what is Speaking in tongues

[Roger316]

You are mistaken. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

If you are not sure where I get the idea, how can you be certain that I am mistaken? Just sayin'.

The manifestation of tongues serve different purposes:
Tongues serve as the initial sign of receiving the Holy Spirit.

When the Holy Spirit was proving to Peter and the other Jewish believers that Gentiles were being saved and included among the people of God, he gave utterance as a sign that believers were receiving the Holy Spirit. He might do that today, I don't know. I haven't seen it myself.

Tongues function as a form of prayer directed toward God.

This is a mistaken idea that some Christians believe. Tongues are not a form of prayer directed toward God. The Holy Spirit translates the speaker's language into a foreign language during the spread of the Gospel. God knows all languages and so he doesn't need or require the Holy Spirit to translate.

Speaking in tongues operates for the edification of the body of Christ as a spiritual gift in the church.


1 Cor 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.

This is an oft-misunderstood passage.
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2 is not a definition of tongues as an unknown or private prayer language; it is part of an absurdum argument designed to expose the futility of uninterpreted speech in the assembly. Paul temporarily adopts the Corinthians’ mistaken premise—“even if we assume a man is speaking in a language no one knows”—in order to show how useless that would be. If no one understands him, then by definition he is “speaking to himself,” because communication has failed. But this hypothetical scenario is not Paul’s description of the actual gift. It is his way of pressing the point that the purpose of tongues is intelligible communication, not private ecstasy. Once we recognize Paul’s rhetorical method, the verse becomes a critique of unintelligibility, not a redefinition of tongues as an unknown language.

Paul stated that he doesn't understand what he's saying when praying and singing in the spirit. Also, take note of verses 16-17. They reveal the hearer doesn't understand the words spoken by the spirit, but in fact thanks have been given:

1 Cor 14:14-17
For if I pray in an unknown 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: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

In 1 Corinthians 14:14–17 is Paul continuing the same reductio‑style point, and the flow becomes even clearer when you read it as one sustained argument rather than isolated verses.

Paul extends the hypothetical: “even if” someone were praying in a language no one understands, then his spirit may be active, but his mind is unfruitful. That is not praise; it is Paul tightening the vise. He is saying, in effect: “If your mind is disengaged, and no one else understands you, then what good is it?” He then drives the point home with two rhetorical questions: How can anyone say “Amen”? How is anyone edified? These questions only make sense if Paul is still pressing the same critique of unintelligible speech that began in verse 2. The entire section (vv. 2–17) is one argument: if speech is not understood, it fails the purpose of tongues, which is intelligible communication for the building up of the church. Paul is not redefining tongues as an unknown language; he is showing the absurdity of treating unintelligible speech as spiritually valuable.

 

[Roger316]

Paul's question, "Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed?" (Acts 19:1-2) makes it clear a person can believe but still not have experienced receiving the Holy Ghost.

I agree, but in that context, they believed John's message. They hadn't yet become disciples of Jesus.

 

[Roger316]

You stated: "Does the Bible teach us that the Holy Spirit gives us a prayer language? No, not exactly, but it does teach that the Holy Spirit helps us with our prayers."

Paul reveals different purposes for the manifestation of unknown tongues and one IS prayer:

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

1 Cor 14:4
"He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; ..."

I disagree with this interpretation. Paul’s statements can easily be misunderstood if we treat them as literal descriptions of something real or authentic. In this passage, he is not defining tongues as an unknown language; he is repeating the Corinthians’ own mistaken idea in order to expose how unworkable it is. Paul’s point is that the very notion of someone speaking a language that no human being on earth understands is inherently self‑defeating. A “gift” that produces no understanding, no communication, and no possibility of an “Amen” is not a spiritual gift at all — it collapses under its own weight. By echoing their claim, Paul shows its absurdity: if no one understands you, then you are not edifying the church, you are simply making noise to yourself. His argument only makes sense if he finds the idea itself empty and untenable.

Paul further explains that believers may pray and sing both with their understanding and with the Spirit. When praying or singing in the Spirit, the words are not understood by the speaker, yet genuine communication with God is taking place. Those who pray in tongues know that prayer, praise, thanksgiving, and worship are being offered unto God through the operation of the Holy Spirit.

Paul wrote, "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful" (1 Corinthians 14:14). He went on to say, "I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also" (1 Corinthians 14:15). Furthermore, Paul said that the one praying in the Spirit may "give thanks well" (1 Corinthians 14:17), even though others present do not understand what is being said.

Thus, Paul presents praying and singing in the Spirit as legitimate expressions of worship in which the Holy Spirit enables communication with God beyond the limits of human understanding, while praying and singing with understanding are also important for personally and for the edification of others.

