The Gift of Tongues PDF
The Gift of Tongues PDF
The Gift of Tongues PDF
Though the church fathers, who lived shortly after the apostles, said
relatively little about the gift of tongues, what they did say furnishes a helpful
comparison with w hat contemp orary Pe nteco stalism says a bou t the gift. They did
not believe that every Christian received the gift, but they b elieved that the Holy
Spirit, not the huma n spirit, ch ose w ho w ould have the g ift. They held that the gifts
ideal use w as to b enefit the entire community, not the speaker. For them, benefitting
others enhanced the importance of interpretation so that others could be edified.
In contrast to early views of the g ift, Pentecostal writers of the twentieth-cen tury
have given a high profile to the gift. In further contrast, modern writers have not
limited the gift to messages in actual human languages as did early writers. They
further differ with the early fathers in teaching that all Christians should have the
gift as evidence of progress in their Christian lives. The Pentecostal view is that
speaking in tongues can be a learned human behavior rather than a genuine gift of
the Holy Spirita further difference from the early fathers. Relief from personal
stress and self-edification of the tongues-speaker is the primary purp ose of tongues
in the eyes of Pentecostals, not the edification of others through interpretation of the
tongues message as it was with the fathers. Contemporary Pentecostalism thus
differs from ancient Christianity in fundamental asp ects in its view of the gift of
tongu es.
*****
A question that has been the center of heated debate in the last century of
evangelical scholarship is, When did the gift of tongues cease? On the one hand,
cessationists argue that tongues ceased somewhere after the first century. Pentecostal
scholars disagree, co ntending that the charism atic gifts only declined (or continued
sporadically) throughout church history, finally and fully resurfacing in the early
twentieth century.
To supp ort their views, both sides turn to the church fathers. In citing
*
Nathan Busenitz, an M.Div. and Th.M. graduate of The Masters Seminary and a current Th.D.
candidate at TMS, is Research Assistant to the Pastor-Teacher of Grace Community Church.
61
62 The Masters Seminary Journal
1
A comparison of modern-day tongues-speaking with the NT data is beyond the scope of this study.
Many cessationists have argued that the Pentecostal understanding of tongues does not match the biblical
description of the gift (cf. John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992] 270-
79, or Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996]) 165-200.
Others disagree (cf. Larry Christenson, Bypassing the Mind, in The Holy Spirit in Todays Church,
ed. Erling Jornstad [Nashville: Abingdon, 1973] 87; Don Basham, The Value of Speaking in Tongues,
in The Holy Spirit in Todays Church, ed. Erling Jornstad [Nashville: Abingdon, 1973] 79; or Wayne
Grudem, Should Christians Expect Miracles Today, in The Kingdom and the Power, eds. Gary S.
Greig and Kevin N. Springer [Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1993] 71).
2
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.6.1; Hippolytus, Apostolic Constitutions 8.1; Hegemonius, The Acts
of Archelaus 37; Gregory of Nazianzen, The Oration on Pentecost 15-17; Ambrosiaster, Commentary
on Pauls Epistles, see his comments on 1 Cor 13:1; John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians
35.1; Augustine, The Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.32.74; Leo the Great, Sermons 75.2; Tertullian,
Against Marcion 5.8; Origen, Preface, Origen de Principiis 3.1.
3
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Hegemonius, Ambrose, and Chrysostom closely associate the work of the
apostles on Pentecost with the gift as described in 1 Corinthians 1214. Regarding 1 Cor 12:7, Theodoret
of Cyrus is especially clear: Paul chooses speaking in tongues as his example because the Corinthians
thought that it was the greatest of the gifts. This was because it had been given to the apostles on the day
of Pentecost, before any of the others (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 243, cited
from 12 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary Series (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999)
[hereafter ACCS] 121).
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 63
28:11 when discussing the N T gift). In several instances, they import their
understanding of Acts 2 and Isaiah 28:11 (both of which speak of human foreign
languages) into their interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1214. Yet, they never suggest
that the tongues exp erienced b y the apostles at Pen tecost were d ifferent from the
tongues exp erienced by the Co rinthian b elievers.
Mo reover, the patristic writers never hint at the possibility of two types of
tongues-speaking.4 Rathe r, they consistently present the gift as a solitary
ability both in its nature and function. In their minds, the only difference between
public and private tongues-speaking is that the latter is not interpreted.5
Thus, the patristic evidence supports a rational foreign language as the
proper and normal manifestation of tongues. 6 Converse ly, unintelligible babblings
and irrationa l gibbe rish are never associated with the gift. 7
4
John Chrysostom (Homilies on First Corinthians 29.1) recognized that everyone who was baptized
in Acts 10 and 19 spoke in tongues. He also recognized that, according to 1 Cor 12:30, not every
Christian was expected to speak in tongues (see Homilies on 1 Corinthians 32.4). Yet, this apparent
incongruity did not lead Chrysostom to argue for two kinds of tongues-speaking (one devotional and the
other public). Instead, he saw the phenomenon in Acts (in both its nature and function) as identical with
that in Corinthians.
