike, A lbae Vigiliae 5 (1 9 4 7 ), 4 2 .
8 2 . Kleinknecht, "p n e u m a , 6 :3 4 5 .
8 3 . Plato, Timaeus, 7 1 e -7 2 a .
8 4 . Plato, Timaeus, 71 e-72: No man, when in his mind Inous], attains prophetic truth
and insplration, but when he [the divlner] receives the nspired word elther his
understanding [phroneseos] is bound with sleep or he is changad by distemper or
some possession [enthusiasm on]. But he who would understand what he remembers
to have been said, whether in a dream [onar] or when he was awake, by the
divinatory [m antikes] and enthusiastic [enthusiastikes] nature, or what he has seen,
must first recovar his reason [logism o], then he will be able to explain [semaines]
rationally what all such words and apparitions mean and what indications they afford
to this man or that, of past, present or future good and evil. But while he contines
in frenzy Imanen tos], he cannot himself judge the visions which he sees or the words
which he utters....And for this reason t is customary to appoint diviners or
nterpreters of the true inspiration. Most of the Greek text of this section is found
in Behm, "glssa," 1 :72 2 . The above translation largely follows the one of Jow ett
as quoted by F. C. Conybeare, "Tongues, Gift of," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11 th ed.
(New York, 19 1 1), XX VII, 9 f.
8 6 .So J. Moffatt, The F irst Epistie o f Paul to the Corinthians (London, 19 3 8), p. 21 5.
8 7 . Wayne A. Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (Washington: University
of America Press, 1 9 8 2), pp. 150-52.
8 8 . Plutarch, Morada, 4 3 2 , 4 3 8 , 7 5 8 .
8 9 . C. M. Robeck, Jr., "Tongues, Gift of," In ternational S tandardB ible Encyclopedia,
ed. G. W . Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1 988). 4 :8 7 2 .
9 0 . Christopher Forbes, "Early Christian Inspirad Speech and Hellenistic Popular
Religin, Novum Testam entum 2 3 /3 (19 8 6 ), 2 6 0 .
91 .Ibid., pp. 2 6 2 -6 3 .
92.lbid., pp. 2 6 8 -7 0 ; see also Joseph Fortenrose, The Deiphic Oracle (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 19 7 8), pp. 2 0 4 -1 2 .
159
9 3 .So still Johannes P. Louw, Eugene Nida, et al., Greek-English Lexicn o fth e N ew
Testam ent Based on Sem antic Domain (London/New York: United Bible Societies,
1 9 8 8), 1 :3 8 9 -9 0.
94.See also above Chapter II.
9 5 . Conzelmann, D er erste Korinther, p. 27 6 .
9 6 . Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, p. 138.
97.lbd p. 139.
9 8 . Morris, The F irst Epist/e o f Paul to the Corinthians, p. 192.
9 9 . Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicn, p. 326.
1 0 0 . Gerhard Delling, Worship in the N e w Testam ent (Philadelphia, 19 6 2), p. 33.
101 .Ovidius. Naso, A m . I. 6, 42: "dar verba in ventos." Cf. A. Otto, S p rich w rte r
der Rm er (Leipzig, 1890), p. 3 6 4 .
1 0 2 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Corinthians, p. 3 1 0 .1 0 2 .
1 0 3 . The Greek word here is phone which is by many translated as "language" (RSV,
NAB, NASB; Conzelmann, Barrett, Bruce, H. Lietzmann and W . G. Kmmel, K o rin th er
i, ii [Tbingen, 1969], p. 7 1 ). However, the meaning of "language" is doubtful in the
only other NT text where it is suggested, i.e., 2 Pet 2 :16, by Arndt and Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicn, p. 8 7 9 . The regular meaning of this term is "sound, tone,
noise, voice." It is used with these meaning consistently in the frequent NT
passages. The LXX reads in Gen. 11:7, in the context of confusin of languages,
that God said, "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their languages [glossan],
that they may not understand one another's speech [phonen]."
1 0 4 . The Greek expression ka io u d e n is inexact so that commentators have suggested
that Paul intends that the word ethnos, "race," is to be understood (cf. Lietzmann
and Kmmel, Korinther, p. 71; Conzelmann, Der erste Korinther, p. 2 7 4 n. 8) where
he points out that genos, "kinds," does not fit. He is correct in this, because "to say
that nothing is without a voice of some kind would hardly be true," Robertson and
Plummer, F irst Corinthians, p. 3 1 0 . Barrett, The F irst Epistle to the Corinthians, p.
3 1 9 , foliows also Lietzmann, Kmmel, Conzelmann.
10 5 . This term is in paranomasia with the term phone. Some interpret it as indicating
"unintelligible" on the basis of vs. 11, but this idea comes only in the following
sentence.
1 0 6 . H. Windisch, "b arb a ro s," Theological D ictio n a ry o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. G.
Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 19 6 4), 1 :5 4 6 -5 53 .
107 .0 v id , Tristia V. x. 37 f.
1 0 8 . This plural is here used for pneum atikon of 14:1. The term in 1 4 :1 2 "stresses
a little more the truth that the gifts for which the Corinthians were 'zealots' had their
origin in the Holy Spirit, writes L. Morris, The F irst Epistle o f Paul to the Corinthians
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963), p. 194.
1 0 9 . The Greek conditional clause ("more probable futura condition") makesclear that
we always must distinguish between the fact and the sta te m e n t of the fact. The
conditional clause deais only with the statement. See Robertson, Gram m ar o f the
Greek NT, p. 1005.
160
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
1 1 0 .5 0 correctly Robertson and Plummer, F irst Cornthians, p. 3 1 7 .

111 .With Lietzmann and Kmmel, K orinther, p. 7 3 , against J. Weiss.
112.C f. H. Schlier, "id io ta s ," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. G.
Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3 :2 1 7 .
1 1 3 .50 Lietzmann
commentators.
and
Kmmel,
Schlier, Conzelmann,
Barrett among other
1 1 4 . Conzelmann, D ar erste Korinther, p. 285, explains that up to 14:21 speaking in

