An Analysis of the Article

By Paul Christensen

An Analysis of the Article:

The Gift of Tongues

Published by Word of Life Baptist Church
copyright © 1987, Fred G. Zaspel

Link to the original article: www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/spiritualgifts/ch18.htm

Mr Zaspel is a respected Bible teacher who is passionate about spreading the truth of the Word of God and he works hard to give ordinarily good and sound doctrinal teaching to his readers. My analysis of this particular article is not a criticism of his ministry overall, but is an attempt to examine what he is writing about the gift of tongues and to compare his views with what Paul teaches clearly in I Corinthians 14. It is important to examine his article to see whether he shares sound insights or whether he is merely repeating the old chestnuts that most other cessationists are promoting in order to discredit the modern use of the gift of tongues and to denegrate the thousands of Pentecostal and Charismatic believers who are practicing it in their churches and private prayers.

Quotations from the original article are in bold font.

In the first paragraph, the author states his premise. It is obvious that he is opposed to the gift of tongues, and sees the spread of it throughout most denominations in the Christian church as a 'crisis'. He talks about the practice 'invading' the church as if it were something negative and damaging to the church. This shows his prejudice right at the start. It gives open minded readers a clue that he is going to set out to prove that the gift of tongues, as practiced today, is false.

It should be emphasized that there is, of course, only one Standard by which we can measure such claims -- Scripture... Any and all experiences must be evaluated in light of the Word of God.

This is not disputed. But while the author makes this statement, we have to be sure that the views expressed by him are also based firmly on Scripture. If he objects to the use of the gift of tongues in today's church, then he has to have a good Scriptural foundation for his objection; otherwise he is contradicting himself by asserting that doctrine must be based on Scripture yet making objections which do not have a clear Scriptural foundation

The gift of tongues does not occur in Scripture as often as some may think. The only passages which deal with the gift in any specific way are Acts 2:1-13; Acts 10:44-48; Acts 19:1-7; and I Corinthians 12-14.

The author establishes the Scriptural passages that deal with the gift of tongues.

The Nature of the Gifts

Definitions

The gift of tongues was the supernatural ability to speak in a foreign, human language which was previously unknown or unstudied by the speaker.

The author has correctly defined the gift as it is reflected in Scripture.

Virtually all liberal theologians, because of their denial of the possibility of supernatural, direct revelation, teach that the gift of tongues was merely ecstatic utterance.

He is correct. There are many theologians who believe this. But there is a doubt as to whether the Scripture defines it in that way.

While they do not question the possibility of the supernatural, virtually all Charismatics and many non-charismatics teach the same.

This is simply not true. In my 12 years with the Pentecostal movement, having been exposed to a wide range of teaching of the gift, I did not hear any teaching that described tongues as merely ecstatic utterance. This is a misguided belief of any non-Charismatics who have had little or no experience of the gift, and who probably observed it in Charismatic meetings, but never attended any of the teaching sessions which could have explained the gift more clearly to them.

Many of them believe that while the tongues of the book of Acts were indeed foreign languages, the tongues of I Corinthians were ...were ecstatic utterances, gibberish...This is not the case, however, and that tongues were foreign languages is evident from the following considerations.

While it is correct that the manifestation of tongues in Acts 2 took the form of the languages of the people who were gathered in Jerusalem at the time, it is also correct to assume that this manifestation was a one off event for a particular purpose, which Peter went on to explain in his subsequent sermon. There is no evidence to say that the tongues that first manifested in the upper room before they went out on the street were or were not understandable foreign languages. It is just as feasible to believe that the nature of the tongues changed to that of understandable languages when the 120 came out onto the street after the initial manifestation, as it is to say that the tongues were understandable languages all along.

There is no support in I Corinthians 14 that the gift of tongues that Paul was talking about were 'ecstatic utterances' and 'gibberish'. Paul never referred to the gift of tongues as such. Actually nowhere in the New Testament passages is tongues described that way. The expression comes from those who misunderstand and oppose the practice of the gift, rather than those who support and practice it.

Likewise, the gift was clearly that of languages in Acts 10 also, for in Acts 11:15-17 Peter identifies it as the same phenomenon which occurred in Acts 2.

Luke does not say that the manifestation of tongues in Acts 10 was made up of understandable languages. To state that they were is making an assumption. The reference in Acts 11, is a general reference to the fact that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the gentiles as well as the Jews because the former had the same manifestation as the latter. There is nothing in Acts11 which gives support that the manifestation was exactly the same as was experienced on the street outside the upper room in Jerusalem. There is also no mention of the tongues of Acts 19 being understood by those who heard them. The author is basing an argument on silence, and merely assuming that the manifestation in Acts 10 and 19 were exactly the same as in Acts 2. He has no actual Scriptural basis for making that assumption. He is merely guessing that it was so.

The gift of tongues in I Corinthians is never stated to be anything different from that in Acts.

To use the same argument that the author is using for this, we might expect Luke to give explanations of what he wrote in his Gospel, seeing that he was an associate of Paul and had intimate knowledge of the Pauline revelation. Yet, he makes no mention of the Pauline revelation in his Gospel. This is because he deliberately keeps any personal beliefs and references out of his Gospel so that his account accurately portrays what actually happens during the Lord's earthly ministry. I believe that he has done exactly the same thing in the Book of Acts. He makes no doctrinal statements about the manifestation of tongues. He merely recounts the events as they unfolded, without adding any of the doctrinal teaching that he learned from Paul.

