Does anyone today actually speak in tongues for real?

Theology
83

@The_Omega
With the tongues (tais glōssais). Instrumental case. Mentioned first because really least and because the Corinthians put undue emphasis on this gift. Plato (Symposium, 197) and many others have written on love, but Paul has here surpassed them all in this marvellous prose-poem. It comes like a sweet bell right between the jangling noise of the gifts in chapters 12 and 14. It is a pity to dissect this gem or to pull to pieces this fragrant rose, petal by petal. Fortunately Paul’s language here calls for little comment, for it is the language of the heart. “The greatest, strongest, deepest thing Paul ever wrote” (Harnack). The condition (ean and present subjunctive, lalō kai mē echō, though the form is identical with present indicative) is of the third class, a supposable case.
But have not love (agapēn de mē echō). This is the crux of the chapter. Love is the way par excellence of 1Co_12:31. It is not yet clearly certain that agapē (a back-formation from agapaō) occurs before the lxx and the N.T. Plutarch used agapēsis. Deissmann (Bible Studies, p. 198) once suspected it on an inscription in Pisidia. It is still possible that it occurs in the papyri (Prayer to Isis). See Light from the Ancient East, p. 75 for details. The rarity of agapē made it easier for Christians to use this word for Christian love as opposed to erōs (sexual love). See also Moffatt’s Love in the N.T. (1930) for further data. The word is rare in the Gospels, but common in Paul, John, Peter, Jude. Paul does not limit agapē at all (both toward God and man). Charity (Latin caritas) is wholly inadequate. “Intellect was worshipped in Greece, and power in Rome; but where did St. Paul learn the surpassing beauty of love?” (Robertson and Plummer). Whether Paul had ever seen Jesus in the flesh, he knows him in the spirit. One can substitute Jesus for love all through this panegyric.
Robertson.

Please understand my concern, because the way of salvation in Christ Jesus must remain as simple as Scripture presents it, especially for those newly regenerated by faith in the Messiah. The gospel calls sinners to believe in the crucified and risen Christ, not to attain a particular manifestation or gift.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”[1] ~Ephesians 2:8–9

Nowhere does Scripture command all believers to speak in tongues as a condition of salvation, maturity, or belonging to Christ. In fact, Paul explicitly teaches that the Spirit distributes gifts according to His own will, not uniformly to every believer.

“But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.”[2] ~1 Corinthians 12:11

Paul further clarifies that not all believers possess the same gifts, including tongues, using language that grammatically requires a negative answer.

“Do all speak with tongues?”[3] ~1 Corinthians 12:30

To require what God has not commanded risks placing a burden on new believers that the apostles themselves refused to impose, shifting attention away from Christ and toward human experience.

“Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”[4] ~Romans 8:9

Scripture teaches that belonging to Christ is marked by the indwelling Spirit, not by a particular gift. Therefore, reading a universal requirement into the text where none is commanded goes beyond what is written and risks obscuring the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone.

Please don’t respond brother.

J.

  1. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. - KJV ↩︎

  2. But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. - KJV ↩︎

  3. Do all speak with tongues? - KJV ↩︎

  4. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - KJV ↩︎

84

Confidential to @The_Omega

Two days ago I posted some questions for you (Post #57), but so far you have responded to every other post except mine, some of them multiple times. In my post I did not state what I personally believe, nor did I try to prove it. I also never suggested what you should believe or practice, nor did I oppose you. My questions are genuine, and not rhetorical, and I was not lacking scriptural evidence to support why my questions arose. I did not write in a foreign language, or in graphemes or symbols which you could not understand, and we have had civil conversations in the past. So, I’m not sure why you did not answer my questions. Maybe my post did not rise to the intellectual level you operate in, or maybe you felt it was so inane it was unworthy of your response. If so, I surely understand. Maybe I’ve said something in the past that urges you to ignore me now, or maybe in the flurry of textual crossfire, you simply missed it. I really don’t know. Whatever the reason, I am asking you to consider my question(s) once again, as you are the one person I feel I can get a reasoned, seasoned, logical, biblical response; one from someone well acquainted with, and personally practicing the subject.

Note: I sincerely appreciate your personal testimony regarding this subject, as you have said:

I accept and appreciate this heart-felt testimony, and I am not intending to disparage your personal experience. Since I accept you and your words, I am not looking for more experiential testimony. I hear it and I get it. But, I think I am sufficiently familiar with The Bible to know the answer to my questions are not specifically, or clearly stated in it. If what you are testifying to is true, God did not share with us when He first gave this second kind of gift, or what reason He has for giving it. That is why I need you to parse this out for me. My dilemma may become more clear once you read (or re-read) my Post #57; I sincerely hope so.

I accept this as a true desire of yours, and commend your generous heart.

This too is accepted, and applauded.

This is a well-reasoned, and seemingly comprehensive explanation of how you have interpreted the Biblical references to this subject. I really think my questions in Post #57, and my post to Johann #67 demonstrate how your statements above do not answer my questions. I demonstrated in Post #67 how I personally read the scriptures in a contrasting way to your interpretation as stated in your quote above. This leaves my questions standing. My questions stand because It seems the the Holy Spirit’s very purpose in giving this second kind of gift cannot be His same purpose in the first expression of tongues in Acts. They have very different outcomes.

Also, I would remind us that The Scriptures did not need to use the same word (tongues) for these two kinds of manifestations if they both indeed do exist; the word “tongues” did not need to be employed in this counter-intuitive and confusing way. If tongues are left to simply mean languages, we DO have, in scripture, Greek passages that speak of utterances too deep for words, such as alálētos and some others expressions that would surely have been employed to describe some supernatural glottal utterances that require interpretation, even to the speaker. (I M H linguistic O).

I sure would appreciate the honor of your consideration.

KP

1 Like
85

For your perusal, not interfering brother.