tongues "was considerad esoterically, as a process in the church and its result upon
it, but from now on [vss. 2 2 ff.] t s considered with regard for the mission."
1 1 5 . Robertson and Plummer, F irst Cornthians, p. 3 1 7 .
11 6.W . G. Bellshaw, "The Confusin of Tongues," BibUotheca Sacra (April, 1963),
1 4 8 f., restricts this too narrowly to Jews only.
1 1 7 .lt agraes only loosely with either the Hebrew text or the LXX. On this
notoriously difficult passage, seeGrudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Cornthians, pp.
1 8 5 -2 0 5 .
1 1 8 . Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-Eng/ish Lexicn, p. 31 4 .
1 1 9 . Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Cornthians, p. 190.
1 2 0 . With the Seventh-day A d v e n tis t Bible Commentary, V l:7 9 1.
121 .Behm, "glssa," 1:722.
1 2 2 .One must refrain from making the "sign" function in a merely negative w ay as
a "sign of judgement" (so Robertson and Plummer, Lietzmann and Kmmel, Barrett,
Bruce, e t a/.). Conzelmann, D er erste Korinther, p. 2 8 5 , makes the point that Paul
draws only one thought from the citation, namely that tongues are a "sign" for
unbelievers.
1 2 3 . J. M . P. Sweet, "A Sign for Unbelievers: Paul's Attitude to Glossolalia,"
Speaking in Tongues. A Guido to Research on Glossolalia, ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 1 4 4 -4 6 , infers that Paul may be adopting a piece
of early Christian anti-Jewish polemic. But it is very difficult to have any certainty
on this at all.
1 2 4 . The RSV gives the impression in its translation of 14:5 that two different
persons are meant by the one who speaks in tongues and the one who nterprets.
But the Greek text indicates that the subject of diermeneue ("interpret") is not a
supplied tis but "he who speaks in a tongue." Here the KJV, NEB, NAB, NASB, etc.,
are correct in translating "one who speaks in tongues, unless he [the one who speaks
in tongues] nterprets." See G. Henrici, Krtisches Exegetisches Handbuch ber den
ersten B rie f an die K o rin th er (7th ed.; Gottingen, 1888), p. 396; Conzelmann, Der
erste K orinther, p. 277.
1 2 5 . H. Weder, "Die Gabe der herm eneia (1. Kor 12 und 14)," in W irkungen
herm eneutischer Theologie, eds. H. F. Geisser and W . Mostert (Koln, 1983).
1 2 6 . A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (7th ed.; Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt,
19 6 2), p. 1 1 0 2 .
161
127.Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-EngHsh Lexicn, p. 194. Polybius (ca. 2101 20 B.C.), the greatest historian of Hellenism, employs the same verb with the
meaning "transate" (III. 2 2 ,3 ). In the famous Letter of Aristeas the Septuagint is
said to have been "translated from the Hebrew, with the same verb used (lines 15,
3 0 8 , 3 1 0 ).
1 28.lbid.
12 9 . This is again the olear meaning in the Letter of Aristeas ( 1 1 .3 , 11, etc.).
130. Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, A Greek-EngHsh Lexicn o f the N e w Testam ent by
W . Bauer, p. 194.
131.See, for instance, [S. Bagster], The S eptuagint Versin o f the Od Testament
w ith an English Translation (London: S. Bagster and Sons, 18 7 9), p. 57.
132.W e have also to consider herm eneuo, which is used in all instances in the LXX
and the NT with the meaning of "transate (Job 4 2 :18; 2 Esdr 4:7; Esdr 10:3; and
in John 9:7; Heb 7:2; Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-EngHsh Lexicn, p. 310)
and the cognate m etherm eneuo which always means "transate in the LXX and the
NT (Prologue of Sirach, 1. 23; Mt 1:23; Mk 5:41; 1 5 :2 3 f.; John 1:38, 42; Acts
4:3 6 ; 13:18; Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicn, p. 498).
1 3 3 .Once reference is made to a satire or figurativo saying (Sirach 4 7 :17) and
another time the meaning is "to expound" (Lk 24:27).
1 3 4 . This point receives attention in every single study by scholars of various
persuasions because it is of considerable significance.
1 3 5 . J. G. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia, Jo u rn a l o f Theological Studies, 3
(1 9 5 2 ), 230.
1 3 6 . Behm, "g lo ssa, 1:722.
137.lbid.
1 3 8 . This is the hypothesis of R. P. Spittler, "Interpretaron of Tongues, Gift of,"
D ic tio n a ry o f P e n te co stalan d Charism atic M ovem ents, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and
Gary B. McGee (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988) p. 4 6 9 .
1 3 9 . This is the expression used by Plato, Timaeus, 71 e.
1 4 0 . Plato, Timaeus, 72a.
141 .Ibld.: proseiken.
1 4 2 . Pollux, O nomasticon, VIII, 124: "exegetai d ekaiounto h o i ta p e ri ton allon
hieron didaskontes. Pollux from Nauticratis in Egypt was professor of rhetoric in
Athens in 178 A.D.
1 4 3 . Cf. Behm, ''g lo ssa , 1:722ff.
1 4 4 . Grudem, The G lft o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, p. 176.
1 4 5 . Eurpides, Bacchae, 2 9 8 -3 0 0 . Eurpides lived from 4 8 0 -4 0 6 B.C.
1 4 6 . Eurpides, Bacchae, 161.
1 4 7 . Delllng, Worship in the N e w Testam ent, p. 3 9 .
162
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
1 4 8 . Cf. Reitzenstein, Poimandres, pp. 21 9 ff.; H. Weinel, Die Wirkungen des Geistes
und der G eister (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899), pp. 7 2 ff.; Lietzmann
and Kmmel, Korinther, pp. 6 8 ff.
1 4 9 . Cf. K. Latte, "The Corning of the Pvthia," H arvard Theological fe v ie w 33
(1 9 4 0 ), 9 -1 8 .
150.See the description by Virgil, Aeneis, vi. 46, 9 8 .
1 5 1 . E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1959), p. 7 0 .
1 5 2 . G. Bornkamm, "Faith and Reason in Paul," Early Chrstian Experience (New York:
Harper & Row, 1969), p. 3 8 , and others.
1 5 3 . Engelsen, Glosso/alia, p. 189.
1 54.lbid., pp. 20-2 1 , 60, 1 3 9 -4 0 , 2 0 4 -2 0 5 .
1 5 5 . Grudem, The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians, pp. 155-76; Terrance Callan,
"Prophecy and Ecstacy in Greco-Romn Religin and in 1 Corinthians," N ovum
Testam entum 27 (19 8 5 ), 1 2 5 -4 0 .
1 5 6 . G. Bornkamm, Gesamm elte A u fs tze (Mnchen, 1959), II, 134.
1 5 7 .50 correctly Barrett, F irst Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 3 2 2 .
1 5 8 .R. C. Dentan, "M ind, /OS (19 6 2 ), 3:3 8 3 .
1 5 9 .50 Barrett, F irst Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 320; cf. Bruce,
Corinthians, p. 131.
1 and 2
1 60.W olff, D er erste B rie f des Pau/us an die K orinther, p. 133.