Paul gives doctrinal teaching concerning tongues in I Corinthians 14. Here, Paul is teaching the correct use of the gift to sort out some of the errors that the Corinthians were practising.

In I Corinthians 14:4 Paul states that the one speaking in a tongue edifies himself. It is evident, then, that he understood what he was saying...

This view is inconsistent with what Paul says later on about the nature of tongues. If he spoke in a language that he could understand, then he would be prophesying to himself and not speaking in tongues at all. To say that edification is impossble apart from understanding, is to limit the Holy Spirit to our human understanding. This was not what Paul was teaching at all.

The gift of tongues is often characterized, today, as though it were a holy trance of some kind, speaking things unknown even to the speaker himself!

Most Pentecostals and Charismatics would disagree with this statement. They regard trances as something that came from the devil rather than from the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 14:10-11...Paul is speaking of tongues "in the world" and demands distinct sounds, known language.

Paul is here speaking about the use of tongues in public church meetings where it is better to prophesy in a language that can be understood by all, thereby edifying the congregation.

I Corinthians 14:18 Paul states that he had spoken in tongues more than any of them.

It is obvious that here he is talking about his personal and private use of tongues, because he follows his statement "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all" with "yet in the church..." which clearly shows a distinction between his practice of the gift of tongues in private, and in the church where it is better for him to prophesy.

The only thing which could make it necessary...would be his need of it on his missionary journeys.

This is nonsense, and is not supported by anything that Paul is saying in I Corinthians 14. There is absolutely no evidence that he used the gift of tongues to preach the gospel in a foreign language to make himself understood.

In I Corinthians 14:21 Paul associates their gift of tongues with Isaiah's prophecy of Israel's hearing of the Assyrian language.

There is no Scriptural proof that Isaiah's prophecy was about the Assyrian language. This is probably a commentator's untested and unproven theory which the author is using to support his own theories.

The Greek words hermeneuo and diermeneuo rendered "interpret" and "interpretation" in I Corinthians 14, normally mean "to translate" from one language to another...This is its usual meaning throughout the New Testament and the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament; e.g., Genesis 42:23; Ezra 4:7; John 1:42; Acts 9:36). "Translation," then, points to language, not gibberish.

If the sense of 'interpretation' is 'translation' then the Scripture would have translated as 'translation' rather than 'interpretation'. The sense of interpretation consistent with I Corinthians 14 is to 'interpret and explain' the speech in tongues. [Amplified Bible]. This was never meant to be a direct translation, but someone with the gift of interpretation of tongues had the supernatural ability to interpret and explain the tongues speech that was made in the church meeting. The author is choosing one of the several meanings of the Greek word to support his view.

Jesus specifically forbids ecstatic speech in prayer: "When ye pray, use not vain repetitions as the heathen do" (Matthew 6:7).

This has nothing to do with the practice of the gift of tongues. It has more to do with the repeated incantation type prayers made by heathen in their style of worship. It is a stretch of Scripture out of context to use this to discount the practice of tongues.

It would seem that the evidence given above is insurmountable.

I would disagree. There are many holes in the author's evidence big enough to drive a London bus through them.

Objection #1. On Pentecost, when the apostles spoke in tongues, they were accused of being drunk (Acts 2:13).

The languages being spoken were understood clearly by the foreigners, so they were not the ones to raise the charge of drunkenness. Furthermore, as already shown, the tongues of Acts 2 are specifically called "languages" (dialektos) in verses 6 and 8.

This is not disputed, because this was the actual manifestation of Acts 2.

Objection #2. Paul speaks of the "tongues of angels" in I Corinthians 13:1, which must refer to a heavenly language unknown to any human.

The problem with this understanding of this phrase is that Paul...is simply speaking in the superlative to make his point...there is no example of anyone in the New Testament speaking in an angelic tongue.

This again is the author's own opinion. There is no Scriptural foundation for believing that Paul did not recognise that it was possible to speak with the tongues of angels.

Objection #4. The term "unknown tongue" indicates ecstatic utterance.

The first and most obvious problem with this argument is that the term "unknown" is an addition by the King James translators...even if the word were genuine...it could just as easily refer to language unknown to the speaker.

This is not quite true either. The translators of the Amplified Bible, after carefully studying the Greek, also refer to tongues as being unknown. This is the distinct impression they got when translating the Greek.

Objection #5. I Corinthians 14:2 says that the tongues speaker speaks "to God" and that "no man understands" the tongue.

Paul argues in this passage that an interpreter is necessary, otherwise tongues are worthless, because they will not be understood. As a result the one speaking in tongues (without an interpreter) speaks only to God, for, by the nature of the case, no man can understand him (because there is no interpreter).

The author sidesteps the main point of this verse and does not explain why Paul says that when a person speaks in tongues, 'no man understands him'. This is a direct contradiction to the author's main premise that tongues are understandable languages. Paul clearly contradicts him, and the author cannot make any useful explanation, but skips to the practice of tongues in the church which require an interpreter.

