Of all theological issues that have arisen in the past century, few have been more
widely or popularly discussed than speaking in tongues. From the professional theologian to the
layman in the pew, it seems most Christians today have taken an interest in the issue to one
degree or another. Speaking in tongues as an issue in the modern church can be traced back to
Charles F. Parham and his small Bible college in Topeka, Kansas. Parham had assigned his
students the task of finding the biblical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit. After a few weeks
of research, the students made their reports, unanimously concluding that speaking in tongues
was the initial, physical evidence of Spirit baptism.1 The implication of this teaching was that all
Christians could experience speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gave utterance.
While many modern-day Pentecostals do not hold to the classical initial physical
evidence doctrine of their Topekan ancestors, all are in agreement that the experience of speaking
in tongues can be had by all Christians; but is this teaching a biblical one?2 The purpose of this
paper is (1) to present the Pentecostal position and contrast it with the traditional evangelical
position; (2) to survey the arguments Pentecostals make to support their view and; (3) to evaluate
the Pentecostal position scripturally. While there are a number of important issues regarding
tongues such as their nature, their purpose, and their availability to Christians today, I will focus
exclusively on whether the Bible teaches that speaking in tongues can be experienced by all
Christians.
The traditional evangelical view of speaking in tongues differs markedly from the
Pentecostal view. The debate between the two camps centers on 1 Cor 12:30, where Paul asks,
"Do all speak with tongues?" (ESV). Traditional evangelicals argue that the answer to Paul's
question is clear-not all do. Pentecostals acknowledge this fact. However, they make a
distinction between the tongues Paul refers to here and the tongues that Luke describes in Acts.
'Classical' Pentecostals believe that the speaking in tongues in Acts is the initial physical
evidence of baptism with the Holy Ghost, which can be universally experienced, and that the
tongues in 1 Corinthians is for special use, and only for some.3
Many Pentecostals today do not believe that tongues serve as initial physical evidence
of Spirit baptism but believe tongues can be universally experienced as a private prayer
language.4 These Pentecostals also typically hold that the tongues of Acts are available to all, and
the tongues of Corinthians are a special type that not all can experience. While there is diversity
within Pentecostalism as to the nature and degree of difference between the tongues of Acts and
the tongues of Corinthians, all Pentecostals agree that the speaking in tongues that Paul refers to
in 1 Cor 12:30 are to be distinguished in some way from the tongues that Luke describes in Acts.
To the traditional evangelical, however, there is no biblical reason to distinguish the
speaking in tongues in Acts from the speaking in tongues of 1 Corinthians. Charles Ryrie,
arguing against the classical Pentecostal view writes, "Whether one believes the biblical gift of
tongues is given today or not, the Pentecostal teaching that tongues are the necessary sign of
having been baptized by the Spirit is wrong. Paul said that all the believers in Corinth were
[Spirit] baptized [1 Cor (12:13)] but not all spoke in tongues (v. 30)." Ryrie believes that the
speaking in tongues that Luke describes in the Book of Acts is no different than the tongues Paul
writes about in 1 Corinthians. He remarks, "Unquestionably the first occurrence of tongues in
Acts 2 was languages ... the presumption is that the tongues in Corinthians were no different."5
Similarly, Charles Hodge writes, "It is impossible to deny that the miracle recorded in
Acts consisted in enabling the apostles to speak in languages that they had never learned. Unless,
therefore, it is assumed that the gift Paul is speaking about here was entirely different [from the
tongues in Acts], its nature is beyond dispute. The equivalency of the two, however, is proved
from the sameness of the terms by which they are described."6 Hodge is essentially arguing that
the terminology of Acts and 1 Corinthians is identical; therefore, there is no compelling reason to
draw a distinction between the speaking in tongues described by Paul and the speaking in
tongues that Luke describes in Acts.
Mal Couch follows a similar line of thinking: "If the tongues of 1 Corinthians were
different than the tongues of Acts 2, it seems Paul would have clarified this or been more explicit
in his terms. There is no basis for assuming that he was thinking something else unless he
specifically says so." Like Ryrie, Couch alludes to Paul's beginning his discussion on spiritual
gifts in 1 Corinthians 12 with a reference to Spirit baptism (v. 13), but then says that not all speak
in tongues (v. 30). Couch adds, "Furthermore, when Luke wrote Acts (after 1 Corinthians was
written) he did not redefine or distinguish between the tongues in Acts and those referred to by
Paul."7
If traditional evangelicals are correct in asserting that there is no difference between
the tongues in Acts and the tongues in 1 Corinthians, then the entire Pentecostal argument
collapses. One cannot maintain that speaking in tongues can be experienced by all Christians,
when Paul clearly teaches that not all speak with tongues. Recognizing this problem,
Pentecostals have developed a number of arguments intended to demonstrate that the tongues of
Acts and the tongues of 1 Corinthians are indeed different.
