WARNINGS: A portion of my readers, you know who you are, have some bad memories associated with speaking in tongues. If those bruises still hurt to touch, you may want to consider not reading this. This article is completely unrelated to you, nonetheless, read at your own risk. However, if you do read it, please comment, because I would love to hear your thoughts on it, three years later. And know I love you.

That leads me to my next caveat. This is the biblical view of speaking in tongues that I present. This subject, more than many others, is skewed by people's own experiences and history with this subject. Someone raised in a Pentecostal church is going to have a different view than someone raised in a Baptist church. I'm asking that you leave your preconceived notions at the door.

Come at this fresh. I was blessed, in this context, to have not been raised in a Christian home. I had no church history when I came at this topic. I wasn't discipled at a young spiritual age; I learned everything by reading the Bible. The only Christian non-fiction I'd read until I started learning about speaking in tongues my junior year in high school (and I'd been a Christian for four years at this point) was Everyday Walk with Jesus by Greg Laurie. The only Christian fiction I'd read was the Left Behind series. I developed a thorough theology simply by reading the Bible.

I didn't know anything about speaking in tongues. I didn’t have a clue, because what the Bible does say about speaking in tongues, at a cursory reading, doesn't give you a real big hint as to what the gift's about. I had no experience to base my opinion on. I had no ulterior motive; in fact, in the context of when I began to study speaking in tongues, I had good reason to come to the opposite conclusion that I did.

So let's leave our experiences at the door. Let's leave our history. Let's leave our biases. I'm interested in what the Bible says about the gift of speaking in tongues and nothing more.

Remedial (Bible) Reading

One of the first steps to proper biblical hermeneutics is reading the Bible for it's plain-text meaning. That means, reading the Bible for what it says on the surface; not imprinting your own views on the text, not trying to invent allegory, just reading it for what common sense would tell you it means.

When it comes to speaking in tongues, this is excessively difficult to do. Largely because of the way that the editors have translated the Greek. Because we call it "speaking in tongues" it is easier to take a more mystic view of what the gift is. I'm not going to postulate as to why the translators continue to use an out-dated term that actually works against an efficient understanding of the original text, but I will counter that effect.

The two Greek words used in the Bible for the word "tongue" (in regards to the gift of speaking in tongues) are dialektos and glossa (here). Dialektos, according to Thayer's and Smith's New Testament Greek Lexicon, has two valid translations: conversation or language peculiar to any people (that is, a specific language of an ethnic group. Zodhiates 176, Speaking). Obviously, in the context of the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, the correct meaning is "a [specific] language." That is, because the word implies a language from a different ethnic group, a specific language is in the mind of the author when he uses the word. The word glossa also has two meanings: the physical tongue (that thing in your mouth) or "the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations." (here). Again, it is obviously the second meaning of the word that we're concerned with here. And, again, we see that the very meaning of the word implies that the author has a specific, ethnic language in mind. Implicit evidence ranks rather high, in my opinion, but it is not satisfactory.

We can clearly see that "another language" is an accurate translation of the words glossa and dialektos, which is the alternate (as opposed to "tongues") translation suggested by the NIV footnotes. Admittedly, "tongues" is an appropriate translation, when one keeps in mind Webster's fourth definition of the word. However, in the context we're concerned with, it conjures up misconceptions that we don't need cluttering this conversation. And now that we've seen evidence that not only is "another language" an appropriate translation of the words in this context, but is likely a more accurate translation than the word "tongue", let's take a look at some of the most significant Bible verses concerning speaking in tongues. However, instead of taking these verses straight from the NIV, I'm going to replace the word "tongue" with "another language" where appropriate.

Forget your preconceptions; forget the word "tongues." Just read these verses at face value. Then ask yourself, "What is speaking in tongues?"

Acts 2:3-11

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. Utterly amazed, they asked: "Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism) Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own languages!"

1 Corinthians 14

Now I wish that you all spoke in other languages, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in other languages, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in other languages, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching?
(Vss. 5,6)

For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
(Vss. 14,15)

Other languages, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in other languages, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?
(Vss. 22,23)

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, another language or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in another language, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.
(Vss. 26-28)

When you read those verses, without prior knowledge, tell me: What is speaking in tongues?