Objection #6. That an interpreter was needed in Corinth shows that Corinthian tongues were different from the tongues in Acts.

In Acts, the foreigners heard in their own language, so they needed no interpreter. In Corinth when a man spoke in a foreign language, it by the nature of the case was unintelligible; a translator was needed simply because there were no foreigners present to understand the languages spoken.

The author misses the point that the Corinthians could understand Hebrew, because many of them were converted Jews, and Latin because Corinth was part of the Roman Empire, and Greek because of the Hellenistic influences. Paul could speak in all three of these languages, so no-one had any problem understanding him. The author is merely using human wisdom to explain away what Paul was saying about tongues. His views have no Scriptural basis at all.

Objection #7. I Corinthians 14:14-15 says, "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also." It is argued that Paul here contrasts praying with the spirit with praying with the mind. Praying with the spirit, it is said, means praying with unintelligible speech, the mind being "unfruitful"; praying with the mind is praying in human language.

The Corinthians just may have been abusing the gift of tongues that way, and that is what Paul seeks to correct in these verses. These verses, then, would say that very thing in order to teach the exact opposite. The word "unfruitful" means "unproductive." It is evident by the explanation of verse 16 that Paul is speaking of public prayer. All he says is that if you pray in a tongue, you may think you are praying, but you are really accomplishing nothing; it is unfruitful, unproductive. You should rather be seeking to edify the church (verse 12); i.e., by praying in a language all can understand.

Clearly the author is having difficulty accepting the literal teaching of Paul. Paul is saying that when he prays in tongues, his mind is unfruitful, ie: he cannot understand what he is saying. When he is praying with the understanding, he is praying in one of the languages he can understand. He is clearly saying that when he is praying with the Spirit, he is praying in a language which he cannot understand, but believes that God can understand it. All Paul is seeking to teach is that it is better to prophesy in church in a language which can be understood, and leave the praying in tongues to a time when the believer is alone with God.

To say that praying in tongues is unfruitful and unproductive is a blatant misquote of the Scripture. What Paul is saying is that when he is praying in tongues his mind is unfruitful not that the practice of praying in tongues is in itself unfruitful. I think the author is deliberately twisting the Scripture to try and make it say what he wants it to say. This is an example of incompetent exegesis of Scripture.

In verse 15 he gives the solution: all prayer should be with the spirit and with the understanding both. In other words, it should all be intelligible; else it will not be productive, and those who hear will not be able to say "Amen" when you are finished "because he does not know what you say" (verse 16b).

Absolute nonsense. It is not what Paul is saying at all.

Many appeal to Romans 8:26 to support this same contention that praying "in the Spirit" is praying in ecstatic speech. "Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities, for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered." But notice that the "groanings" are made by the Spirit, not the Christian. This verse simply pictures the believer in prayer wanting but not really knowing how to pray in God's will, in which case the Holy Spirit takes that sincere heart of prayer to the throne in a prayer pleasing to God. The verse says nothing about "praying in tongues." Nothing.

Most Pentecostals and Charismatics whom I know would agree entirely with the Author's view here. I don't know how he thinks that they would make a direct comparison between this and tongues. Maybe some extreme Pentecostal groups might believe it, but most accept that this is a type of travailling in the Spirit which goes deeper than tongues or anything else.

Summary

The gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a foreign language previously unknown or unstudied by the speaker.

Not disputed.

The true gift had nothing to do with gibberish.

The gift of tongues as practiced today is not gibberish either. It is an articulate language understood by God.

The gift of the interpretation of tongues was the ability to translate the message given in a foreign tongue. There is no evidence that the tongues of Acts is any different from the tongues of I Corinthians, except as there may be some abuse of the true gift by the Corinthians.

This is not disputed in the main, except that the public tongues of Acts was with understandable language for a particular reason - the conversion of the pilgrims in Jerusalem. I think that Paul has successfully established that the tongues he refers to in I Corinthians 14 is different from those of Acts 2.

The Value of Tongues

It is important to understand the value which the New Testament places on the gift of tongues. Is the gift important? Was it important to the New Testament writers? The answer to that is clearly, "no!"

I disagree. Paul valued the gift of tongues very highly as evidenced by his statement "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all." If he did not value tongues highly, he would not have made this statement. There is no evidence that tongues were not highly valued by other New Testament writers just because they did not mention them. Paul's letter to the Corinthians existed in Apostolic times and it could be argued that after reading Paul's teaching on tongues, they did not have to add anything to it.

The Book of Acts

In the book of Acts, the gift of tongues is exercised only three times (Acts 2, 10, 19).

Each occurrence of tongues in the Book of Acts was for a particular purpose, therefore Luke recorded them. Luke was not setting out to give any doctrinal teaching on tongues. There are many other things that Paul teaches in his letters that are not recorded in Acts as well, so to use that as a reason for devaluing tongues is not a reliable foundation for doing so.

The Pauline Epistles

No New Testament epistle ever discusses or even mentions the gift except Paul's letter to the problem church of Corinth. Even in Ephesians and Romans where Paul mentions and lists various spiritual gifts, tongues are strikingly absent.