1 6 1 . F. Behm, "nos," Theological D ictionary o f the N e w Testam ent, ed. G. Kittel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4 :9 5 9 n. 3 7 .
1 6 2 . G. Harder, "Reason, Mind, Understanding," The N e w In ternational D ictionary o f
N e w Testam ent Theology, ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 19 7 8),
3 :1 2 9 .
1 6 3 . Behm, "n o s ," 4:958: "Thereis no connection with the philosophical or mysticoreligious use (of n o s]." Later on he States, "There is no need to suppose that Paul
is equating nos and pnem a after the manner of Hellenistic mysticism" (p. 9 5 9 ).
1 6 4 .0 n these extremes, see Sweet, pp. 2 4 0 -4 5 , 164.
165.H . Chadwick, "All Things to All Men," N e w T estam ent Studies 1 (1 9 5 4 /5 5 ),
268.
1 66.For the textual problem arising out of the variants, see Conzelmann, D er erste
K orinther, p. 291 n. 62. The text of P46 with en before glossais is original.
1 6 7 . The number "five" is a typically round number.
K o m m entar zum NT, 3 :4 6 1 .
See Strack and Billerbeck,
1 6 8 . The Greek of 1 Cor 14:18 does not read that Paul speaks "in more tongues," but
that he speaks in tongues either "more than all of you put together" or "more than
any of you." The latter translation is sufficient for Paul's argument.
163
1 6 9 .As a sample of scholars from the twentieth century, belonging to various

religious persuasions and theological schoois of thought, who have supported the
position that in 1 Cor 1 2 -1 4 Paul speaks of foreign languages as he refers to
"speaking in tongues," we may cite the following: H. Bertrams, Das Wesen des
Geistes nach der Anschauung des A po stle s Paulus (Neutestamentliche
Abhandlungen, IV/4; Mnster, 1 913), p. 39; W . Reinhard, Des Wirken des Heiligen
Geistes nach den Briefen des A p o stle s Paulus (Freiburger Theologische Studien, 22;
Freiburg, 1 9 1 8 ),pp. 120, 133; H. Horton, 77ie G ifts o fth e S p irt (Nottingham, 1934),
p. 1 50; J. D. Davies, "Pentecost and Glossolalia," Jo u rn a l o f Theological Studles 3
(1 9 5 2 ), 2 2 8 -2 3 1 ; W . Rees, "1 and 2 Corinthians," A Catholic Com m entary on Holy
S cripture, ed. Dom B. Orchard (London: Nelson, 1953), pp. 1 0 9 5-9 6 ; S. L. Johnson,
Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts," Blbllotheca Sacra (Oct., 1963), 340;
Charles W . Crter, "I Corinthians and Ephesians,' The Wesleyan Blble Commentary,
ed. Charles W . Crter (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans , 19 6 5), 5 :2 1 4 -2 2 2 ; S. Aalen,
"Zungenreden," Biblisch-hlstorisches Handw rterbuch, eds. B. Reicke und L. Rost
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 3 :2 2 4 9 -5 0 ; R. H. Gundry, "Ecstatic
Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Jo urnal o f Theological S tudy 17 (1 9 6 6 ), 2 9 9 -3 0 7 ; W . Harold
Mare, "1 Corinthians," The Expositor's Com m entary o f the Blble, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 1 0 :2 7 1 -8 1 ; J. Massyngbaerde
Ford, ."Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues'," Theological Studles 3 2 (1971),
3 -2 9 , reprinted in Speaking in Tongues. A Gulde to Research on Glossolalia, ed.
Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 2 6 3 -9 4 ; Norman Hillyer,
"1 and 2 Corinthians," The Eerdmans Blble Com m entary, ed. D. Guthrie and J. A.
Motyer (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 1 0 6 7, 1 0 6 9 -7 0 : "ecstatic
speech in language usually unknown." G. F. Rendall, lch rede m eh r ais hr alie n
Z u n g e n ' (Stuttgart; Sch wengeler Verlag, nd); Wolfgang Bhne, S p ie lm lt dem Feuer
(Bielefeld: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung, 1989); and others.
Aalen, S. "Zungenreden." BibUsch-histarisches Handwrterbuch. Eds. B.
Reicke and L. Rost (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 3:
2249-2250.
Adler, N. Das erste christliche Pfingstfest, Sinn und Bedeutung des
Pfingstberchtes, A g 2, 1-13. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, 18.
Mnster: Aschendorff, 1938.
Aland, K., M. Black, B. Metzger and Alien Wikgren. The Greek New
Testament. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelgesellschaft, 1966.
Andrews, E. "Tongues, Gift of." Interpreter's Dictionary o f the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4: 671-672.
Anisimov, A. F. "The Shaman's Tent of the Evenks and the Origin of the
Shamanistic Rite." Studies n Siberian Shamanism. Ed. Henry M.
Michael. Toronto: Artic Institute of North America, 1963.
Arndt, W. F. and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-EngHsh Lexicn o f the New
Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
____ , F. W. Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-EngHsh Lexicn o f
the New Testament and Other Eariy Christian Literature. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979.
Bagster, S. The Septuagint Versin o f the Od Testament with an English
Translation. London: S. Bagster and Sons, 1879.
Baker, David L. "The Interpretaron of 1 Corinthians 12-14." Evanglica!
Quarterly 46 (1974), 224-234.
Barker, G. W. "M ystery." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Ed.
G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 3: 451-455.
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New
York: Harper & Row, 1968.
____ . Luke the Historian in Recent Study. 2nd ed. London: Epworth Press,
1970.
Bauer, Walter. Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des
Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen Literatur. Ed. Kurt and
Barbara Aland. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.
Bauernfeind, Otto. Die Apostelgeschichte. Gttingen: A. Deichert, 1939.
Beare, Frank W. "Speaking in Tongues: A Survey of the New Testament
Evidence." Journal o f Bblica! Literature 83 (1964), 229-46.
Beel, A. "Donum linguarum juxta Act. Apost. i. 1-13." Collationes
Brugensis 3 5 (1 9 3 5 1 ,4 1 7 -4 2 0 .
Behm, Johannes. "nos." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.
G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4: 951-960.
____ . "apotheggomai." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.
G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1: 447.
____ . "glssa." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 1: 719-26.
____ . "kainos." Theological Dictionary o fth e New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3: 447-450.
Bellshaw, W. G. "The Confusin of Tongues. Bibliotheca Sacra 120
(1963), 145-153.
Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon o f the New Testament. Ed. A. R. Fausset.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1877.
Bertrams, H. Das Wesen des Geistes nach der Anschauung des Apostles
Paulus.
Neutestam entliche Abhandlungen,
IV/4.
M nster:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1913.
166
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Beyer, H. W. "heteros." Theological Dictionary o fth e New Testament. Ed.

