Introduction

The gift of tongues is probably one of the most divisive issues within the Church today. That there are misuses and abuses of this gift can hardly be doubted. Some say this gift has passed away with the other sign gifts since the time of the apostles. Others argue that they will continue until Christ returns. Some say tongues are the gift of every true believer, others argue (correctly) that even in the first century not every believer spoke in tongues as is easily seen from the Bible. However, the question I would like to focus on is in the definition of "tongues" itself. Are tongues "ecstatic speech" poured forth from a believer baptized in the Holy Spirit? Are the unintelligible utterances given in the modern Pentecostal and other charismatic churches what "the gift of tongues" really is? The use of the word "tongues" in the Bible (when it is not the plural of a physical tongue) simply means languages. When placed into the text as a synonym it makes sense in every case. The issue is whether or not it means something other than human language when used of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Bible Knowledge Commentary's statements on tongues is instructive:

What Paul meant by speaking in a tongue is a matter of considerable debate. One common view is to see Paul’s use of the word “tongue” (gloµssa) against the background of first-century pagan religions and thus define it as ecstatic speech similar to that expressed by the sibylla, or female prophetesses....Others see the tongues-speaking in 1 Corinthians as ecstatic speech similar to that of Pythia, the female oracle at Delphi ...or similar to the maenads of Dionysus in their ecstatic frenzy.... That the Corinthians may have thought of this gift as analogous to the pagan ecstatics is certainly possible, but to suggest that Paul used the term with reference to this pagan background is hardly enlightened scholarship. In fact the seedbed for most of Paul’s theological concepts and the usual source of his terms was the Old Testament. This is evident by Paul’s use of gloµssa outside of these three Corinthian chapters. He used the word 21 times in 1 Corinthians 12-14 but only 3 other times in his other letters. Each of Paul’s other uses was either in a quotation from the Old Testament (Ps. 5:9 in Rom. 3:13; Isa. 45:23 in Rom. 14:11) or in an allusion to it (Isa. 45:23 in Phil. 2:11). In all three instances he used the word “tongue” as a figure of speech for the statement or confession made. Whether good (Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:11) or bad (Rom. 3:13) the statement was clearly intelligible. The same may be said of the meaning of the word gloµssa elsewhere in the New Testament. Whether it was used literally of the physical organ (e.g., Mark 7:33; James 3:5; Rev. 16:10) or figuratively of human languages (e.g., Acts 2:11; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15), it nowhere referred to ecstatic speech. If it is reasonable to interpret the unknown with the help of the known, the obscure by the clear, then the burden of proof rests with those who find in this term a meaning other than human language. These were undoubtedly spoken living languages; the word used in (Acts) 2:6, 8 is dialektoµ, which means “language” and not ecstatic utterance. This gives insight into what is meant by “tongues” in chapters 2; 10; 19; and in 1 Corinthians 12-14.

My main concern is with WHAT tongues were (or are). It does not appear that what we see today is the gift of tongues as described in the N.T. Whether or not they have ceased may very well depend on this question (not on 1 Cor. 13:10). For if "tongues" are just what they mean every other time they are used (human languages) then the "ecstatic speech" of the more charismatic churches today is automatically false. Not to mention that it is not exercised by most in a Biblical way to begin with (no order, no interpretation). Finally, in the first century pagan religions practiced what is today called tongues, so how could God have used them with Christians to authenticate the apostle's message? There's certainly nothing miraculous about speaking gibberish.

Tongues According to the Bible

The real question is, of course, What does the Bible actually say about tongues???

Mark 16:15-20 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Here we see that many gifts are promised the believer. Notice that EACH one is promised, not just some of them. Now, I do not know any Christians who can drink poison and live, AND handle snakes, AND heal. Yet ALL of these things are promised to EACH believer. It seems one of the following must be true: 1. Jesus was wrong (not acceptable) 2. I know no Christians (not acceptable) 3. It was only those who believed and received directly from the disciples who received this promise (more likely)

Acts 2:3-16 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Here we have the first definition of what "tongues" are, human languages. There can be little doubt about this, and there is certainly no reason to suspect otherwise from this passage. So, any evidence that tongues are more (or other than) human languages will have to be found somewhere else. If the following verses do not show tongues defined in a new way, or if they do not have tongues in a context where human language is excluded, we will have no evidence that they are anything but human language.

Acts 10:44-46 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

There is nothing here to indicate that non-human languages are being spoken. In fact, it would not make sense if it did. What would be so amazing about people speaking in gibberish?

Acts 19:1-7 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve.

There is nothing here to indicate that non-human languages are being spoken and, as a side note, notice it was the ones Paul laid hands on that received the gift.

1 Cor. 12:4-13:13 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues,to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. For in fact the body is not one member but many...
Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Here we have the ONLY reference to languages outside of man's. Does Paul speak in an angelic language? Several observations can be made:

1. This sounds like rhetorical hyperbole... it is as if Paul had said "though I have the strength of ten men..." or "though I can leap tall buildings in a single bound..." The sentence seems (to me at least) to mean: "even if I can speak every language of man on earth (and even some beyond man!), if I do not have love I am useless." It could simply be a way of saying that even if I possessed gifts beyond anyone else's it would do me no good without love.

2. If we take this as a positive statement of Paul's actual state of being, we run into very sticky problems. It would seem that we would have to conclude that he does speak with all tongues, but that he does not have love. Obviously this was not his intent.

3. If I were to give in and say that there was an equal chance (50/50) of either interpretation, then all we could conclude is that this verse is AT MINIMUM unclear. Good Bible students will always compare Scripture with Scripture, interpreting the unclear in light of the clear. Now, the only verses that actually identify what tongues are (were) are in Acts 2. They were human languages (or they were at least heard in human languages). So, even IF the Corinthians verse had a 50/50 chance of meaning that (some) tongues were "angelic" (whatever that means!) then the evidence would still point only to human tongues because that is their definition in Acts 2.

1 Cor. 14 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. He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 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. So it is with you. Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church. For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 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. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults. In the Law it is written: “Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,” says the Lord.
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. 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? But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!” What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.

Now, it might be argued that that is why the "gift" of interpretation was necessary, and why would you need a gift just to understand a foreign language? The answer - for the same reason that you need a gift in order to speak one! Of course it is possible that I could simply learn a foreign language (my mind being fruitful) - but that's not a gift. (I personally know some German and some Japanese, but I would need the gift of tongues to be able to preach in either language). Knowing a foreign language is not the same as having the gift of a foreign language.

Using the gift of tongues it is entirely possible (and probable) that the speakers did not know what they were saying, but could still be moved by the Spirit working through them. In the same way, then, someone MIGHT have been in the Church that had studied and learned the language the gifted speaker was speaking, but if not (which was more likely) then a gifted interpreter would be needed.

Further, in verses 14:21-22 Paul makes it clear that tongues were a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (28:11-19) against Israel. Now that Israel has been judged, the use of tongues is no longer necessary.

Conclusion

Finally I would like to note that in the churches where I have heard "tongues" being "spoken" in service, it has never been done in a Biblical way. It was always out of control (Paul says to control your gift, so it must be under your control). It was always more than one person "speaking" at a time. There was never an interpretation given. Now, perhaps I have not had enough experience, but I am told the same thing by almost everyone else I talk to. So even IF the gift of tongues was somehow related to the gibberish "spoken" in some assemblies, it is certainly not being exercised correctly, and does nothing to benefit the church or unbelievers.