"For if I pray in an unknown 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: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: (1 Cor. 14:14-18)

I also disagree with the idea that Paul endorses praying or singing in an unknown language. In 1 Corinthians 14:14–17 Paul is not praising such behavior; he is politely dismantling it. His language is gentle, but his point is sharp: if a person prays or sings in a way that even he himself does not understand, then his mind is disengaged and the act becomes unfruitful. Paul is too courteous to say it bluntly, but the logic is unmistakable — a form of worship that bypasses the mind is not spiritual maturity but spiritual incoherence. If he were sitting in our Bible study today, he would likely say what his rhetoric implies: the idea of offering praise to God in a way that neither the speaker nor the hearers can understand is simply silly. Worship that cannot be understood cannot edify, and worship that cannot edify cannot be what the Spirit intended.

Lastly, Scripture reveals the spiritual gift of tongues and interpretation are manifestations of the Spirit, not man's natural abilities: (1 Cor. 12:6-11)

Scripture plainly reveals that the gifts of tongues and interpretation are manifestations of the Holy Spirit, not products of human ability. In 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, Paul places divers kinds of tongues and the interpretation of tongues among the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit. Just as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, and discerning of spirits are given and empowered by the Spirit, so are tongues and interpretation.

Paul wrote, "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal" and included "divers kinds of tongues" and "the interpretation of tongues" among those manifestations. He concluded, "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Corinthians 12:7-11).

I agree with you that Paul clearly identifies tongues and interpretation as manifestations of the Spirit, not products of human ingenuity or natural linguistic skill. In 1 Corinthians 12:7–11 Paul places these gifts in the same category as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, and prophecy — all of which are empowered by the Spirit and distributed “as He wills.” I have no hesitation affirming that the genuine gift of tongues is Spirit‑given and Spirit‑energized. Where our discussion lies is not in whether the Spirit gives the gift, but in what kind of gift Paul is describing. On the nature of the gift’s source, we stand together: it is the Spirit who manifests these abilities for the good of the church.

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 14:13-18, Paul instructed, "Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret." This instruction itself demonstrates that interpretation is not a natural understanding of a language already known to the speaker. If interpretation were merely a natural linguistic ability, there would be no need to pray for it. Rather, the interpretation must be given by the same Spirit who inspired the utterance.

I appreciate the point you’re making, and I agree that Paul treats both tongues and interpretation as genuine manifestations of the Spirit. Where I differ is in how Paul expects those gifts to function together. In 1 Corinthians 14:13 Paul is not teaching that one person uses a supernatural “interpretation gift” to translate another person’s supernatural “tongue.” Rather, he is urging the speaker himself to ensure intelligibility. The very fact that Paul tells the speaker to “pray that he may interpret” shows that Paul assumes the speaker knows what he is saying — otherwise praying for interpretation would be meaningless. Paul’s concern is not that the language is inherently unknowable, but that the speaker must not offer speech the congregation cannot understand. For Paul, the absurdity lies in imagining a Spirit‑given gift that produces no comprehension. His instruction is pastoral, not mystical: if you speak, make sure you can also make sense of what you are saying so the church may be edified. This reading preserves both the Spirit’s role and Paul’s insistence on intelligibility.

Another point is that if tongues were always understood human languages known by someone present, the separate gift of interpretation would be unnecessary.

I understand the concern, but I don’t think Paul’s reference to “interpretation” requires us to imagine a supernatural translator decoding an otherwise unknowable language. The gift of interpretation is not necessarily the gift of translation. In exegesis we regularly distinguish between what a passage says — its vocabulary, grammar, and lexical range — and what a passage means — its significance, context, background, and application. Paul’s use of “interpret” fits this richer category. If I’m reading him correctly, Paul is urging the speaker to ensure not merely that the words are intelligible, but that their meaning is made clear, their importance understood, and their relevance applied. In that sense, the “interpretation” Paul has in mind is the Spirit‑enabled ability to convey the significance of what is spoken so the church is edified, not a mystical decoding of an otherwise unknowable utterance. This preserves both the Spirit’s role and Paul’s insistence that all speech in the assembly must build up the body.

 

[Roger316]

Yes, the Spirit was the gift, and tongues was the sign that individuals had, indeed been filled with the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Acts records a progressive expansion of the gospel to all peoples. The Jews first received the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost and spoke with other tongues (Acts 2:1-4). The Samaritans, half Jew-half Gentile, received the Holy Ghost in Acts 8:14-19. Although tongues are not specifically mentioned in that account, something observable occurred that convinced Simon the sorcerer that the Holy Ghost had been received when the apostles laid hands upon them.

Later, the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in the house of Cornelius. Peter and the Jewish believers knew that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost because "they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts 10:44-48). Peter then commanded them to be baptized in water in the name of the Lord.

Finally, in Acts 19:1-7, approximately twelve disciples at Ephesus received the Holy Ghost and "spake with tongues, and prophesied." Thus, the same supernatural evidence that appeared among Jews at Pentecost and Gentiles at Cornelius' house also appeared among the Ephesian believers over 20+ years later.