Bittlinger, Arnold. The Church s Charsmatic. Geneva: World Council of
Churches, 1981.
Blaiklok, E. M. The A cts o f the Apostle. London: Tyndale Press, 1959.
Blass, F A. Debrunner and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar o f the New
Testament and Other Early Christian terature. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1961.
Bornkamm, G. Gesammelte Aufstze. Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1959.
____ . "musteron in the New Testament." Theological Dictionary o f the
New Testament. Ed. G. Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967), 4:
817-824.
____ . "Faith and Reason in Paul." Early Christian Experlence (New York:
Harper & Row, 1969), 29-46.
Bratcher, R. G. and E. A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel o f
Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.
Brown, D. "The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter i, The Day of Pentecost."
Expositor 1 (1875), 393-408.
Brown, R. E. "The Semitic Background of the New Testament Mysterion."
Bblica 3 9 (1 9 5 8 1 ,4 2 6 -4 4 8 .
Bruce, F. F. The A cts o f the Apostles. The Greek Text w ith Introductlon
and Commentary. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1951.
____ . Commentary on the Book o f Acts. London: Marshall, Morgan and
Scott, 1968.
____ . 1 and 2 Corinthians. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1971.
Bruner, Frederick D. A Theology o f the Ho/y Splrlt: The Pentecostal
Experlence and the New Testament Witness.
Grand Rapids,
MLEerdmans, 1970.
Burgess, Stanley M. and Gary B. McGee, eds., Dictionary o f Pentecostal
and Charsmatic Movements. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1988.
Burton, E. de W. Syntax o f the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1898.
Cadbury, H. J. The Book o f Acts in Hlstory. New York: Harper, 1955.
____ . "A cts and Eschatology." The Background o f New Testament and ts
Eschatology. Eds. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1956), 300-321.
Caird, G. B. "Chronology of the New Testament." Interpreter's Dictionary
o f the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1: 599-607.
Callan, Terrance. "Prophecy and Ecstasy in Greco-Romn Religin and in 1
Corinthians." Novum Testamentum 27 (1985), 125-140.
Chadwick, H. "All Things to All Men." New Testament Studies 1 (19541955), 261-275.
Chase, F. H. The Credlbillty o f the A cts o f the Apostles. London:
Macmillan, 1902.
Ciernen, C. "The 'Speaking nTongues' o fth e Early Christians." Expository
Times 1 0(18 98 -1 8 99 1,3 4 4-35 2.
Conybeare, F. C. "Tongues, Gift of." Encyclopedla Britannica. 11 th ed.
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 27: 9-
10.
Conzelmann, H. Der erste Brlef an die Korinther. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht, 1969.
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. CGTC. Cambridge:
167
Cambridge University Press, 1963.

Currie, Stuart D. "Speaking in Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New
Testament Bearing on Glssias Lalen." Interpretation 19 (1965), 27494.
Damboriena, P., S.J. Tongues as o f Fire. Pentecostalism n Contemporary
Christianity. Washington: Corpus Books, 1969.
Davies, J. D. "Pentecost and Glossolalia." Journal o f Theological Studies
3 (1952), 228-231.
Delling, Gerhard. Worship n the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1962.
Dentan, R. C. "Mind." Interpreter's Dictonary o f the Bible. (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1962), 3: 383-384.
Dewar, Lindsay. "The Problem of Pentecost." Theology 9 (1924), 249259.
Dibelius, M. Studies in the Acts o f the Apostles. London: SCM Press, 1956.
Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching andits Development. London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1936.
Dodds, E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1959.
Duin, Julia. "Catholic Renewal Charismatic Communities Split by
Controversy." Christianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991), 55.
Dupont, Jacques. The Sources o fA cts. New York: Herder & Herder, 1964.
Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of Sign G ifts. Bibliotheca Sacra 145
(1988), 371-386.
Edwards, H. E. "The Tongues at Pentecost: A Suggestion." Theology 16
(1928), 248-252.
Eitrem, S. "Orakel und Mysterien am Ausgang der Antike." Albae Vigiiiae
5 (1947), 42-58.
Engelsen, N. I. J. "Glossolalia and Other Forms of Inspired Speech
According to 1 Cor. 12-14." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale
University, 1970).
Farmer, W. F. The Last Tweive Verses o f Mark. London and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Faupel, David W. The American Pentecostal Movement. Wilmore, KY:
Society for Pentecostal Movement, 1972.
Feine, P., J. Behm and W. G. Kmmel. Introduction to the New Testament.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1966.
Filson, F. V. "Ephesus and the New Testament." Bblica! Archeologist 8
(1945), 73-80.
Finn, T. M. "The God-Fearers: Some Neglected Features. Journal for the
Study o f the New Testament 32 (1988), 17-26.
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. The Acts o f the Apostles. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1945.
Forbes, Christopher. "Early Christian Inspired Speech and Hellenistic Popular
Religin." Novum Testamentum 28/3 (1986), 257-70.
Ford, J. Massyngbaerde. "Toward a Theology of 'Speaking in Tongues'."
Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson
E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 263-294.
Fortenrose, Joseph. The Delphic Oracle. Berkeley: The University of
California Press, 1978.
Gasque, W. Ward. A History o f Criticism o f the Acts o f the Apostles.
Tbingen: Mohr, 1975.
168
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Gelpi, Donald. Pentecostalism: A Theological Viewpoint. Mahwah, NJ:

Paulist Press, 1971.
Gempf, Conrad H., ed. The Book o f Acts in the Settng o f Hellenistic
History. Tbingen: Mohr, 1989.
Glassman, Eugene H. The Translation Debate. What Makes a Bible
Trans/ation Good? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981.
Goettmann, J. "La Pentecote premices de la nouvelle cration." Bible et Vie
Chrtienne 27 (1959), 59-69.
Goodman, Felicitas D. "Glossolalia." The Encyclopedia o f Religin. Ed.
Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987), 5:
563-566.
____ . Speaking in Tongues: A Cross-Cuiturai Study o f Glossolalia. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1972.
Goodwin, Charles E. A Guide to the Study o f the Holiness Movement.
Hamden, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1974.
Green, E. M. B. "Ephesus." The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D. Douglas.
2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 380-382.
Grudem, Wayne A. The G ift o f Prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Washington, DC:
University of America Press, 1982.
Gmndmann, W. "Der Pfingstbericht der Apostelgeschichte in seinem
theologischen Sinn. Studia Theoiogica. Ed. F. L. Cross (Berln:
Akademie Verlag, 1964), 2: 584-94.
Grundy, Robert H. "'Ecstatic Utterance' (N.E.B.)?" Journal o f Theological
Study 17 (1969), 299-307.
Guthrie, D. The Pauline Epistles. New Testament Introduction. 2nd ed.
London: Tyndaie Press, 1963.
____ . The Gospel and Acts. New Testament Introduction. London: Tyndaie
Press, 1965.
Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts o f the Apodes. A Commentary. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1971.
Harder, G. "Reason, Mind, Understanding." The New International
Dictionary o f New Testament Theology. Ed. C. Brown (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1978), 3: 122-134.
Harper, Michael. An editorial in Renewal (June/July, 1974). Quoted in
Williams, Cyril G. Tongues o f the Spirit. A Study o f Pentecostal
Glossolalia and Related Phenomena (Cardiff: University of Wales Press,
1981), 103.
Harrisville, Roy A. "Speaking in Tongues. Speaking in Tongues. A Guide
to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1986), 39-43.
Hasel, Gerhard F. Understanding the Living Word o f God. Mountain View,
CA: Pacific Press, 1980.
____ . Biblical Interpretation Today. Washington, DC: Biblical Research
Institute, 1985.
____ . "The Totality of Scripture versus Modernistic Limitations." Journal
o f the Adventist Theological Society 2/1 (1991), 30-52.
Hoekema, A. A. What About Tongue-Speaking? Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1966.
____ . Holy Spirit Baptism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972.
Hollenweger, Walter. The Pentecostals: The Charismatic Movement in the
Churches. St. Louis: Augsburg, 1972.
Holtzmann, H. J. Die Apostelgeschichte. HKNT. Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1901.
169
Hommel, E. "Ein uralter Hochzeitsgebrauch im Neuen Testament."