5
Ideally, of course, all tongues-speech was to be interpreted for the edification of the church (see
discussion below). If, however, no interpretation was possible, the message was to be kept private since,
without an interpretation, it was of no value to the rest of the congregation.
6
Occasional references are also made to the tongues of angels (usually in the context of commenting
on 1 Cor 13:1). The implication, however, is that the ability to converse in an angelic tongue is the
exception (not the rule); and that the angelic languages (like human languages) consist of rational
messages that can be interpreted. Even the apocrypha of the second century supports tongues as foreign
languages. Cf. Harold Hunter, Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis, JETS 23/2 (June 1980):126. The
second-century apocrypha also contains one instance in which a human converses in rational language
with an angel.
7
Some Pentecostals attempt to identify the ecstatic behavior of the Montanists with the gift of
tongues. Cf. Ronald A. N. Kydd, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendricksen,
1984) 34-36. But not only are there different ways to understand the passages that discuss Montanist
behavior (as to whether or not their behavior actually corresponds to contemporary Pentecostal
glossolalia), the Montanists themselves were considered a heretical sect by the orthodox Christians of
that time. The testimony of the Montanists, then, is highly suspect.
Pentecostals also cite Celsus to argue that the gift of tongues included strange, fanatical, and
quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as to
have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own
purposes (Origen, Against Celsus 7.9, cited from Roberts, Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:614). At first glance,
Celsus is apparently accusing Christian prophets of nonsensical gibberish and irrational mutterings
(possibly glossolalia?). Yet, Origens response to those accusations suggests that it is the content of the
messages that Celsus finds unintelligible (and not the utterances themselves). Origen says,
The prophets have therefore, as God commanded them, declared with all plainness those things
which it was desirable that the hearers should understand at once for the regulation of their
conduct; while in regard to deeper and more mysterious subjects, which lay beyond the reach of
the common understanding, they set them forth in the form of enigmas and allegories, or of what
are called dark sayings, parables, or similitudes. And this plan they have followed, that those who
are ready to shun no labor and spare no pains in their endeavors after truth and virtue might search
into their meaning, and having found it, might apply it as reason requires. But Celsus, ever
vigorous in his denunciations, as though he were angry at his inability to understand the language
of the prophets, scoffs at them (Origen, Against Celsus 7.10, cited from Roberts, ANF 4:614).
Celsuss complaint, then, is not that the prophets utter nonhuman gibberish. But rather that
the content of their messages was in the form of enigmas and allegories (meaning riddles and stories)
and parables and similitudes. Thus, the meaning of their words (and not the words themselves) were
difficult for the outside observer to understand. Origen even implies that with some diligent effort, the
outside observer could search into their meaning, find that meaning, and apply it as reason requires.
Such would only be possible if the sayings themselves were given in intelligible language. From Origens
64 The Masters Seminary Journal
response, then, it is clear that an incoherent form of gibberish is not in view. As Christopher Forbes
(Prophecy and Inspired Speech [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997] 168) says, There are major
objections against the view that Celsuss report of prophetic utterance at the end of the second century
in Palestine provides us with a parallel for early Christian glossolalia.
8
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.21, cited from David Bercot, ed., A Dictionary of Early
Christian Beliefs (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999) 300.
9
Apostolic Consitutions 7.479, cited from Bercot, Dictionary 303.
10
Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit 2.13.149-152, cited from Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, 10:134.
11
John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians 32.4 in reference to 1 Cor 12:30; Jerome,
Against the Pelagians 1.16; Jerome makes a similar argument in 2.23; Augustine, The Confessions of
Saint Augustine 13.18.23. Also see On the Trinity, 15; Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians 240, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 117 (regarding 1 Cor 12:1).
12
Stuart D. Currie (Speaking in Tongues: Early Evidence Outside the New Testament, in
Speaking in Tongues, ed. Watson E. Mills [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986] 105) notes that there is no
early, firsthand account of the use of such a gift by a Christian; see also John Chrysostom, Homilies on
First Corinthians 32.4 in reference to 1 Cor 12:30; Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the First Epistle
to the Corinthians 240, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 117 (regarding 1 Cor 12:1); Augustine, The
Confessions of Saint Augustine 13.18.23; see also On the Trinity 15; and Jerome, Against the Pelagians
1.16; Jerome makes a similar argument in 2.23.
13
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.6.1, cited from Bercot, Dictionary 300.
14
Ibid., 2.32.5.
15
Origen, Origen de Principiis 2.10.7.
