Glossolalia

There you go! A fine new word for your vocabulary. What does it mean? It is the technical term for what we commonly call "speaking in tongues". It comes from the Greek, glossa, which translated refers either to the physical tongue or to human languages, and, of course, lalia, which means to talk. Talking in tongues. Got it.

Now, as I've indicated, cessationists argue that this particular gift of the Spirit is no longer available. It is a "sign gift" intended for a particular time in Church history that is now past and simply isn't used by the Spirit anymore. Also, as I've indicated, I'm not ... quite ... there yet. I'm not quite willing to say that the gift of tongues is no more.

"Oh!" some might say, "So you're a charismatic?" Oh, no. Why? I've never spoken in tongues, never seen it done (with any correlation to biblical descriptions and commands), and never been convinced that it is real. "At least," others might venture, "you're a continuationist?" Perhaps. The question is, "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit still gifts people with speaking in tongues?" I would have to answer that it all depends on what you mean by speaking in tongues. So ... what do we know about the biblical gift of glossolalia?

The gift comes up most clearly in Acts 2 at Pentecost. There the disciples "were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues" (Acts 2:4). What is clear in this text is the nature of these tongues -- languages. Acts 2 says that devout Jews "from every nation under heaven" "were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:6). The text lists fifteen different languages heard that day (Acts 2:9-11), and they were known languages. If you were to ask, then, "What does the Bible say about the languages spoken when speaking in tongues?", the only available answer would be "Known human languages."

What else? The Book of Acts includes two more stories about speaking in tongues. The first is in Acts 10 when the house of Cornelius is suddenly "assaulted" by the Spirit with speaking in tongues as Peter shared the gospel with them (Acts 10:44-46). Of this Peter says, "If God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?" (Acts 11:17), where the proof that the hated Gentiles were part of God's redeemed was this particular sign of tongues. The other one occurred when Paul encountered some "believers" in Ephesus (I put it in quotes because they only knew about John the Baptist) were brought to Christ, baptized in the Holy Spirit, and spoke in tongues (Acts 19:1-7). That, my friends, is it.

What else? Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth holds the bulk of the information we have on the topic. First Corinthians 12-14 are the primary locations for this information. In the 12th chapter Paul gives a list of gifts given by the Spirit, including, "various kinds of tongues" (1 Cor 12:10). What else does it say here? "To each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good" (1 Cor 12:7). What does that tell us? Several things, actually. It tells us that "each one" does receive "the manifestation of the Spirit". No one has no gift. It tells us that the Holy Spirit decides to whom to give what gift; we don't. (See also 1 Cor 12:10.) And it tells us that the purpose of these manifestations is "for the common good". Not for private purposes. Not for personal edification. For "ministries" (1 Cor 12:5) -- for ministering to others.

Paul tells us that "All do not speak with tongues" (1 Cor 12:30). This gift existed when Paul was writing without any doubt, but it was not a universal marker.

Pivoting around 1 Corinthians 13 because that was the main point ("Earnestly desire the greater gifts. And I show you a still more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31).), we return to the topic in chapter 14. "One who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries" (1 Cor 14:2). Now, I would be cautious about misunderstanding "no one understands" for a few reasons. First, in the earlier example of Acts 2, lots of people understood. It was just those who were doing the speaking that didn't understand. Second, even in 1 Cor 14 Paul commands, "If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret" (1 Cor 14:27). If by "no one understands" Paul meant "there is not a person on the planet who will understand", then neither Acts 2 nor his command in verse 27 make any sense. I would offer, then, that by "no one" Paul means "no one who is exercising this particular gift" -- the speaker. So what does this tell us? This particular gift gives the recipient the ability to speak in a language he himself does not know.

What else? According to Paul, "Tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22). The gift of tongues is intended as a sign -- a proof -- and not for believers. (Thus, if a person spoke in unknown languages, of what use would it be?) That is, the sign isn't to prove to believers that the speaker is an authentic believer, but to those who do not believe. Tongues, however, are of no real profit to believers. "If I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?" (1 Cor 14:6).

As such, Paul makes the command I already referenced that requires that when this gift is exercised, it is exercised by only two or three at the most and always with interpretation -- "if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church" (1 Cor 14:30).

Okay, remember the question: "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit still gifts people with speaking in tongues?" If by "speaking in tongues" you mean what we know by what the Scriptures say. If it is a gift of a known language -- unknown to the speaker -- that is not available to everyone and is always accompanied by someone who can interpret it, and if it is always intended for the edification of others, then I can say, like Paul, "Do not forbid to speak in tongues" (1 Cor 14:39). Does that make me a continuationist? Perhaps. But I have yet to see anything approaching this, so that would be in theory only. Let me know when you find that form of tongues. I would really be interested. But, of course, I'm always interested in edifying the Body of Christ.