In charismatic circles, much is made of  the 'gift of tongues'.  That is, the 'gift of tongues' as defined and used by charismatics.  In this Article we shall see, conclusively, that their 'interpretation' is not a true Biblical interpretation at all, but is merely an invention founded on human theories.

Basically, the charismatics' 'tongue' is a language only properly understood by God and His angels.  Thus, it is an 'heavenly' tongue, requiring a supernatural translation by one gifted to do so.  In other words, a 'tongue' is not understood by human beings in any way - it is not understood by either the one speaking the tongue or the one translating it. Rather, it is claimed that the words spoken are given directly by the Holy Spirit, as is the translation. To put it another way - neither the speaker or the translator knows what each is actually saying. Thus, because neither the speaker or the one translating can guarantee that it is an authentic word from God, we must be suspicious. There is absolutely no way of knowing, because it is all supposedly 'heavenly'.

Another claim is that a 'tongue' is a personal 'prayer language'.  Many boast that they pray in tongues when on their own.  Yet, they do not know what they are saying and cannot guarantee their words are of God.  Also, they ignore the injunction to use tongues to edify the whole church.

Before we look at what the Bible really says about tongues, we must reject charismatic claims.  A 'tongue' is NOT an 'heavenly' language understood only by angels and God! (Indeed, such a claim is ludicrous). Nor is a 'tongue' to be used for private devotions.  Are these rejections just based on human theory?  No - they are based on Biblical text.  The Bible simply does NOT support the charismatic meaning given to tongues.  What, then, does the Bible tell us about tongues?

TONGUES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

Typically, the Bible uses a number of words and concepts to describe the same kind of thing.  For example, in Genesis there are links between 'tongue', 'tongues', 'speech', 'language', etc., which all support the main meaning.

The very first mention of  'tongue' is found in Genesis 10:5.  Its plural, 'tongues', is first given in Genesis 10:20.  It does not really matter which came first, because the Hebrew word is exactly the same for both - lashown. It has a variety of meanings, but all are connected, e.g. the literal tongue as a part of the body, or as an instrument of speech (in man), or of sound (in animals); a 'tongue' of fire, so called because it looks similar to the shape of a bodily tongue. 

For the same reason (shape), lashown can also be used to describe a bay by the sea or a wedge.  Each variant has a direct reference to bodily tongues, whether it is their shape or their use. The literal-ness of lashown is given in its root word, lashan, meaning to slander others with the tongue, e.g. in human speech (God cannot slander). If we read the two Genesis texts referred to, we will find that the meanings are literal and refer to actual tongues and human languages.

"By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations."

Genesis 10:5

Notice the similarity with Genesis chapter 1, "after their kind"?  This text is literal - families were sent to different lands, in which they would eventually become separate nations, as we have them today.  The literal-ness is continued in the word 'tongue', meaning the tongue as a part of the body, an instrument of speech.  Thus, 'tongue' here means language. Particularly, given the context, it refers to 'foreign' languages...they are 'foreign' because they are not easily understood by peoples from other regions.  Nevertheless, they are human languages, with the potential for being understood by human effort.  Another indication that 'tongue' refers to human language is found in the list of peoples in the surrounding texts, which suggest peoples with different languages.  Charismatics may retort that an heavenly language would be 'foreign', but this is to stretch the point beyond credibility.  Anything supernatural is not just 'foreign' - it is totally 'otherness'. Also, such a suggestion does not fit scripture in general.

"These (are) the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in the countries (and) in their nations."

Genesis 10:20

The meaning of  the plural 'tongues' is exactly the same as in verse 5.  The reference to different 'countries' and to their 'nations' reinforces the literal meaning.  This is further supported by the incident at the tower of Babel.

Genesis 11:6, etc.

Named after the ancient city of Babylon (first mentioned in Genesis 10:10), the tower of Babel is found in  chapter 11.  In verse 6, God speaks of the single, unified language of the peoples of the world.  We should not be surprised by this, for they were all descended from Adam and Eve - the events in chapter 11 being not too far removed in chronological time from creation itself.  Therefore, they had the same language.

This was an human language, given by God at the beginning.  This same language as used by Adam when he spoke with God in the Garden of Eden.  It was used by Adam to name the animals and to speak with Eve.  He used it to speak with his sons and to their sons.  Over the hundreds of years of Adam's life, he used the same language and meanings as were given to him by God at Creation.