Why Everyone Else Is Wrong

Don't worry; the pretentious title of this section is intended to elicit a slight chuckle out of you, not to suggest that I'm actually that arrogant. That said, this section will explore why everyone else is wrong: we're taking a look at all of the verses that cause the major confusion when it comes to speaking in tongues.

Mark 16:17 - "Barkeep! Speaking in tongues, all around!"

The only mention of the gift of speaking in tongues in all of the gospels occurs in Mark 16:17: He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

I've heard this verse used (or misused, as it were) to suggest "these signs will accompany those who believe" implies that everyone who believes has to speak in tongues (here, for example) or everyone who believes could speak in tongues if they so desired.

Before rebutting this claim, I would like to point out that these verses are not actually in the Bible. Mark 16:9 until the end of the chapter were not part of Mark's gospel as it originally appeared, and the majority of biblical scholars will agree to that with a 97% certainty or more (arbitrary number to indicate that one can never be 100% certain of this issue; regardless one shouldn't base theology solely on the strength of verses that have only a 3% chance of actually being inspired by God). However, if you remind anyone who believes what I suggested in the preceding paragraph that those verses don't appear in either of the two earliest copies of the New Testament that we have found to date, they will likely dismiss you as having determined, because of your own agenda, that they don't belong so that you don't have to accept the "truth." Of course, someone in my position would say that's quite the opposite of reality.

So I'm not going to argue that these verses aren't in the Bible. I'll leave that to people like this. I'll simply defend my point of view based on internal biblical evidence.

To suggest that all believers must speak in tongues or that all can speak in tongues is ridiculous. This text is the only one that would support that and there are other verses that contest that. And while I've heard multiple sources claim that this verse indicates all believers should (or could) speak in tongues, I've never heard any of the same claim all believers can handle snakes and not get hurt (even the West Virginia Snake-Handlers don't disqualify you as a believer if you die from a snake bite), drink deadly poison, or heal. That's why verses have contexts. Certainly it is evidenced in the Bible that believers in Christ can heal the sick; however, the Bible will also evidence that not EVERY believer can. The same is applicable to the gift of speaking in tongues.

First Corinthians (a book we'll be spending a lot of time in) 12 is the chapter that clarifies this for us. Verses 4-11 really put things in perspective:

There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

Zodhiates indicates that the Greek adverb idia, translated here as "to each one" would indicate that the Holy Spirit does not distribute gifts en masse (for example, giving everyone the same gift), but decides on an individual basis who gets what gifts (Zodhiates 284, Anointed).

Paul, then, continues to talk about the Body of Christ and asks, in verse 17, "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be?" Which is a very valid question. Now, if we consider each individual Christian as different parts of the body (which is quite obviously Paul's intent), then we could say that I am an ear and that you are a nose (that's so I can pick on you). And if we consider a person's spiritual gifts as akin to the different functions of the body (which, again, is obviously Paul's intent contextually. Support, can be found here, as well as a wealth of other places) then we could say that just as an ear has the ability to hear, so do I have the spiritual ability to teach and just as a nose smells, you have the spiritual ability to speak in tongues. And if we assume that this is the analogy that Paul is using (which is clear if you read the entire chapter), then Paul is here indicating that, no, in fact not everyone can speak in tongues. For, if eyes could hear, what would do the seeing and if ears could smell, what would be doing the hearing? For the sake of our analogy, if we all spoke in tongues, who would be doing the teaching?

And, as if all that wasn't enough, we have verse 30: "Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" Honestly, the English just doesn't do this verse justice. In English, we can clearly see these are rhetorical questions, but we don't know if the expected answer is yes or no. The Greek is not as ambiguous. It includes the little word me (meaning "not"), which makes all the difference in the world (Zodhiates 503, Anointed); the original Greek doesn't even contain verbs. Zodhiates says that a woodenly literal translation of this verse would, in fact, be "Not all speak in tongues." You see, that me makes it a rhetorical question that expects a no answer. (Here's an online explanation even you can understand!)

From the very mouth of Apostle Paul, No, not all believers have the capacity to speak in tongues. Speaking in tongues is, like every other spiritual gift, only given to a portion of believers, as determined by the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in Tongues in Acts - "Well, uhh, it's different!"