Zeitschrft fr die NeutestamentHche Wissenschaft 23 (1924), 305310.
Horri, S. H. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary. Washington, DC:
Review and Herald, 1960.
Hort, F. J. A. The New Testament n the Original Greek, With Introduction
and Appendix. London: Macmillan, 1892.
Horton, Harold. The Gifts o f the Spirit. Nottingham: J. F. Lamb, 1934.
House, Coln. "Defielment by Association: Some Insights from the Usage of
koinos/kionoo in Acts 10-11. Andrews University Seminary Studies
21 (1983), 143-54.
Hull, J. A. E. The Holy Spirit in the A cts o f the Apostles. Cleveland: World
Publishing Co., 1968.
Hunter, Harold. "Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis." Journal o f the
Evanglica! Theological Society 23/2 (1980), 125-137.
J. B. T. "Tongues, Speaking w ith . Harper's Bible Dictionary. Ed. Paul J.
Achtemaier (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publisher, 1985), 1081-82.
Jaeschke, H. "Lalein bei Lukas. Biblische Zeitschrft 15 (1971), 109-114.
Jaquith, J. R. "Toward a Typology of Formal Communicative Behaviors:
Glossolalia. Anthropological Linguistics 9/8 (1967), 1-8.
Johnson, S. L. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca
Sacra 1 20 (1 96 31 ,3 09 -3 1 1.
Jones, Charles Edwin. A Guide to the Study o f the Pentecostal Movement.
2 vols. Hamden, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1983.
Kasemann, E. "The Disciples of John the Baptiste in Ephesus." Essays on
New Testament Themes (London: SCM Press, 1964), 136-148.
Kiessling, E. Wrterbuch dergrechischen Papyrusurkunden. Amsterdam: A.
M. Hakkert, 1969.
Kildahl, John P. The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues. New York: Harper
& R o w ,1972.
Kistemaker, Simn J. New Testament Commentary. Exposition o f the Acts
o f Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1990.
Kleinknecht, "pneuma." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.
Knox, W. L. The A cts o f the Apostles. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1948.
Kretschmar,
G.
"Himmelfahrt und
Pfingsten."
Zeitschrft fr
Kirchengeschichte 66 (1954-1955), 209-253.
Lagrange, M. -J. Evangile selon Saint Marc. 5th ed. Pars: J. Gabalda,
1929.
Lake, K. and H. J. Cadbury, eds. The Beginnings o f Chrstianity. London:
Macmillan, 1933.
Lampe, W. H. The Seat o f the Spirit. London: Longmans, 1951.
Lampe, G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.
Latte, K. "The Corning of the Pythia." Harvard Theological Review 33
(1940), 9-18.
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott. A Greek-Engiish Lexicn. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1940.
Lietzmann, H. and W. G. Kmmel. An die Kornther /, II. Tbingen: Mohr,
1969.
Lohse, E. "Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen
Geschichtswerkes." Evangelische Theologie 13 (1953), 422-436.
170
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
____ . "pentekoste." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed. G.

Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 6: 44-53.
Loisy, A. Les A ctes des Aptres. Paris: E. Nourry, 1920.
Louw, Johannes P., Eugene A. Nida et al. Greek-English Lexicn o f the New
Testament Basedon Semantic Domain. London and New York: United
Bible Societies, 1988.
Lbker, F. Reallexikon des k/assischen Altertums. 8th ed. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner, 1914.
Lyonnet, S. "De glossolalia Pentecosts euisque significatione. Verbum
Domini 24 (1944), 65-75.
MacDonald, William G. "Glossolalia in the New Testament." Speaking in
Tongues. A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986).
Malony, H. Newton and A. Adams Lovekin. Glossolalia. Behavioral Science
Perspectives on Speaking n Tongues. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1985.
Maly, K. Mndlge Gemelnde. Stuttgart: Katolisches Bibelwerk, 1967.
Mann, C. S. "Appendix III. Pentecost in Acts." in Munck, J. The A cts o f the
Apostles. Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 271-275.
Martin, Ira J. "Glossolalia in the Apostolic Church." Journal o f Blblical
Literature 63 (1944), 123-130.
____ . Glossolalia, the Glft o f Tongues: A Bibllography. Cleveland, TN:
Pathway Press, 1970.
May, L. Carlyle. "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in NonChristian Religions. Speaking n Tongues. A Guide to Research on
Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986),
53-82.
McDonnell, K. "Catholic Pentecostalism: Problems in Evaluation." Dlalog
5:4 (1970), 35-54.
Meyer, Heinrich A. W.. Krltlsches Exegetlsches Handbuch ber den ersten
Brlef an die Korinther. 7th ed. Gdttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1888.
Mills, Watson E. "Glossolalia: An Introduction." Speaking in Tongues: A
Classifled Bibllography. Wilmore, KY: Society for Pentecostal Studies,
1974.
____ . "Glossolalia: An Introduction." Speaking in Tongues. A Guide to
Research on Glossolalia. Ed. Watson E. Mills (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1986).
M offatt, J. The First Epltle o f Paul to the Corlnthians. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1938.
Morris, L. The First Eplstle o f Paul to the Corlnthians. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1963.
Moule, C. F. D. "The Post-Resurrection Appearances in the Light of Festival
Pilgrimages." New Testament Studies 4 (1957-1958), 58-61.
____ . A n Idiom-Book o f NT Greek. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1959.
Moulton, James Hope. A Grammar o f the New Testament. 3rd ed.
____ , and George Milligan. The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testament
lllustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1952.
Munck, J. The Acts o f the Apostles. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1967.
171
Munz, R. "ber glotta und dialektos." Glotta 11 (1921), 85-94.