Each of Paul's letters deals with particular doctrinal points that are unique to each letter. Using the same argument, Paul does not emphasise the principle of Love in the same way in other letters as he does in I Corinthians 13. This does not mean that the attributes of Love are not important to every Christian.

I Corinthians 12-14

To emphasize tongues' relative unimportance, however, Paul is careful to always mention the gift last in his lists of gifts...He further shows the relative unimportance of tongues in I Corinthians 12:29-30 by pointing out that God never intended for everyone to have the gift.

There is nothing to suggest that Paul's lists of spiritual gifts and ministries are ranked in order of importance. He clearly teaches that all parts of the body of Christ have equal importance because they have particular functions that are important to the whole. When Paul asked whether all spoke in tongues, he is merely demonstrating that different people have different giftings in the general public ministry of the church according to the measure of faith given to them by God (Romans 12:3).

I Corinthians 14

1. The Theme

The striking thing about I Corinthians 14 is that even a casual reading of the chapter reveals that Paul is not at all emphasizing the gift of tongues, but he is actually de-emphasizing it.

This is not certain. He is merely giving the basic teaching on how to practice tongues and prophecy, and indicating the appropriate places to exercise both gifts.

Paul did not write I Corinthians 14 to elevate the gift of tongues but to examine and evaluate their abuse and overemphasis of it. He wrote to deal with a problem associated with the gift.

He did that to give sound teaching on the right use of tongues so that the Corinthians could compare their use of the gift with what Paul was saying about how it should be used.

Paul states at the very outset (verses 1-2) that tongues are inferior.

He does not say that at all. He is merely putting tongues into their rightful place. He never uses the word 'inferior' at all. This is an erroneous interpretation of the author.

The relative worthlessness of tongues is his stated theme throughout these verses.

Absolute nonsense. He does not treat tongues as being worthless at all. He merely says that in the church meeting, prophecy is better. It is amazing that the author will make such baseless statements. It shows bias and prejudice on his part. This does not reflect good, sound scholarship or exegesis.

Paul's stated purpose in chapter 14 is to show that gifts which present clearly the Word of God, either by revelation (prophecy, verse 1) or by teaching (verse 19), are vastly superior to tongues; this is his starting point in verse 1: "desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy."

Paul is speaking of the use of spiritual gifts in the church meeting. There is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the author to state that Paul viewed prophesy as 'vastly superior' to tongues in the general sense. The evidence is just not there to make an assertion like that.

The Illustrations

He then gives two illustrations of his point: 1) musical instruments (vv.7-9) and, 2) human language itself (vv.9-14; note the "so likewise" or "even so" of verse 9, pointing to the fact that he is illustrating his point of the preceding verses). The point of his first illustration is that the sounds must be distinct and clear, or else they are worthless. Did you ever hear a speaker who could amaze you with his speaking ability, but when he finished you wondered what he said? This is Paul's second illustration. Such a speaker "speaks into the air" (v.9). That, Paul says, is precisely what people think when you speak in tongues. You are like a barbarian to them, a foreigner, because they can not understand you.

Again, this is clearly in the context of a public meeting, and does not reflect what Paul himself practices in his private prayer time with God.

The rest of this section just continues to push his misunderstood interpretation of the Scripture.

Tongues Speakers: Who May Speak?

While many today are claiming that every Christian should enjoy the blessing of speaking in tongues, it is plainly evident that the New Testament never even implies any such thing.

The author is ignoring Paul's clear statement, "I would that you all spoke with tongues." (I Corinthians 14:5). Here is one New Testament statement that definitely implies that tongues is available to every Christian.

Paul expressly states in I Corinthians 12:29-30 that all do not speak in tongues: Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" The questions, as they are constructed in the Greek, demand a negative answer. To understand it fully, the questions should be read "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they?" etc. The plain statement is that God never intended for all believers to have the same gift.

There is nothing in this quotation that in any way implies that no-one at all should speak in tongues just because not everyone has the ability. Paul is merely making an observation that all people don't have the same gifts, just as the body has many different parts.

Many contemporary Charismatics, seeing the force of this, simply say that there are two different kinds of tongues -- one as the gift per se, and the other is a tongue for personal, private use and intended for all believers. Evidence? Nowhere does the Bible even hint that there is a gift of tongues which is not the gift of tongues. The assertion of it is simply gratuitous.

Again, the author is clearly ignoring many things that Paul is saying in I Corinthians 14. He has chosen the parts of the chapter that seem to support his prejudicial view, and has not honestly given a full exegesis of everything that Paul says about tongues in that chapter. Paul quite clearly states that he uses tongues in his private prayer time, but he would rather prophesy in the public church meeting. He quite clearly states that when a person is speaking in tongues he is speaking to God. Where else would that happen but in his private prayer time?

The Purpose of Tongues

The Wrong Purpose

Because the author completely misunderstands what Paul is saying in I Corinthians 14 about the use of tongues in Paul's private prayer life, his conclusions about the purposes of tongues is meaningless. The only place where tongues are misused is in the public church meeting where unbelievers or uninitiated persons are present. The author seems to have little insight into what private prayer entails, or the ability of the Holy Spirit to enable a person to speak a spiritual language that builds him up spiritually.

Summary

Tongues were never intended for personal, devotional use.