First 30 of 50 occurrences of…

Mark 7:33 tongue; G1100
Mark 7:35 tongue G1100
Mark 16:17 tongues; G1100
Luke 1:64 tongue G1100
Luke 16:24 tongue; G1100
Acts 2:3 tongues G1100
Acts 2:4 tongues, G1100
Acts 2:11 tongues G1100
Acts 2:26 tongue G1100
Acts 10:46 tongues, G1100
Acts 19:6 with tongues, G1100
Romans 3:13 tongues G1100
Romans 14:11 tongue G1100
1 Corinthians 12:10 of tongues; G1100
1 Corinthians 12:10 of tongues: G1100
1 Corinthians 12:28 of tongues. G1100
1 Corinthians 12:30 with tongues? G1100
1 Corinthians 13:1 with the tongues G1100
1 Corinthians 13:8 there are tongues, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:2 in an unknown tongue G1100
1 Corinthians 14:4 in an unknown tongue G1100
1 Corinthians 14:5 with tongues, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:5 with tongues, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:6 with tongues, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:9 the tongue G1100
1 Corinthians 14:13 in an unknown tongue G1100
1 Corinthians 14:14 in an unknown tongue, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:18 with tongues G1100
1 Corinthians 14:19 an unknown tongue. G1100
1 Corinthians 14:22 tongues G1100
1 Corinthians 14:23 with tongues, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:26 a tongue, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:27 in an unknown tongue, G1100
1 Corinthians 14:39 with tongues. G1100
Philippians 2:11 tongue G1100
James 1:26 tongue, G1100
James 3:5 the tongue G1100
James 3:6 tongue G1100
James 3:6 tongue G1100
James 3:8 the tongue G1100
1 Peter 3:10 tongue G1100
1 John 3:18 in tongue; G1100
Revelation 5:9 tongue, G1100
Revelation 7:9 tongues, G1100
Revelation 10:11 tongues, G1100
Revelation 11:9 tongues G1100
Revelation 13:7 tongues, G1100
Revelation 14:6 tongue, G1100
Revelation 16:10 tongues G1100
Revelation 17:15 tongues. G1100

Distinct usage
8 tongue
6 tongues
5 tongues,
5 with tongues,
3 in an unknown tongue
3 the tongue
3 tongue,
2 tongue;
2 in an unknown tongue,
1 tongues;
1 with tongues
1 an unknown tongue.
1 in tongue;
1 tongues.
1 of tongues;
1 of tongues:
1 with tongues.
1 there are tongues,
1 with the tongues
1 a tongue,
1 of tongues.
1 with tongues?

And with that, I’m out of here since I need to rest.

Shalom to you and family.

J.

86

@Johann
Right, thanks for this list.

Maybe you didn’t understand my point. I was trying to say if the original writers wanted to confer the meaning of uninteligable utterances (babble) they had Greek words to do that, such as alálētos for example, but they didn’t use them. They used the Greek word that is commonly used for inteligible language bringing us to the conclusion they wanted us to think intelegible language.

Thanks again
KP

87

I fully understand your γλωσσῶν brother @KPuff and in full agreement with your exegesis.

The burden of proof rests on anyone claiming the writers meant something other than language, because the text itself never says that, and the vocabulary they chose actively points in the opposite direction.

Total Occurrences: 50
γλῶσσά glô̂ssá (1) N-NSF
tongue Act_2:26,
γλῶσσα glô̂ssa (6) N-NSF
tongue Luk_1:64, Rom_14:11, Php_2:11, Jas_3:5-6 (3)
γλῶσσαι glô̂ssai (4) N-NPF
tongues Act_2:3, 1Co_14:22, Rev_17:15
there be tongues 1Co_13:8
γλώσσαις glṓssais (15) N-DPF
tongues Mrk_16:17, Act_2:4, Act_2:11, Rom_3:13, 1Co_12:30, 1Co_13:1, Rev_10:11
with tongues Act_10:46, Act_19:6, 1Co_14:5-6 (3), 1Co_14:18, 1Co_14:23, 1Co_14:39,
γλῶσσάν glô̂ssán (1) N-ASF
tongues Luk_16:24
γλῶσσαν glô̂ssan (6) N-ASF
a tongue 1Co_14:26,
tongue Jas_1:26, Jas_3:8, 1Pe_3:10, Rev_14:6
tongues Rev_13:7
γλώσσας glṓssas (1) N-APF
tongues Rev_16:10
γλώσσῃ glṓssçi (7) N-DSF
an unknown tongue 1Co_14:19
in an unknown tongue 1Co_14:2, 1Co_14:4, 1Co_14:13-14 (2), 1Co_14:27
in tongue 1Jn_3:18
γλώσσης glṓssçs (4) N-GSF
tongue Mrk_7:33, Mrk_7:35, 1Co_14:9, Rev_5:9
γλωσσῶν glôssô̂n (5) N-GPF
of tongues 1Co_12:10 (2), 1Co_12:28
tongues Rev_7:9, Rev_11:9
English to Strong’s
tongue G1100, G1258, G1447
** tongues G1100, G2084**

Key NT passages on tongues

Acts 2:4 – “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, ἐν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, as the Spirit enabled them.”

Greek: ἑτέραις γλώσσαις – “other tongues,” literally “different languages”

Context: These are actual human languages spoken miraculously; nothing “unknown” is stated.

1 Corinthians 12:10 – Lists spiritual gifts: “to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another divers kinds of tongues, γλώσσαις, to another the interpretation of tongues.”

Greek: γλώσσαις – tongues; plural of γλῶσσα

No qualifier “unknown”; just “tongues” and “interpretation of tongues.”

1 Corinthians 13:1 – “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, ἐὰν λαλῶ γλώσσαις ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀγγέλων, but have not love…”

Again, γλώσσαις – tongues; no “unknown” is in the Greek.

