“For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.”
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God,
The first time the New Testament uses the word “tongues” is for known human languages (Acts 2:4-12). The Greek word is glossa from which we get the English word “glossary.” A glossary is a compilation of words, something like a dictionary, which appears at the end of a book to tell us what terms mean. Every time the words “tongue” or “tongues” appears in the New Testament, it means foreign language, except for the literal tongue in the mouth or a figurative use such as “tongues of fire.”
All speaking in tongues in Acts refers to known human languages. The people also spoke in dialects of these languages (dialectos, Acts 2:6, 8 [six times in Acts, each time it refers to a known language or dialect]). The foreign language is found in the last mention in Revelation 17:15. There is no evidence that tongues in First Corinthians are different from foreign languages in Acts. The only difference between Acts and First Corinthians is that tongues in Acts were used publicly and tongues in First Corinthians within the local church.
The singular “tongue” refers to a specific human language. Paul’s use of the plural “languages” in this chapter refers to multiple languages. Gibberish cannot be plural, for there is no variety of non-language. The common, customary use of the word “tongue” is for human language, not ecstatic speaking.
Whatever tongues we understand here, the tongue was not to men but God (three references and all tongues speaking directed to God and not to people: 1 Co 14:2, 14-16, 28). Tongues were always addressed to God, not men. Only God can understand all languages known to men. Since the tongues speaker did not understand the language he spoke with the gift of tongues, he must speak to God. This is why the gift of “interpretation” or translation was meaningful. Translation implies a natural language, so the speaker of tongues could not understand the translation of the language he spoke until someone with the gift of translation exercised his gift.
The normal use of the word “tongue” in the New Testament is to communicate languages. Nowhere does the New Testament use “tongue” or language for ecstatic speech. The normal, customary use of “tongues” is human languages (Acts 2:11; Re 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15). I do not believe with some that this refers to pagan ecstatic, gibberish speech because this speech does indeed “edify the self” (1 Co 14:4). Paul used the “gift” of speaking in foreign languages (tongues) without studying them to evangelize the Jews and, in doing so, edified himself.
Paul gave standards for foreign languages spoken in the local church:
To speak five words with clarity is better than 10,000 words in a foreign language (1 Co 14:19).
No more than two or three persons were to speak in foreign languages at any one meeting (1 Co 14:27).
Speakers in foreign languages were to speak one at a time (1 Co 14:27).
No one was to speak in a foreign language without a translator present (this obviously implies a human foreign language,1 Co 14:28).
Each speaker was to maintain order in the congregation by using, within certain bounds, his gift to speak in a foreign language not known to him (1 Co 14:32,33).
Women were not to speak in public in the assembly (1 Co 14:34,35).
For no one understands him;
“No one understands” is literally, no one hears, and the metaphorical idea is that no one (who does not speak that language) understands with comprehension. This does not imply that no man living could understand, but that no one present in the assembly could understand. The context of this verse is a diverse assembly of people from different backgrounds in the congregation at Corinth. People came from Europe, Asia, and Africa to trade in Corinth, and they spoke in many languages. These people needed a translation of their languages to understand what was being said (interpretation – 1 Co 14:13). If there was no native speaker of a given language in the congregation, then the language should not be spoken (1 Co 14:10-11). All languages convey meaning (1 Co 14:10-11). If no one was there to translate, there was no point in using the gift.
however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.
A tongues speaker spoke “in the spirit” as opposed to understanding the language (1 Co 14:14); that is part of the supernatural element of speaking in a foreign language without studying for it. If a speaker cannot understand the language he is speaking, the ideas in the language are not meaningful to him. Since this is so, only the speaker derives benefit from the intention of what he said.
The Greek idea of mystery is a truth not previously disclosed. The word “mystery” does not carry the English concept of something mysterious but something that God has not disclosed yet. The meaning of mystery lies outside the understanding until it is communicated within one’s known language.
PRINCIPLE:
All communication in congregational worship must carry meaning to the listeners.
APPLICATION:
The reason chapter 14 argues for the inferiority of tongues as over against the communication of God’s Word is that if a person sits in the congregation and does not know the language, it is unintelligible to him.
I have heard that in 1 Cor.14:2, the "God" should be correctly interpreted in the Greek as "a god", since the Greek text has no definite article as in Acts 17:23, "unknown gods". How do you feel about this?
Rebar, it is important to note that there is no indefinite article in the Greek at all. Whenever the indefinite concept occurs the context must determine the idea, not the grammar itself. When the Greek word appears without the article it attributes quality to the term. In the case of 1 Co 14:2 quality is attributed to God. In the acts of Acts 17:23 it is the nature or quality of an unknown god that is indicated.
Bro. Grant,
I am with you on the interpretation of this verse 2. That is so encouraging to me because I do not find this explanation with many other conservative scholars. I am no Greek “scholar,” But I think that this is the thing that the apostle is communicating. And that is important as many “tongue talkers” today will vehemently reject this approach. It destroys all of their presuppositions of the “gift” of ecstatic speech for the church – even today.
Thank for your scholarship here!
Robert Stamey
Robert, you are welcome.
