Examining The Gift of Tongues

In my next few posts I will be examining what many call the "miraculous gifts" of the Spirit. Many believe that the miraculous gifts of tongues, healing, & prophecy are applicable today and should be sought by the church. In contrast, there are also those who believe these gifts were given to the early church to help authenticate the gospel message and ceased at the completion of the New Testament Canon. These posts are not intended to be an exhaustive study, but a brief overview and examination of these gifts.  While I understand there are good brothers and sisters in Christ who will strongly differ from my conclusions, I would like to lay out the findings from my studies. I will start by taking a look at the gift of tongues.      

The gift of tongues is one of the most widely interpreted gifts of the Spirit listed in the New Testament.  Many say it empowers their prayer life, while others see it as a sign of Spirit baptism. Some believe everyone can receive it, yet others believe it is only given at the Spirit’s will. Most Charismatics agree that the modern gift of tongues is administered by using syllables that lack comprehended meaning, a practice known as ‘glossolalia’.  On the other hand, there are those who believe that this practice is not the same gift of tongues that we see in the New Testament. 

Author Sam Storms, a proponent of glossolalia says this about the gift, “I have found this gift to be profoundly helpful in my prayer life. It has served only to deepen my intimacy with Jesus.”[1] No one wishes to argue one's personal experience, but is one’s personal experience enough to validate glossolalia as the same thing we see in the New Testament? After all, Muslims, Mormons, and many other faith’s point to personal experiences to validate their claims. As Pastor John Macarthur says, “Charismatics may claim it is God speaking through them, but there is absolutely no evidence to confirm that modern glossolalia comes from the Holy Spirit or aid His work of producing holiness. Conversely, there are very good reasons to avoid the practice. It is, a common practice in numerous cult groups and false religions.”[2] The answer to whether glossolalia is the gift of tongues we see in parts of the New Testament may lie in two questions. What does the original language tell us about the word “tongues”, and what was the gift’s original purpose?

Original Language

Although tongues are mentioned twenty-nine times in the New Testament we only have two clear descriptions of its actual use. One is found in Acts 2 and the other in 1 Corinthians 12 – 14.[3] In Acts 2:4 we read “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues.”  Mostly all agree that the ‘other tongues’ spoken here are other known languages. The original word is Hetarias (other) glossais (language). The Greek word heteros would indicate that the languages in which they spoke differed from one another so that those who had come from various lands might understand the Gospel.[4] However, many would argue the practice we see in 1 Corinthians 12-14 differs from Acts 2. In 1 Corinthians 14:2 Paul mentions “different kinds of tongues”. Sam Storms argues “It is unlikely he means a variety of different human languages, for who would ever have argued that all tongues were only one human language?” But in 1 Corinthians the word used to describe tongues is the same word glossa as we see in the book of Acts. They are used in various grammatical forms but, nevertheless, all are identical in meaning to the passages in Acts. On the basis of the Greek and the statement of the text, no distinction can be found.[5] Furthermore, Luke more than likely wrote the book of Acts after Paul wrote his letter to the Corinthians. It seems unlikely Luke would use the same word to describe ‘known languages’ in Acts if Paul was describing glossolalia in 1 Corinthians, as this would cause some confusion. After all, Luke was a close companion of Paul and would have likely been familiar with the letter to the Corinthians.

The Purpose of Tongues.

In examining the gift, it would help to know why it was given in the first place. 1 Corinthians 14:22 tells us “tongues are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers.” How we interpret this verse will determine how we view the gift’s purpose.  Paul adds in the preceding verse “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people.”  Proponents of glossolalia may point to the word ‘strange’ to validate their claim, being that it is a strange form of speech. However, the original word there is heteróglōssos, the same word used in Acts 2:4. If we view ‘tongues’ as a sign for unbelievers and we know ‘tongues’ (heteróglōssos) means ‘foreign language’, then it would seem its purpose is to make the gospel clear in every language.