These accounts span decades and include Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), Gentiles (Acts 10), and disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19). The repeated pattern confirms that speaking in tongues was not merely a temporary sign to announce that salvation had become available to the nations. The truth concerning Gentiles had already been established through the conversion of Cornelius and his household. Yet, the same sign still appeared years later at Ephesus proving the experience was essential for all individually. This continued manifestation indicates that speaking in tongues remained associated with the reception of the Holy Ghost throughout the apostolic era.

I don't think we can argue from scripture that the sign of tongues is essential.

 

[Dave123]

Yes, the Spirit was the gift, and tongues was the sign that individuals had, indeed been filled with the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Acts records a progressive expansion of the gospel to all peoples. The Jews first received the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost and spoke with other tongues (Acts 2:1-4). The Samaritans, half Jew-half Gentile, received the Holy Ghost in Acts 8:14-19. Although tongues are not specifically mentioned in that account, something observable occurred that convinced Simon the sorcerer that the Holy Ghost had been received when the apostles laid hands upon them.

Later, the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in the house of Cornelius. Peter and the Jewish believers knew that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost because "they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts 10:44-48). Peter then commanded them to be baptized in water in the name of the Lord.

Finally, in Acts 19:1-7, approximately twelve disciples at Ephesus received the Holy Ghost and "spake with tongues, and prophesied." Thus, the same supernatural evidence that appeared among Jews at Pentecost and Gentiles at Cornelius' house also appeared among the Ephesian believers over 20+ years later.

These accounts span decades and include Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), Gentiles (Acts 10), and disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19). The repeated pattern confirms that speaking in tongues was not merely a temporary sign to announce that salvation had become available to the nations. The truth concerning Gentiles had already been established through the conversion of Cornelius and his household. Yet, the same sign still appeared years later at Ephesus proving the experience was essential for all individually. This continued manifestation indicates that speaking in tongues remained associated with the reception of the Holy Ghost throughout the apostolic era.

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I wanted to clarify something concerning your last paragraph. Some of this is for those reading, not necessarily for you.

The reason for the receiving of the Holy Spirit (with signs accompanying) through out Acts begins with the fact that they were all true OT believers who had yet to hear the Gospel. They were, in my opinion, those who were spoken of in Romans 8:28-29, those foreknown, and thus predestined to believe the Gospel and be conformed to Christlikeness, which begins with the indwelling. The sheep that the Father gave to the Son, who would hear and believe. These were already declared righteous in promise, just like Abraham, and were yet to be born again (John 1:12-13), but given the right to become Sons of God, and thus born again, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that places us into Christ.

Every time some of these true OT believers were told the Gospel, and believed, and received the indwelling, and were placed into Christ, they spoke in other languages. As you said, it was a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like those did at Pentecost, but also a sign of Judgment on Israel.

Unless one is an OT believer, declared righteous by his faith, and have yet to hear the Gospel and believe, there is no reason to wait for the placing into with/by the [indwelling] Holy Spirit, which 'places us' into Jesus, the One True Church. Nor is there a need for any to speak in other languages to point to a judgment of Israel that has since passed. The speaking in languages for these OT to NT believers was also a sign that God was removing the roadblock that was put up at Babylon with the confusion of languages. This sign continued until all true OT believers were upgraded to NT believers, and the final judgment came to the nation of Israel on A.D. 70. That's why the sign aspect was still happening when Paul wrote to the church of Corinth in A.D. 54-57. Then it ended. That's why it lasted so long.

I'll quote Macarthur for some more context. Keep this in mind when your thinking about what you wrote in that last paragraph that I emboldened in your quote.

" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and layed hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him. The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one"....

"Why did the Samaritans (and later the Gentiles) have to wait for the apostles before receiving the Spirit? For centuries, the Samaritans and the Jews had been bitter rivals. If the Samaritans had received the Spirit independent of the Jerusalem, that rift would have been perpetuated. There could well have been two separate churches, a Jewish church and a Samaritan church. But God had designed one church, in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female," but "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:2.)...

By delaying the Spirit's coming until Peter and John arrived, God preserved the unity of the church. The apostles needed to see for themselves, and give firsthand testimony to the Jerusalem church, that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans. The Samaritans also needed to learn that they were subject to apostolic authority. The Jewish believers and Samaritans were thus linked together in one body....

Today, believers receive the Spirit at salvation (cf.1 Cor. 12:13). There was no need for delay after Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and Old Testament saints were already included in the church. (Macarthur)

Dave

 

[Dave123]

Paul's question, "Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed?" (Acts 19:1-2) makes it clear a person can believe but still not have experienced receiving the Holy Ghost.

Only before the Church was birthed in the OT. And into the NT as far as the transition from the OT to the NT took to be finished. Jesus summed it up nicely in John 7:38-39. Remember, Matthew, Mark Luke and John are all sill in the OT dispensation up until each records the cross (Hebrews 9:16-17).