1 Corinthians 14:2 – “For he who speaks in a tongue, γλώσσῃ, does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands him…”

Greek: γλώσσῃ – dative singular of tongue

English translators sometimes render “unknown tongue” because the speaker is not understood by others, but the Greek literally just says ‘tongue’.

1 Corinthians 14:4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 27, 28 – multiple uses of γλῶσσα / γλώσσαις

In every instance, the Greek just says “tongue(s).”

The idea that the tongue is “unknown” comes from context: in 1 Cor 14, Paul notes that the congregation doesn’t understand unless there is interpretation. But the Greek text never adds a word equivalent to “unknown.”

So…

The phrase “unknown tongues” does not appear in the Greek New Testament.

All occurrences of γλῶσσα / γλώσσαις are simply “tongue(s).”

English translations like NASB, NIV, or KJV may render it as “unknown tongue” or “another language not understood,” but this is interpretive, based on context (that the audience does not understand the words), not on the literal text.

Count: 1 Corinthians 14 alone uses tongues 17 times; Acts 2 and 1 Cor 12, 13 add roughly 6 more. All are simply γλώσσα / γλώσσαις, never “unknown tongues.”

This what you mean brother? Sorry for the late edit.

Well done.

J.

88

@Johann
Xactly! Good job.

KP

89

I very much apologize for such a delayed response. I am getting so many responses was hard to be sure I got them all. Please forgive me.

That’s a fair question, and you’ve stated the common modern definitions accurately as they are usually presented, so let me affirm that first — and then gently correct where those definitions quietly smuggle in assumptions.

First, on the definitions themselves

In contemporary theological and academic usage:

  • Xenoglossia is usually defined as the supernatural ability to speak an unlearned human language that is intelligible to hearers.

  • Glossolalia is often defined as ecstatic or unintelligible speech consisting of phonemes that require supernatural interpretation, sometimes even unintelligible to the speaker.

Those are the standard modern definitions, yes.
But here’s the key issue: those categories are not biblical categories. They are later analytical labels imposed on the text, not distinctions that arise organically from Scripture itself.

The New Testament never contrasts two different “kinds” of tongues using two different theological systems. It uses one phenomenon (speaking with tongues) that functions in different ways depending on context and purpose.

Where the modern framework goes wrong

The problem isn’t the vocabulary — it’s the assumption that:

“If no human being understands it without interpretation, then it must be a fundamentally different kind of speech.”

Scripture never makes that move.

In fact, Paul explicitly tells us why tongues may be unintelligible in certain settings:

“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1 Cor 14:2)

Notice what Paul does not say:

  • He does not say the speech lacks structure

  • He does not say it is meaningless

  • He does not say it is non-linguistic

He says the direction of communication has changed.

That single sentence collapses the supposed necessity of a hard xenoglossia / glossolalia divide.

The biblical origin and onset of “tongues”

Scripturally, the origin of tongues is simple and consistent:

  • Jesus promised it (Mark 16:17)

  • Acts records it (Acts 2, 10, 19)

  • Paul regulates it (1 Corinthians 12–14)

There is no point in the New Testament where the Spirit “introduces” a new, degraded, or altered form of speech.

What does change is audience and purpose.

Acts (sign + witness)

In Acts 2, God sovereignly aligns:

  • the speaker’s utterance

  • the hearer’s understanding

Luke highlights intelligibility because that is the point of that moment — public witness across nations.

Corinthians (prayer + edification)

In Corinth, the Spirit is not primarily bearing witness to outsiders, but:

  • enabling prayer

  • thanksgiving

  • spiritual communication directed to God

Thus, intelligibility to hearers is not guaranteed unless God also grants interpretation.

That does not mean the speech itself has changed in nature — only in function.

About “unintelligible phonemes”

This is where I want to be very precise.

Scripture never describes tongues as:

  • incoherent noise

  • meaningless syllables

  • psychological ecstasy

  • loss of cognitive agency

Paul explicitly distinguishes φωνή (sound) from γλῶσσα (language) in 1 Corinthians 14:7–11 to make sure we don’t reduce tongues to noise.

Even when tongues are not understood, Paul insists they carry meaning — just not meaning accessible to the congregation without interpretation.

So if by “glossolalia” one means meaningless utterance, Scripture does not support that definition.

If by “glossolalia” one means Spirit-given speech whose meaning is not naturally accessible, Scripture absolutely does.

Why interpretation brings understanding even to the speaker

This is not because the speaker was producing nonsense — but because revelation is involved.

Paul says:

“Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.”

Paul does not instruct believers to seek interpretation because a language might be unknown to the hearers, but because it is unknown to everyone present unless God reveals its meaning.

Interpretation is not language-class translation; it is Spirit-enabled disclosure of meaning.

So, to answer your core question directly

The origin of what people call “glossolalia” is not a later corruption or theological mutation.
It is the same Spirit, the same gift, functioning in a different relational direction.

  • Same source: the Holy Ghost

  • Same phenomenon: speaking with tongues

  • Different purpose: sign vs. prayer vs. edification

The New Testament does not present:

“First xenoglossia, then later glossolalia.”

It presents:

Tongues as Spirit-given speech that may or may not be understood by hearers depending on God’s purpose in that moment.

I appreciate your carefulness here, genuinely. Your question isn’t hostile — it’s disciplined. And I don’t believe Scripture asks us to choose between reverence for the Word and openness to the Spirit. The two belong together.

The Spirit has never ceased to be intelligible.
He has only refused to be reduced.

90

Yes — you are on track here, and you’ve articulated Acts 2 very well. Let me affirm what you’ve said, and then add one important layer of biblical nuance so the picture stays complete.