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 65
in men to the Holy Sp irit. 16 Novatian and Hilary 17 agree, and the words of
Ambrosiaster are eq ually unm istakab le: Paul is emp hatic in asserting that the
distribution of gifts is not to be attributed to hum an causes as if they were achieva ble
by men. T he varied gifts of the Holy Spirit and the grace of the Lord Jesus are the
work of one and the same God. 18
Thus, the gifts (including tongues) did not involve any prior human effort
or ability to attain. That is not to say that speaking in tongues results in a lack of self-
control, 19 but rather that it truly was a gift given by the grace of God to whomever
He willed.20 No training, education, or personal achievement was necessarysome
spoke in tongues which they did not know and which nobody had taught them. 21 As
Arnob ius says,
By His own Power, He not only performed those miraculous deeds, . . . but He has
permitted many others to attempt them and to perform them by the use of His name. . . .
He chose fisherman, artisans, peasants, and unskilled persons of a similar kind, so that
they, being sent through various nations, would perform all those miracles without any
fraud and without any material aids.22
16
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2.6, cited from Bercot, Dictionary 301.
17
Novatian, On the Trinity 29, cited from Roberts, ANF 5:641; Hilary, On the Trinity 8.29.
18
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Pauls Epistles, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 120 in
reference to 1 Cor 12:6.
19
Severian of Gabala, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, cited from 12 Corinthians,
ACCS 144 in reference to 1 Cor 14:28.
20
See Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1.16; see also Augustine, Confessions 13.18.23.
21
Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 240, cited from 12
Corinthians, ACCS 117 (regarding 1 Cor. 12:1). See also, Leo the Great, Sermons 75.2.
22
Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.50, cited from Bercot, Dictionary 303.
23
Origen, Origen Against Celsus 1.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.7.1; Basil, On the Spirit 16.37;
Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit 2.13.149-52.
24
Hippolytus, Apostolic Constitutions 8.1, cited from Roberts, ANF 7:479-80.
66 The Masters Seminary Journal
so for the general benefit. 25 After listing the gifts, Tertullian emphasizes that they
are for the purpose of building up the body, in keep ing with the two great
com mandme nts (to love God and love others). 26 Origen concurs, arguing that those
who speak in tongues sho uld see k the co mmon go od o f the church. 27
Novatian says that the purpose of the gifts (including tongues) is to make
the church perfected and comp leted. 28 Hilary contend s that they are for the
perfecting of one bod y, 29 the church. And the First Epistle of Clement Concerning
Virginity makes it perfectly clear:
With the gift, therefore, which thou hast received from our Lord, serve thy spiritual
brethren, the prophets who know that the words which thou speakest are those of our
Lord; and declare the gift which thou hast received in the Church for the edification of
the brethren in Christ (for good and excellent are those things which help the men of
God), if so be that they are truly with thee.30
Since no one has the capacity to receive all spiritual gifts, but the grace of the Spirit is
given proportionately to the faith of each, when one is living in community with others,
the grace privately bestowed on each individual becomes the common possession of the
others. . . . One who receives any of these gifts does not possess it for his own sake but
rather for the sake of others.31
25
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.6.1, cited from Roberts, ANF 1:531.
26
Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8.
27
Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4.61-62, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 141.
28
Novatian, On the Trinity 29, cited from Roberts, ANF 5:641.
29
Hilary, On the Trinity 8.29-32. Hilary also references the gifts in On the Trinity 2.34.
30
The First Epistle of Clement Concerning Virginity 11.
31
Basil of Caesarea, The Long Rules 7, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 121.
32
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Pauls Epistles, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 142 in
reference to 1 Cor 14:20.
33
Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 36.5, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 144. This
comment was made in reference to 1 Cor 14:27.
34
John Cassian, The First Conference of Abbot Chaeromon 12.
35
Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians 240, cited from 12
Corinthians, ACCS 117 in reference to 1 Cor 12:1.
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 67
It is not therefore necessary that every one of the faithful should cast out demons, or
raise the dead, or speak with tongues; but such a one only who is vouchsafed this gift,
for some cause which may be advantage to the salvation of the unbelievers, who are
often put to shame, not with the demonstration of the world, but by the power of the
signs; that is, such as are worthy of salvation: for all the ungodly are not affected by
wonders; and hereof God Himself is a witness, as when He says in the law: With other
tongues will I speak to this people, and with other lips, and yet will they by no means
believe.36
John Chrysostom concurs: The Co rinthians thought that spe aking in tongues was
a great gift because it was the one which the apostles received first, and with a great
display. But this was no reason to think it was the greatest gift of all. The reason the
apostles got it first was b ecause it was a sign that they were to go everywhere,
preaching the gospel. 37 Augustine echoes this response:
In the earliest times, the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spake [sic]
with tongues, which they had not learned, as the Spirit gave them utterance. These
were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy
Spirit in all tongues, to shew [sic] that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues
over the whole earth.38
This is not to say that the fathers did not recognize an element of personal
benefit for the speaker. However, they make it equally clear that the intended use of
the gift benefited the entire community, not just the speaker. For this to happen, the
tongue had to be interpreted, leading the fathers to emphasize consistently the
importance of interpretation.