             
Wayne Grudem, who himself advocates for glossolalia, sees a different purpose in tongues. He notes that tongues is a speech directed toward God as in prayer. He points to 1 Cor. 14:2 “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God.”[6] Like Grudem, many Charismatics point to this verse as the proof text for glossolalia. However, I don't believe Paul is telling the Corinthians that this was the purpose of tongues. What he is doing here is explaining that when someone speaks in tongues with no interpreter, it is only God who understands them. Many will also point to 1 Corinthians 13:1 where Paul mentions ‘tongues of angels’ to argue for glossolalia. But as John Macarthur notes “the interpretation falls flat when one considers the context, notice that Paul’s theme is love, not spiritual gifts. Paul is describing a hypothetical scenario.”[7] Furthermore, an angelic language is found nowhere else in scripture. Every time an angel spoke, they did so in a real language.”[8]

In conclusion it seems the argument for glossolalia, when examined closely, is not the same gift of tongues that we see in the New Testament. When we take a closer look at the original language and the gift’s purpose, glossolalia does not measure up. This is not to say God cannot, or does not, work in the miraculous by the real gift of tongues today. Given what we know about the gift’s purpose, God is capable of giving the gift in necessary circumstances. I can see a scenario where the gift may be necessary in a foreign land to proclaim the gospel. However, with the expansion of technology, as well as Bible translations, it seems God is using different methods to make His word known to and in every language.

---

[1] Gaffin, Richard B., and Wayne A. Grudem. Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?: Four Views. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub., 1996.) 222

[2] MacArthur, John. Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship. (Nashville, TN: Nelson Books, 2013) 136, 137

[3] Baxter, Ronald E. The Charismatic Gift of Tongues. (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1981) 1

[4] Charismatic Gift of Tongues. 4

[5] Charismatic Gift of Tongues. 12

[6] Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.) 1071

[7] Strange Fire 147

[8] Strange Fire 149

Labels, Accusations & Judgements

Last week we witnessed a bit of a storm in our circles based on an online exchange between Phil Johnson of Grace To You and Thabiti Anyabwile, pastor of Anacostia River Church & contributor to The Gospel Coalition. First let me say I have great respect and have benefited from both of these men and their faithful ministries. Thabiti's handbook "What is A Healthy Church Member" is my go to source on this subject and Phil's contributions to Pyromaniacs and his Biblical critique of the Charismatic movement have helped me immensely. I do not personally know either of these men, though I did have a Twitter exchange with Thabiti back in 2014 regarding the events surrounding Ferguson, Missouri. Though we were in disagreement, Thabiti was gracious and cordial in his responses to me.

It seems the dust up started when Phil Johnson posted this tweet

The tweet linked to a sermon Thabiti preached in 2010 regarding engaging the culture with the gospel. It seems Phil Johnson had noticed a drift on Thabiti's approach by his public support for #BlackLivesMatter and other calls of social injustice. As expected Thabiti took exception to the tweet and responded at TGC here, which prompted a counter response from Phil Johnson here, and then a final response (that I know of) by Thabiti here.

That Dirty Label

It seems that the real argument is over how much, if any, Christians should align themselves with social justice movements as a matter of engaging the culture with the gospel. I assume, or at least hope, any faithful believer cares for the well being of anyone that is discriminated against or treated unjustly on the basis of race. The question is not whether Christians should be actively working on behalf of those treated unjustly, but rather how does the Christian go about in acting this out. That to me should be the topic of discussion. I would think this is a discussion that can be had without personal judgements and accusations.

That is what prompted me to write this post. One of the worst things you could be labeled in the evangelical world (or in the US for that matter) is a racist. Even if it is questioned, the label is a very hard thing to shake off. So to have it implied or at least questioned on someone is pretty defeating. This is what I believe Thabiti did to Phil with his second point in his first TGC response.