Robert Menzies, a classical Pentecostal, sees the tongues in Acts and the tongues in 1
Corinthians as the same in their essence or nature, but different in their application. Menzies,
arguing against Don Carson, writes, "1 Cor. 12:30 ['Do all speak in tongues?'] ... must be
reconciled with 14:5 ('I would like everyone of you to speak in tongues'). [Carson] does not
consider whether the reference in 12:30 is limited to the public manifestation of tongues. If ...
this is the case, then the way is open for every believer to be edified personally through the
private manifestation of tongues."8
To Menzies, all Christians experience evidential tongues at Spirit baptism (which later
is manifested as a private prayer language), but not all Christians are gifted to use tongues in a
public setting. It is the public use of tongues that Menzies believes Paul has in mind when he
asks, "Do all speak in tongues?" He contrasts 1 Cor 12:29, which states that not all are prophets,
with 1 Cor 14:31, which he believes states that all may prophesy, and draws a parallel between
this and speaking in tongues. Though not all have the gift of prophecy, all may prophesy.
Likewise, though not all may speaking in tongues to a public gathering, all may speak in tongues
privately.9
David Bernard holds a similar position. He writes, "First Corinthians 12:30 implies
that not everyone continues to speak in tongues on a regular basis, although it probably refers
primarily to public messages."10 Like Menzies, he sees a difference between the special forms of
tongues and prophecy designed for public manifestation that only some are given and the private,
"ordinary" uses of tongues and prophecy, which all believers can experience. In reference to 1
Cor 12:28-30, he notes, "Not everyone ... exercises these public gifts."11
Essentially, both Menzies and Bernard believe that there are two forms of speaking in
tongues. One form serves as the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism, and, on an ongoing
basis, as a private prayer language for personal edification. This form can be experienced by all
believers. The other form of speaking in tongues is meant to be publicly manifested for the
edification of gathered believers and is used only by some. It is the latter form that Menzies and
Bernard believe Paul is referring to in 1 Cor 12:30 when he suggests that not all speak with
tongues.
There are numerous problems with both Menzies' and Bernard's arguments. First,
Menzies bases his argument that there are two forms of tongues on the idea that there are also
two forms of prophesy described in 1 Corinthians 12-14. He says that while 1 Cor 12:29 says
that not all are prophets, 14:31 says that all may prophesy. Seeing an apparent contradiction, he
concludes that there must be two forms of prophecy—one that all may participate in and one that
only some may participate in. From this, he concludes that there may be two forms of tongues,
as well. However, an examination of 1 Cor 14:31 reveals that Paul never says that all believers
may speak prophetical utterances. He writes, "For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone
may be instructed and encouraged." It seems clear that the word all here does not refer to all
Christians, but to all who have the gift of prophecy (which not all have, 1 Cor 12:29).
Bernard similarly argues that 1 Cor 12:28 refers to "public" gifts. The tongues
mentioned in verse 30 are the public form as opposed to the private form. Yet Paul never
suggests that there are public and private forms of spiritual gifts. It appears Bernard has drawn
this conclusion without any biblical evidence. Furthermore, 1 Cor 12:28 also lists the gifts of
apostleship, prophecy, teaching, miracles, healing, helps and administration as well as tongues.
Are we to conclude that each of these gifts have a private counterpart, or just speaking in
tongues, and if so, on what basis?
Menzies also sees an apparent contradiction between 1 Cor 12:29 ("Do all speak in
tongues?") and 14:5 ("I would like every one of you to speak in tongues.") There is no
contradiction here. If Paul had said, "I would like everyone in the world to be sinless," he would
not be saying that it is possible for everyone in the world to be sinless, but only that he wished
everyone were. When Paul writes, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues," he is not
saying that everyone can speak in tongues, but that he wished everyone did.