The natural step, when presented with the previous verses and trying to avoid changing one's mind, is to postulate that, well, the speaking in tongues in Acts and speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift is different.

Now, I know that all of you won't have that problem, because there is literally no possible way to derive that from the Biblical text and you can only come to that conclusion when you apply your own theology to the Bible. And we all already agreed not to do that. 

There's not much that I can say to disprove this as a theory. Nowhere does the Bible say, "Speaking in tongues, everywhere in Scripture, is the same." And while that might be a problem, fortunately, there is absolutely no Biblical evidence to say otherwise. In fact, both Luke and Paul use the Greek word glossa (not exclusively, but the majority of the time) as the word "tongue" in regards to speaking in tongues. It seems likely that, when they use the same word, say the same thing, and never indicate that they differ at all, Paul and Luke are talking about the exact same thing.

Regardless, people still make a tenuous claim that speaking in tongues as a sign of baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift is different. The best proof that this is incorrect is simply letting you read the verses in Acts, where people say that it is a sign, and then verses in 1 Corinthians where people say it is being referred to as a gift. And remind you: the goal is to read the Bible for what common sense would tell you it means. Would reading the verses ever indicate to you that there is a difference in the meaning of speaking in other languages between the two authors?

Acts 2- They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages as the Spirit enabled them.

Acts 10- While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in other languages and praising God.

Acts 19- Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in other languages and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.

1 Corinthians 14- Other languages, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in other languages, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

See, I think the Bible's pretty self-explanatory on that one.

1 Corinthians 14:2 - Mysterious Mysteries

This verse is the hardest verse to reconcile with the rest of the Biblical verses on speaking in tongues. Not only that, but this verse is essentially the entire basis for what is commonly called "speaking in tongues" in the Pentecostal (and other) churches (here).

1 Corinthians 14:1-3- Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.

At first glance, this verse seems to support the hypothesis that speaking in tongues is a prayer language that your spirit uses to speak to God in ecstatic utterances. After all, it says that anyone who speaks in a tongue speaks mysteries to God and no one else understands.

And if you picked that up, hooray for your biblical hermeneutic skills. We've been talking about reading the Bible at face value all day, and you've finally done it. But there is more to proper hermeneutics, and one of the next steps is to never interpret a verse in a way that contradicts the rest of Scripture, because Scripture doesn't do that.

Let's break it down:

Claim #1- Speaking in tongues is speaking to God (alone), no one else understands. And I can't really blame someone who makes this claim, because that's what the verse seems to be saying.

However, other Scriptures disagree. As we've seen in Acts 2 already, when the apostles spoke in tongues, it wasn't directed at God at all; in fact, quite the opposite, they spoke for the benefit of the crowd. For the crowd said, "...we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own languages!" Clearly these individuals fully understood what the apostles were saying in tongues, because they not only identified what languages they were speaking (when they say "our own"), but they could identify precisely what they were saying (they were "praising God").

As convincing as that is that speaking in tongues does not mean speaking to God alone and that other people can in fact understand it, for our friends who say that the two authors that give us an examination of the gift (Paul and Luke) mean two different things, let's use Paul's own words to dispute this interpretation of verse 2. Words found not only in the same epistle, but in that very same chapter.

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. (Verse 22, emphasis added).

Here Paul states emphatically that the gift of tongues is not for the use of believers (that is, for speaking to God), but the benefit of unbelievers. Undeniably, tongues are for unbelievers.

Claim #2- No one understands (but God)! Well, the Bible says it, right there. No one understands but God, it must be a prayer language. Talking to God is the definition of prayer.

Again, a reasonable conclusion if we don't consider other Bible verses. I don't think I have to quote this to you (as I already have, once), but the Bible discusses repeatedly the gift of interpretation of tongues. In fact, Paul says, (again, right here in chapter 14) "For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says." Clearly, it is possible to interpret what "no one understands."