Thabiti engages in a bit of doublespeak here. On one hand he is saying he is sure that Phil did not call him an "agitator" in the form of a racist slur, but on the other hand he is making mention that Phil attacked him using a racist slur. Now, I must admit I am too young to have lived through the civil rights era but I was not aware that this term was used to describe Dr. Martin Luther King. As Phil mentioned in his response, a quick Google search of the word "agitator" does not pull up results of the term being associated with a racist undertone. I think Thabiti was out of line by drawing attention to this. In doing so he implied to thousands of readers that Phil's criticism of him and his alignment with the #BlackLivesMatter movement was in a racist context. As many well know, the quickest way to win an argument is to label the views of the opposition as racist. My question here is why? Why do we assume that a white brother's opposition to a black brother is categorically racist? I know there is history in this country and many of our black brother's are well in their right to question and think through some motives, but don't we owe a little more grace to white brother's who are in fact brother's in Christ?  Can't we allow room for disagreement on such issues without going for the knockout accusation of racism? Doesn't the family of God afford some grace that the world doesn't? (full disclosure here, I am neither black or white. I am Hispanic)

Aligning With a Movement

Let me discuss for a minute my thoughts on the argument in question. In his second response on TGC Thabiti says "The real problem here is that so many seem utterly incapable of imagining that one can see gospel proclamation as the main thing and maintain that the “whole counsel of God” or “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded” includes acts of justice, mercy, compassion, righteousness and so on. There’s no contradiction or drift there whatsoever." I agree, I'm sure Phil agrees, and every other Biblical sound believer should agree on this point. Part of living out the gospel is obeying the commands of Christ. This includes the second greatest commandment given by Christ in Matthew 22:39 to "love your neighbor as yourself". Again, the question is not whether or not we should engage in acts of justice, mercy or compassion, the question is how should that look like.

Phil seems to question, as do I, the need for Christian brothers to align themselves too closely with a movement like #BlackLivesMatter. On their website, blacklivesmatter.com, they mention "Transgender Affirming" & "Queer Affirming" as part of their guiding principles.



Regardless of whatever else they may stand for, a Christian should not support this movement on that basis alone. It is the equivalent of one supporting Planned Parenthood because they do "other good things" for women besides abortion. The website makes a point to be clear they are the ones behind the genesis of the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. This, along with the anti-police rhetoric the movement is sometimes associated with (see here), should make believers pause before aligning themselves with the hashtag. 

Thabiti makes it a point to stress he supports the principle of #BlackLivesMatter but does not support the movement. That is fine and I believe he is perfectly capable of doing so in his own mind. The problem is that even though he can clearly distinguish the movement from the principle in his own right, there are many that can't. There are many that will see him re tweeting secular justice activist like Deray Mckesson and Shaun King, 2 men who advocate for the movement and use divisive, vulgar, and inflammatory language while doing so. Thabiti, I'm sure, attracted a lot of Twitter followers with his post 3 Reasons Why I Stand With Protestors after the events in Ferguson, MO. Many who came to follow him looking for the social and not the gospel. And while there is no doubt plenty of gospel in Thabiti's tweets (he is clear & precise on the gospel), I do feel we muddle the waters if we constantly align ourselves with a movement that radically opposes Biblical values.

I believe Thabiti's seeming alignment with the #BlackLivesMatter movement is what caused Phil to fire off the jab and link to the 2010 sermon on cultural engagement. Whether it was the right tone or not, I do believe it is a discussion worth having. It is worth having because it seems that many have already conceded the argument that protest and injustice claims are central themes of the gospel. Of course today we are so eager to make everything a gospel issue. Race is the gospel, abortion is the gospel, poverty is the gospel, war is the gospel, today any and everything but the actual cross is the gospel. Everyone from The Gospel Coalition to anyone that teaches or graduated from a Baptist seminary believes that constantly sounding the bell for social injustices is the clearest way of demonstrating the gospel. Are we really sure about that? Is that what we clearly see in the Gospels?