There is no mention whatever of Adam using an 'heavenly' language only understood by God.  This is an important point, for if God had intended men to speak to Him using a totally different (and incomprehensible!) language, we would have been referred to it in the early texts. Rather, this God-given language was used by God Himself to speak with men, and by men to speak with God, whether in prayer or in other circumstances.  The normality of prayer is in the fact that God walked in the Garden and spoke with Adam and Eve in their own tongue.  Prayer is no different from speech between two human beings in its structure, mode and meanings.

God wished to stop the building of the iniquitous tower that was being constructed to enable men to become like God.  Using a term of majesty (e.g. rather like the royal 'we'), which also indicates the Trinity, God said:

"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."

Those who believe that languages are part of the 'rich pattern of life' should think again, for the existence of a variety of languages is a sign of God's judgement upon a wayward people.

The word 'language', saphah, means language, speech or the lip (of the mouth).  Subsidiary meanings follow a similar line as do meanings for 'tongue' - shore, edge, brim, border, etc., because these are like 'lips' or edges of the body.

God 'confused' or mixed-up the language of the people, so that they did not understand what each was saying.  This led to instant chaos.  Men and women could not understand building instructions, but they could also not understand basic things, such as words for food and drink, shelter, etc.  They had to simply go away from each other!  They still used words, but not words that others could understand.  Possibly, groups of people, maybe families, used a similar language. Otherwise the only alternative was that they each had to decipher their new language on-the-spot.  But until they were able to do so, each language was 'foreign'.

God originally gave Adam (and his descendants) an unified language, a means of communication.  He gave them instant speech and understanding, plus meanings.  Now, He took it away again, so that they had to start again from scratch.  To ensure that the process was carried out, God dispersed the people to various lands.  All modern languages came from this single act of judgement.

The Lord, then, mixed the language so that the people "may not understand".  That is, they could hear the sounds but could not make sense of them - shama.  They could not understand "one another's speech" - 'one another' being rea‘, meaning intimate friend, a fellow citizen.  That is, someone who could be easily understood because they were known.

The 'speech' they could not understand - saphah - is the same word as is used for 'language'. Both 'speech' and 'language' refer to physical, actual, human language, as do the words 'tongue' and 'tongues'.  There is no evidence of God introducing men to ‘heavenly’ or 'angelic' or 'spiritual' language, that could not be understood by human means.  If God had intended us to use something as radical and humanly useless as a 'spiritual' language, which has no immediate connection with our daily existence, then surely we would find it somewhere in the Old Testament?  Of course, this is my opinion, not necessarily a point of fact.  God could quite easily have introduced a brand new mode of communication in New Testament times (as charismatics claim) only.  But this is not found in scripture, either.

When God called out to Adam and Eve in the Garden, after they had committed their sin, He used audible and understandable human language.  They "heard the voice of the Lord". The word shama is used - the same word as is used with reference to the tower of Babel.  That is, human words.  Or, rather, words given to humans by God, for their use.  They heard His 'voice' - qowl. In verse 9, "He called them" - qara’ - that is, He called them aloud, summoned them, by name, to stand before Him.  That is, God used the language He had already given them.

Logic tells us that if God gives men a language to use, then it is 'good', and there is no reason whatever to suddenly go against that logic by making them utter sounds they have no hope of understanding.  What can we say to God that cannot be said by words already at our command?  Also, God's own words only make sense to us because they are in human terms and mode.  It is a fact of  learning that we can only 'know' what we have experienced.  When we are saved, the act of God itself cannot really be understood, but the means used to give us that salvation are known to us, because they are given in human terms. If they were given in some unknowable 'spiritual' or 'heavenly' language, then we would never really know what it was, or what it means - or how to obtain it.  We would certainly be unable to authenticate it.

Language, even after Babel, remains essentially the same since the beginning of time.  Every language we now have originated in Eden. Thus, they all share the same basic elements of structure, mode and capability of being translated.  A language that cannot be translated, even after hard work, is not a language.  The most remote tribes use language in a way that can be understood, even if we have never heard it before and find its translation arduous and complex.  Once the basic 'codes' are discovered, it is just a matter of time before the meanings come through.

But this cannot be the case in the so-called 'tongues' found in today's charismatic circles.  They are the 'tongues of God', so they say, and only God understands them.  To me, this is like God giving us eyes, only to immediately blind us again, as if by whim.  He gave us language so that we could communicate, not only with each other, but also with Himself through the Holy Spirit.  There is no reason - no scriptural reason - why God should just lay aside His own law of order and means.

"...the letter (was) written in the Syrian tongue..."