36
Hippolytus, Apostolic Constitutions 8.1, cited from Roberts, ANF 7:479-80. Others concur,
including Ambrosiaster (Commentary on Pauls Epistles, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 142 in
reference to 1 Cor 14:21); Hegemonius (The Acts of Archelaus 36); Gregory of Nazianzen (The Oration
on Pentecost 15-17); and Leo the Great (Sermons 82, 83).
37
Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 35.1, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 138. This
comment was made in reference to 1 Cor 14:2.
38
Augustine, Homilies on the First Epistle of John 6.10, cited from Schaff, NPNF, First Series
7:497-98. See also Augustine, The Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.32.74.
39
Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.21; Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.8; Origen, Commentary
on 1 Corinthians 4.61-62; Hilary, On the Trinity, 8.29-32; Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Pauls
Epistles, see his comments on 1 Cor 12:10; John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 36.5;
Augustine, On the Trinity 5.13; John Cassian, The First Conference of Abbot Nesteros 5.
40
Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4.61-62, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 141.
68 The Masters Seminary Journal
that the faith of those that hear may not be imperiled through ignorance, since the
interpreter of a tongue explains the tongue to those who a re ignorant of it. 41 John
Chrysostom agrees too: H aving sp oken so much of tongue s, that the gift is a thing
unprofitable, a thing superfluous, if it have no interpreter.42
The weight of the patristic testimony not only indicates that tongues-
speaking should be interpreted, it also implies that tongues-speaking consists of
rational foreign languages meaning that a true and consistent translation of the
message is possible rather than an arbitrary creation of the meaning. Moreover, need
for interpretation stems from the importance of edificationtranslating the message
so that the entire congregation is benefited.
On the other hand, speech that cannot be understood may be of
questionab le origin. In the words of Severian of Gabala, The person who speaks
in the Holy Spirit speaks when he chooses to do so and then can be silent, like the
prophets. But those who are possessed by an unclean spirit speak even when they
do not want to. They say things that they do not und erstand . 43
41
Hilary, On the Trinity 8.29-32.
42
John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians 36.5, cited from Schaff, NPNF, First Series 12:218.
43
Severian of Gabala, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, cited from 12 Corinthians,
ACCS 144 in reference to 1 Cor 14:28.
44
A conclusion about the patristic view on tongues-speaking should acknowledge a current
controversy, even among Pentecostals, as to the relationship between Spirit-baptism and tongues-
speaking in the patristics. Kilian McDonnell (Does the Theology and Practice of the Early Church
Confirm the Classical Pentecostal Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Pneuma 21/1 [Spring
1999]:115-34) argues that Spirit-baptism was central in the minds of the church fathers. But another
Pentecostal author, Rick Walston (The Speaking in Tongues Controversy [Longwood, Fla.: Xulon, 2003]
156), admits that the connection of the baptism in the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues is absent
from church history. In other words, the Pentecostal association of tongues-speaking with Spirit-baptism
as a normal part of Christian experience (outside the book of Acts) lacks patristic support. It is a little
known fact among average Classical Pentecostals that the tongues-as-evidence doctrine is a relatively
recent development (ibid.).
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 69
Over the past century,45 Pentecostal writings have given a very high pro file
to tongues-speaking, m aking it one of the movements most b asic and notable
characteristics.
Speaking with tongues (glossolalia) is the most dramatic and spectacular of all the signs
in the Pentecostal movement. . . . Among the fundamentalists and historical
denominations glossolalia is not only an isolated phenomenon, but is repudiated by the
communities as a whole, while for Pentecostals it remains one of the basic tenets and
practices of the church.46
45
Although proponents trace their origin back to the primitive church, the American Pentecostal
movement in its contemporary form began on January 1, 1901 when Agnes Ozman, a student of C. P.
Parham, reportedly spoke in the Chinese language. It is significant that the first Pentecostals believed
their tongues-speech was authentic foreign human language (Gerhard Hasel, Speaking in Tongues
[Berrien Springs, Mich.: Adventist Theological Society, 1991] 11-12).
46
Prudencio Damboriena, Tongues as of Fire (Cleveland, Ohio: Corpus, 1969) 101. See also
Donald W. Dayton, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism (Metuchen, N.J.: Hendrickson, 2000) 15. C.
G. Williams (Speaking in Tongues, in Strange Gifts?, eds. David Martin and Peter Mullen [New York:
Basil Blackwell, 1984] 72) says that tongues-speaking is central to Pentecostal worship. Watson E.
Mills concurs: The charismatic phenomena of zenolalia and glossolalia, in the history of the Christian
church, have been singled out by some groups as essential marks of the faith (Glossolalia: An
Introduction, in Speaking in Tongues 3).
47
Walter J. Hollenweger, The Pentecostals (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988) 9.
48
James W. Jones, Filled with New Wine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1974) 86.
