Having concluded, then, that tongues are real languages, whether known or yet unknown, the purpose(s) for their use must now be established. Many have taken the instances found in Acts to constitute the whole purpose of tongues. While they are somewhat right, their analyses are often incorrect or at best incomplete. The accounts in Acts 2:4, 10:46, and 19:6 each present speaking in tongues as the indication of the Holy Spirit’s arrival in believers. However, this sign is not consistently mentioned throughout Acts but only explicitly in these three places. The connection between these three events will help to determine the role of speaking in tongues in each of them.
First, it should be observed that no one is present at all three events, but an apostle is at each one.
Second, the number of people present decreases each time.
Third, the events occur geographically in ever-widening circles from Jerusalem; it is also possible that they occur among an ever-widening range of people groups according to the Law—Jews, proselytes, and Gentiles.
Fourth, there is at least one Jew present in each case.
Fifth, the sign happened immediately after receiving the Holy Spirit, with no record of the same person speaking in a tongue at another time (i.e., Peter did not join in with the house of Cornelius).
Finally, the speakers were only explicitly understood in the first event on the day of Pentecost.
Speaking in tongues may therefore be a sign of salvation, an indicator of the spreading of the gospel, and/or a sign to the Jews. A stronger argument is built for the second point by inferring the same result in Acts 8:14-18. In this passage, speaking in tongues is not specifically mentioned, but the event does follow the patterns above. Luke is not careful in his account to point out whether or not speaking in tongues occurred in every possible circumstance. Neither the argument here nor Luke’s argument hinges on its presence at this point in the text, and therefore it is unnecessary to say what the text does not.
Because speaking in tongues is only recorded three times in Acts, some dispensationalists understand the events in Acts to be part of a special time frame that ended when the gospel had spread to all people. They would say that speaking in tongues was given to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit had come to dwell among men, and once this was established, it was no longer needed. This does not take into account the activity in Corinth about which Paul writes.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul offers a major shift in purpose from that often gathered just from Acts. Paul writes that all of the gifts of grace were for the edification, or building up, of the church. Paul in many ways justifies the activity of the Corinthians, though he instructs them as to the proper practice of such activity. Because of this, the modern-day theologian must reconcile the purposes Paul presents with the apparent purpose(s) in Acts. Paul provides two significant uses for speaking in tongues, which need not be mutually exclusive. The first is the edification of the church, which can only be accomplished in conjunction with the gift of interpretation. Paul gives one exception to this: it may edify only the one speaking as he speaks to himself and to God. The second is to give thanks to God, or more broadly, to praise Him. This aspect can be seen in Acts 2:11 where the apostles are declaring the great deeds of God and in Acts 10:46 where Cornelius’ household is magnifying God.
Paul also explains that speaking in tongues is for a sign, as some take it to be in Acts. However, Paul argues that the sign is for unbelievers, even though they will reject it as foolishness. Examining the passage will provide a few insights into understanding this assertion. First, Paul begins in 1 Corinthians 14:21 by quoting Isaiah 28:11 mentioned earlier. His purpose was to demonstrate God’s use of foreign tongues to declare judgment on Judah. In the next verse, Paul states that speaking in tongues is not a sign for believers, though it is obviously for their edification. Verse 23 contains a third class conditional statement, indicating that it is uncertain whether the condition would happen. Paul denies in other verses the possibility of everyone speaking in tongues happening, especially 1 Corinthians 12:30 and 14:5. In light of this, verse 23 should be thought of as an exaggeration of what was actually going on in the Corinthian church or as a condition that the Corinthians thought would be ideal.
The unbelievers mentioned should be characterized as those who are perishing in chapter 1. Paul does not explain how the unbeliever should perceive speaking in tongues as a sign (unless the unbelievers here are strictly Jewish people). In Acts 2 it may be thought of as a sign to the Jews gathered for Pentecost, who reacted positively overall, but this cannot be said in Acts 10 and 19. A possible deterrent to the effectiveness of speaking in tongues as a sign is its similarity to the practice of ecstatic utterances at the oracle of Delphi (Lowery 537). Richard Hays suggests that the derisive statement made by the unbelievers might be better conceived as their observation that what was going on was "a fit of religious ecstasy, a common phenomenon in that culture" (238).
While Paul affirms that it is a sign to unbelievers, it cannot be affirmed as a method of preaching the gospel. Speaking in tongues extends only to adoration and thanksgiving. It also, then, is not a method of exhortation.
The purpose of speaking in tongues is in all three instances in Acts for giving praise to God. It is not a sign of the newly present Holy Spirit, though Peter’s conclusion in Acts 10:47 is accurate. It is not even necessary to think of speaking in tongues as marking the spread of the gospel; Luke explicitly marks this without the use of signs. It is also only possible that speaking in tongues was a sign to unbelievers in the first instance, therefore eliminating this as its exclusive or even primary purpose.
Having established the purpose of speaking in tongues, that is for giving praise/thanksgiving to God, the duration of the gift can be grappled with. Before dealing with its duration in the Church, what about its duration in the life of the believer? Is the gift given for appropriate use by the individual or is it in all circumstances given spontaneously? Nothing dogmatic can be maintained concerning this except that some believers are given a relatively permanent gift and some only a spontaneous gift. This is most evident in contrasting Paul and Peter. Peter is only recorded as having participated in speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than all of the Corinthians. He also claimed that he could come to them and speak a myriad of words in a tongue.
Finally, he said that he would pray in a tongue. Though Paul seems to exert control over the gift, it is significant that he uses the singular and plural, indicating that it is not always the same tongue except at any given time. So while speaking in tongues may be done at the will of the believer possessing the gift, it is still spontaneous in that the language may be different each time and the words all are given by the Spirit at the moment.
Tongues Section 2: The Role and Duration of the Gift, Part 2
Papers