Again, Paul quite clearly stated that he spoke in tongues 'more than them all'. By saying "but in the church" he clearly implied that the bulk of his tongue speaking was in private to God. He stated that very clearly. The Author is blinded by his own prejudice against tongues to have insight into what Paul is actually saying.

The Regulations

As we have seen throughout I Corinthians 14 Paul has been severely restricting the gift of tongues.

Not at all! He clearly told them not to forbid the speaking of tongues (I Corinthians 14:39). If he was severely restricting it, he would not have made that statement. The Author's statement is totally unfounded.

The Rules

Here are the rules which the apostle Paul gives for the exercise of the gift of tongues.

If the author is teaching that the gift of tongues is no longer practiced today, as he has stated elsewhere, why bother to waste our time with the rules? He has already shown his lack of insight into how the gift operates, so no one in his church would even try to speak in tongues or to interpret any that were spoken.

Evidence

The Bible states in several ways and provides several reasons why tongues can not be a part of the church today.

1. Paul directly stated in I Corinthians 13:8 that tongues would cease...Whatever may be unclear about this passage, the plain fact is that the inspired apostle said that they would stop.

This is based on a misquote of the verse. Paul is clearly talking about the second coming of Christ, when tongues, prophecy and knowledge will cease. The "perfect" he is talking about is the revelation of the true Bride of Christ which will be revealed at His second coming.

2. The Pattern of Biblical history is that miraculous gifts are given for a short time only and then withdrawn.

There is no evidence at all in Scripture that the New Testament gifts of the Holy Spirit were given for a short time only. The pattern of Church History shows that after the First Century A.D. the church started to become divided, confused and formalised. The Holy Spirit withdrew, along with His supernatural gifts. It was not because God intended it that way. The fault was the failure of men to keep in the will of God.

3. The history of the New Testament gives clear record that the miraculous gifts were dying out even before the death of the apostles themselves.

This was because the church was degenerating into division and confusion. Many of the epistles (eg, John's epistles) were written to combat some serious heresies that were invading the church.

4. Revelation has ceased, and so the gift of tongues, which was a revelatory gift, has ceased as well.

God has not stopped speaking to us. Revelation has not ceased. Although all current revelation has to be entirely consistent with the Word of God, He is still revealing truth to us. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the author's statement here. Tongues are not a revelation gift. They are a prayer resource.

5. The purpose of tongues has been served, and so they are no longer needed. They were to serve as a sign to authenticate the gospel and to demonstrate the unity within the body of Christ. With the Christian church and its unity an established fact, the signs of the same would serve no purpose.

This is the author's own opinion, and it is sheer speculation. Given the state of the world today, it is painfully obvious that we need the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit today.

6. The complete inferiority of the gift of tongues to prophecy (I Corinthians 14:1-3) or even teaching (verse 19) renders it unneedful. It really can accomplish nothing but what could be better and more easily accomplished by teaching.

It has already been established that Paul did not describe the gift of tongues as being inferior. All he said was that it was inappropriate to speak it in a public meeting.

7. The very attitude of the apostle Paul toward tongues expressed in I Corinthians 14 and his stringent restrictions placed upon the gift almost eliminate tongues entirely (e.g., verse 19).

Unreliable statement. Not supported by Scripture. This is what the author would do in his own congregation. He would rebuke and forbid the speaking of tongues in his own church so as to quench any move of the Holy Spirit to release His gifts to that church.

Conclusion

The gift of tongues was the gift of languages, a miraculous sign gift directed toward unbelievers but emphasized very little in the New Testament. The gift was given to only a relative few in the early church and was never intended to be possessed by all believers. Even while the gift was being given, certain stringent limitations were placed upon its use. Following the foundational phase of the church with the death of the apostles, the gift was no longer given. It naturally follows, then, that the gift of the interpretation of tongues is gone as well.

The author's conclusion is his own personal speculation, which has little foundation in Scripture. He is merely repeating the premise he started off with, and tried to fit the Scripture in to prove his point. I don't think that he is successful in proving to any open minded Bible scholar that his view correctly reflects what Paul taught about the gift of tongues. He is merely repeating the views of most Cessationists who doggedly hold to one or two verse of Scripture wrested out of context to provide evidence of their position.

Now that I have finished analysing Mr Zaspel's article, I will now turn to my own exegesis of the sections of I Corinthians 14 that he has missed out. I am using The Amplified Bible for my Scripture quotes, because I have absolute confidence in the accuracy and professionalism of this translation of the Bible. To compare interpretations, I also refer to the New American, New King James, The New International, and The New English Bible.

My Exegesis

Before we start, here is the link to my full exegesis of I Corinthians 14 at http://personal-communication.net.nz/1Corinthians14.html.

It is important to realise that Paul made direct statements that were meant to be taken literally. The problem with many commentators is that they are looking for alternative meanings in passages of Scripture that if they were taken as read, the meaning would be instantly obvious. Perhaps there are those because of their prejudiced view are unable to accept what is right there in front of them, and so they try to come up with some deeper interpretation of the text. I take the attitude with Paul's letters, that he meant literally what he said, and there is no 'sub text' in his writing. Paul was not a prophet. If he was, then the style of his writing would have been more prophetic and poetic, inducing the readers to look for sub texts and hidden meanings in his words. Paul was an apostle, and a straight talking preacher. What he said literally is what he meant. This is the way that I am approaching this chapter.