The Testimony of The Gospels

We do know the Jewish people were treated unjustly by an imperialistic government in Jesus own day. Judea was under Roman rulers who were not very sensitive to Jewish ways. Pontius Pilate himself was quoted as being as harsh, greedy, and cruel by the philosopher Philo (Legatio 38.302), yet Jesus rarely spoke much about the injustices by the Roman government of His day. His harshest criticism wasn't aimed at the government but rather the legalistic Pharisees and Sadducee's. In Luke 13 when Jesus was told about the Galileans who suffered injustice at the hands of Pilate his response in verse 3 was "unless you repent, you will all likewise parish". Wouldn't you think he would make some reference to the injustice done if in fact social injustice was a major theme of His gospel? In Mark 1:15 Jesus begins his ministry not with a call to social reform but by proclaiming  “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”. This is what me and others mean when we take issue with the social gospel approach to proclamation. What good is it if we live in a social utopia where no injustice is ever committed if people don't likewise repent and believe the gospel. While both are crucial, one is of the most urgency.  

Again the discussion is how do we best live out our call to love our neighbor and care for others? And here again Jesus gives us a great template. Not by joining the Jewish zealots and calling for the Roman government to reform, but by going near to the brokenhearted and rubbing shoulders with the fatherless. In my opinion this is the best way we can make social issues a gospel issue, by actually going to the people and becoming social. By participating in mentoring programs, by going out to communities and neighborhoods and expressing the gospel in both word and deed, and by churches offering services to help those that are less fortunate. I was shocked and amazed when I did some digging online and found out the kind of work Grace Community Church does on a local and personal level with their outreach and community programs. This is something I never hear them sounding trumpets about from their platforms, Matthew 6:2-4 comes to mind 

False Narratives

Another question is the narrative #BlackLivesMatter has created regarding cops killing black men at an alarming rates. Is this narrative warranted?  A Washington Times article found that the chances of a black man getting shot and killed by police is 1 in 60,0000. The odds of being struck by lighting in one's lifetime is 1 in 12,000. Thabiti mentions that he fears for the life of his son in America. I am raising 2 minority boys myself in this country and I too share those same fears. But my fear is not that they will one day be shot by police for playing with a toy gun, my fear is that they will get caught up in the neighborhood and get shot brandishing a real gun by a rival teenager or gang member. Of the countless times I have been racially profiled and the couple of times I was apprehended for mistaken identity, I never once feared for my life at the hands of the police. I know there is a bit of a generation gap, and I do sympathize with the feelings of the older generation that lived through the civil rights era, but this is not the same era. I agree that even 1 in 60,000 black men murdered by cops is too many, as every life is precious to God, but are we really surprised to see a few racist cops and corrupt judges in a fallen, depraved world? While there are certainly civil duties and steps we must take to rectify the disparity of black men being incarcerated, is locking arms with a movement that paints a faulty narrative really the best way? 

Accusations & Judgements

I know just by sharing these thoughts I will be labeled by some as racist, insensitive or an "uncle tom". It is the same treatment any minority gets when he decides to hold views that is different than the narrative. It is the same treatment I have seen black pastors like Voddie Baucham and my friend Saiko Woods receive when they try and speak against the narrative. It is the same treatment I get from my own race when I speak on amnesty not being the best solution to fix our illegal immigration problem.

We all agree that we need to engage our culture with the gospel. The argument on which is the best way, however, should be made without the accusation of racism or insensitivity. Some believe we do need to sound the trumpet of social injustice from our pulpits and platforms, others don't. Some believe we should endorse candidates for president from our pulpits, others don't (include me in the latter).  I do believe we should engage, vote for change, and raise awareness when causes are necessary. I want people to be treated fairly, I want them to be treated justly, and I want them to have the same opportunity afforded to them as anyone else. But first and foremost the message I want them to have is to "repent and believe in the gospel." I can't afford to have that message clouded by aligning myself with enemies of that very gospel.


Many believe that in order to reach people with the gospel they must see us getting behind their movement and cause.  They say people won't listen to us unless we march and stand with them. Allthough I have seen many reached here in south Dallas without aligning with a social justice movement, I can sympathize with that viewpoint. I don't take issue with the discussion as long we can have the discussion. How we best can love our neighbor is a discussion worth having. And I believe we can have that discussion without subtle labels, accusations, and judgements.