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (born again) But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Acts 19:1-2, those were true OT believers whose understanding ended at John the Baptist. When Paul asked that question and they answered, he knew and understood that they needed to hear the Gospel, not as unbelievers, but as true OT believers who were the sheep who would hear and believe, all that the Father gave to me...

Remember, promises do not cleanse temples, blood does. The Holy Spirit does not enter us until after there was the blood of Christ Jesus to cleanse the NT temples of God. When He enters us, and that indwelling places us into Christ, we become Temples of the Holy Spirit. Plus there needed to be a death, resurrection and ascension, for the ingredients that save us, both practically and legally, when we are joined together with Christ Jesus in that spiritual immersion.

The transition must be considered, especially when using Scripture from Acts to apply to us today. The circumstances are different to be sure.

Dave

 

[rewriter]

Yes, the Spirit was the gift, and tongues was the sign that individuals had, indeed been filled with the Holy Ghost.

The Book of Acts records a progressive expansion of the gospel to all peoples. The Jews first received the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost and spoke with other tongues (Acts 2:1-4). The Samaritans, half Jew-half Gentile, received the Holy Ghost in Acts 8:14-19. Although tongues are not specifically mentioned in that account, something observable occurred that convinced Simon the sorcerer that the Holy Ghost had been received when the apostles laid hands upon them.

Later, the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost in the house of Cornelius. Peter and the Jewish believers knew that the Gentiles had received the Holy Ghost because "they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God" (Acts 10:44-48). Peter then commanded them to be baptized in water in the name of the Lord.

Finally, in Acts 19:1-7, approximately twelve disciples at Ephesus received the Holy Ghost and "spake with tongues, and prophesied." Thus, the same supernatural evidence that appeared among Jews at Pentecost and Gentiles at Cornelius' house also appeared among the Ephesian believers over 20+ years later.

These accounts span decades and include Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), Gentiles (Acts 10), and disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19). The repeated pattern confirms that speaking in tongues was not merely a temporary sign to announce that salvation had become available to the nations. The truth concerning Gentiles had already been established through the conversion of Cornelius and his household. Yet, the same sign still appeared years later at Ephesus proving the experience was essential for all individually. This continued manifestation indicates that speaking in tongues remained associated with the reception of the Holy Ghost throughout the apostolic era.

Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 that not all believers will speak in tongues.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

im a bit confused on this

Hi Nina2613,

The nice thing about our Bible is that it frequently defines terms with which we might not be familiar. English speakers in the 1500s used the term "tongue" interchangeably with the word "language. " Even though that word fell into disuse, English speakers still understand by the popularity of the Traditional King James Bible usage. Acts 2 is a place that defines the word tongues.

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

God wanted His disciples to share This good news< of Jesus Christ' death, burial and resurrection with the world. They were provided this special spiritual gift to speak in a different language without needing to take years to learn it. This most important event in history needed to be spread abroad to people who were from all of those places listed.
Those with that gift spoke clearly known langues of those who heard them. Then they could trust Jesus to save them and take that gospel back home.
Since I only speak the English tongue, I am limited to leading only English speakers to Christ. Does that make sense?

 

[HeIsHere]

It's not an earthly language. That's the point.

1 Cor 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.

That would be a "foreign" language, in that particular church there were many congregants from different parts of the world since Corinth was a port city.

If I do not know a language what is being spoken is a mystery to me and because it is a mystery to me I am not edified by the message.

This causes unruly behaviour in the church, therefore when someone speaks in a foreign language there needs to be an interpreter so everyone can benefit from the message.

 

[Wansvic]

If you are not sure where I get the idea, how can you be certain that I am mistaken? Just sayin'.

When the Holy Spirit was proving to Peter and the other Jewish believers that Gentiles were being saved and included among the people of God, he gave utterance as a sign that believers were receiving the Holy Spirit. He might do that today, I don't know. I haven't seen it myself.

This is a mistaken idea that some Christians believe. Tongues are not a form of prayer directed toward God. The Holy Spirit translates the speaker's language into a foreign language during the spread of the Gospel. God knows all languages and so he doesn't need or require the Holy Spirit to translate.

This is an oft-misunderstood passage.
Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:2 is not a definition of tongues as an unknown or private prayer language; it is part of an absurdum argument designed to expose the futility of uninterpreted speech in the assembly. Paul temporarily adopts the Corinthians’ mistaken premise—“even if we assume a man is speaking in a language no one knows”—in order to show how useless that would be. If no one understands him, then by definition he is “speaking to himself,” because communication has failed. But this hypothetical scenario is not Paul’s description of the actual gift. It is his way of pressing the point that the purpose of tongues is intelligible communication, not private ecstasy. Once we recognize Paul’s rhetorical method, the verse becomes a critique of unintelligibility, not a redefinition of tongues as an unknown language.