Ezra 4:7

A different word is used for 'tongue' here - ’Aramiyth.  However, it has a straightforward meaning, consistent with the other words we have come across.  It means the language of Aram - Aramaic.  The literal meaning is confirmed by the masculine form, ’Arammiy, meaning Syrian; a thing of Syria/Aram.

"...I had held my tongue..."

Esther 7:4

In this text, tongue is charash, meaning to be silent, dumb or speechless.  This is also consistent with the idea of 'tongue' or 'tongues' in the rest of the Old Testament.  That is, the actual tongue as a part of the body, its use as an instrument of speech, or its shape.  Each time, the allusion is to the physical and actual, of human beings or of animals. There is no reference at all to some 'other', 'spiritual', or 'heavenly' language.

TONGUES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Probably, charismatics would accept the above argument, but would then say that the New Testament introduces the concept of an heavenly language, with particular appeal to the Book of Corinthians.  What we will now do is look at the actual words used in the New Testament for 'tongue' or 'tongues'.  Then we will examine the most appealed-to passages of the New Testament in favour of an heavenly language.  We will see that such an appeal is false, if we are to follow the normal rules of proper Biblical interpretation (as opposed to improper interpretation which attempts to make scripture fit human theory).

"...and he spit and touched his tongue..."

Mark 7:33

It is important to note the several New Testament words used in this section, for many charismatics try to use a Greek word of their own making, which is NOT found in scripture. Note that if the word does not exist in the New Testament, then it is an human invention. In this text the most common New Testament word for 'tongue' or 'tongues' is used - glossa.  It means the actual tongue, or the language of a particular people or nation, i.e. foreign language.  Glossa is also used in the oft-quoted texts in Corinthians.

"...is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda..."

John 5:2

As one can guess, this 'tongue' means exactly what it says.  The word is Hebraisti, meaning 'in Hebrew', i.e. Chaldee.  It is the adverb of Hebrais, meaning the Hebrew language (that is, the later Chaldee and NOT the earlier Hebrew of the Old Testament).  The literal meaning of Hebrais is confirmed by its root, Eber or Heber (or 'Hebrew').  Eber was the son of Salah; grandson of Shem; ancestor of Abraham.

"...that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama..."

Acts 1:19

'Tongue' here is dialektos ('dialect'), meaning conversation, speech, language, language of a nation.  Another reference to actual, human speech and to foreign languages.  Again, the literal-ness is confirmed by the root, dialegomai, meaning to think, argue or discuss.  How can one do these things, except by using ordinary, everyday language understood by others?

Even when Christ stopped Saul on the road to Damascus, Christ did not suddenly use an 'heavenly' language, though He was Himself with the Father:

"...I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul..."

So, Christ, in His ascended state, spoke to Saul in his own language (see note above for John 5:2) - not in an 'heavenly' language! If charismatics are right, why did Christ not use an 'heavenly' language?

And we ought to bear in mind the remonstration by Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:9:

"...except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?  for ye shall speak into the air."!

Charismatics please note that this is Paul speaking - one who spoke more 'tongues' than anyone!  We shall see that Paul does not refer to an heavenly language at any time, but to ordinary foreign languages spoken in extraordinary circumstances.  (This passage and others will be examined later).

"...in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon."

Revelation 9:11

The 'Greek tongue' also has a literal meaning - the Grecian language (Hellenikos), used at that time throughout the known world.

"...with men of other tongues and other lips..."

1 Corinthians 14:21

Here the word for 'tongues' is heteroglossos, meaning other tongues; one who speaks a foreign language.  It has its root in glossa and also heteros, meaning 'other', 'another'.  Nowhere in the meanings of these several New Testament words is there the slightest hint that 'tongue' or 'tongues' can mean an heavenly or spiritual language.  This being the case, should not the Bible student be wary when a charismatic interpretation is placed on the words?  If the actual meanings of the words do not sustain an 'other-world' interpretation of the texts - then how can charismatics claim that they mean heavenly or spiritual language?  How can the charismatic interpretation stand as truth, when the original languages say otherwise? It is impossible, and so we call on all charismatics to refrain from their falsity, for falsity is what it is, no matter how noble the reasons.

Even though the actual meanings of the words 'tongue' and 'tongues' cannot mean heavenly or spiritual language, we will examine various proof texts in their context.  In doing so, we would remind students and readers of the first rule of interpretation - that a text or word is taken to have a literal meaning unless the context says otherwise.  But note the important proviso - that the text or word may only sustain a figurative or non-literal meaning if the original language allows for both a figurative and a literal meaning in the first place.  Not all words in scripture may have both, although many do.

