Encyclopedia of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity

(Note: Sample material is taken from uncorrected proofs. Changes may be made prior to publication.)

Glossolalia

Glossolalia comes from the Greek terms used in the New Testament in reference to speaking in tongues (glossa, or tongue, and lalein, or to speak). Tongues refer to a language miracle whereby one is able to speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a language (either human or heavenly) that is unknown to the speaker. There is considerable debate concerning the nature of glossolalia (speaking in tongues) in the New Testament. The key difficulty lies is in how to compare Acts 2 with 1 Corinthians 14.

The Nature of Glossolalia in the New Testament:
On the surface, it appears that the tongues of Acts 2 are understood by the audience (2:5f) while the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 cannot possibly be understood without the spiritual gift of interpretation (14:14-15), implying that tongues are unintelligible speech. How do we reconcile these two descriptions of tongues? Some might explain this difference by noting that the audience of Acts 2 was international, while the congregation in Corinth was more provincial. The difference in audience between the two texts would serve to explain why the tongues were understood naturally in Acts 2, while they required a spiritual interpretation (an interpretation imparted through a spiritual gift) in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (12:10).

But this explanation is not convincing to all, since 1 Corinthians 12-14 gives no hint that tongues can be translated through a natural knowledge of the language. One will interpret them spiritually through a spiritual gift (1 Cor. 12:10). Furthermore, inspired tongues in need of interpretation in other ancient religious contexts outside of Christianity involved unintelligible speech, raising the likelihood for some scholars that the glossolalia at Corinth was analogous in nature. Most damaging to the assumption that tongues at Corinth were foreign languages is Paul's assumption that they are meant for a divine and not a human audience (14:2). In fact, tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 seem to have their primary function in private prayer for Paul, while prophecy is for the public (14:18-19). Tongues are for self-edification before God as one gives thanks to God "with the spirit" (14:3, 14-15, 18). How would God or the human soul in private prayer be benefited if the prayer is offered by a non-French speaking person miraculously in French? Tongues as foreign languages would obviously be intended for a human audience that can understand it, making interpretation as a spiritual gift unnecessary. But 1 Corinthians 14 prefers prophecy as the means to communicate something in intelligible language to others (14:4, 19, 23-25). Tongues may be a sign to unbelievers according to 1 Corinthians 14:22, but this text indicates that these visitors to the service will have as much success understanding them as the Israelites had in understanding the negative sign involved in the foreign language of their Assyrian oppressors (v. 21, 23), which is why prophecy must be used to inspire repentance (v. 24). Tongues are likened to foreign languages in this text as well as 1 Corinthians 14:6-12, but the relationship between them may be intended as analogous and not equivocal, the point being that if foreign languages require translation so also glossolalia requires spiritual interpretation to benefit others.

If tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 are unintelligible speech, then how do we reconcile these tongues with the tongues spoken in Acts 2, which were understood by the Diaspora Jews from the many nations around the world present at the occasion (2:5f). One would think from this text that speaking in tongues were xenolalia. Other material in Acts, however, complicates the picture. Nowhere else in the book of Acts is there the indication that anything is actually being communicated to an audience (10:46; 19:6), implying that the function of tongues in chapter 2 may have been somewhat unique. There was a Jewish tradition in the first century supported by Philo (Decalogue 10) that the law given through Moses was communicated in all of the languages of the world. It may be that Pentecost at the time of the Apostles was a celebration of the Sinai covenant, making it symbolic theologically if the glossolalia spoken under the inspiration of the Spirit by the early followers of Jesus were actually understood in the languages of the world as well. Pentecost would have been viewed as the fulfillment of the Sinai covenant, but through the gift of the Spirit rather than the gift of the law. Some have wondered, further, whether xenolalia was actually spoken at Pentecost. Acts 2:6 states that each "one" heard "them," possibly implying that each person in the audience heard the entire band of Jesus' followers speak in his or her language. Were the tongues of Pentecost unintelligible glossolalia that was accompanied by a miracle of hearing in which each person heard the entire band of early Christians speak in his or her particular language? Stories of xenolalia exist in history and, especially, in the Pentecostal movement. The fact is, however, that no known case of xenolalia has been scientifically verified to date, although extensive research has been done in this field. It may be that no scientific instruments will ever be able to record and to verify "xenolalia," if the miracle occurs as much in the hearing as in the speaking.

A New Testament Theology of Glossolalia:
There are implied differences between Acts and 1 Corinthians 14 in theological nuances concerning what tongues meant to the early churches. Luke seems to allow for tongues to have a public sign value that is not prominent in Paul. For Luke, tongues was a sign of the global reach of the Spirit's witness to the salvific deeds of God, especially in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. In Acts 2, the God of Israel is revealed in the languages of the nations. Whether or not tongues in Acts 2 are xenolalia, the theological point remains the same, namely, the sacred language is heard in the gentile tongues of the nations. There is here a "profaning" of the divine self-disclosure in a vast plurality of expressions.