Nestle,
E. Novum
Testamentum
Graece.
25
ed.
Stuttgart:
Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1963.
Neubauer, A. "The Dialects of Palestine n the Time of Christ. Studia
Bblica 1 (1885), 51-58.
Newman, Barclay M. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the
A cts o f the Apostles. London: United Bible Societies, 1972.
Nida, Eugene A. "Glossolalia: A Case of Pseudo-Linguistic Structure."
Unpublished paper delivered at the 39th annual Meeting of the
Linguistic Society of America in New York, Dec. 28, 1964.
____ . and C. R. Tabor. The Theory and Practice o f Translation. Leiden: E.
J. Brill, 1969.
Norris, F. W. "Christians only, but not the only Christians (Acts 19:1-7."
festoratlon Quarterly 28 (1985-1986), 97-105.
Ogg, G. "Chronology of the NT. The New Bible Dictionary. Ed. J. D.
Douglas. 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 223228.
Osborne, G. R. "Tongues, Speaking in." Evanglica! Dictionary o f Theology.
Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 1100-1103.
Otto, A. Die Sprichwrter und sprichwrtchen Redensarten der mer.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1890.
Otto, Walter F. Dionysius, Mythos und Kuitus. 2nd ed. Frankfurt: V.
Klostermann, 1938.
Parham, Sarah E. The Life o f Charles F. Parham. Founder o f the Apostolic
Faith Movement. Joplin, MO: Tri-State Printing Co., 1930.
Parvis, M. M. "Archeology and St. Paul's Journeys in Greek Lands. Part IV:
Ephesus." Bblica! Archeologist 8 (1945), 66-73.
Preisigke, Friedrich. Wrterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden.
Heidelberg and Berln: Selbstverlag, 1924-25.
Ralphs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Wrttembergische
Bibelanstalt, 1962.
Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveler and the Romn Citizen. 3rd ed.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1965.
Ranagan, Kevin and Dorothy. Catholic Pentecostals. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist
Press, 1971.
Reinhard, W. Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes nach den Briefen des
Apostles Paulus. Freiburger Theologische Studien, 22. Freiburg:
Herder, 1918.
Reitzenstein, R. Poimandres. Leipzig: Teubner, 1904. Repr. Stuttgart:
Teubner, 1966.
Richardson, William E. "Liturgical Order and Glossolalia: 1 Corinthians 14:
26c-33a and Its Implications." (Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, 1983).
Robeck, C. M., Jr. "Tongues, Gift of." International Standard Bible
Encydopedia. Ed. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1988), 4: 871-874.
Robertson, A. and A. Plummer. A Criticai and Exegetical Commentary on
the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1914.
____ . A Grammar o f the Greek NT in the Light o f Histrica! Research.
London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914.
Robinson, Edward. Greek and English Lexicn o fth e New Testament. Rev.
ed. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1858.
172
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Robinson, H. S. "Excavations at AnCient Corinth, 1959-1963." Klio 46

(1965), 289-305.
Samarin, William J. Tongues o f Men and Angels. The ReUgious Language
o f PentecostaUsm. New York: Macmillan, 1972.
____ . "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia." Language n
Society. Ed. Dell Haymes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1972), 121-30.
Schille, Gottfried. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas. Theologischer
Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament. Berln: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1983.
Schlier, H. "diotes." Theological Dictonary o f the New Testament. Ed. G.
Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3: 215-217.
Schroyer, M. J. "Aquila and Priscilla," Interpreter's Dictonary o f the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 1: 176.
Schrer, Emil. The History o f the Jewish People in the Age o f Jess Christ
(175 B.C.-A.D. 135). Rev. by Geza Vermes and Fergus Millar.
Sellers, O. R. "Upper Room." interpreter's Dictonary o f the Bible
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4: 735.
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Ed. F. D. Nichol. 10 vols.
Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1956.
Sirks, G. J. "The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit."
Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), 77-89.
Spitta, Friedrich. Die Apostelgeschichte, ihre Quellen und deren
geschichtlicher Wert. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des
Waisenhauses, 1891.
Spittler, R. P. "Glossolalia." Dictonary o f Pentecostal and Charismatic
Movements, eds. Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988), 335-341.
Spittler, Russel, ed. Perspectives on (he New PentecostaUsm. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker, 1976.
StShlin, G. Die Apostelgeschichte. GSttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1967.
Steinmann, A. Die Apostelgeschichte. Bonn: Hanstein, 1934.
Stoll, R. F. "The First Christian Pentecost." Ecclesiastical Review 108
(1943), 337-347.
Stonehouse, N. B. "Repentance, Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Spirit."
Westminster Theological Journal 13 (1950-1951), 1-18.
Strack, H. L. and P. Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus
Talmud und Midrasch. Mnchen: Beck, 1972ff.
Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels. New York: Macmillan, 1964.
Suenens, Lon Joseph, Cardinal. A New Pentecost. New York: Seabury
Press, 1973.
Sweet, J. M. P. "A Sign for Unbelievers." New Testament Studies 13
(1966-1967), 240-257.
Synan, V. "Pentecostalism." Evanglica! Dictonary o f Theology. Ed. Walter
A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 835-839.
Synge, F. C. "The Spirit in the Paune Epistles." Church Quarterly Review
119 (1934), 79-93.
Taylor, R. O. P. "The Tongues at Pentecost." Expository Times 40 (19281929), 300-303.
Taylor, V. The Gospel According $t. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1963.
173
Thayer, Joseph Henry. The New Thayer's Greek-English Lexicn o f the New
Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1981.
Thayer, T. H. Greek-English Lexicn o f the NT. New York: American Book
Co., 1889.
Thomson, W. S. "Tongues at Pentecost, Acts i." Expositor/ Times 38
(1926-1927), 284-286.
Trocm, E. Le 'Livre des Actes'etThistoire. Pars: Presses Universitaires de
France, 1957.
Unger, M. F. New Testament Teaching on Tongues. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids,
MI: Kregel, 1972.
Van Elderen, Bastiaan. "Glossolalia in the New Testament." Bulletin o f the
Evanglica! Theological Society 7 (1964), 53-58.
Walsh, Vicent M. A Key to Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church. St.
Meinrad, IN: Abbey Press, 1971.
Warfield, B. B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism o f the New
Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1886.
Weinel, H. Die Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1899.
Wellhausen, J. Kritlsche Analyse der Apostelgeschichte. Berln:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914.
Wendt, H. H. Kritisch-Exegetisches Handbuch ber die Apostelgeschichte.
7th ed. Gdttngen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888.
____ . Die Apostelgeschichte. GSttngen: Vandenhoeck &Rupprecht, 1913.
White, Ellen G. The Great Controversy. Mountan Vew, CA: Pacific Press,
1905.
____ . The A cts o f the Aposties. Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911.
____ . The Desire o f Ages. Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1940.
____ . Early Writings. Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1945.
____ . The Story o f Redemption. Washington, DC: Review and Herald,
1947.
Wikenhauser, A. Die Apostelgeschichte. 4th ed. Regensburg: Friedrich
Pustet, 1961.
Williams, Cyril G. Tongues o f the Spirit. A Study o f Pentecostal Glossolalia
and Related Phenomena. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1981.
Williams, C. S. C. Alterations to the T extofthe Synoptic Gospels and Acts.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951.
____ . A Commentary on the Acts o f the Aposties. New York: Harper,
1957.
Williams, J. R. "Charismatic Movement." Evanglica! Dictionary o f
Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984), 205208.
Windisch, H. "barbaros." Theological Dictionary o f the New Testament. Ed.
Wolfram, W. A. "The Sociolinguistics of Glossolalia." (Master's thesis,
Hartford Seminary Foundation, 1966).
W olff, Christian. Dererste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Theologischer
Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 7/II. Berln: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1982.
Zahn, Theodor. Die Apostelgeschichte des Lukas. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Deichert,
1919.
INDEX
Africa 29
agnostics 27
angelic dialect 1 22
anthropologists 18
Aphrodite 111
Apollo 112
apostleship 34
Assyrians 139
athelsts 27
Azusa Street 21
Azusa Street Mission 20
babbllng 4 8 , 125, 128
baptlsm 9 1 , 9 8 , 99
of the Holy Splrlt 2 2 , 55, 103
Splrlt- 103
barbaran 135
barrlers 153
Bereans 153
black magician 29
Borneo 29
broken speech 4 7 , 121
Catholic charlsmatlo renewal 23
Catholics, Romn 23
Ceasarea 9 2 , 151
charismatlc(s) 103, 109
movement 20, 55
renewal 1 2 , 1 3 , 2 0
renewal movement 23
Cho, Paul Vongi 13
church 133
assembly 136
up buildlng 110, 134, 136, 138,
1 5 2 , 153
circumcision 95
common good 114
communicatlon 27, 136
compromiso 153
confusin 137
of tongues/languages 129
consciousness 146
altered State of 32
conversin 9 1 , 139
Corlnth
51, 110, 11 1 , 112, 144,
15 1 , 152
Cornellus 9 2 , 100
Cult
of Appolo 131
of Delphi 144
of Dlonysus 1 3 1 , 144
enthuslastic 130, 1 44
dancing religin 25
Delphi 4 8 , 130, 13 1 , 144
Oracle 4 8 , 4 9 , 132, 145
dialects 71
angelic 122
Diana 98
dionysus 130
disciple(s) 98, 9 9 , 152
dlvinatlon 144, 145