49
E. Glenn Hinson, The Significance of Glossolalia in the History of Christianity, in Speaking
in Tongues 182.
70 The Masters Seminary Journal
Classical Pentecostals would insist that tongues are a true language and most neo-
Pentecostals, Protestant and Catholic, usually agree. All Pentecostal literature, classical,
Protestant and Catholic neo-Pentecostal, give examples of foreign languages which were
spoken in the presence of someone competent in the language who verified the linguistic
authenticity of what was spoken. However, when one accepts the Pentecostal
presuppositions, namely that the language can be any language ever spoken, even
languages no longer spoken, or even the language of the Angels (they cite 1 Cor. 13:1),
the problems of scientific verification become staggering. Also the kind of controlled
situation necessary for a truly scientific study rarely obtains when a language is
recognized in a Pentecostal meeting. Without this kind of controlled situation most
scientists would not accept tongues as true languages, and would rather contend that the
recognition of the language by someone linguistically competent is based on psychology
rather than linguistic factors.50
As far as I have been able to learn, no real language is ever spoken by the glossolaliast.
He truly speaks in an unknown and unknowable tongue. Tape recordings of those
speaking in unknown tongues were played before the Toronto Institute of Linguistics.
After these learned men in the science of phonetics had studied the recordings, they said,
This is no human language.51
Even when two or more different Pentecostal interpreters listen to the same audio
recording of a tongues-speaker, their interpretations are totally different suggesting
that the tongues themselves are not real languages tha t are capable of being
translated.52 Dam boriena a grees, saying, The languages I have heard consist in
com pletely unintelligible bub blings o f sound and words which not even the
Pen etcostals around me (and some of them had already been blessed with the gift)
were able to grasp. 53
Pro ponents of Pentecostalism ad mit that their version of tongues-speaking
sounds like little more than incom prehensible muttering. Christenson ackn owledges
that when speaking in tongues you do not understand what you are saying. . . . But
it is a praying with the sp irit rather than the mind. 54 Jones ad ds,
For some (particularly academic types like myself) it is a matter of understanding. They
50
Kilian McDonnell, The Theology of Speaking in Tongues, in The Holy Spirit in Todays
Church 93-95.
51
W. A. Criswell, Facts Concerning Modern Glossolalia, in The Holy Spirit in Todays Church,
92. See also M. Cartledge, Charismatic Glossolalia (Hants, England: Ashgate, 2002) 2.
52
John P. Kildahl, Six Behavioral Observations about Speaking in Tongues, in Gifts of the Spirit
and the Body of Christ, ed. Elmo J. Agrimoson (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974) 77.
53
Damboriena, Tongues 105.
54
Larry Christenson, Bypassing the Mind, in The Holy Spirit in Todays Church 87.
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 71
do not like things they cannot comprehend. Mystery frightens them. Since speaking in
tongues appears so irrational, they will not involve themselves in something they are
unable to figure out. . . . Because to speak in tongues seems so foolish, our fear of it
forces us to examine how much our pride keeps us from surrendering totally to God.55
Thus Jone s contends that the audible sound of unintelligible gibberish is actually a
good thing, forcing Christians to humble themselves in their dependence on God.
Again, this Pentecostal proposition is in direct contrast to the views of the
church fathers. Patristic evidence indicates that the fathers believed tongues to be
actual languages. Thus, the ability to speak in tongues was the ability to speak in
authen tic foreign languagesall of which could be accurately translated. While on
occasion this is the Pentecostal claim, it is certainly not the overarching thrust of
their contemporary teaching or practice. As Hunter, in his study of the church
fathers, aptly concludes:
Many present-day Pentecostals have more or less assumed that the historical precedents
of tongues-speech were usually glossolalic [unintelligible speech]. This study, however,
has found that when the Fathers clarified the nature of the tongues-speech being
practiced they most usually specified them as being xenolalic [foreign human
languages].56
When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out
to be only a faade languagealthough 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, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized
nor systematically related to the world man perceives. . . . Glossolalia is indeed a
language in some ways, but this is only because the speaker (unconsciously) wants it to
be like language. Yet in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia is fundamentally not
55
Jones, Filled with New Wine 86.
56
Hunter, Tongues-Speech: A Patristic Analysis 135. See also Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise
of the Spirit 378.
57
Damboriena (Tongues 111) records the experiences of Pentecostal leaders who espouse the out-of-
control ecstasy that accompanies tongues-speech.
58
Severian of Gabala, Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, cited from 12 Corinthians,
ACCS 144 in reference to 1 Cor 14:28. Along these lines, the fact that unintelligible tongues-speech is
not the sole property of Pentecostalism is noteworthy. Dayton (Theological Roots of Pentecostalism 15-
16) notes, In America, for example, glossolalia has appeared in such groups as the Shakers and
Mormons of the nineteenth century. Robert G. Gromacki (The Modern Tongues Movement
[Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1964] 5-10) observes that frenzied speech (glossolalia) occurred
among the ancient Greek and early Phoenecian religions, the Greco-Roman mystery religions, Islam,
Eskimo paganism, and paganism in Tibet and China. Hasel (Speaking in Tongues 14, 18) also includes
shamans and witch doctors in the list of pagan tongue-speakers.