Am I content to leave it at that? No, because there is more biblical proof to discuss. I touched on it a little when speaking of the first claim, but let's re-examine it in this context. "...We hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own languages!" These are non-Christians, at this point, (Acts 2:12,13,38,40,41), without the Holy Spirit (therefore devoid of spiritual gifts, such as, oh, let's say interpretation) who understand the apostles in their own language, despite the fact that they are speaking in tongues. Clearly, when Paul says, "no one understands him", Paul was not being woodenly literal. So what did Paul mean?

It goes back to biblical hermeneutics. I sure do love it. One of the key factors to understanding any biblical passage is understanding the historical context: What were the author’s purposes in writing the letter? Right now we're concerned with Paul's reason for writing his instructions on speaking in tongues here in 1 Corinthians 14. The best way to come to that conclusion is to crack open your Bible and read 1 Corinthians 14. If you read it, it is reasonably lucid.

Paul wrote the fourteenth chapter of this book because he felt it was necessary to correct the Corinthians; they were featuring speaking in tongues as a large portion of the time when they met together and didn't even include an interpreter (here)! They were speaking in languages no one understood and calling it worship. Paul addresses this problem here in chapter 14 by insisting that, whenever they were to use the gift, someone had to interpret it, otherwise they'd just be "speaking into the air" (verse 9).

Because interpreting verse 2 literally would require clearly contradicting other Scripture, here in chapter fourteen no less (even from a secular perspective, Paul would be extremely unlikely to contradict himself two verses later), we can't take this verse to simply mean that only God understands anyone who speaks in a tongue. When we consider the author's purpose and audience, we realize that the Corinthians, when speaking in tongues, wouldn't use an interpreter and spoke in a language no one else in the congregation understood. That is, the way the Corinthians practiced tongues, there is no possible way that any of them understood. Only God, the Author of all knowledge, the Inventor of language, could possibly understand what they were saying. To understand the verse contextually, perhaps (and I can't believe I'm saying this) The Message has a better translation; here is a tweaked version of The Message's translation (and as it's a paraphrased version of the Bible, it's tweaked to begin with) to express the historical context. "If you praise God in another language, God understands you but no one else [in the congregation] does." That would be an accurate way of interpreting the verse, when one takes it in the context of the Bible as a whole. And, because the entirety of Scripture is God-breathed, we have no choice but to take it as a whole.

Claim #3- The majority of the modern speaking in tongues movement is largely based upon the last six words in this verse: "he utters mysteries with his spirit."

This is the justification for the indiscernible utterances which the majority of the "speaking in tongues practitioners" in the Western world call speaking in tongues. They explain it like this:

"[When we speak in tongues] we receive edification needed for spiritual warfare (1 Corinthians 14:4). Tongues is like "spiritual battery charging". Spiritual warfare often weakens faith and hope, and tongues can help rebuild them. Paul spoke more in tongues than many Christians (1 Corinthians 14:18), and it is likely that he used tongues to edify himself during his many tribulations and trials.... [When we speak in tongues] the effectiveness of our intercessory prayer is increased:  When we don't know how to pray, tongues directly engages the intercession of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26). Our communication and worship of God is carried to a deeper spiritual level (1 Corinthians 14:2)  It is an opportunity to yield ourselves to God in humility.  Speaking in tongues surrenders our human desire for control and understanding to God." -This Website

I didn't make this up, but I honestly wish I had. I can only assume that they hope you don't click the hyperlinks they provide, so you do not become aware of their egregious misuse of the Bible. 1 Corinthians 14:4 doesn't mention spiritual warfare. They don't even offer a verse for their theory that tongues is like spiritual battery charging (not surprisingly, since that doesn't come from any biblical text). And there are many other issues I have concerning their explanation of speaking in tongues, but you can figure those out yourself. I'm more concerned with their reference in Romans:

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express.

I can only assume that, because of the words "Spirit" and "groans" many people have associated this verse with speaking in tongues, by way of 1 Corinthians 14:2. But let's take a closer look at these verses:

"He utters mysteries with his spirit."

"The Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans"

"He utters mysteries with his spirit."

"The Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans."

You see, the Corinthians verse refers to someone speaking by his own spirit, the Greek is very clear (Zodhiates 5, Speaking), and not in the context of prayer (Paul doesn't mention prayer until verse 14, twelve verses later). The Romans verse refers to the Spirit interceding on our behalf in the context of prayer. Read the chapter, please.