You are absolutely right that Acts 2 is marked by supernatural clarity. Luke goes out of his way to emphasize it. These were real people from real regions, hearing real speech in their own native languages. No interpreter is mentioned because none was needed. The miracle, in that moment, produced immediate intelligibility, public witness, and unity around “the wonderful works of God.”

That clarity was not accidental — it was purpose-driven.

Pentecost was a public, covenantal moment. God was inaugurating the Church in Jerusalem during a feast that had drawn devout Jews from across the known world. The Spirit’s manifestation perfectly served that purpose: the gospel crossed linguistic and geographic boundaries instantly. What Babel scattered, Pentecost gathered. You’re absolutely right to see divine unity there.

Where I would gently add nuance is this: Acts 2 does not actually tell us how the clarity occurred — only that it did.

Luke reports the result (“each heard in his own language”), but he does not specify whether:

  • the miracle was entirely in the speakers,

  • entirely in the hearers,

  • or a Spirit-coordinated combination of both.

That ambiguity is intentional — because the theological point is not the mechanism, but the mission. God ensured the message was understood.

And this is where Acts 2 must be allowed to stand as a specific manifestation for a specific purpose, not as a universal template for every operation of tongues thereafter.

In Acts 2:

  • tongues function as a sign to gathered nations

  • intelligibility is immediate and corporate

  • no regulation is required because no disorder exists

In Corinth (1 Corinthians 12–14):

  • tongues function primarily within the assembled church

  • intelligibility is not assumed

  • interpretation is required for public edification

That doesn’t mean the Spirit changed. It means the context changed.

So yes — Acts 2 is xenoglossic in effect. The hearers unmistakably recognized their native languages. But Scripture does not then say, “And from this point forward, tongues must always function this way.” That conclusion would have to be imported into the text, not drawn from it.

What you’re seeing correctly is this:

  • When God’s purpose is missionary witness, He grants clarity to hearers.

  • When God’s purpose is prayer, praise, or spiritual edification, He may withhold that clarity unless interpretation is given.

Both are orderly.
Both are purposeful.
Both are the Holy Spirit doing exactly what He intends.

So yes — your understanding of Acts 2 itself is solid and biblical. The only caution I’d offer is not to let the clarity of Pentecost’s purpose be turned into a restriction on the Spirit’s freedom elsewhere.

You’re asking careful questions, and that matters. Keep pressing into the text the way you’re doing — it’s clear you’re not trying to defend confusion, but to understand how God brings truth to people in real history, real language, and real power.

91

That’s a weighty question, and I want to honor it by answering it carefully — because I don’t think the concern you’re raising is shallow at all. It’s actually the strongest form of the objection, and it deserves a straight answer.

Let me say this clearly at the outset: I do not believe the Holy Spirit ever began manifesting Himself in a “contrary” way. There is no moment in Scripture where the Spirit reverses His purpose, degrades His work, or moves from clarity to confusion. That premise itself needs to be examined before the conclusion that follows from it.

The key issue is this: clarity to whom, and for what purpose?

Pentecost was not the permanent function of tongues — it was the inaugural sign

Acts 2 is not presented as the normative use of tongues in the church; it is presented as the public inauguration of the Church. It is a redemptive-historical moment, not merely a devotional one.

At Pentecost:

  • the audience was multinational

  • the purpose was public witness

  • the result was immediate intelligibility

  • the effect was unity around the proclamation of God’s works

That was not accidental — but neither was it permanent by design.

Scripture never says, “This is how tongues must always function.” It says, “This is what happened when the Spirit was first poured out.”

To assume Pentecost must define every later operation of tongues is like assuming Sinai must define every later encounter with God. Sinai had thunder, fire, and earthquake. Later encounters did not — yet they were no less divine.

Unintelligibility is not obscurity — it is directionality

Here is where the objection usually turns.

You’re assuming that:

If speech is not immediately intelligible to all hearers, then it has failed its divine purpose.

But Paul explicitly contradicts that assumption.

He says the one who speaks in a tongue:

  • speaks to God

  • speaks mysteries

  • is edified

  • gives thanks well

The issue is not lack of meaning — it is change of audience.

Pentecost tongues were horizontally oriented (God → people).
Corinthian tongues are often vertically oriented (man → God).

That is not reversal. That is relational difference.

Prayer that others cannot understand is not confusion.
Praise others do not comprehend is not obscurity.
Silence to men is not silence to God.

Does this foster elitism?

Paul directly anticipates and dismantles that concern — which tells us it was already being raised in Corinth.

He does three things:

  1. He de-centers the speaker (“I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all” — then immediately restricts public use)

  2. He elevates edification over display

  3. He subjects tongues to regulation

Elitism arises not from the gift, but from disobedience to apostolic instruction.

That’s why Paul says:

  • two or three at most

  • in turn

  • with interpretation

  • otherwise keep silence

A miracle regulated by Scripture is still a miracle.
Order does not negate divinity — it protects it.

Can tongues be “conjured by men”?

This is an important concern, and I share it more than you might expect.

Anything spiritual can be counterfeited. That does not mean the genuine thing does not exist. Scripture itself acknowledges false prophecy, false signs, and false spirits — yet never concludes that prophecy, signs, or the Spirit should therefore cease.

The test of a miracle in Scripture is not:

“Can a human imitate the outward form?”

It is:

“Does it align with the Word, exalt Christ, submit to apostolic order, and bear spiritual fruit?”

Fire could fall from heaven in Elijah’s day — and false fire could be called down in later texts. The existence of counterfeit never nullified the authentic.

The miracle is not reduced — it is relocated

The greatest misunderstanding here is thinking the miracle of tongues is primarily the sound.

In Scripture, the miracle is:

  • God filling a human being

  • God giving utterance

  • God enabling prayer beyond human limitation

  • God revealing meaning by interpretation when He wills

Pentecost’s miracle was outward and public.
Corinth’s miracle is inward and communal.

