Today’s “tongue speaker”
By Timothy Glover
Tongue speaking today is often called “glossalalia”. Those who believe in it today identify it with the New Testament gift. Is it the same? Let’s examine this question:
Glossalalia is an ecstatic speech often connected with religious excitement. Ira Martin, in his doctorate dissertation at Boston University describes it as “frenzied, inarticular jargon with a sprinkling of coherent ejaculations whose inflections and tonal qualities have characteristics of speech.” It seems to be uncontrolled by the speaker and not understood by the speaker. Psychologically, Stuart Bergsma wrote, “..a psychological state in which the consciously controlling apparatus of the mind is not dominant, a state in which the primitive reactions find their way to the surface, a state in which speech continues after thought is exhausted and a series of meaningless syllables results.” These syllables may have characteristics of language, yet they are not understood by the speaker nor the listeners. Similar descriptions occur in ancient and modern world religions as well as abnormal psychological experiences.
It is clear that such experiences occur. The issue lies in one’s interpretation of the experience. Many explanations are offered. Some of the views are that it is language known in previous existences, demon possession, God’s help in communicating to another people, or evidence of psychological abnormalities.
There are as many variations in explaining the “language”. Some see it as a “heavenly language” (tongues of angels”, 1 Cor 13:1) that is not understood by ordinary humans. Others understand that it was the “one speech” of Adam’s day before the tower of Babel was built (Genesis 11). Still, others see it as primitive languages or a spiritual language given by the Holy Spirit to express our deepest emotions. Yet, it is still within the realm of possibility to see glossalalia as ecstatic utterances outside religious explanation.
In the First Century Glossalalia were found in the pagan cults like the Thracian Dionysus cult, the Delphic of Plhrygia and the Sybils. It was also customary to find “divine healers” not associated with the New Testament. The existence of all of these does not prove that the Christ and apostles of the New Testament was just another of the same kind. It would be a mistake to judge a televangelist by all televangelists or one politician by all politicians, etc. Granted, it is highly suspect unless we have proof that verifies their uniqueness and dissimilarity in character.
In the first place, the evidence from the pagan cults points to unintelligible utterances that, if it could be called “a language”, arose in a frenzied state of mind. Second, the glossalalia of the New Testament clearly identifies the speech as a language. Such languages were actually spoken by people. The KJV translates, “unknown tongue”. It was added by the translators to clarify when it really made matters worse. In fact, the translators of glossa in the N.T. is varied and confusing. The important question here is, “Unknown to whom?” These were languages (dialects) spoken by people who previously had no knowledge of them (Acts 2). The language was unknown to the speaker. Their “understanding is unfruitful” (1 Cor. 14:14). It was rational to the unbelieving ears because it was designed to verify the claims of inspiration (14:22). The effect upon the listeners suggest that it was intelligible, rational yet unexplainable apart from divine help ( 1 Cor. 14:25, we shall explore this further next week). I doubt the effect would have been the same if N.T. tongues were the same as pagan ecstatic utterances. Tongues were not a sign to the believer, thus Paul sets prophecy over it and discourages its use altogether unless an interpreter was present. Why? Because all would not be edified. Why? Because they wouldn’t understand it! It’s purpose was not designed to arouse the emotions into a frenzied state but to give understanding of objective truth (when edification occurs).