Also, the immediate context must agree with the surrounding context...and the surrounding context must agree with the general tenor of the rest of scripture.  Otherwise, we are left with arbitrary interpretations that have no basis in either original language meanings or in contextual analysis. (Note the concepts of Contextual and Universal Validity. See relevant Article). We will see that the charismatic interpretation of 'tongues' fails the tests of true interpretation.

Mark 16:14 onward

Jesus Christ appeared to the eleven and scolded them for their unbelief.  He then told them to go out and preach the Gospel.  Then, in verse 17, we have these words:

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues..."

Speak with new tongues?  Is this a reference to an heavenly language?  Bearing in mind the rule of interpretation, that text must be taken literally unless the context dictates otherwise, this merely means that they will speak in new languages - foreign languages. This should be rather obvious - the disciples were being told what they would do for, and to, the people: what possible use would the ability to speak an heavenly language be when preaching to unbelievers? Let us, though, take a closer look at the words used, with their meanings.

'Speak' or laleo, is to utter a voice or to make a sound.  That is, to use the tongue or faculty of speech; articulate sounds - words easily understood by others.  What of 'new tongues'?  'New' or kainos, can mean 'recently made and therefore superior', or 'of a new kind, unprecedented'.  'Tongues' in this text is glossa, meaning either the tongue itself, or a foreign language.

If we look at this text without reference to any other part of scripture, we could easily provide two alternative interpretations:

(a)  The newly-saved will, with their cleansed hearts, speak as holy and righteous.

(b)  The saved will receive the gift of foreign languages, to enable them to witness.

Both interpretations could be valid, except that the rest of scripture allows only one.  Only foreign languages can fit the text.  Can we interpret this text with the inclusion of 'heavenly language'?  Read it again for yourself!  Using the 'literal' rule, there is no way at all that 'heavenly language' can be read into it.  Indeed, such an interpretation would not even arise, unless someone has already put the seed into the mind!  The obvious interpretation of 'new tongues' can only be 'new languages'.  What matters is how we interpret the meaning of 'languages'.  As there are no references - none at all - in either the Hebrew or the Greek word-meanings to an heavenly language, we can  take the literal to be the case.

"And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire..."

Acts 2:3

'Tongues' here is glossa.  Therefore, the obvious interpretation is the one given in the text itself.  That is, a split-tongue-shape, looking similar to fire (not actual fire: the word hosei means 'as it were' or 'as though').  In the Mark text, glossa was interpreted as foreign languages.  Here, exactly the same word is interpreted as tongue-shaped, a reference to the actual tongue as part of the body.  The text itself provides the meaning.  In the very next verse, 'tongues' (glossa) reverts back to 'foreign languages'.

"And they...began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

Acts 2:4

They began to 'speak' - laleo.  That is, to utter articulate speech.  They spoke with 'other' -  heteros - tongues.  That is, 'another' or 'different'.  'Tongues' - glossa - foreign languages.  Note that they only spoke as the Holy Spirit prompted them to do so.  They were not in command of the gift.  This applies to all gifts, not just to tongues.  But how can we be sure that 'foreign languages' is the correct interpretation?  How do we know that we cannot give the meaning of 'heavenly languages' to the text?  We can be absolutely sure that glossa means foreign languages.

The proof is found in verse 11, which follows verse 4 chronologically.  In verse 11 we come across exactly the same word, glossa.  Here we see the interpretation:

"Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God."

One would have to completely ignore truth to apply a meaning of 'heavenly languages' to this text and to the word glossa!  In this verse we have both the interpretation of glossa and their valid use.  They are foreign languages, used to spread the Gospel.  The disciples began to speak in languages they previously did not know.  They did not understand what they said (unless God also gave them the gift of translation/interpretation). They had not previously been taught the languages.  Nevertheless, the Cretes and Arabians (and other nationals) heard and understood them, because they were human languages, not heavenly ones.

Questions for Charismatics

Questions are now asked of charismatics.  Why do you say you have an 'heavenly language', when the Bible refers to plural languages?  According to your own logic, if glossa must be translated (improperly) as 'heavenly languages', then we have an absurd position - virtually every person having a totally different spiritual language, known only to God!  For what reason?

Why should God provide us with language, easily understood as scripture tells us, only to give us completely different languages that we cannot formulate, understand or humanly translate?  It simply does not make sense.  And how are we to know if the one with a 'gift of interpretation' can actually interpret the particular 'gift of tongues' that we are using - or if, as is so often the case, he or she is simply making it all up?