The audience of Diaspora Jews who heard and understood the tongues were scattered but have been brought back together under the power of the Spirit and the Spirit's witness to Christ. Implicit is the "reversal" of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11), where the first dwellers of an ancient city were scattered through the diversification of their language. Acts 17 notes that the God who cannot be captured through any temple made with hands has determined the geographical dwellings of the various peoples so that they would grope for and find God (an implicit reference to the grace involved in the scattering of Babel; vv.24f). The limitation of Acts 2, however, is in the fact that the scattered audience that had returned to God were all in the Jewish fold. Acts 10 extends this diverse unity willed for humanity to the Gentiles. The explicit reference to tongues at the Gentile reception of the Spirit is not without significance (10:46). The vast global pluralism of the people of God and of their witness begins to move from symbolism to concrete fulfillment with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God. Luke's point is obvious: the Spirit has been poured out upon all flesh, not in some generic or abstract sense, but in a way that bridges divisions and fragmentation to bring about a differentiated unity. This unity respects the diversity of expressions of the one truth who is Christ crucified and risen for the redemption of the world.

1 Corinthians 14 does not have Luke's global context as its horizon. This chapter deals with the issue of tongues in the context of a potentially-chaotic church worship service. It seems that many of the Corinthians favored public expressions of tongues and ecstatic behavior, which was sure to provoke confusion and ridicule from visitors not aware of spiritual matters (14:23). Paul responds by favoring the intelligible forms of inspired speech (prophecy) for the public service (14:2-4; 17-18; 21-24). The unintelligible forms of inspired speech (tongues) are directed to God alone and serve to edify the individual speaking. Whereas Luke assumes a close relationship between tongues and prophecy (Acts 2:17-18; 19:6), Paul sharply distinguishes between them in order to separate intelligible from unintelligible forms of inspired speech in favor of the former in public worship. Paul allows tongues to be expressed in public but only if qualified by a spiritual interpretation, the responsibility of which is laid squarely on the shoulders of the speaker (14:14-15). The chief purpose in public is to serve the goal of love (ch. 13) and the edification of the church (14:26). It may be that Paul comes close to Luke's theology of tongues as a global sign of the redemption yet to come in Romans 8:26, where unutterable sighs yearn for the coming liberation of the creation. In this case, tongues would be a sign of human weakness as well as God's strength in the time in between the first fruits of the Spirit and the new creation yet to come. Luke also connects tongues as the renewal of language with the new-creation breath of God in the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2:4). There is no indication that Paul values tongues less than prophecy in some abstract or absolute sense, not unless one is prepared to value one's public witness over one's private prayers. After all, even our private relationship to God edifies others indirectly by enriching our individual freedom and spirituality and, therefore, our capacity to channel spiritual riches to others.

A Contemporary Theology of Glossolalia:
The Pentecostal movement gave tongues an important place in spirituality as the "Bible evidence" of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Paul's implication that not all speak in tongues (12:30) was commonly limited in Pentecostal theology to the congregational gift of tongues, while tongues as a private prayer was viewed as potentially available to all (1 Cor. 14:18). Pentecostal pioneer, William J. Seymour, viewed tongues as the sign that Spirit baptism was bringing people together across racial and class lines. He came to insist quite logically that love was the supreme sign of the Spirit's work in people's lives. The idea that one can possibly preach in tongues was soon abandoned in the first several years of the Pentecostal movement and tongues as a transcendent form of prayer soon became the dominant view. There have been various ways that Pentecostals have globally described the relationship between tongues and Spirit baptism. Many formed a rigid relationship, so that only tongue speakers were said to have the fullness of the Spirit. Others have made the relationship less rigid and more theological, showing how tongues signal the creation of a new language as a sign of the new creation of the Spirit that reconciles divided peoples. In this stream of theologizing on tongues, Spirit baptism leads to the spiritual capacity or privilege of praying in tongues although many Christians may decide not to use it. Tongues have been characterized as "primal" speech that calls into question the adequacy of rational language in expressing the divine mystery. Tongues is an "anti-language" that points mysteriously to God's presence in a way analogous to the sacraments. Tongues are also said to function as eschatological signs and wonders of the fullness of redemption yet to come, signaling a free, wondrous, or playful relationship with God in the here and now. They also imply for many an upsetting of the social privilege of those who govern public discourse by virtue of education or social class, granting everyone equal access to the inspired speech that transforms lives. Tongues can take on a number of theological meanings depending on their function in the prayers of the people of faith and the contexts in which such prayers occur.

— Frank D. Macchia

Further Reading

Hovenden, G. (2002). Speaking in Tongues: The New Testament Evidence in Context. Sheffield Academic Press.

Macchia, F. D. (1992). Sighs too Deep for Words: Towards a Theology of Glossolalia. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1(1).

Mills, W. (Ed.). (1998). Speaking in Tongues: A Guide to Research on Glossolalia. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Williams, C. (1981). Tongues of the Spirit: A Study of Pentecostal Glossolalia. University of Whales Press.

Sample Entries