In the end, neither Menzies nor Bernard are completely convinced of their own
argument. Bernard writes that 1 Cor 12:30 "probably" refers to public messages.12 Menzies
seems no surer than Bernard. He refers to his interpretation of 1 Cor 12:30 only as an "option."13
Rick Walston, though not holding to the doctrine of initial physical evidence, does
maintain that there is a kind of tongues available only to some (a gift of tongues) and another
kind of tongues available to all (a prayer language). Walston writes, "For the most part, it is the
general view of Pentecostals that there is a basic essence of similarity between the gift of
tongues (as a message to the body, 1 Corinthians12:30) and speaking in tongues as a prayer
language (Acts 2:4, 10:24-44). They are both speaking in unknown tongues by the power of the
Holy Spirit; however, the purpose (or function) of each is different. They are the same form, but
they serve different functions. Thus there is a distinction to be made between the gift of
tongues and tongues as a prayer language."14
Walston provides a chart contrasting what he sees as differences between the
universally available prayer language and the gift of tongues. He observes that the characteristics
of the gift of tongues, described in 1 Corinthians, is that not all have it (1 Cor 12:30); it must be
interpreted (1 Cor. 14:27-28); and only two or three are permitted to use it in a service (1 Cor
12:10). On the other hand, tongues as a prayer language, which is available to all, has different
characteristics. In Acts 2:4, 10:24-44 and 19:6-7, those that spoke in tongues were not
interpreted. Furthermore, the number of speakers was not limited to only two or three, as they
were in Corinthians, but all who were present spoke in tongues.15
There are several things here that Walston overlooks, however. To begin with, he
compares the passages in Acts where "all" spoke in tongues to Paul's assertion that not all will
speak in tongues. Seeing an apparent contradiction, Walston concludes that the only resolution is
that Luke and Paul are describing different kinds of speaking in tongues. However, what is clear
from these passages is that all in these cases means two different things. Luke is referring only to
all those that were present at that time, whereas Paul is referring to all believers in general.
Simply because a certain small group of Christians all had the same experience is not a good
reason to assume that all Christians everywhere at all times will have the same experience.
Secondly, Walston points to Paul's instruction that tongues must be interpreted, but
argues that interpretation never happened in Acts 2:4, 10:24-44 and 19:6-7. Walston, though,
fails to mention why Paul says interpretation must occur and why it seems not to have occurred
in Acts. Paul explains, "If with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will
anyone know what is said? ... But if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a
foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me... Therefore, one who speaks in a
tongue should pray for the power to interpret" (1 Cor 14:9-13). Paul requires interpretation
because there apparently was no one in Corinth who knew the languages being spoken (v. 11).
Because no one knew what was being said, they were not benefiting from the gift. In the Book
of Acts, on the other hand, the languages being spoken in Acts 2 were understood by those
gathered (Acts 2:6), so there was no need for interpretation.
In Acts 10 we find the conversion of Cornelius, Walston's second example of speaking
in tongues without interpretation. Yet Walston does not address Peter's later description of the
event, where Peter says, "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them [the Gentiles] just as
on us at the beginning" (v. 15, emphasis added). Peter also says that the Gentiles received, "the
same gift." (v. 17). The earlier outpouring of the Holy Sprit that Peter is referring to is, of course,
the day of Pentecost. As previously mentioned, the tongues spoken on that day were foreign
languages that were understood by those that were gathered, which required no interpretation.
Mal Couch points that, "Acts 10:44-48 refers to foreign languages because (1) Luke uses the
same words to describe the phenomenon as in Acts 2:4, 11; (2) the listeners could not have
understood that Cornelius and his household were magnifying God unless they understood
them."16 So there was no need for interpretation in Cornelius' case either, as the languages
spoken were understood by those around him.
The same thing can be said in regard to the conversion of the Ephesian disciples of
John the Baptist in Acts 19. Luke gives the reader no reason to believe that the tongues spoken
by the Ephesian disciples were anything other than actual human languages. In this case, as with
all previous cases mentioned, the Greek word for tongues here is glossa, which refers to human
language or speech.17 Because of the disciples' unique situation of being followers of John who
did not understand that Jesus was the one that John had told them to look for (Acts 19:4-4), it was
critical for Paul to understand their new faith in Christ was genuine. Tongues here served as
evidence of that. Had Paul not recognized that the Ephesian disciples were speaking in real,
human languages unknown to them, there would be no way for Paul to know that their
conversion was genuine. In other words, had they only been speaking unintelligibly, Paul would
have been unable to confirm that their conversion was real. One must conclude that the Ephesian
disciples also spoke in foreign, but intelligible human languages as well, in which case
interpretation would also be unnecessary.