Neither is less divine.
Neither is less God-initiated.

You’re absolutely right that God does not need clever men.
You’re absolutely right that true miracles originate with Him alone.
And you’re absolutely right to resist anything that feels manufactured, performative, or manipulative.

But Scripture does not give us the option of affirming Acts 2 while dismissing 1 Corinthians 14. The same Spirit who brought clarity to nations also taught believers how to pray when words failed.

The Spirit did not change.
The purpose shifted.
The audience differed.
The order was clarified.

That’s not contradiction.
That’s maturity.

And I respect the seriousness with which you’re pressing this — these are not questions of curiosity, but of reverence. If you want, the next step would be to examine why Paul insists tongues are a “sign” in one sense and prayer in another, because that tension actually answers most of what you’re wrestling with here.

92

Well? He did teach Paul for three years before Paul wrote of said anything. He did teach Peter and the others the “Mysteries of God.” So Jesus did write the New Testament. From this point of view.

That is my point. Did he use the word “Armageddon”? No. But He did give us signs of the end time. Did Jesus use the word “unalive”? Of course not. But Jesus did talk about murder. I get some of what you are saying.

However, when Jesus DID talk about murder, He went into great detail and even added to the meaning of hate in one’s heart. He talked in-depth about the Holy Spirit. 1- He was coming from God. 2- He would live in the believer. 3- He will teach us all things. 4- God is in Jesus and Jesus is in Him, and they are all in us. 5- Tongues are a sign? Nope. No mention. Something so important to be left out doesn’t sound too Jesusy. Also, when asked how people know if they are true children of God, Jesus said this.

“Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” Matthew 7:20

Why?

“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” Luke 6:43-45

What should we be producing? Well, A- Disciples, and B?

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.” Galatians 5:22-23

This is the sort of thing that whole religions split over. We are not in the same denomination, but I believe we are both genuine in sharing our beliefs and desires for all to be saved.

Peter

93

This is one of my biggest doubts. I have been where someone speaks in tongues, and one interpreates, EXCATLY what they Pastor just said. Usually, it has a lot to do with money. I believe this is why Paul said it should be private and the Church should be taught plainly and clearly.

I asked this one before, but I think you missed it. How do I, or anyone else who is in the church with me, believe that “Goony-goo shalamathea, zipidy dooda.” Means ANYTHING? The Translator says, “Thus sayeth God!” How do we know that? Should I just accept it? After all, there is someone there translating the tongues. Or do I question it, in which case I’m told I do not have the Spirit? Or that I am attacking God and I need to repent, because I did not believe? You get the point.

I am VERY doubtful whenever someone says to me, “Thus sayeth the lord.”

Peter

94

You’re reasoning carefully, and I genuinely respect that. Your example is thoughtful, coherent, and almost works — but there’s one crucial place where it quietly breaks down when held next to Paul’s actual argument in 1 Corinthians 14. Let me affirm what you’ve said and then show exactly where Scripture itself presses us to go further.

You are absolutely right about this much:

  • Acts 2 shows the Spirit granting supernatural linguistic ability

  • That ability served clarity, unity, and public witness

  • Paul does insist that intelligibility in the gathered church is the priority

  • Speaking in a way the congregation understands is always preferable for edification

On all of that, we are standing on the same ground.

Where the example quietly fails the Pauline test

Here’s the key issue — and it’s not minor.

In your example, the speech is intelligible by nature (meaning most and probably yourself know what German sounds like, just not how to interpret it.) but unintelligible by circumstance. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul describes speech that is unintelligible by nature unless God reveals its meaning. That is the decisive difference.

But Paul explicitly says the opposite happens in the Corinthians situation.

He does not say:

“Others don’t understand him.

The problem Paul identifies is not a failure of linguistic recognition, but a failure of comprehension. The hearers perceive speech, yet receive no intelligible message unless interpretation occurs.

He says:

“No one understands him.”
“His spirit prays, but his understanding is unfruitful.”
“He does not understand what he is saying unless interpretation is given.”

That single point is decisive.

If tongues in Corinth were merely unlearned human languages being spoken into the wrong audience, then:

Praying for interpretation would be unnecessary, because the speech would already carry fixed meaning as a human language and could be understood without a revelatory act from God.

Yet Paul says:

“Let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.”

That instruction makes no sense if the issue is merely audience mismatch.
It only makes sense if the meaning itself is inaccessible apart from the Spirit.

Why Paul’s argument won’t allow a “German-only” model

Paul’s whole line of reasoning in 1 Corinthians 14 depends on three facts being true at the same time:

  1. The speech is real and meaningful

  2. The speech is not understood by men

  3. The speech is not understood by the speaker without interpretation

That third point is the one your model cannot account for.

Paul isn’t correcting pride in multilingual ability.
He’s regulating Spirit-enabled utterance that bypasses normal cognition.

That doesn’t make it irrational.
It makes it revelatory rather than instructional.

Unity is not lost — it is safeguarded

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE PAY ATTENTION: You’re right to be concerned about unity and the danger of elitism — Paul shares that concern. That is precisely why he places boundaries on tongues when the church is gathered for instruction and exhortation. His restriction is aimed at moments where the whole body is meant to be edified through intelligible speech. He does not prohibit tongues expressed in prayer, worship, or seeking God at the altar, where the focus is communion with God rather than public instruction.

Example: If the Church is in silence or only one person is speaking and Someone stands and Speaks in Tongues aloud for ALL to hear if no Interpreter you are to keep silent.

But notice what he does not do:

  • He never redefines tongues as merely foreign languages

  • He never says, “Tongues should only be used when native speakers are present”

  • He never roots the problem in pride alone

Instead, he says:

“If there is no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.”