I COR 14:18 Paul says I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all. HE WOULD NOT HAVE SAY THAT ABOUT A GOD, BUT THE ONY GOD HE SPEAKS OF IN THE REST OF THE CHAPTER.
Shirley, thanks for your comment. There is a distinction between the point of this verse and the remainder of the chapter. Note the remaining studies.
Thank you…
Is ther an email I’d to which I can send my questions ?
Vincent, just ask your question in the blog box below the study. Look forward to interacting with you.
What if I’m praying and I began to speak in tongues in the midst of the church, can I control the Gift?
Godfrey, I suggest you study the remaining studies in 1 Corinthians 14. Also, for more in-depth, you want to go to these studies: https://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/problem-passages/tongues-issue-in-the-bible/44583-2/ and here: https://versebyversecommentary.com/articles/problem-passages/tongues-issue-in-the-bible/tongues-a-transition-issue-in-acts/
I was praying and worshiping and fell. I was speaking as you would call “jibberish’. It wasn’t intentional, it just happened. would you say I was faking or God doesn’t have the power to do that? I know I wasn’t faking it but can we actually put limits on a limitless God? I just don’t understand. thanks!
Andy, you may be attributing something to God that is of yourself. The word “tongue” refers to a known language, not gibberish.
Hi ..love your site. So blessed to have found it.
I was reading Andy comment above, and most the people I hear speak in tongues at my church does not sound like a language. So if it’s not another language does that mean it’s not of God (is tongues from the upper room then the same as gift of tongues)
I never received tongues, but people prayed over me, I only did it cuz a Pastor long ago said if you don’t speak in tongues your not saved, I was so upset. I think I was nervous cuz I didn’t know what to expect. Anyways, thankyou for all your hard work. Thankyou. God Bless You
Hi Grant,
1. An excerpt from your article says: “People came from Europe, Asia, and Africa to trade in Corinth, and they spoke in many languages. These people needed a translation of their languages to understand what was being said (interpretation – 1 Co 14:13).”
Are you suggesting that the tongues spoken in the Corinthian church were the native languages of the various foreign nations represented in the Corinthian church? If so, how did you know this?
If it is the case that the tongues spoken at Corinth were the native languages of some of the foreigners in the church, why does Paul say “no one understands” (v.2)? According to you, Paul’s statement that no one understands means no one in the Corinthian church understood the tongues. It’s hard to see how no one in the church could have understood the tongues if indeed the tongues spoken in the Corinthian church were the native languages of some of the church members.
2) Another excerpt from your article says: “If there was no native speaker of a given language in the congregation, then the language should not be spoken (1 Co 4:10-11).”
But Paul did not say tongues should not be spoken in the church if there is no native speaker of the tongue. Rather, he said tongues should not be spoken if there is no one with the gift of interpretation in the church, not if there is no native speaker of the tongue.
Many blessings,
Vik.
Vik,
Thanks for your post.
Did you read my commentaries on 1 Co 13:8 through chapter fourteen because the answers to your questions are found there?
First, the primary and overwhelming lexical meaning of the Greek word for “tongue” (γλῶσσα) means “language” or “dialect” used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations. Any other usage is tertiary or secondary. If one wants a different meaning than the primary usage, then there needs to be strong justification in the context and other means for choosing that usage. The word “tongue” is regularly used with “interpretation” or better “translation of tongues.” Tongues need translation for those who do not understand a particular language. This is clearly the meaning in 14:10-12. Also, the one quote in 1 Corinthians 14 is from Isa 28:11-12 (v. 21). Clearly, Isaiah referred to the Assyrian language spoken in Isaiah’s day. Take note of Paul’s application of that Scripture in the next verse (v.22) that the purpose of tongues was for the unbelieving Jew. Every occurrence of tongues applies to the Jew needing a sign that God had transitioned from dealing with the nation Israel to that of the church (especially in the book of Acts).
Note that I said “no man present in the assembly” because Paul refers to his personal or private viewpoint while experiencing tongue speaking or speaking in a language he does not understand. The inference you may have drawn was probably from verse 2 when Paul refers to his speaking in a foreign language that he does not understand, but since he does not understand it, he speaks it “to God” and “in the spirit.” He knows the meaning of what he conveys, but he does not know how to express it to foreigners. Verse two only speaks of Paul’s personal perspective while speaking in tongues.
Second,
Evidently, you did not read the commentary further where Paul makes an extended argument that if there is no native speaker of a given language in the congregation, then there is no need to speak in that language otherwise, it is mere gibberish to other listeners in the congregation (14:6ff). Go to my commentary on those verses.
1 Corinthians 4:10-11 is mistakenly referenced here I think. How is it related?
Rhys, the verse is now corrected. Thanks for calling attention to the typo.
I recently read in a commentary that on the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke in Tongues as we do today but they were heard in the many other languages as recorded in Acts, Because the phenomenon never happened again. From my own experience, after I got saved, I had the desire to be filled with the Holy Spirit. when I received that experience I spoke for the first time in Tongues, it was one of the most awesome experiences I ever had. I maintain my intimacy with the Holy Spirit and continue to pray in Tongues for the last 40 years. No one can deny my experience
Frank, the issue is what does the Bible say, not what our personal experience tells us.