divinar 131, 143
divorce 112
doctrine 22, 79
earwitnesses 81
ecstasy 4 8 , 116, 121, 131
mystlcal 130
ecstatic 29, 4 7 . 224
experlence 145
religions 48
"Speaklng in Tongues" 51
speech 4 6 , 48, 49, 5 4 , 7 0 , 109,
132
Splrlt-language 71
utterance 51, 52, 116, 119, 142
ecumenism 12
edificaron 1 10, 1 29, 138, 141, 146,
147, 149
eisegesls 55
ellipsls 120
enthuslams 113
Ephesus 9 7 , 112, 151
Esperanto 7 1 ,7 7
Eucharistlc Sacrifica 35
evangellsm 152
evangelizaron 7 4
exegesls 55, 143
experlence 22, 80
extra-Biblical religions 79
eyewitnesses 81
faith healing 13
flrst frults 7 4
forelgner 135, 137
frenzy 144
Galileans 71
gentlle mission 100
gentlle(s) 9 4 , 139, 152, 153
glft(s) 9 3 , 95, 114, 121, 149
glssa 19, 43, 44, 49, 50, 53
glssa la/en 4 3 , 44, 4 7 , 51, 53
glossolalia 1 1 , 1 7 , 1 8 , 2 8 , 3 0 , 3 1 ,
3 4 , 51, 5 2 , 53, 5 4 , 109, 113,
120, 129, 132, 142, 148
definition 19
in Christlan religin 10, 18, 20
n non-Christlan religions 1 4 ,3 0
nterpreter of 36
non-rellgious 27
pagan 2 5 , 26
religious 27
spirtuallstlc 25
unintelligible 143
glossoialic speech 48
God-fearer 91
Good News 7 5 , 94, 110, 1 4 0 , 152
gospel 1 2 6 ,1 3 7 ,1 4 0
Great Commission 151
Greek(s) 42, 112
INDEX
hearing 128
Hellenism 1 2 9 ,1 4 4
Hellenistic religions 4 8 , 132
historical-critical
method 109
scholar 7 5 , 8 1 , 129
history of religions 109
holy 144
holy rollers 13
Holy Spirit 3 2 , 9 2 , 100, 113, 147,
152
baptism of 22
hyperbole 132
hypnosis 11
hypothesis 78
Identification 1 53
idols 112, 113
Indonesia 29
ingot 50
insanity 137
intelligibility 128
intelligible 128, 134
interpretaron 3 5 ,5 5 , 114, 126, 141,
142
Interpretar 3 6 , 109, 141, 142, 150
Irvingltes 20
Isis 112
Japan 25, 29
Jerusalem 55, 93
Jewish tradition 94
Jews 9 8 , 112, 139, 152, 153
Judaism 91
judgement 151
knowledge 124, 133, 136
lalen 4 4
lalo 50
lalling 120
language(s) 27, 44, 7 1 , 117, 128,
134, 135, 143
angelic 109
barrier 9 4 , 151
fagade 28
forelgn 28, 73, 7 5 , 7 7 , 80, 81,
83, 9 3 , 102, 110, 137, 140,
142, 150, 151, 152
human 2 8 , 117, 121, 126
intelligible 20, 42, 49, 5 5 , 77
living 46
native 142
of a nation or regin 71
own 72
strange 135
unintelligible 4 8 , 49
unlearned 143
-pseudo 28
latter rain 12, 1 6
laying-on of hands 99, 100, 101
175
learned behavior 33
go 50
Levantinas 112
lexicography 47
linguists 2 8 , 3 1 , 4 1
literary criticism 82
love 115
mantic 143, 144
manticism 131
M ants 131
marriage 112
medium(s) 25, 32
-possession 145
mind 146, 147, 149
miracles 13, 7 5 , 151
miraculous gift 7 2
mission 101
musical instruments 1 34
mysteries 123, 124, 125
mystery 124, 125, 126
religions 129, 132
nature 153
nonsense syllables 1 2 5 ,1 2 6 ,1 2 8
oracles 49
order 150
orderliness 153
otherTongues 7 2 ,8 3
outsider(s) 136, 137, 138, 151
Ovid 135
Oznam, Agnes 20
paganism 144
papyri 49
parallels 131, 132, 143
Parham, Charles 2 0 , 2 1 , 2 2
Paul 104
peace 150
Pentecost 4 5 , 68, 151
pentecostalism 12, 17, 148, 149
denominational 22
neo- 12, 22
pentecostalists 109
Peter 104
philosophy 7 9 , 80
possession 25
prayer 146
priestess 48, 132
Pythian 48
priests 32
proclamation 7 4 , 75, 93
prophecy 34, 102, 113, 114, 115,
132, 133, 136, 144, 145, 152
prophesying 136, 144
prophetic ecstasy 102
psychiatrists 18
psychologists 18
purpose 153
Pythia 131
176
SPEAKING IN TONGUES
Qumran 5 4
Rabbinic traditions 91
religions
enthusiastio 143
Greek 143
pagan 111
restad 69
revelation 7 9 , 103, 124, 133, 136
Roberts, Oral 13
Romans 112
sacred 144
salvation 151
Sanhedrln 104
Satan 1 1 ,3 2 , 33
Science 7 9 , 80
Scripture 22, 153, 154
seances 25
Second coming 12
second wave 22, 24
secret language 25
self-edification 1 1 4 ,1 3 6
Septuagint 51, 52, 11 9 , 128, 141,
1 42
Serapis 112
Seymour, William J. 21, 22
shakers 20
Shamans 18, 25, 32
Sibyls 1 3 0 , 145
sign 9 4 , 1 0 1 , 102, 139, 140, 151
ot judgement 140
of salvation 140
singlng 146
Sola S crptura 79
soothsayer 131
sorcerous seances 32
sounds 135
source(s) 7 5 , 8 2 , 153
source-hypotheses 82
speaking in tongues 22, 30, 3 4 47,
53
speech 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 9
angelic 123
automatism 30
behavior 19
bold 7 0
intelligible 5 0 , 51
Latn 135
rational 31
spiritual 31
unintelliglble 49, 51, 52, 7 1 , 80,
8 1 , 121, 1 2 7 , 143, 145
Spirit 1 4 4 , 146
Spirit-mediumship 145
Spirit-worship 25
spiritual
gift 11 0 , 1 1 2 , 113, 125, 136,
1 4 4 , 152
power 153
spiritualism 145
spiritualistic glossolalia 25
Stephen 104
subjective experience 69
sweet wine 75
taboo 91
tarrying meetings 70
teaching 133, 136
thong 50
tongue(s) 44, 101, 102, 115, 118,
119, 142, 149, 152
(as) of fire 4 4 , 68
foreign 140
gift of 116
of angels 1 22, 1 23
strange 139
tongue-speaker 76
Tower of Babel 128
tradition 80
trance 3 0 , 32
experience 145
-State 11
transate 143
translation 142, 143
dynamic 118
formal 118
translator 142, 150
tribal religions 25
Trinity 32
trumpet 134
truths of God 1 25
Twelve 100
unbelievers 136, 137, 140, 151
understanding 1 26
unintelligibility 128, 134
unintelligible ecstatic utterances 130
unintelllgible utterances 20, 4 3 , 5 3 ,
54
upbuilding 1 1 4 ,1 1 5 , 1 2 9
Upper Room 67, 83
utterances, mysterious 119
Voodoo 25
wind 68
witch doctor(s) 18, 25, 32
witnesses 68
word 127
of God 80
World Council of Churches 23
worshlp 148, 150
xenoglossia 28
xenolalia 50
Yanagida Genji 25
ABOUT THEBOOK
Speaking in Tongues is an up-to-date discussion of contemporary "speaking in
tongues" as practiced by millions of Christians. This book reveis that speaking n
tongues s also carried on in non-Christian (pagan) religions. The issues raised by
}
this common practice are immense for the Christian believer.
It is the purpose of this book to investgate the nature of speaking in tongues by
Christians and non-Christians. Based on the conclusin that both phenomena in the
contemporary world are the same linguistically, the crucial question is raised whether
contemporary speaking in tongues is to be identified with "speaking in tongues" in
the New Testament. Five of seven chapters are devoted to a penetrating study of
the New Testament evidence for "speaking in tongues."
This volume investlgates the relationship of the contemporary usage of tonguespeaking, technically called glossolalia, in non-Christian usage, from the angle o1
linguistic and other studies and compares it with New Testament "speaking in
tongues" as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It addresses tough questions such as whether
tongue-speaking is from God, the demonic, or other sources, whether tonguespeaking will unite all churches and religions, whether all Christians need to "speak
in tongues," whether Paul in 1 Cor 12-14 is referring to the same gift of tongues as
that manifested at Pentecost in Acts 2, whether there is one "speaking in tongues"
in the Bible or two different tongue-speaking phenomena, and so on. Anyone
interested in the fast-growing charismatic tongue-speaking phenomena will greatly
benefit from this detailed and well-researched book.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gerhard F. Hasel, Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, is