That preserves:

  • unity in the assembly

  • reverence in instruction and exhortation

  • legitimacy of the experience

  • and order under apostolic authority

The deeper issue: direction, not degeneration

Your model assumes that clarity to the congregation is the permanent defining purpose of tongues.

Paul explicitly says it is not.

Tongues can function as:

  • sign (Acts)

  • prayer (Corinthians)

  • thanksgiving

  • edification of the individual

  • edification of the body through interpretation

Same Spirit.
Same source.
Different direction.

Clarity is never lost — it is either immediate or mediated.

You are absolutely right to insist that:

  • the Spirit does not foster chaos

  • God does not undermine unity

  • gifts must serve love and edification

Paul agrees with you — completely.

Where Scripture presses us past your example is here:

tongues are not merely known languages spoken at the wrong time,
but Spirit-given utterance whose meaning is revealed only as God wills.

That doesn’t weaken Pentecost.
It completes it.

And I want to say this plainly and respectfully: your instinct to read Corinthians through Acts is right — but Acts must be allowed to expand, not confine, what the Spirit is doing later.

You’re not asking careless questions. You’re asking disciplined ones. And that tells me you’re not trying to defend confusion — you’re trying to honor the God who speaks.

If you want, the next natural step is to look closely at “my spirit prays” vs “my understanding is unfruitful”, because that single phrase is where Paul definitively moves beyond the xenoglossia-only framework.

95

NOWHERE in my Bible is it written “UNKNOWN tongues”

Do we agree? Yes or no?

J.

96

Brother, I hear you — and I want to say this plainly before anything else: your concern is not carnal, rebellious, or faithless. It is biblical. What you are describing is not a failure on your part to “have the Spirit”; it is a failure of the church, at times, to obey the Spirit’s own safeguards.

Let me answer you carefully and honestly.

Yes — tongues and interpretations can be abused, fabricated, or manipulated

Paul never pretended otherwise. In fact, the entire reason 1 Corinthians 12–14 exists is because real spiritual gifts were being mishandled by real people with real flesh.

Paul does not say:

  • “Never question it”

  • “Just accept whatever is claimed”

  • “If you doubt, you lack the Spirit”

Instead, he says things like:

  • “Let the others judge”

  • “The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets”

  • “God is not the author of confusion”

  • “Let all things be done decently and in order”

Those statements only make sense if discernment is expected.

So when you’ve seen “interpretations” that suspiciously mirror the pastor’s sermon — especially when tied to money, pressure, or manipulation — your unease is not unbelief. It’s discernment ringing an alarm bell.

“How do I know ‘Thus saith the Lord’ means anything?”

You’ve put your finger on the exact issue Paul was guarding against.

Scripture never tells believers to suspend discernment just because someone claims divine authority. In fact, Scripture repeatedly warns against that very thing.

Here are a few grounding truths:

  1. No interpretation of tongues carries automatic authority
    Interpretation is not Scripture.
    It is not infallible.
    It must be weighed — not swallowed whole.

  2. “Thus saith the Lord” is the strongest possible claim
    And because it is strong, it must meet a strong test:

    • Does it align with Scripture?

    • Does it exalt Christ?

    • Does it edify rather than coerce?

    • Does it produce fear, control, or guilt — or faith and repentance?

If the only “proof” offered is “because someone interpreted it”, that is not biblical proof.

Paul never says you must accept it — he says you must judge it

This part is often quietly skipped.

Paul explicitly commands that spiritual utterances be discerned. Not mocked. Not feared. Discerned.

And notice this: discernment is a spiritual gift too.

So when someone tells you:

“If you question this, you’re attacking God,”

that is not spiritual authority — that is spiritual intimidation.

God does not demand unthinking acceptance.
The Spirit does not bypass the mind to reach the soul.
And genuine faith does not fear examination.

You are right about privacy — but for the right reason

You’re also right that Paul allows private tongues — but not because tongues are suspect.

He allows them privately because:

  • they are directed to God

  • they do not require public validation

  • they do not place pressure on the congregation to “believe” an interpretation

Public use, on the other hand, comes with public responsibility.

That’s why Paul restricts it so tightly.

Two or three.
In turn.
With interpretation.
And subject to judgment.

Anything beyond that is not spiritual freedom — it’s disorder.

Here’s the line I want you to hear clearly

You are not required — biblically, spiritually, or morally — to accept every claimed interpretation of tongues as genuine.

You are not required to shut down your discernment.
You are not required to override conscience.
You are not required to equate questioning with rebellion.

And you are certainly not required to believe that God’s voice conveniently echoes whatever a leader already wants.

God does speak.
The Spirit does move.
Tongues are real.

But so are false claims, fleshly mixtures, and manipulation — and Scripture acknowledges that without flinching.

A final word, heart to heart

Your skepticism is not against God — it is against misrepresentation of God. And that matters.

The Holy Spirit does not need to be protected by fear.
Truth does not need intimidation to survive.
And God is not offended when His people test things by His Word.

If anything, the Spirit is honored when we refuse to cheapen His work.

So no — you are not wrong to be cautious.
No — you are not attacking God by asking honest questions.
And no — you are not obligated to accept “Goony-goo shalamathea” followed by manipulation as divine revelation.

Paul didn’t ask the church to become gullible.
He asked the church to become mature.

And from everything you’ve said here, that’s exactly what you’re trying to be.

97

Yes, it is in the KJV — multiple times in 1 Corinthians 14 — but this is exactly where we have to be careful and honest with the text. The phrase “unknown tongue” does appear in the KJV, and it appears in italics. That matters, because the italics signal that the translators supplied the word unknown for clarity; it is not a separate Greek word in the original text. Both statements are true at the same time: the KJV contains the phrase, and the Greek does not contain a standalone adjective meaning “unknown.”