Nowhere in Romans 8, in fact, nowhere in all of The Book of Romans, is the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues mentioned. The idea that speaking in tongues should be unintelligible muttering has nothing to do with this verse and everything to do with church tradition. The idea that praying in tongues is somehow more spiritual, that, somehow, God is more likely to answer prayer in that manner is not only not based in the Bible, but it is ludicrous.

Nowhere, in the entire Bible, does any angel ever speak to a person in anything other than a language that they understand. Never does a prophet speak in a language that his hearers cannot understand. And no, God doesn't ever speak in a language other than one his audience can understand. We have no reason to even believe that there exists a language that God created that only He understands. After all, that completely defies the purpose of language.

"Does God not understand all human languages? Does it make sense to talk to God without knowing yourself what you are saying? This is to do less than justice to His infinite majesty, greatness, and intelligence. Fundamentally, prayer is the expression of our complete dependence and inadequacy. When we do not know what we are saying, we cannot express even that."  (Zodhiates 3, Speaking).

So what does Paul mean when he says that the person speaking in tongues utters mysteries with his spirit? Well, to answer that question, we have to return to the historical context and the context of this verse. Let's see what the verse seems to indicate when we put it at the end of my paraphrase:

If you praise God in another language, God understands you but no one else [in the congregation] does; you utter mysteries with your spirit.

The Greek word, translated here as mysteries, is musterion, which Thayer's and Smith's New Testament Greek Lexicon gives as meaning "hidden thing."

Clearly, anything said which is not understood by the speaker or hearers is truly a hidden thing. Certainly, it is a mystery.

1 Corinthians 14:14-17 - What if Jabez spoke in tongues?

Some people assert that speaking in tongues is a prayer language. What so ruffles my feathers about this belief is that this belief inherently means that if your not praying in tongues, God is less likely to answer it. Jesus would be appalled at that if Matthew 21:22 is any hint. Not only that, but, since we've already evidenced that speaking in tongues is not a gift available to all believers, this belief implies that some people's prayers are less meaningful than others. And God does not have favorites.

Beyond that, using this passage to suggest that tongues is a prayer language is the result of poor hermeneutics. Let's take a look:

For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.

Thank God for that little article "if" (ean in the Greek). If is a suppositional phrase: that means, "speaking in tongues" is not reliant upon praying. Paul uses "if", which indicates Paul is fully aware that one can speak in a tongue, but not be praying.

And let us make no mistake: here, as in the previous verse the Greek is as clear as the English. It is not the Holy Spirit that prays, but "my spirit", the spirit of the person.

Paul is not implying that one should first pray with his spirit (as some interpret that as praying in tongues) and then pray with the mind (so as to be fruitful). No, in fact, it would seem that's precisely what the Corinthians have been doing. Paul is saying they have no choice but to blend the two. Albert Barnes puts it this way:

"I will endeavor to blend all the advantages which can be derived from prayer; I will unite all the benefits which can result to myself and to others. I deem it of vast importance to pray with the spirit in such a way that the heart and the affections may be engaged, so that I may myself derive benefit from it; but I will also unite with that, utility to others; I will use such language that they may understand it, and be profited."

Paul says, "What is the point of praying if you don't understand?" Prayer is communication between a believer and God, and communication doesn't take place unless both parties can understand. "And what is the point of praying out loud if you know no one understands?"

Additionally, people have been known to use verse 17 to indicate that, in fact, praying in tongues, even when one doesn’t understand, is giving thanks. However, that’s not what Paul says. Paul says, “You may well be giving thanks well enough” (emphasis added). However, Paul can’t be sure (and neither can they), because, as he’s pointed out repeatedly, they aren’t using an interpreter. Paul is saying, “Even if you’re honestly praying, what good is it if you don’t understand?”

1 Corinthians 13:1 - Tongues By An Angel

This is one of my absolute favorite verses when it comes to speaking in tongues. Why? Because it is so poetic and I love explaining it. The verse follows:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Some would suggest that this verse clearly indicates that the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues can endow one with the ability to speak in the language of angels. Of course, what that is we have no idea, as Scripture never documents angels speaking anything other than human languages (Zodhiates 10, Speaking). But the real answer to these verses comes in the succeeding verses, verse 2 and 3.

