THE DEFINITION OF TONGUES

By Pastor Art Watkins of Coden Bible Church (Coden, Alabama)

May 1, 2010

There is a law of Bible study called "The law of first mention". This means: The way something appears for the first time in the Bible fixes its definition for the rest of the Bible. Its first mention fixes its definition from that time forward. The first time men were given the gift of tongues was in Jerusalem in 33 A.D. That event is recorded in Acts chapter 2. What God says about tongues in Acts chapter 2, fixes the definition of tongues for the rest of the Bible. The gift tongues in the Bible are the tongues of Acts 2. If they are not the same as Acts 2 they are not the true gift of tongues.

It says in Acts 2:1-8 "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it set 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. 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 marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaians? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"

According to vs. 5 on the Day of Pentecost, there were a great number of Jews and Gentile proselytes gathered together in Jerusalem out of every nation under Heaven. Because they were many nations and nationalities present that day there were also many different languages spoken. In order for all these men out of every nation under heaven to believe the Gospel they had to hear it preached in their own language. Therefore, God gave the 12 Apostles the gift of tongues and according to vs. 4 when they spoke in tongues, they spoke in the language of everyone present in Jerusalem.

Compare vs. 4 with vs. 6.
In vs. 4 it says that "they began to speak with other TONGUES"
In vs. 6 it says: "every man heard them speak in his own LANGUAGE"

In the Bible, when men spoke in tongues, they spoke in languages that could be interpreted and understood. That's why the words tongues and languages are used interchangeably in Acts 2:4-6.

See also Duet. 28:49 and Jer. 5:15. (Other verses that define tongues as being languages are Jn. 5:2, Acts 21:40, Acts 26:14, Rev. 5:9, 7:9, 9:11, 10:11, 11:9, 13:7, 17:15, 14:6.

(The word for tongues is the greek word GLOSSA. It is the word translated tongues in Acts 2:4 as in all these verses.)

Make no mistake about it, when the Apostles spoke in Tongues, THEY DID NOT SPEAK IN MINDLESS GIBBERISH AND UNINTELLIGENT BABBLING. They spoke in foreign languages, understood by men out of every nation under heaven. Every nationality present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost heard the gospel preached in their own language.

There are many of charismatics who try to get around the fact that tongues are languages, by saying the tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 are different because they are called "unknown tongues" and they needed an interpreter, whereas the tongues in Acts 2 did not need an interpreter and they are not called "unknown tongues". The answer is simple: The tongues spoken by the twelve in Acts 2 were not unknown because they were spoken in the language of everyone present. Acts 2:6 says: that every man heard them speak IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE".

The 12 spoke in the languages of everyone present that day, therefore those tongues were not unknown. And because every man heard them speak in his own language, there was no need of an interpreter.

But, the tongues spoken by the men in the church of Corinth were unknown to some people, because they did not speak in the language of everyone present. Only 3 MEN could speak in tongues in the church at Corinth, whereas, 12 men spoke in tongues in Acts 2. And because only 3 men could speak in the Church, there was always someone present who did not hear his language spoken, and to them everything that was spoken was an unknown tongue. And due to that fact, there was always a need for an interpreter in Corinth.

Illustration

Suppose there was a Russian, a Chinese and a Japanese present in your Church. You got up and quoted Eph. 2:8-9 in Russian, someone else quoted Eph. 2:8-9 in Chinese, then someone else got up and quoted it in Japanese. Would there be a need of an interpreter? No. Everyman heard Eph. 2:8-9 in his own language. If we quote Eph. 2:8-9 in the tongue of all three men, have we spoken in an unknown tongue? No, everything we said was understood by all, because we spoke in the language of each man present. That's the way it was in Acts 2.

But suppose there was a Russian, Chinese and Japanese present and someone got up and quoted Eph. 2:8-9 in Russian, someone else got up and quoted Eph. 2:8-9 in Chinese, but no one quoted it in Japanese. Have we spoken in an unknown tongue? Yes. Unknown to who? The Japanese. Would there be a need of an interpreter ? Yes. For who? For the Japanese. That's the way it was in Corinth.

In Jerusalem in Acts 2 there was no need for an interpreter because the 12 spoke in the language of everyone present.

In Corinth there was a need of an interpreter because the 2 or 3 men who spoke, did not speak in the language of everyone present.

In Jerusalem in Acts 2 the tongues spoken were not unknown, for everyman heard them speak in his own language.

In Corinth the tongues spoken were unknown to some people, because the 2 or 3 men who spoke, did not speak in the language of everyone present. (The City of Corinth, was a cosmopolitan city with men and women of many nationalities and tongues. No doubt it was quite probable that the Church at Corinth had in the congregation individuals who spoke many languages other than Greek).

But in any case, whether known or unknown, whether an interpreter was needed or not, tongues are languages and languages are tongues. And every tongue can be interpreted. And if that which is spoken cannot be interpreted, then it is not a tongue.