2. For one who speaks in an [unknown] tongue speaks not to men but to God, for no one understands or catches his meaning,

The obvious meaning of this phrase is that there are people who can speak in unknown tongues - languages which are not learned by the speaker who does not understand what is being said. He is speaking in faith, believing and trusting that God understands what he is saying. Because the tongues speaker is speaking to God rather than men and women, the speaking in tongues is an act of prayer. Prayer is the expression of a person's heart toward God, and the speech is directed to God. This is why there is no purpose in speaking in tongues to other people, because without an interpreter to make the speech understood by the hearer, the listeners would be none the wiser. Therefore, speaking in tongues directly to other people is actually a pointless activity. Paul makes that quite clear later on in the chapter.

because in the Holy Spirit he utters secret truths and hidden things [not obvious to the understanding].

So when a person is speaking in tongues to God, he is saying things that God understands. They are secret truths and hidden things that are shared between the believer's spirit and God. The Holy Spirit makes the communication possible through the gift of tongues. This is where the believer moves at a deeper spiritual level than the wisdom of the natural mind. The Scripture supports the concept of a wisdom that comes through the Holy Spirit that is higher than the natural wisdom of man. While the person is speaking in tongues, his natural mind is disconnected, other than for knowing that he is speaking an articulate language, and something important is being communicated to God through the Spirit. This means that the tongues speaker is not speaking random gibberish, but is deliberately speaking an articulate language with a grammatical structure and style. There can be changes of language, and the believer is instantly aware of the change of expression, structure and style when that happens. In the light of this, tongues spoken genuinely cannot be random gibberish.

4. He who speaks in a [strange] tongue edifies and improves himself...

It is because of the communication of secret truths and hidden things in the Spirit that the believer builds himself up in the Spirit. He improves his fellowship and intimacy with God, and his sensitivity to hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit in all areas of his life.

5. Now I wish that you might all speak in [unknown] tongues,

Paul's obvious desire here is that all believers may speak in tongues. It is fully accepted that not all believers actually do speak in tongues, and Paul recognises that in remarks he makes later in the chapter; but his personal desire is that as many as possible be able to speak in tongues because he recognises the great value of it for personal spirituality.

5b. he who prophesies is greater (more useful and more important) than he who speaks in [unknown] tongues, unless he should interpret [what he says, so that the church may be edified and get good out of it.

The context of this is in the church meeting, surrounded by other believers. Here, a person who prophesies is more important to the other believers, because he is saying things that are easily understood. Prophecy is speaking inspired truths to other believers; therefore in the church context, that is much more helpful in building the whole fellowship up.

But note that he uses the word unless to include the usefulness of tongues plus interpretation. If a tongues speaker is able to interpret what he is saying so that fellow believers can understand the words he spoke in tongues, Paul says that he is just as useful to the church as one who prophesies.

10. There are, I suppose, all these many [to us unknown] tongues in the world [somewhere], and none is destitute of [its own power of] expression and meaning.

This is a very interesting statement. Paul is linking the speaking of unknown tongues to understandable languages which may exist somewhere in the world. This means that a person, speaking an unlearned language in faith, could be speaking an understandable language without knowing it. I have personally experienced this when I spoke in tongues near a Maori (indigenous New Zealander) woman who told me afterward that I had spoken encouraging things in the Maori language. I have never learned Maori, but this woman recognised and understood it. All the time my perception was that I was speaking an articulate language that I was making up in faith. The same thing happened to a friend of mine who spoke an obscure Ghanaian dialect in a prayer meeting and a visitor from that region in Ghana understood it perfectly and rejoiced over what was being said. I have also heard accounts of Africans in Kenya speaking pure Oxford English when they spoke in tongues. When they spoke English naturally it was heavily accented. When they spoke it in tongues, there was absolutely no accent at all.

So, when a person speaks in tongues, the language is real, and it has its own power of expression and meaning. This is the miracle of faith, that a person can make up a language in the Spirit and it can be understood by God, and perhaps somewhere else in the world. It would be good for those who oppose the present day use of tongues to try and explain away the examples I have given in the previous paragraph.

13. Therefore, the person who speaks in an [unknown] tongue should pray [for the power] to interpret and explain what he says.

Now this statement totally contradicts those who teach that tongues can be translated through natural ability. Paul is saying that if a person speaks in tongues, let him pray for the power to interpret and explain it. The very fact that he tells the tongues speaker to pray to God for the power to interpret shows clearly that interpretation of tongues comes through the power of the Holy Spirit and not the natural ability to translate foreign languages. My earlier examples show that when a person speaks in a tongue which is understandable by someone else in the meeting, the other person is able to translate what is being said through his natural mind. I wonder what would be the result if the tongue was interpreted by someone else who did not know the language in the natural sense and was not able to translate it normally? Wouldn't it be a special event if the interpreter's explanation was the same as the translator's? I would like to know of examples where this has actually happened, because this would be an undeniable proof that the present day use of tongues is fully genuine and supported by the Holy Spirit.