In 1 Corinthians 14:14–17 is Paul continuing the same reductio‑style point, and the flow becomes even clearer when you read it as one sustained argument rather than isolated verses.

Paul extends the hypothetical: “even if” someone were praying in a language no one understands, then his spirit may be active, but his mind is unfruitful. That is not praise; it is Paul tightening the vise. He is saying, in effect: “If your mind is disengaged, and no one else understands you, then what good is it?” He then drives the point home with two rhetorical questions: How can anyone say “Amen”? How is anyone edified? These questions only make sense if Paul is still pressing the same critique of unintelligible speech that began in verse 2. The entire section (vv. 2–17) is one argument: if speech is not understood, it fails the purpose of tongues, which is intelligible communication for the building up of the church. Paul is not redefining tongues as an unknown language; he is showing the absurdity of treating unintelligible speech as spiritually valuable.

The Word of God clearly states the truth. Everyone has to make the choice whether to accept it, or try to make it say something other than what it says. And it clearly states:

"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


Spiritual gifts are just that, they are spiritual in nature. Miraculous experiences prompted by the very Holy Spirit of God. Verse 19 below could not be clearer, Paul states he speaks words that people understand, and words no one understands.

"Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
For if I pray in an unknown 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: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

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." 1 Cor. 14:12-19

 

[Wansvic]

I agree, but in that context, they believed John's message. They hadn't yet become disciples of Jesus.

First of all, Paul's question reveals a truth regardless of what is expressed afterward. But in fact the entire encounter does confirm what Paul's initial question revealed. The men did not receive the Holy Ghost the instant they believed. They heard and believed the message about Jesus, and submitted to water baptism in the name of Jesus. It was afterward, when Paul laid hands upon them that they received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by their speaking in tongues and prophesying.

 

[Inquisitor]

im a bit confused on this

It's a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Scripture only.


The phrase "in the Spirit" is used in several ways in the New Testament, but they all revolve around the same central idea: the Holy Spirit's presence, power, guidance, and sphere of operation in a believer's life.

1. Living under the Spirit's influence rather than the flesh​

Paul's clearest explanation is in Romans 8:

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." (Romans 8:9)

Here, being "in the Spirit" is contrasted with being "in the flesh." It describes those in whom God's Spirit dwells.


Paul continues:

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14)

And:

"If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (Romans 8:13)

Thus, to be "in the Spirit" is to belong to Christ and be under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

---

2. Walking according to the Spirit​

Paul also uses similar language:

"Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh." (Galatians 5:16)

"If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." (Galatians 5:25)

The Spirit is not merely an influence but the source of the believer's life and conduct.

---

3. The mind set on spiritual things​

Romans 8 again:

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." (Romans 8:5)

Being "in the Spirit" involves a transformed orientation of mind and heart toward the things of God.

---

4. Praying in the Spirit​

"Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit." (Ephesians 6:18)

"Praying in the Holy Ghost." (Jude 20)

Prayer "in the Spirit" is prayer prompted and directed by the Holy Spirit rather than merely human effort.

---

5. Receiving revelation in the Spirit​

Sometimes the phrase refers to a special state in which prophetic revelation is given.


John writes:

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." (Revelation 1:10)

Again:

"Immediately I was in the spirit." (Revelation 4:2)

And:

"He carried me away in the spirit..." (Revelation 17:3; 21:10)

Likewise:

"The Spirit lifted me up..." (Ezekiel 3:14)

In these contexts, "in the Spirit" refers to being carried by the Spirit into a visionary revelation.

---

6. Worship in the Spirit​

Jesus said:

"The true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth." (John 4:23)

Paul similarly says:

"We are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit." (Philippians 3:3)

The Spirit is the source and power of true worship.

---

Summary from the New Testament​

The phrase "in the Spirit" generally means being within the realm, influence, power, and guidance of the Holy Spirit rather than the flesh.


The New Testament describes believers as:

• Dwelling in the Spirit (Romans 8:9)
• Walking in the Spirit (Galatians 5:16)
• Being led by the Spirit (Romans 8:14)
• Praying in the Spirit (Ephesians 6:18)
• Worshipping in the Spirit (Philippians 3:3)
• Receiving revelation in the Spirit (Revelation 1:10)

The most comprehensive definition is Romans 8:9:

"Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you."

According to Paul, to be "in the Spirit" is fundamentally to be a person in whom the Spirit of God dwells, in contrast to being "in the flesh."

 

[Wansvic]

I disagree with this interpretation. Paul’s statements can easily be misunderstood if we treat them as literal descriptions of something real or authentic. In this passage, he is not defining tongues as an unknown language; he is repeating the Corinthians’ own mistaken idea in order to expose how unworkable it is. Paul’s point is that the very notion of someone speaking a language that no human being on earth understands is inherently self‑defeating. A “gift” that produces no understanding, no communication, and no possibility of an “Amen” is not a spiritual gift at all — it collapses under its own weight. By echoing their claim, Paul shows its absurdity: if no one understands you, then you are not edifying the church, you are simply making noise to yourself. His argument only makes sense if he finds the idea itself empty and untenable.