72 The Masters Seminary Journal
language.59
59
William J. Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels (New York: Macmillan, 1972) 127-28, 227.
Also see Felicitas D. Goodman, Glossolalia, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New
York: Macmillan, 1987) 5:564.
60
J. R. Williams (Charismatic Movement, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A.
Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984] 207) says: 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.
61
Guy P. Duffield and N. M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles:
L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1987) 341.
62
Damboriena, Tongues 102.
63
Robert P. Menzies and William W. Menzies, Spirit and Power (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000)
142.
64
Basham, The Value of Speaking in Tongues 79.
65
Walston, Tongues Controversy 21-23. Donald Lee Barnett and Jeffrey P. McGregor, Speaking
in Other Tongues (Seattle: Community Chapel, 1986) 326-27, argue for four aspects of tongues-speaking
and draw a major distinction between private tongues and public tongues. See also J. Morris Ashcraft,
Glossolalia in the First Epistle to the Corinthians in Tongues, ed. Luther B. Dyer (Jefferson City, Mo.:
Le Roi, 1971) 75-76.
66
Ibid. Lewis J. Willis (Glossolalia in Perspective, in The Glossolalia Phenomenon, ed. Wade H.
Horton [Cleveland, Tenn.: Pathway, 1966] 271) argues similarly. It should also be noted that this
understanding has been contested, on exegetical grounds, by scholars such as Anthony A. Hoekema,
Tongues and Spirit Baptism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 85-96. Hoekema views Pauls words as a
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 73
Ask accordingly not to have the gift of tongues only, but also of interpretation, that thou
mayest become useful unto all, and not shut up thy gift in thyself alone. For if I pray in
a tongue, saith he, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. Seest thou
how by degrees bringing his argument to a point, he signifies that not to others only is
such an one useless, but also to himself; if at least his understanding is unfruitful? For
if a man should speak only in the Persian, or any other foreign tongue, and not
understand what he saith, then of course to himself also will he be thenceforth a
barbarian, not to another only, from not knowing the meaning of the sound. For there
were of old many who had also a gift of prayer, together with a tongue; and they prayed,
and the tongue spake, praying either in the Persian or Latin language, but their
understanding knew not what was spoken. Wherefore also he said, Ill pray in a tongue,
my spirit prayeth, i.e., the gift which is given me and which moves my tongue, but my
understanding is unfruitful.
What then may that be which is best in itself, and doth good? And how ought one
to act, or what request of God? To pray, both with the spirit, i.e., the gift, and with
the understanding. Wherefore also he said, I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray
with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the
understanding also. He signifieth the same thing here also, that both the tongue may
speak, and the understanding may not be ignorant of the things spoken.69
Notice that Chrysostom defines this private prayer language as authentic foreign
languages the same way he defines the public gift of tongues elsewhere.
Mo reover, he insists that even this devotional tongues-speech should be
understood by the speaker (so that he can be edified) and also interpreted (so that
others can be edified).70 Clearly, he sees no categorical distinction between p rivate
use and public use. Thus, when the fathers indicate that the gift of tongues is not
corrective to Corinthian misuse and abuse, and not as biblical support for an altogether different type of
tongues experience.
67
See Hasel, Speaking in Tongues 150. The reason for this negative reaction is that they believed
the ideal use of tongues was other-oriented.
68
R. P. Spittler (Glossolalia, in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic
Movements, ed. Stanley M. Burgess [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002] 673) notes that classical
Pentecostals admittedly support this distinction by reading their interpretation of Acts into 1 Corinthians.
The fact that the fathers equated the gift in Acts with the gift in 1 Corinthians demonstrates that their
interpretation necessitated no such division.
69
Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians 35.5-6, cited from Schaff, NPNF, First Series 12:211
in reference to 1 Cor 14:13-15.
70
Ambrosiaster, commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:14, also views tongues-speech as a negative if
it is not understood by the speaker. He says: What can a person achieve if he does not know what he
is saying? (Commentary on Pauls Epistles, cited from 12 Corinthians, ACCS 141). This contrasts
with the Pentecostal description of devotional tongues, in which understanding and interpretation is
unnecessary. Like Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster nowhere indicates he believed in two distinct kinds of
tongues-speaking (i.e., private and public).
74 The Masters Seminary Journal
received by every b eliever, they mean this in the broadest sense whether publicly
or privately. No t every Christian is expected to speak in tongues.
Furthermore, if devotional tongues-speech was a universal part of the ea rly
churchs experience, one would expect the church fathers to emphasize it (or at least
mention it). Yet, the patristic evidence no t only de-emphasizes private tongues-
speech, but instead strongly stresses the other-o riented nature of the gift.