However, the absence of a specific Greek word does not remove the concept Paul is describing. Throughout 1 Corinthians 14, Paul repeatedly emphasizes that the tongue being spoken is not understood. He says that no one understands, that the speaker’s understanding is unfruitful, that mysteries are being spoken to God, and that interpretation is required for meaning to be conveyed to others. Those descriptions clearly communicate unintelligibility, even without an explicit adjective. The KJV translators were not inventing doctrine; they were rendering Paul’s argument into readable English, where an implied idea in Greek often must be stated explicitly.

So the real issue is not whether the English word unknown exists in the Greek text, but whether Paul is describing speech that is not understood by human listeners and even not understood by the speaker without interpretation. He plainly is. Removing the word unknown from the English does nothing to change Paul’s point, because the lack of understanding is the foundation of his entire discussion in the chapter. Paul is not regulating multilingual ability alone; he is regulating Spirit-enabled utterance whose meaning is inaccessible apart from divine interpretation.

So to answer the question as it is framed: no, unknown is not a Greek word in the text, but yes, the KJV accurately conveys the sense of what Paul is saying. And no, pointing out the italics does not turn all tongues into always-known human languages. Paul himself insists that they are not understood, and that reality stands whether the English word unknown is printed or not.

98

@The_Omega

Is speaking in tongues evidence that a person is saved?

1Co_14:2 For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

1Co_14:4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

1Co_14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

1Co_14:14 For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

1Co_14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an [unknown] tongue.

1Co_14:27 If any man speak in an [unknown] tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

J.

99

From a Oneness biblical perspective, the answer needs to be careful, clear, and rooted in the whole counsel of Scripture—not isolated verses.

Speaking in tongues is not presented in Scripture as the evidence that a person has mentally assented to the gospel or holds saving faith in the abstract. Salvation is not proven by a gift or by outward performance. However, Scripture does consistently present speaking with tongues as the initial, observable sign that a person has received the Holy Ghost, and receiving the Holy Ghost is not optional in the New Testament pattern of salvation.

So the Oneness position is this: tongues are not the evidence of salvation in isolation, but they are the biblical evidence of Spirit reception, which is an essential component of New Testament salvation.

The confusion often arises because 1 Corinthians 14 is addressing church order, not how someone is born again. Paul is writing to people who are already believers, already baptized, already Spirit-filled. He is not explaining how someone gets saved; he is correcting misuse of tongues after salvation. That’s why he contrasts tongues with prophecy—not to diminish tongues, but to regulate their public use for edification.

Every passage you quoted assumes the speaker already has the Spirit. Paul never asks, “Should you speak in tongues?” He assumes it. His concern is how and where it is exercised. When Paul says prophecy edifies the church more than uninterpreted tongues, he is speaking about corporate instruction, not the validity of tongues as Spirit evidence. Edification of the church and initial evidence of Spirit reception are not the same category.

When we step back and look at the narrative portions of Scripture—the places where people actually receive the Spirit—the pattern is consistent:

  • In Acts 2, they received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues.

  • In Acts 10, the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost, and they spoke with tongues—and Peter used that fact as proof that God had accepted them.

  • In Acts 19, believers received the Holy Ghost and spoke with tongues and prophesied.

No one is ever described as receiving the Holy Ghost silently. The sign God chose was audible, external, and recognizable—not to glorify the individual, but to testify that God had acted.

Paul himself reinforces this theology elsewhere when he says, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” The issue, then, is not whether tongues are superior to prophecy, but whether a person has actually received the Spirit at all. Tongues are not the goal; they are the God-given sign that the Spirit has come.

So to answer the question directly, from a Oneness doctrinal standpoint:

  • No, tongues are not a merit badge that proves someone is saved by works.

  • Yes, tongues are the consistent biblical evidence that a person has received the Holy Ghost.

  • And yes, receiving the Holy Ghost is essential to New Testament salvation.

1 Corinthians 14 does not contradict that—it presupposes it. Paul is not dismantling Pentecost; he is disciplining Pentecostal believers so that what God gave for power and prayer would also operate in love and order.

In short, the Spirit saves. And when the Spirit comes, Scripture shows us that He does not come quietly.

100

Nope, the “pattern is not consistent” @The_Omega

  1. ~John 1:12 (Tyndale)
    “But as many as received him, to them he gave power to be the sons of God, even them that believe on his name.”

Key verb: received
Greek: ἔλαβον
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Receiving Christ is explicitly tied to believing, not to a sign.

  1. ~John 3:16 (Tyndale)
    “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Key verb: believeth
Greek: πιστεύων
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Eternal life is attached to believing, not an external manifestation.

  1. ~John 5:24 (Tyndale)
    “He that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into damnation, but is escaped from death unto life.”

Key verbs: heareth, believeth, hath
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Salvation is described as already possessed.

  1. ~Acts 8:36–38 (Tyndale)
    “And as they went on their way, they came unto a water: and the chamberlain said, See, here is water; what doth let me to be baptized?”

The Ethiopian eunuch believes and is baptized.
Tongues mentioned? No
Note**: This is a narrative conversion account with silence on tongues, despite Acts being a sign-heavy book.**

  1. ~Acts 16:30–31 (Tyndale)
    “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy household.”

Key verb: believe
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Paul gives a direct salvation answer without adding a sign.

  1. ~Acts 18:8 (Tyndale)
    “And Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed on the Lord with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized.”

Key verbs: believed, were baptized
Tongues mentioned? No

  1. ~Romans 5:1 (Tyndale)
    “Because then that we are justified by faith, we are at peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Key noun: justified
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Justification is grounded in faith, not manifestation.

  1. ~Romans 8:9 (Tyndale)
    “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is none of his.”

Key phrase: have the Spirit
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Paul defines belonging to Christ without prescribing evidence.