God can do whatever He likes?  That is true, but He never contradicts His own laws or precepts.  He gave us order and languages and the ability to understand them.  Why should He suddenly turn all this on its head, making us open to demonic attack and intervention?  When we do not understand, we can easily speak the words of Satan - which already occurs, many times.  And are you really trying to say that the repetitive, unstructured 'phrases' of your 'heavenly tongues' make sense, even to God?  If so, why should God want you to repeat simple sounds, like an Hindu mantra?  Does this not contradict the warning of Christ, not to make vain repetitions?

And if you encourage those with 'new' gifts of tongues to 'just start making sounds and God will give you the tongues', how do you know when the human childishness ends and where the Holy Spirit starts to provide the words?  How do you know that the childishness does not continue, thus deluding yourselves?  The whole matter is too absurd!

Harsh Words?

Am I being too harsh on charismatics, by calling them 'childish' in their use of tongues?  Well, I would point the reader to 1 Corinthians 14, in which Paul spends some time in the proper instruction of tongues.  After he speaks of tongues as foreign languages he then says (paraphrased), in verses 18 - 20:

"I thank God that I speak more foreign languages than any of you.

Nevertheless, when in an assembly of Believers, I prefer to utter a few words that can be understood so as to instruct others, than to say many words in a foreign language (that cannot be understood).

So, brethren, don't be immature (childish).  Be immature in the things of evil, but in the things of God, be mature and adult."

Tongues, even in the early days of the Church, were low in priority.  Even if 'tongues' meant 'heavenly languages', note that the same rule would apply - don't use them privately, but only to build up fellow believers, and don't use them in public unless you can translate them for the benefit of others.  Otherwise, shut up!  However, that 'tongues' is used by Paul to mean 'foreign languages' is established by the text itself, i.e. in verse 10 Paul says:

"There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification."

As we will see in other texts, this is a direct reference to foreign languages. A sample paraphrase could be:

"There are, you see, so many nationalities in the world, and each of them wishes to speak."

Paul says this in the midst of his discourse on tongues, so the inevitable conclusion must be, that he speaks of foreign languages and not of heavenly languages.  Not convinced?  Then continue into verse 11, where he says:

"Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh (shall be) a barbarian unto me."

A 'barbarian' was, in the days of Paul, anyone who knew nothing of the Greek language and Greek culture.  As Greek was the language of the known world, anyone who did not understand it was considered to be ignorant and unlearned.  So, Paul is saying, in paraphrase:

"Therefore, if I don't understand the language, the one I am speaking to will think I am just an ignorant foreigner.  And likewise, one who speaks to me in a foreign language is also ignorant and cannot be understood."

As we look at other texts, this 'foreign language' meaning comes through time and again.  The charismatic, then, has no Biblical or theological foundation on which to build his theory of an heavenly language.

OTHER NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES

All references to 'tongue' up to Luke 16:24, are to the tongue as a part of the body.  In John 5:2 the reference is to the Hebrew language and in Acts 1:19, it is to the Aramaic.  After this, in Acts 2:8, 'tongue' is dialektos - a direct reference to foreign languages.  So we begin the next section with this text.

Acts 2:8

In verse seven the hearers of the Gospel were amazed, because they knew the speakers to be Galilaeans (who were supposedly ignorant and untaught).  They 'marvelled', which is why they go on to say (verse 8):

"And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

They were asking how ignorant, untaught men could possibly speak to them in their own languages (which, of course, were 'foreign' to others).  A list of the various languages is given in the form of nationalities: Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc.

Acts 26:14

This text has already been discussed. The ascended Christ spoke to Saul in Hebrew, and NOT in an heavenly language.

"...every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue (glossa) shall confess to God."

Romans 14:11

Every nation and human language shall confess to God.

1 Corinthians 14:2,4

The "(unknown) tongue (glossa)" in these verses is a foreign language, as an examination of the fuller text will show. 

1 Corinthians 14:9

Paul speaks of a 'tongue' (glossa - the actual tongue as an instrument of speech) as being easy to understand.  It could only be easy to understand in this context if it was in the hearers' own language.  That is why there is mention in Acts of Paul speaking to his audience in Hebrew, even though by both natural talent and by gifts, he was able to speak several languages.

1 Corinthians 14:13,14,19

"(unknown) tongue (glossa)"

Again, we have reference to a foreign language.  Glossa is also found in verses 26 and 27.

"And (that) every tongue (glossa) should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord..."