A survey of early Christian literature indicates that the church fathers
believe in only one gift of tongues, giving no ind ication to the co ntrary.
Furthermore, they teach that this solitary gift was given to only a select number of
Christiansas the Holy Sp irit desired. They do not teach that tongues-speaking
(either private or public) was the normal experience of every Christian. 71
There are five steps in the process of inducing someone to speak in tongues. . . . From
a psychological point of view, the first step seems to involve some kind of magnetic
relationship between the leader and the one who is about to attempt to speak in tongues.
Second, the initiate generally has a sense of personal distressusually involving a
profound life crisis. Third, the initiate has been taught a rationale for understanding
what tongues-speaking is. Fourth, the presence of a supporting group of fellow believers
enhances the possibility of eventually speaking in tongues. Fifth, somewhere in the
process there is an intense emotional atmosphere.73
In other words, tongues may be more closely linked to peer pressure and self-
expectation than Sp irit-endo wment and a true gift of grace. After all, the
Pentecostal leadership expects each member to speak in tongues; the congregation
expects each mem ber to speak in tongues; and the membe rs themselves expect to
speak in tongues.
In light of this, some Pentecostal churches actually offer training for those
who wish to speak in tongues. 74 And Pentecostal authors Charles and Frances
Hunter give this encouragem ent to their readers:
You may start off with a little baby language, but just keep on. Remember when your
children were small they started out with a very small vocabulary, and then as they added
new letters to it, they were capable of making more words. The same thing is sometimes
true of your Spirit language. The Spirit can only give back to you what you give to him,
so put those extra sounds of the alphabet in and see what he does with them! Dont keep
71
It should be noted that not all charismatics teach that every Christian should speak in tongues. For
example, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994) 1076.
72
Gilbert B. Weaver, Tongues Shall Cease, GJ 14/1 (Winter 1973):23.
73
Kildahl, Six Behavioral Observations about Speaking in Tongues 74.
74
John P. Kildahl, The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues (New York: Harper & Row, 1972) 2-5.
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 75
on speaking a baby language, but allow the Holy Spirit to develop a full language in and
through you.75
That is a way of saying the gift of tongues requires time and practice to
perfectsom ething far different than the full-fledged ability to speak foreign
languages without any training or practice.
Studies have sho wn that people can be trained to imitate the Pentecostal
version of tongues without detection.76 And, maybe most significantly, There are
numerous former members of the Pentecostal movement who retain the ab ility to
speak in tongues, even though they have no belief that their speech is a gift of
Go d. 77 As Po ythress summarizes:
In light of this, linguistic experts agree that glossolalia is, actually, a learned
behavior, learned either unawarely or, sometimes, consc iously 79 and the tongue
speaker is the p roduct of co nsiderable instruction. 80
This evidence is again inc omp atible with that of the early church fathers.
T he fathers saw tongues as verifiably linked to a special end owm ent of the Holy
Spirit. Penteco stals, on the other hand, struggle to deny accusations attacking both
the legitimacy of this gift and the actual source b ehind them. In light of the facts,
it seems reasonable to agree with Kildahl when he says, In summary, my
glosso lalia research has included an examination of the phenomenon itself, and a
study of the theories about it. I have concluded that it is a learned behavior which
often brings a sense of po wer an d well-being. 81 Edgar furthers this evaluation:
However, mere glossolalia is common and can be self-induced. They are not a
manifestation of a miracle from Go d. As long as the New Testament gift of tongues
is equated with mere ecstatic unintelligible utterance (glossolalia), it can be
explained apart from the miraculous. 82
75
Charles and Frances Hunter, Why Should "I" Speak in Tongues??? (Houston: Hunter Ministries,
1976) 188.
76
Kildahl, Behavioral Observations 76. False religions, such as the Hindus, also employ a form
of glossolalia nearly identical to the Pentecostal type.
77
Ibid.
78
Vern S. Poythress, Linguistic and Sociological Analyses of Modern Tongues-speaking: Their
Contributions and Limitations, WTJ 42/2 (Spring 1980):367.
79
Felicitas D. Goodman, Glossolalia, in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New
York: Macmillan, 1987) 5:563-64.
80
Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels 74.
81
Kildahl, Behavior Observations 78. Spittler (Glossolalia 675) notes, Glossolalia of simply
human origin is probably more frequent than recognized. That explains, for example, the humanities
scholar who taught himself to speak in tongues and can do so at will.
82
Edgar, Satisfied 154-55.