I also disagree with the idea that Paul endorses praying or singing in an unknown language. In 1 Corinthians 14:14–17 Paul is not praising such behavior; he is politely dismantling it. His language is gentle, but his point is sharp: if a person prays or sings in a way that even he himself does not understand, then his mind is disengaged and the act becomes unfruitful. Paul is too courteous to say it bluntly, but the logic is unmistakable — a form of worship that bypasses the mind is not spiritual maturity but spiritual incoherence. If he were sitting in our Bible study today, he would likely say what his rhetoric implies: the idea of offering praise to God in a way that neither the speaker nor the hearers can understand is simply silly. Worship that cannot be understood cannot edify, and worship that cannot edify cannot be what the Spirit intended.



I agree with you that Paul clearly identifies tongues and interpretation as manifestations of the Spirit, not products of human ingenuity or natural linguistic skill. In 1 Corinthians 12:7–11 Paul places these gifts in the same category as wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, and prophecy — all of which are empowered by the Spirit and distributed “as He wills.” I have no hesitation affirming that the genuine gift of tongues is Spirit‑given and Spirit‑energized. Where our discussion lies is not in whether the Spirit gives the gift, but in what kind of gift Paul is describing. On the nature of the gift’s source, we stand together: it is the Spirit who manifests these abilities for the good of the church.



I appreciate the point you’re making, and I agree that Paul treats both tongues and interpretation as genuine manifestations of the Spirit. Where I differ is in how Paul expects those gifts to function together. In 1 Corinthians 14:13 Paul is not teaching that one person uses a supernatural “interpretation gift” to translate another person’s supernatural “tongue.” Rather, he is urging the speaker himself to ensure intelligibility. The very fact that Paul tells the speaker to “pray that he may interpret” shows that Paul assumes the speaker knows what he is saying — otherwise praying for interpretation would be meaningless. Paul’s concern is not that the language is inherently unknowable, but that the speaker must not offer speech the congregation cannot understand. For Paul, the absurdity lies in imagining a Spirit‑given gift that produces no comprehension. His instruction is pastoral, not mystical: if you speak, make sure you can also make sense of what you are saying so the church may be edified. This reading preserves both the Spirit’s role and Paul’s insistence on intelligibility.

I understand the concern, but I don’t think Paul’s reference to “interpretation” requires us to imagine a supernatural translator decoding an otherwise unknowable language. The gift of interpretation is not necessarily the gift of translation. In exegesis we regularly distinguish between what a passage says — its vocabulary, grammar, and lexical range — and what a passage means — its significance, context, background, and application. Paul’s use of “interpret” fits this richer category. If I’m reading him correctly, Paul is urging the speaker to ensure not merely that the words are intelligible, but that their meaning is made clear, their importance understood, and their relevance applied. In that sense, the “interpretation” Paul has in mind is the Spirit‑enabled ability to convey the significance of what is spoken so the church is edified, not a mystical decoding of an otherwise unknowable utterance. This preserves both the Spirit’s role and Paul’s insistence that all speech in the assembly must build up the body.

You really seem sincere. But in this case, you are sincerely wrong.

The spiritual gifts are supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit. They do not originate from human intellect, talent, or ability, but are initiated and directed by God according to His own will and purpose.

Note Paul said: "But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will" (1 Corinthians 12:11).

The gift of different kinds of tongues is a miraculous means by which the Holy Spirit speaks a message through a Spirit-filled believer in a language unknown to the speaker. For the benefit of the congregation, God may then reveal the meaning of that message through the gift of interpretation of tongues, enabling another Spirit-filled believer to communicate the message in the language understood by those gathered.

In this way, the church is edified, and the message originates from God rather than from human understanding. The same principle applies to all the manifestation gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Whether it is a word of wisdom, a word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues, or interpretation of tongues, each is a supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit revealing God's power, knowledge, wisdom, or purpose through willing believers.

These gifts are not natural abilities developed by man, but divine manifestations given by the Spirit "to profit withal" (1 Corinthians 12:7). They function as God chooses, when He chooses, and through whom He chooses, for the edification of the church and the accomplishment of His purposes.

Again, Paul repeatedly calls the gifts "manifestations of the Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:7) and emphasizes that the Spirit Himself distributes and operates them "as he will" (1 Cor. 12:11). This places the source, operation, and purpose of every gift squarely in the hands of God rather than man.

 

[Wansvic]

I don't think we can argue from scripture that the sign of tongues is essential.

No offense. But ones personal opinion doesn't matter. Scripture does. And it reveals and confirms over, and over that tongues is the sign that accompanies the infilling.