This refers to both the actual tongue and its use in speech, and to the languages of every nation.  This meaning is further reinforced by the use of glossa in the parallel text of Revelation 5:9/14:6:

"...out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation."

"...and they spoke with tongues, and prophesied." (verse 6)

Twelve men, who had repented "unto John's baptism", were led to salvation by Paul.  They then received the gifts of tongues (glossa, as foreign languages) and prophecy, in order that they might speak to others of God's Grace.  Why apply the meaning of 'foreign languages' to this text?  Firstly, that is the actual meaning of glossa.  Secondly, the circumstances and context suggest it.

Note that Paul was in Ephesus at the time.  It was the capital of the Roman province of Asia and contained a wide diversity of nationalities.  The city was famed throughout the known world for its riches and its buildings, such as the colossal Temple of Diana, which was erected by a mixture of nationals.

Ephesus had a thriving port and also a huge manufacturing industry, producing portable shrines to Diana.  These were bought by visitors (ancient tourists!) and tradesmen and found their way to many homes world-wide.  Thus, the cult of Diana spread with the shrines.

The theatre (where Paul was mobbed) could hold up to 30,000 people - the largest ever built by the Greeks.  It was probable that Paul "fought with beasts" (1 Corinthians 15:32) in the huge stadium (circus).  Today, the place is in ruins, except for a poor, small, Turkish village nearby.  But, in Paul's day, Ephesus was a busy, rich cosmopolitan city, a meeting point for many different merchants, nationalities and languages.

With such a background, to give the 12 saved men the gift of foreign languages makes eminent sense.  Thousands were saved on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, through the disciples who had been given a sudden gift of foreign languages (the context cannot sustain any other meaning).  It is not unreasonable to suggest that these 12 could reach many nations in exactly the same way, by being able to speak to nationals in their own languages.  This is a far better proposal than is the vague and pointless interpretation of 'heavenly languages'!  Why?  Because it looks at the text as a whole and not merely as something to feed a poorly invented theory.

The "(divers) kinds of tongues (glossa)" and "interpretation of tongues (glossa)" in this text, by the structure of the verse, refers to foreign languages.  The word 'kinds' is genos, meaning kindred, offspring, nation, stock, race, family...an obvious and direct reference to foreign languages.  Thus, the interpretation of 'kinds of tongues' can only be 'national languages' or 'foreign languages'.  The words themselves provide the translation.

1 Corinthians 12:28

Again, the "diversities (genos) of tongues (glossa)" in this verse refers to foreign languages - diversities being the same word as 'kinds' (genos).

1 Corinthians 13:1

This text is often used as 'proof' of the existence of an 'heavenly language':

"Though I speak with the tongues (glossa) of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become (as) sounding brass, or as a tinkling cymbal."

A number of interpretations are possible for this text, but one major point must be made:  whatever interpretation is placed on it, it must concur with all of scripture.  This is why I cannot accept the 'heavenly language' idea - it does not agree with what we are taught about gifts in general, or about their use, or about God Himself.

Before writing this verse, Paul had just finished saying "let me show you a better thing".  In 13:1 he goes on to use rhetorical argument based on one of his comparisons.  There is nothing new about him doing this, especially as he was a Jew of Jews, and Hebraic argument often used comparisons in order to put over a teaching.  Indeed, it was common for him to use comparisons and to use rhetorical statements.  And this is exactly what he is doing here.

The first word, 'Though' is ean, meaning 'if'.  Thus, we may paraphrase the text as follows:

"Even if I were to speak as a man, or as an angel, if I did so without brotherly love, then I make an empty noise, like that of an hollow vessel*, or of dancers' castanets+."

(Note: * A vessel made of brass, which would make a clanging sound if struck, because it is empty.

+ The word for 'cymbals' can also be a reference to large cymbals used during a war.  However, the word 'tinkling' suggests a less intimidating, 'smaller', almost irrelevant, sound.  Dancers' castanets were made of flat pieces of metal tied to the fingers and clapped together in the same way as Spanish castanets are played today.  As mainland Spain was invaded by Arab hordes, it is likely that this dance instrument therefore has a Moorish origin).

Of course, charismatics will place great emphasis on the word 'angel', the idea being that if angels have their own language, then so may God and those on whom He may wish to bestow it.  But the charismatic case is far from proven.  There are several problems with their argument, including:

1 Corinthians 14:21

1 Corinthians 14:23

BTM would like to hear from Christians who have been given the true gift of tongues and how God has led them to use it.  Please e-mail us with details on info@christiandoctrine.net.