14. For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit [by the Holy Spirit within me] prays, but my mind is unproductive.

Paul is going back to the private use of tongues in the personal prayer time. Prayer is always directed to God. Therefore, Paul is not talking about the church use of tongues here, which needs an interpreter to make them useful to others. In the prayer closet there are no others except the Lord Himself. What happens when a person prays in tongues is that the person's spirit, inspired and activated by the Holy Spirit within him, prays. He is conscious of praying, and senses a flow of spiritual communication with God, but he does not understand with his natural mind exactly what he is praying about.

15. Then what am I do do? I will pray with my spirit - by the Holy Spirit that is within me;

Paul has already described the function of this in the previous verse.

but I will also pray intelligently - with my mind and understanding;

Here he is praying with his native language, utilising his mind and intellect as he prays.

I will sing with my spirit - by the Holy spirit that is within me; but I will sing (intelligently) with my mind and understanding also.

Here is Paul's clear validation of singing in tongues. He is still in the context of his private prayer time. He can therefore choose when he wants to pray in tongues, or in his native, learned language. He can also choose to sing in tongues, and to sing in his native language. He has the perfect choice to engage in either level of communication and worship with God.

Now there needs to be said that speaking in tongues does not involve ecstasy or trances. Those who believe and teach that tongues are an ecstatic activity are seriously mistaken. A genuine tongues speaker, like Paul, has perfect control over his speaking or not speaking. He is not driven my emotion or trancelike behaviour. He makes intelligent spiritual choices over what type of communication and worship he chooses. Paul never mentions ecstasy or trances anywhere in connection with the speaking of tongues. It is sad that some are deliberately teaching the absolute nonsense that people have to go into an ecstatic, trancelike state in order to be able to speak in tongues.

17. To be sure, you may give thanks well...

This is a follow on from the previous verse where Paul describes someone giving thanks in tongues among other believers. He does say that it is an unproductive activity as far as other believers are concerned, but in this verse he acknowledges that the speaking in tongues in itself is enabling the speaker to give thanks well. He supports the giving of thanks in tongues as a good spiritual activity, but not productive to other believers.

18. I thank God that I speak in [strange] languages more than any of you or all or you put together;

This statement shows clearly that Paul put a very high value on his personal use of tongues. This totally contradicts anyone who teaches that Paul taught that tongues were inferior. I believe that there are reasons why Paul highly valued tongues, and I intend to explore them in a future article where I will deal with the link between tongues and the prophetic.

19. nevertheless, in public worship, I would rather say five words with my understanding, and intelligently in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a [strange] tongue.

The key to understanding Paul's attitude to tongues is found in this statement: "nevertheless, in public worship..." Paul definitely puts tongues in second place in the area of public worship. There is no doubt about that. The great mistake that opposers of tongues make is that they miss the fact that Paul puts tongues right at the top of the list in his private prayer and worship. Verse 18 clearly supports his high value on tongues when he is alone with God and communicating with Him.

In general, Paul includes the use of tongues in public worship in his statement in verse 26: When you meet together, each one has...an utterance in a [strange] tongue or an interpretation of it.

He does not leave tongues out of the public worship altogether, but he couples it with interpretation.

27. If some speak in a [strange] tongue, let the number be limited to two or at the most three, and each one [taking his] turn, and let one interpret and explain [what is said].

Here, Paul explains the correct use of tongues and interpretation in an environment of decency and order. This is the way it should happen in any public worship service. He then goes on to explain what should happen if there is no interpreter. The tongues speaker should keep still and talk to himself and God. Here is another place where Paul shows that tongues is a form of communication between the believer and God.

39b. and do not forbid or hinder speaking in [unknown] tongues.

This is a clear instruction from Paul not to forbid or hinder the speaking in tongues. Notice that in verse 37 he says: If anyone thinks and claims that he is a prophet...let him understand (recognise and acknowledge) that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. And the next verse: 38. but if any one disregards or does not recognise (that it is a command of the Lord], he is disregarded and not recognised - he is one whom God knows not.

So, the command not to forbid or hinder the speaking of tongues falls within the parameters of verses 37 and 38, showing that the command is a command from the Lord through Paul. This means that those who do not comply with the command are not recognised or known by the Lord.

There are many church leaders who oppose the speaking of tongues, declaring that tongues and other spiritual gifts passed away and are no longer in use. They teach that the speaking of tongues is false, and they would definitely forbid and hinder the speaking of it in their churches. Good people have been ejected from such churches because they chose to speak in tongues as part of their worship,

I assert on the basis of verse 37 and 38, that these church leaders are not recognised by the Holy Spirit, because they are willfully disobeying a command of the Lord, through Paul, not to forbid or hinder the speaking of tongues. The tragedy of this is that those leaders, and those who are under their leadership and being taught by them do not know that they have no power of the Holy Spirit with them, and that they are living a spiritual lie. They present themselves as men and women of God, yet they are nowhere, unrecognised by God. This is a hard word, but it is true.

Of course, there are other commands in the chapter that fall under the same category, and there are many Pentecostal and Charismatic leaders who are not following Paul's guidelines concerning tongues and prophecy in their churches. If I am going to give a hard word to those who debunk and oppose tongues, I need to give the same hard word to those who willfully ignore the commands of Paul and allow tongues speakers to run rampant in their meetings without any sign of an interpreter.