 

[Anchorite]

Good question. Speaking in tongues is a supernatural event caused by the Holy Spirit, in which a person speaks one language while everyone else hears another. So, for instance, a minister or someone else in church might be speaking in French but everyone hears him speak in English.

I want to be careful and respectful here, so let me put this as clearly as I can. When I speak of speaking in tongues, I’m referring to the biblical phenomenon where a person speaks in one language and listeners hear it in their own language. In that sense, it’s intelligible communication — just intelligible in a miraculous way.

Glossolalia, on the other hand, describes vocalizations that are not recognizable as any known language. So I’m not using the term ‘tongues’ to describe inarticulate or non‑linguistic speech, but rather a real, meaningful language event that others can understand.

Wrong. You are referring exclusively to the speaking in tongues that happened on the day of Pentecost. The miracle was that each spectator heard in their own language what the believers were saying.

Later, in the letter to the Corinthians, speaking in unknown tongues, or languages unknown to the speaker, had to be interpreted, people did not hear the tongue in their own language. Sometimes it was the tongue or language of angels.

The tongues talking I hear in Pentecostal circles always sounds like imitative gibberish, nonsense syllables, or a variant on Aramaic.

 

[Wansvic]

I agree with most of what you wrote, but I wanted to clarify something concerning your last paragraph. Some of this is for those reading, not necessarily for you.

The reason for the receiving of the Holy Spirit (with signs accompanying) through out Acts begins with the fact that they were all true OT believers who had yet to hear the Gospel. They were, in my opinion, those who were spoken of in Romans 8:28-29, those foreknown, and thus predestined to believe the Gospel and be conformed to Christlikeness, which begins with the indwelling. The sheep that the Father gave to the Son, who would hear and believe. These were already declared righteous in promise, just like Abraham, and were yet to be born again (John 1:12-13), but given the right to become Sons of God, and thus born again, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that places us into Christ.

Every time some of these true OT believers were told the Gospel, and believed, and received the indwelling, and were placed into Christ, they spoke in other languages. As you said, it was a sign that they had received the Holy Spirit just like those did at Pentecost, but also a sign of Judgment on Israel.

Unless one is an OT believer, declared righteous by his faith, and have yet to hear the Gospel and believe, there is no reason to wait for the placing into with/by the [indwelling] Holy Spirit, which 'places us' into Jesus, the One True Church. Nor is there a need for any to speak in other languages to point to a judgment of Israel that has since passed. The speaking in languages for these OT to NT believers was also a sign that God was removing the roadblock that was put up at Babylon with the confusion of languages. This sign continued until all true OT believers were upgraded to NT believers, and the final judgment came to the nation of Israel on A.D. 70. That's why the sign aspect was still happening when Paul wrote to the church of Corinth in A.D. 54-57. Then it ended. That's why it lasted so long.

I'll quote Macarthur for some more context. Keep this in mind when your thinking about what you wrote in that last paragraph that I emboldened in your quote.

" the believers in Samaria who were converted under the ministry of Philip had to wait a short while to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit, until Peter and John came up to Samaria and layed hands on the converts (Acts 8:17). In that unique transitional situation as the Church was beginning, those particular believers had to wait for the Holy Spirit, but they were not told to seek Him. The purpose for that exception was to demonstrate to the apostles, and to bring word back to the Jewish believers in general, that the same Holy Spirit baptized and filled Samaritan believers as baptized and filled Jewish believers--just a short while later Peter and a few other Jewish Christians were sent to witness to Cornelius and his household in order to be convinced that the gospel was for all men and to see that "the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also"(Acts 10:44-45). Those special transitional events did not represent the norm, as our present text makes clear, but were given to indicate to all that the body was one"....

"Why did the Samaritans (and later the Gentiles) have to wait for the apostles before receiving the Spirit? For centuries, the Samaritans and the Jews had been bitter rivals. If the Samaritans had received the Spirit independent of the Jerusalem, that rift would have been perpetuated. There could well have been two separate churches, a Jewish church and a Samaritan church. But God had designed one church, in which "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female," but "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:2.)...

By delaying the Spirit's coming until Peter and John arrived, God preserved the unity of the church. The apostles needed to see for themselves, and give firsthand testimony to the Jerusalem church, that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans. The Samaritans also needed to learn that they were subject to apostolic authority. The Jewish believers and Samaritans were thus linked together in one body....

Today, believers receive the Spirit at salvation (cf.1 Cor. 12:13). There was no need for delay after Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, and Old Testament saints were already included in the church. (Macarthur)

Dave

Acts 19:1-7 sheds more light on the topic. The account demonstrates that the same gospel message and response first preached on the Day of Pentecost remained in effect more than twenty years later.

When Paul arrived at Ephesus, he encountered disciples who had believed but had only received John's baptism. Upon learning this, Paul instructed them concerning Jesus Christ. They were then water baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, and afterward received the Holy Ghost, speaking with tongues and prophesying (Acts 19:5-6).