currently professor of Od Testament and Biblical
Theology as well as Director of the Ph.D. and Th.D.
Programs, at the-Theological Seminary, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. He served as
Dean of the Seminary for seven years.
Dr. Hasel has authored a dozen books. Among
them are the following: Jonah: Messenger o f the
Eleventh Hour (1976); The Remnant (3rd edition,
1980); Understanding the Living Word ofGod (1980);
Covenant in Blood (1985); Understanding the Book
ofAmos (1991). His books Od Testament Theology:
Basic Issues in the Current Debate (4th edition,
...1991) and New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (1978) are
best sellers and are used n universities, seminarles, and theological schools around
the w6f$i. They have been translated into several languages.
BesideS his books, he has written many articles which have appeard-in
numerous jourral's o international reputation as well as articles for standard works
such asT he International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, The Theological Dictionary
o f the Od Testament, The Interpreter's Dictionary o f the Bible, Supplement, and The

Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Speaking in Tongues-Gerhard Hasel

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SPEAKING IN

ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Adventist Theological Society Publications

Adventist Theological Society Publica!

by Gerhard F. Hasel, 1991

To purchase a copy of this book

CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN AND NONCHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE

SPEAKINGIN TONGUES IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 2

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 10

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN ACTS 19

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN 1 CORINTHIANS 12-14

Various parts of this book have been presented in formal

The phenomenon of "speaking in tongues," technically

in 1 Cor 12-14. Is contemporary glossolalia as practiced

spread of and nterest n the phenomenon of "speaking in

charismatics had achieved a new level of respectability.

various authoritative scientists and scholars. Then we turn

The overall purpose s to find out whether the modern

CONTEM PORARY CHRISTIAN AND NON-CHRISTIAN

The contemporary phenomenon of "speaking n tongues,"

enigma.1 Bible-believing Christians ask one set of questions

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 19

widely that th phenomenon today is the gift of the Holy

1. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 21

words, first carne the glossolalia experience, then students of

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 23

selves Christians are Pentecostal or neo-Pentecostal.

2. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY NONCHRISTIAN RELIGIONS

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 25

The commonality of glossolalia n both Christian and living

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 27

understood by another person who knew that language.

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 29

Christian. She makes us aware that glossolalia among

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 31

4. GLOSSOLALIA IN CONTEMPORARY EXPERIENCE

practiced in pagan, non-Christian religions as well? Is the

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 33

or t can stay n the non-religious arena of human life as used

5. GLOSSOLALIA AND CONTEMPORARY DOCTRINAL

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 35

6. GLOSSOLALIA AND THE TESTING OF TONGUES

CHRISTIAN & N0N-CHRIST1AN GLOSSOLALIA 37

The Religious Language o f

1 6 . The vast literatura on Pentecostalism and more precisely the phenomenon of

CHRISTIAN & NON-CHRISTIAN GLOSSOLALIA 39

"Charsmatcs on Evangelism," C hristianity Today (Sept. 16, 1991) 52.

3 9 . L. Carlyle, May, "A Survey of Glossolalia and Related Phenomena in Non-Christian

Designation is that of Spittler, p. 33 6 .

51 .See Spittler, pp. 3 3 6 -3 7 .

Malony and Lovekin, p. 38.

Williams and Waldvogel (1 9 7 5 ), p. 61, as citad by Spittler, p. 3 4 0 .

61 .Felicitas D. Goodman, Speaking in Tongues: A C ross-Cultural S tu d y o f Glossolalia

65.lbd., referring to Cyril G. Williams, Tongues o fth e S pirt: A S tu d y o f Pentecostal

6 7 . For example, Kildahl, The Psychology o f Speaking in Tongues, pp. 2-4.

Williams, "Charismatic Movement," p. 207.

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN THE G REEK LANGUAGE

The purpose of this chapter s to investgate the New

made by others as to how the New Testament words

SPEAKING IN TONGUES IN GREEK

modern claim of tw o meanings in the New Testament by a