76 The Masters Seminary Journal
use. In so doing, they contend that the public use of tongues is for congregational
edification, while the private use of tongues is for self-edification. In their
estimation, this self-edification is a primary p urpo se of private glo ssalia. As one
Pentecostal work explains: Every Spirit-filled Christian can and should pray
frequently in tongues for self-edification (1 Cor. 14:2, 4, 5, 18), building himself up
by praying in the Holy Ghost. 83 Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14, James Slay
remarks,
This chapter attests to the truth that the glossolalia phenomenon can and does benefit the
individual. Tongues and the interpretation of tongues are gifts placed in the church by
the will of God and through the Spirit. This enduement is a vital part of the charismata,
and as it blesses the individual, quite naturally it will have a salutary effect upon the
church since the church is composed of individuals.84
Perhaps the most persistent positive claim for the experience of tongue speaking is that
it provides a continuing source of spiritual power and joy in the Christian life. Almost
all who have had the experience say that it enriches their prayer life in such a way that
it seems they have never prayed before. Many describe an abounding joy which floods
their lives, and many others demonstrate a new vitality which is the strongest argument
for the tongues experience.86
83
Donald Lee Barnett and Jeffrey P. McGregor, Speaking in Other Tongues (Seattle: Community
Chapel, 1986) 327.
84
James L. Slay, Glossolalia: Its Value to the Individual, in The Glossolalia Phenomenon 240.
85
Spittler, Glossolalia 675. Ernest Best agrees, noting that the practice certainly brings joy and
release from tension to some Christians (The Interpretation of Tongues, in Speaking in Tongues 310).
86
Wayne E. Ward, Various Views of Tongue Speaking, in Tongues 21.
87
Barnett and McGregor, Other Tongues 326.
Gift of Tongues: Church Fathers and Contemporary Pentecostalism 77
Is the gift of interpretation of tongues a gift of the ability to translate into the common
language of the hearers what is being uttered by one who is speaking in tongues? Or
does interpretation here mean, rather, exegesis or explanation? For instance, what is
spoken in a tongue might be enigmatic or oracular: the words might be intelligible but
the meaning is obscure; the gift of interpretation would then be the gift of the ability to
make plain the meaning of what was being uttered. Or, to consider a third possibility,
does interpretation mean here what an art critic does when he reports on the message
or meaning of a piece of music? In this case the interpreter would neither translate nor
convey in plain language the gist of an enigmatic message; he would, rather, explain the
aim and the mood (praise, lament, thanksgiving, exultation) of the utterance.88
In no instances 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 tongues-speech was an expression of gratitude to
God for a recently successful church fund-raising effort.90
But, when he confronted the interpreters with the inconsistencies, he was told that
God gave to one person one interpretation a nd to ano ther person another
interpretation. 91
W hile this explanation is certainly convenient, it does make them
vulnerable to the accusation that, generally speaking, Pentecostal glossolalia does
not consist of authentic languages92 and therefore cannot be translated with any
degree of consistency or certainty. Even when exercising private tongues,
Pen tecostals admit that the speaker does not understand what he is praying: Many
of you will be hearing little sounds right now running through your mind. Strange
little parts of words. Strange little syllables. You don't understand them, but listen
for them, because this is the beginning of your Spirit language. Some of you may not
hear anything, but will just begin to sp eak in a mom ent. 93 Even so, they contend
that believers can be edified: This writer feels that glossolalia, even if it be an
uninterpreted outburst of ecstatic praise, would not only edify the speaker but might
possibly convict the e arnest spectator. 94
In contrast, the church fathers continually emphasized the importance of
interpretation whenever tongue-speaking is used. In their thinking, tongues-speech
88
Stuart D. Currie, Speaking in Tongues 84.
89
Slay, Glossolalia, 239.
90
Kildahl, Psychology 63.
91
Ibid.
92
See Samarin, Tongues of Men and Angels 1-2, 73.
93
Charles and Frances Hunter, Why Should I Speak in Tongues??? 185.
94
Slay, Glossolalia 239.
78 The Masters Seminary Journal
profits no one if it cannot be understo od. F urtherm ore, the ir empha sis on tongues-
speech as consisting of rational foreign language indicates that they understood
interpretation to consist primarily of translation (and possibly explanation). If
rational languages are presupposed (for tongues-speech), no reason exists to
redefine interpretation as anything else.
Conclusion
Based on the preceding study, it follows that the church fathers disagree
with contemporary Pentecostals on several fundamental aspects as to the essence
and practice of tongues-speaking. While Pentecostal adherents are forced to divide
tongues-speaking into two categoriesprivate and publicthe church fathers see
no such division. Instead, the patristic writings suggest a solitary gift of tongues that
consisted of the supernatura l ability to speak p reviously unknown foreign languages
for the purpose of evangelism and edification. O n this basis it is safe to conclude
that the Pentecostal phenomena prevalent over the past century is not the same as
that of the early church. Instead it is of recent origin in the history of Christianity.
As Hasel explains,
95
Basham (The Value of Speaking in Tongues 82-83) notes that the private use of tongues is by
far the most common in Pentecostal circles. This ability is not only given to Christians but can also be
seen in pagan rituals and practices.
96
Hasel, Speaking in Tongues 17.