This is significant because it occurred decades after Pentecost. The message had not changed. The same essential elements remained in place: faith in Jesus Christ, baptism in His name, and the reception of the Holy Ghost.

The account also reveals that Paul remained in Ephesus and continued teaching the same message. Acts 19:8-10 records that he taught in the synagogue and later in the school of Tyrannus for approximately two years after some rejected his preaching. Rather than introducing a different gospel, Paul continued proclaiming the same truth throughout Asia.

Acts 19 therefore stands as powerful evidence that the apostolic message was not limited to the Day of Pentecost, nor was it intended only for particular groups of people. More than twenty years later, the Apostle Paul was still preaching and administering the same gospel experience. The account demonstrates continuity between Peter's message in Acts 2 and Paul's ministry in Acts 19.

Because the apostles consistently preached the same gospel throughout the New Testament era, Acts 19 provides strong evidence that these requirements were not temporary provisions but remained part of the apostolic message for all New Testament believers. The New Testament contains no record of the apostles replacing or revoking this message.

Lastly, the Ephesian believers of Acts 19 are the same believers to whom Paul later wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:13, Paul reminded them: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." (note the reference to the promise in Acts 2:38-39)

Thus, the Ephesian letter was written to people who had personally experienced the Acts 19 pattern of rebaptism in Jesus' name and receiving the Holy Ghost, confirming that this experience was part of the "word of truth" and "gospel of your salvation" that Paul preached to them.

 

[Wansvic]

Only before the Church was birthed in the OT. And into the NT as far as the transition from the OT to the NT took to be finished. Jesus summed it up nicely in John 7:38-39. Remember, Matthew, Mark Luke and John are all sill in the OT dispensation up until each records the cross (Hebrews 9:16-17).

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." (born again) But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Acts 19:1-2, those were true OT believers whose understanding ended at John the Baptist. When Paul asked that question and they answered, he knew and understood that they needed to hear the Gospel, not as unbelievers, but as true OT believers who were the sheep who would hear and believe, all that the Father gave to me...

Remember, promises do not cleanse temples, blood does. The Holy Spirit does not enter us until after there was the blood of Christ Jesus to cleanse the NT temples of God. When He enters us, and that indwelling places us into Christ, we become Temples of the Holy Spirit. Plus there needed to be a death, resurrection and ascension, for the ingredients that save us, both practically and legally, when we are joined together with Christ Jesus in that spiritual immersion.

The transition must be considered, especially when using Scripture from Acts to apply to us today. The circumstances are different to be sure.

Dave

Paul's question, "Have you received the Holy Ghost SINCE you believed?" (Acts 19:1-2) reveals a truth in and of itself. And as the account confirms, the men did not receive the Holy Ghost the instant they believed. They believed, submitted to water baptism in the name of Jesus and afterward Paul laid hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost.

 

[Wansvic]

Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 that not all believers will speak in tongues.

Paul's comment pertained to the Spiritual gift of tongues. There is a difference.

 

[TMS]

The biblical gift of tongues is the supernatural ability to speak in existing human languages that the speaker has not previously learned, specifically for the purpose of sharing the Gospel with people of different nationalities.

This gift was never intended to be an unintelligible "gibberish" or a private prayer language that bypasses the mind; rather, it is a clear, rational communication of God's truth meant to edify the church and serve as a sign to those who do not yet believe.

The primary reason God bestowed this gift was to overcome language barriers during the Great Commission. On the day of Pentecost, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with "other tongues" Acts 2:4. These were not mystical sounds, but the native languages of the "devout men, out of every nation under heaven" who were staying in Jerusalem Acts 2:5

The listeners were amazed because they heard the disciples "speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" Acts 2:11.
Paul clarifies that "tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" 1 Corinthians 14:22. This was a powerful tool to convince the Jews and other nations that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Paul emphasizes that in the church, the priority is building up the believers. He stated, "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" 1 Corinthians 14:19

When someone prays in a tongue that is not understood by the listeners, their "understanding is unfruitful" to the congregation 1 Corinthians 14:14. Therefore, we are encouraged to "pray with the spirit" and "pray with the understanding also" 1 Corinthians 14:15.

"God is not the author of confusion, but of peace" 1 Corinthians 14:33. Thus, "let all things be done decently and in order" 1 Corinthians 14:40.

Tongues is not an unknown language, or a heavenly language.. God understands every thought.

 

[Wansvic]

That would be a "foreign" language, in that particular church there were many congregants from different parts of the world since Corinth was a port city.

If I do not know a language what is being spoken is a mystery to me and because it is a mystery to me I am not edified by the message.

This causes unruly behaviour in the church, therefore when someone speaks in a foreign language there needs to be an interpreter so everyone can benefit from the message.

The scripture is clear...NO MAN UNDERSTANDS HIM. This reveals the scripture is not referencing a foreign language that some know and can interpret.

1 Cor 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.