But the conclusion of this is that tongues was designed by the Holy Spirit to have a vital function in the personal life of every believer, and this was to continue from Apostolic times right through to the Second Coming of Christ, when tongues, prophecy and knowledge would pass away and be replaced with direct communion with God and the Lord Jesus Christ. But the supernatural gifts passed away a lot sooner than planned, because successive generations of Christians were less spiritual and close to God than the previous. Heresies and divisions ultimately reduced the church to confusion and chaos, and sound doctrinal teaching disappeared for centuries until the Reformation. From the Reformation until the present day, the Holy Spirit has been gradually restoring the things the church had lost. Spiritual gifts, including tongues, was part of that, and the restoration of those to the church at large happened around the beginning of the Twentieth Century.

I think that it is important to take the Scripture concerning spiritual gifts at the literal face value. Paul means exactly what he says. His teaching in I Corinthians was designed for the whole church, as in verse 2 of chapter 1, where he says "to the church of God which is in Corinth...together with all those who in any place call upon and give honour to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours. I don't know what this says to you, but it shows that the book of I Corinthans was written as much for me in the present day as it was to the Corinthians so many hundreds of years ago. So, we can safely ignore those who teach that Paul's words in this book were just for a group of carnal, disobedient Corinthians. They were written for all us all through all the centuries, and are just as applicable today as at any time in the history of the church.

Another point that needs to be made is that there have been reliable testimonies of Christian believers being miraculously healed of medical conditions given up by the medical profession. There are many testimonies, backed up my hospital and medical records that if these were submitted to any law court, the evidence would be overwhelming to support the genuineness of the healings.

Two very notable examples of ministries which totally supported to modern use of the gift of tongues are that of Smith Wigglesworth and Kathryn Khulman. The healings that took place in their ministries are undeniable and are supported by the hundreds of believers who were healed of heart conditions, cancers, and other conditions given up by the medical profession.

In the case of Kathryn Khulman, whose ministry was at its height in the late 1950s/early 1960s, did not seek a healing ministry. She set out to preach the Gospel and to get sinner saved. The healings happened in a spontaneous and unexpected way. People even got healed as they travelled across the country to get to her meetings. She never promoted healing, nor did she lay hands on any of the sick people. She found out about the healings after the miracles happened.

In the case of Smith Wigglesworth, his was a world-wide ministry in the 1920s, and the testimonies of healing, backed up by medical records in the many countries that he visited are in the public record. Wigglesworth was a passional advocate of the gift of tongues, and his teaching about the gift has been adopted by many Pentecostals in subsequent years.

Now, my view is that God undeniably supported these ministries, something He would not have done if the gift of tongues they practiced and taught was false. God requires complete holiness, and His Holy Spirit will not operate where there is error, heresy, or falsehood; so the gift of tongues these ones practiced had to be entirely genuine in His sight.

Now, some detractors, ignorant of Scripture, will try and say that these ministries perpetrated "lying signs and wonders", induced by the devil. But this cannot be true because in the teaching of both these ministries and of the other ministries that featured miraculous healing, they clearly state that they believe that Jesus came "in the flesh", in other words, as a real human being, and that they fully acknowledged Jesus as Lord of all, something that the devil could never do. Also thousands of people have come to Christ and had their faith strengthened over the years, even after these ones passed away. Their literature is still having a positive effect on Christians all over the world. We cannot say this is of the devil, because like Jesus said in response to the Pharisees accusing Him of healing people through the power of the devil: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The devil is not going to work so hard to damage his own kingdom of darkness by inspiring ministries to bring people to Christ and for them in turn to be effective soul-winners, winning souls out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Christ. There is no way these ministries could be of the devil. Therefore they had to be operating by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Of course, Mr Zaspel and his followers will never see that. They are as conditioned against Pentecostal and Charismatic theology as the unbelieving Jews were against the Gospel of Christ. I am not saying that Mr Zaspel is in error in the other sound doctrines he teaches. He is blinkered just in terms of the gift of tongues. Unfortunately, in his treatment of I Corinthians 14, he is making the classic mistake of fitting the Scripture in with his settled beliefs. The Pharisees were just the same. They were expert in the Old Testament Scriptures, yet they missed the true Messiah, although He was able to demonstrate His Messiahship through the Scriptures themselves. Even though Stephen was able to clearly show the truth of the Gospel through the Scriptures, the Jews ended up stoning him, such was their prejudice. And yet, the Jews were sincerely believing that they were serving God by their opposition to the Gospel. They thought they were doing the will of God in having Christ crucified. Paul was the same. He put Christian believers into prison any chance he got, until Jesus had to personally reveal Himself on the Damascus Road.

The purpose, then of my analysis, is not to convince Mr Zaspel or his followers, but to make sure that honest seekers of the truth about the Pentecostal/Charismatic gift of tongues get both sides of the story, and to be able to make up their own minds about which way they will believe.

In conclusion, my view is that Paul's teaching on the spiritual gifts, including the gift of tongues, is applicable to me and you, in the right here and now. In order to be consistent with Scripture, it cannot be viewed any other way.