It also is important to understand why Paul provides guidelines for the use of tongues
in Corinth in the first place. The guidelines that Paul provides are for the times that "the whole
church comes together" (1 Cor 14:21). During formal worship services, tongues should be
interpreted so as to edify the entire body (1 Cor 14:5, 14:24-27). Furthermore, speaking in
tongues without interpretation is not forbidden. It is permissible, as long as it does not disrupt the
church service (1 Cor 14:27). At any rate, the cases of tongues without interpretation that
Walston cites were not formal church services, so the context is entirely different. Paul's
guidelines were given for when "the whole church comes together" where there is a need to
maintain a higher degree of order. In all of the cases cited by Walston, interpretation did not
occur either because it was unnecessary or because the conditions requiring interpretation did not
apply, or both.
Finally, Walston sees a difference between the tongues in Acts and the tongues in 1
Corinthians based on Paul's restricting the number of people speaking in tongues to two or three,
but in Acts we find far more than that speaking in tongues. However, the reason Paul restricts it
to two or three is so that the entire church service does not consist of one person after another
speaking in tongues to the congregation (1 Cor 14:27-33). Paul provides the same restriction on
prophecy (1 Cor 14:29-31). One can imagine the chaos if dozens of believers came together and
all of them had a message in tongues to the congregation or a prophecy to share. This is why
Paul placed a limit to only two or three, given one at a time (v. 31). Again, these restrictions are
specifically for when "the whole church comes together," and given for an entirely different
context than what is found in Acts.
Weighing all the arguments, the Pentecostal view that speaking in tongues is
universally available is just not tenable. There is simply no valid reason to think that the tongues
Paul describes in 1 Cor 12:30 are different in form or type from the tongues that Luke describes
in Acts. The same Greek words and terms Luke uses in Acts to describe tongues are the same
Greek words and phrases Paul uses to describe them in 1 Corinthians.
Furthermore, Paul opens his discourse on spiritual gifts, writing "Now concerning
spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed" (1 Cor 12:1). If indeed there were
different forms or types of speaking in tongues, surely Paul would have clearly articulated that
here. He did not, and that in itself speaks volumes.
The answer to Paul's question, "Do all speak with tongues?" is clear. Not all do, and
this is the Pentecostal dilemma. The burden of proving differently lies with the Pentecostal who
teaches that all can speak in tongues. While their arguments offer possible solutions to their
dilemma, they each have significant flaws and ultimately are not convincing. It seems that
Pentecostals have developed a doctrine, and then turned to the Bible to find validation. Of
course, this is never the correct approach. One must always turn to the Bible first, and from that,
develop doctrine. We are not to insert our beliefs into the Scriptures, but to take our beliefs from
the Scriptures.
Footnotes:
1. Thomas A. Fudge, Christianity without the Cross: A History of Salvation in Oneness Pentecostalism
(Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers, 2003), 9-10.
2. The term Pentecostal will be used in the broadest sense throughout this paper to denote all Christians
who practice speaking in tongues, and thus will encompass ‘classical’ Pentecostals, Oneness Pentecostals,
Neopentecostals, Charismatics, etc.
3. David Bernard et al., Meet the United Pentecostal Church International (Hazelwood, MO: Word
Aflame Press, 1989), 100-101.
4. Rick Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy: The Initial, Physical Evidence of the Baptism in
the Holy Spirit Debate (Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2003), 23-24.
5. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986), 373.
6. Charles Hodge, 1 Corinthians, The Crossway Christian Commentaries, vol. 8 (Wheaton, IL: Good
News Publishers, 1995), 222.
7. Mal Couch, A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
2003), 171.
8. Robert P. Menzies, Empowered for Witness: the Spirit in Luke - Acts, Journal of Theology Supplement
Series 6 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 248, referencing Don Carson, "Showing in the
Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14" (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 49-50.
9. Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 248-249.
10. David K. Bernard, The New Birth (Hazelwood, MO: World Aflame Press, 1984), 242.
11. Ibid., 243.
12. Ibid., 242.
13. Menzies, Empowered for Witness, 248.
14. Walston, The Speaking in Tongues Controversy, 22-23.
15. Ibid., 22.
16. Couch, Bible Handbook to Acts, 172.
17. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, s.v. "glossa."
This writing is the copyright of Jason Young and is posted with his permission. View all of his available articles here.
For many more articles on speaking in tongues go here.
Page added August 17, 2015