If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Do you see the pattern here? It's really beautiful; let's see if you can pick it up this time:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Clearly, here, Paul is using hyperbole, a valid figure of speech, to point out the importance of love. But beyond that, he's doing it in a formulaic way. He begins his proposition with the supposition that he has a real spiritual gift: "If I speak in tongues... If I have the gift of prophesy... If I have [a] faith...", and it is quite possible for him to have those gifts, it wouldn't be as important as love. This is important when we consider that it is his letter to the Corinthians, who eagerly sought spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 14:12). Then Paul employs the hyperbole. He says, not only is love more important than real spiritual gifts that are possible to have, but it is more important than a supernatural ability that (hypothetically) would surpass those gifts, which is impossible to obtain. No human could ever have "all knowledge and wisdom." No human could ever literally move a mountain. No human should surrender his body to the flames. No human could ever speak in the language of the angels.

Also this:

A point of view that I didn't cover is that held by some (mostly outside of the modern speaking in tongues movement) that speaking in tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in a way that all of your hearers understand, no matter what languages they actually know. The reason I haven't covered this is that I was only covering beliefs that were based on misreading Scripture. This one, while loosely based on Acts 2 (everyone understood it in his own language), falls by the wayside when considered with 1 Corinthians 14. Paul says clearly that not everyone understands speaking in tongues; that's how he opens the chapter. And since we've already established that there cannot be more than one version of speaking in tongues (here), what is meant in Acts 2 by "everyone understood in his own language" cannot be that tongues is a language that everyone understands, no matter their linguistic backgrounds.

All Right, So... What Is It?

Now that we've thoroughly established what "speaking in tongues" isn't, we can determine what it is.

When we look at the biblical verses on speaking in tongues, leaving behind all biases and experience, we can get a clear picture of what it is.

Essentially, speaking in tongues is simply speaking in another human language. The Bible makes it clear that “tongues” is a language of this world when, speaking of tongues, Paul says, “Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me.” (1 Corinthians 14:10,11). So, then, the gift of tongues is the gift to speak in another human language miraculously, a language one has never learned. The Greek word used for the word tongue, in speaking of the spiritual gift, in Acts 2:6 and 2:8 is “dialektos,” which literally means the specific language of a county (Zodhiates 176, Speaking).

When you take the verses at face value, and we interpose the more accurate (for it is without connotation, comparative to the word tongue) translation of "language" in the verses, as in our exercise at the beginning of our study, there is absolutely no other explanation that evidences itself. Any other definition has its roots in church history, personal experience, or a combination of the two.

What we call anecdotal evidence

A lot of people, when hearing this definition of tongues, refuse it on the basis that the ecstatic utterance movement just gets more face time. That is, you don't hear as many stories about people miraculously speaking in a language they don't know. But walk into nearly any Pentecostal church in America and you can hear ecstatic utterances. And there are plenty of other churches that would fit that bill, too.

Of course, the majority vote works for democracy, but not logic. Think of Copernicus and his helio-centric theory. Certainly he was in the minority when he came to that conclusion, but that didn't make him wrong. Or beyond that: the Apostles. Certainly, of all the Jews, they were in the minority when they claimed that Jesus is Lord. Nonetheless, they were 100% correct.

Pushing onward, there are, however reports of the actual manifestation of this gift:

I went to King Street United Brethren Church in Chambersburg, PA one fateful day in January many moons ago, with the specific intent of asking the Pastor about the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. He told me the story of a missionary pastor to Korea that he knew.

This missionary knew very little Korean and was therefore completely reliant on his translator's assistance. On this particular occasion, he was sharing the gospel from the pulpit. And at the end of his message, there was an altar call. As he was praying the translator simply stopped talking. And, while the Pastor noticed this, he was so caught up in God's message that he didn't stop talking, but continued his prayer. After the excitement of the altar call, the new believers, and the service, he asked the translator: "Why did you suddenly stop translating while I was praying?"

"You started speaking fluent Korean," replied the translator. "You never told me you knew Korean." And there was a very valid reason. The Pastor didn't. Fifty people came to Christ at that service.

"Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers;" And what a sign it is!

So Why All the Uttering?

This section is an exception. I have no definite answer to this question. I'm not going to say, as I will about anything else earlier in this article, that I have the definitive biblical explanation for this and I can prove that to you. There really is no definitive biblical explanation. That said, here are my thoughts:

This thing goes way back

One of the earliest recorded instances of non-Christians speaking in ecstatic utterances is the Oracle of Delphi. The Oracle of Delphi was a religious center for all of Greece by the 6th century BC (here). That is, it predates Christianity.

The Oracle of Delphi claimed to become indwelt by the spirit of Apollo and would then mutter ecstatically in an indiscernible language and claim it was prophecy. The attending priests would interpret these "prophecies" (here).

And where was this Oracle located? In Corinth. It is quite possible that the very first appearance of this misrepresentation of speaking in tongues was in the Corinthian church; in fact, that is the thesis of Zodhiates' Speaking in Tongues and Public Worship. Whether or not that is true, it seems possible that the practice of the modern speaking in tongues movement came from this, or a number of other pagan sources (Shamanism and Voodoo both practice ecstatic utterances).

Psycho-kawatzit powers

Ecstatic utterances, indistinguishable from those found in the modern speaking in tongues movement, have been observed in abusers of hallucinogens (here). Psuedo-glossolalia can also be found in schizophrenics (here).

However, I do not mean to imply that all people who speak ecstatic utterances are crazy, but I do intend to show that there is a possible extra-Spiritual source. Because the Spirit of God does not speak nonsense: “…it is like saying that God takes up a harp and produces discord. This is an affront to His intelligence and purposefulness” (Zodhiates 31, Speaking). For God is not a God of disorder but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33).

While some would suggest that all pregnancy is hysterical, there is a particular medical condition known as Hysterical Pregnancy, or Pseudocyesis. This condition can occur when a woman has a strong desire to become pregnant. Her belief can be so strong that her body will stop menstruating and start lactating, despite the fact that she is not pregnant (here).

Many have suggested that the heightened emotional state surrounding most instances of ecstatic utterances in the Christian church could have very much the same effect. People have such a desire to "speak in tongues" like everyone else that they start uttering themselves and honestly believe that it is not under their control. A great article on the possible psychological causes of ecstatic utterances can be found here. This doesn't mean that the people speaking in ecstatic utterances are at all bad people, but under the influence of psychological conditioning (which sounds bad, but think of it as vaguely similar to the psychological conditioning of ADD, but not even that permanent). 

Additionally, scientifically, there is very good reason to believe that the ecstatic utterances are not a language at all:

"From a linguistic point of view, the syllables that make up instances of glossolalia typically appear to be unpatterned reorganizations of phonemes from the primary language of the person uttering the syllables; thus, the glossolalia of people from Russia, Britain, and Brazil all sound quite different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively. Linguists generally regard most glossolalia as lacking any identifiable semantics, syntax, or morphology, i.e. as nonsense and not as language at all." -Wikipedia.org

Puking and spinning heads

Not at all a blanket statement, but something that bears mentioning. From my own personal experience, I believe that it is possible that some (not all, mind you, in fact, probably not most) occurrences of speaking in ecstatic utterances have their roots in the demonic. I have personally been privy to someone speaking in tongues and known in my spirit there was undeniably a demonic presence in the room (I also know Christians that I respect who believe that ecstatic utterances is speaking in tongues). I think it is completely likely that Satan uses these ecstatic utterances to cripple the church:

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" -1 Corinthians 14:23

Yeah, I'm not doing this

This was going to be where I put a brief explanation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit (since so many people associate it with speaking in tongues), as I believe Scripture indicates. But I've probably offended enough readers for one article, so go here for a pretty accurate explanation.

The Non-Hyperlinked Sources

Zodhiates, Spiros. Anointed, Filled, and Gifted: An Exegetical Commentary on First Corinthians Twelve. Chattanooga: AMG, 1998.

Zodhiates, Spiros. Speaking in Tongues and Public Worship: An Exegetical Commentary on First Corinthians Fourteen. Chattanooga: AMG, 1997.