  1. ~Galatians 3:2 (Tyndale)
    “This only would I learn of you: Received ye the Spirit by the deeds of the law, or by the hearing of faith?”

Key verb: received
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: Paul explicitly links receiving the Spirit to hearing with faith, not to tongues.

  1. ~Ephesians 1:13 (Tyndale)
    “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also when ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.”

Key verbs: heard, believed, sealed
Tongues mentioned? No
Note: The Spirit is described as a seal, not a sound.

Summary observation, shall we?

Yes, Acts 2, 10, and 19 include tongues.
But Acts is not uniform, and Pauline theology is not built on narrative repetition.

The New Testament never states:
“Tongues are the necessary evidence of receiving the Spirit.”

That sentence does not exist in Greek, English, or any manuscript tradition.

What Scripture does say, consistently:

People receive Christ by believing.
People receive the Spirit by faith.
People are justified apart from signs.
Tongues appear sometimes.
Silence appears often.

So the honest biblical conclusion is this:

Tongues may accompany reception of the Spirit.
Tongues are never required as proof.
Tongues are never universalized as evidence.
And Scripture never teaches that the Spirit “does not come quietly.”

That last claim is theological inference, not textual statement.

You are not denying Pentecost.
You are refusing to let three narratives override the whole canon.

That is not anti-Spirit.
That is biblical restraint.

J.

101

@The_Omega

I sincerely thank you for your generous and comprehensive response. I have never been given such a wonderful gift of careful explanation of this phenomenon before, and I am very thankful for it. Your generosity moved me, and at your leading, I am sincerely going to ask our Father for this gift in my own personal discipleship.

Etymology, word usage, language are all areas of personal interest. I believe in, and personally try to carefully choose precise words that accurately, and sincerely express the thoughts I am trying to communicate. I am a man of The Truth, and so any form of deception, insincerity, dishonesty, or disingenuousness are all linguistic tools that Jesus has taught me I must reject, and never employ in His service.

Regarding your explanation of “glossolalia” and “xenoglossia”.

As a self-proclaimed amateur linguist, I understand, (as you have pointed out) the contemporaneously applied terms “glossolalia” and “xenoglossia” are English terms and not Biblical terms. I think I understand their origins, and I have previously commented on this briefly (post#2). I have employed them in the past, but, for future clarity, I will adhere to the modern vernacular, and exclusively use the English term “language” to describe known human languages and “tongues” when I want to connote the experience as you see it in 1 Corinthians 12 & 14, if that is acceptable. I will communicate this way because this seems to be the more modern way to firmly affix English terms to these two expressions, even though, in my personal reading, our English Bible’s do not have separate terms for them. You may disagree; I understand. More about this later.

A rudimentary word about “language” as a concept. When we think of a “language”, we automatically associate certain components that describe what is meant by the term. A language begins with standardized phonemes, small discrete vocalizations that are reproducible between participants. Different languages have unique sets of reproducible phonemes. The English language has 44, and each are assigned a corresponding symbol, a “grapheme”. Phonemes are grouped together to form words. A language almost always also has graphical symbols for the various vocal sounds which we call an alphabet. With most spoken languages, the grouped phonemes (words) are also represented by alphabetic symbols so what is spoken can also be written. A complete language takes these two forms, spoken and written. The primary purpose of language is communication. People need to communicate for the purpose of understanding each other. Understanding generates safety, compassion, comradery, and a sense of community which forms a society with unique mores, traditions, ethics, and social justice. Without basic understanding things like suspicion, fear, mistrust, anxiety, and the like are naturally present, and things like discrimination, tribalism, class structure, separatism, colonialism, and the like ensue, leading to sanctions, contention, warring, and feuds which often lead to blood-shed and death. In this light, language is super important.

The Pentecostal outpouring of The Holy Spirit into the recently cleansed temple of God (the ecclesia) was supernaturally marked by divine removal of social barriers; testifying to the world the elimination of divisions; barriers of race, tribe, gender, wealth, social status, nationality, and even the barrier of language was removed. The anti-barrier effect was so profound that all who believed were unified in one body of Jesus, and they all considered material things to be common property. They even sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need. (Acts 2:44-45) This inimitable manifestation of The Holy Spirit was pure testiimony, and occured as the language barrier was supernaturally removed. This was miracle; this was impossible for men to fabricate or forge. This phenomenon went by the word “tongues” (Gk:glossa), and it was testified that every man heard them speak in his own dialect. (Gk:dialektos). Am I on track here?

Now you attest that the later “Corinthian and elsewhere” expression of “tongues” that continued within the assembly, and also privately, is not a human language, not contrary to the previous, but is still a legitimate reproducible “language”. “Tongues” as a language is continuing to today, and bears all the defining hallmarks of other languages (except possibly having a written form). You attest it is a standardized language, i.e. precise meanings are conveyed with reproducible utterances, every time, with exactly the same phonemes by various people, at various times, but can only be understood by men via the intervention of The Holy Spirit’s translation into a known language, (which the bible calls “interpretation” for some reason) (You call it a “Spirit-enabled disclosure of meaning”). So, by your explanation, it follows that if a recording of a saint speaking in “tongues” by The Holy Spirit were to be made in no one’s hearing, and the recording was “interpreted” by The Holy Spirit, translated into a known human language through two different people who had not met, who resided in different places, and heard it at different times, Because it is God speaking, the exact same message would be revealed by both. Am I correct?

Also. as a standardized language, you are suggesting, unlike the outpouring expression of The Holy Spirit in Acts, this different kind of H.S. expression, that goes by the same name, only provides for communication between men and God, and not between men and men, or even between the speaker’s heart and his own head. Am I hearing you correctly? I am not being snarky (reading this, I can see how it may sound that way). I am sincerely asking if I understand you properly.

[out of characters. I have more…]

103

Continue bro @KPuff

J.