Do All Speak in Tongues?
Four Kinds of Tongues, One Dangerous Conversation
Do All Speak in Tongues?
A Text-Driven, Objective Examination of Tongues in the New Testament**
Scope Note
This is an analytical overview, not a doctrinal conclusion. It attempts to identify what Scripture explicitly states, what it logically implies, what it does not clarify, and where interpretive disagreement is legitimate. However, readers must weigh the evidence themselves.
Why Tongues Require Careful Handling
Across Christian history, tongues have been:
Affirmed as an active work of the Spirit
Rejected as a ceased or counterfeit phenomenon
Avoided because of confusion, abuse, or lack of teaching
This diversity of reaction exists because the biblical data is both substantial and complex. Tongues appear in multiple contexts, with different functions, and under different constraints.
A responsible examination must not:
Flatten all tongues into one experience
Treat abuses as evidence against the gift itself
Elevate traditions above the text
Collapse distinctions Scripture maintains
Invent certainty where Scripture is silent
Our task is to let the text define what we can and cannot say.
The Foundational Framework of 1 Corinthians 12–14
Paul’s longest treatment of tongues spans three chapters. These chapters must be read as a single argument:
1 Corinthians 12 – Diversity of Gifts
The Spirit gives different gifts to different members.
“Varieties of tongues” and “interpretation of tongues” are listed alongside prophecy, healings, miracles, and teaching (12:8–11, 28–30).
When Paul asks if everyone speaks in tongues, he already expects the answer to be no. His point is that not everyone has the same function in the church.
1 Corinthians 13 – Love as Governing Principle
Love is essential or the gifts are meaningless (13:1–3).
This chapter does not deny gifts; it regulates motivation.
“When the perfect comes” is associated with seeing face to face (13:12), which points to the eschaton, not to the canon or apostolic age.
Paul defines “the perfect” through two markers in verse 12: seeing “face to face” and knowing “fully, even as I am fully known.” Neither of these describes the early church, the apostolic age, or the formation of the canon. Throughout Scripture, “face to face” consistently refers to a direct encounter with God reserved for the eschaton, not a metaphor for possessing a completed Bible. Likewise, “knowing fully” aligns with resurrection glory, not with the partial knowledge believers still experience today. If “the perfect” referred to the canon, then after its completion Christians would no longer see dimly, confusion would vanish, and believers would possess full God-level clarity; claims that obviously fail. The earliest Christian interpreters: Chrysostom, Augustine, Origen, Jerome all unanimously understood “the perfect” as the final consummation, not the closing of the canon, a view that did not appear until modern cessationism. Paul’s rhetorical structure (“now… then…”) mirrors his other eschatological contrasts, not any historical church milestone. Taken together, the literary, linguistic, theological, and historical data converge on one conclusion: in 1 Corinthians 13, “the perfect” refers to the eschaton when believers finally experience direct, unmediated communion with God, not to the completion of Scripture or the end of the apostolic age.
Eschatological (Defined as: relating to death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind)
Eschaton (Defined as: the final event in the divine plan; the end of the world.)
1 Corinthians 14 – Edification and Order
People need to understand what’s being said for the church to be built up.
Tongues without interpretation only create confusion in a public gathering (1 Cor 14:6–19).
Prophecy has greater public value because everyone can understand it without needing an interpreter.
Paul forbids chaos, not tongues:
“Do not forbid speaking in tongues.” (14:39)
Interim Conclusion
Paul does not eliminate tongues.
Paul does not universalize corporate tongues.
Paul does not equate private and public tongues.
Paul regulates tongues based on edification, order, and clarity, not on cessation or enthusiasm.
The Biblical Data: Four Distinct Patterns of Tongues
The New Testament describes at least four different expressions commonly labeled “tongues.” Scripture never explicitly categorizes them, but the functional distinctions are visible.
This section avoids speculation and sticks to textual markers.
Pattern 1: Tongues as Known Human Languages (Acts 2)
Category: Public
Function: Communication / sign
Textual Evidence: Clear
At Pentecost, the disciples speak languages they have not learned (Acts 2:4–11).
The content is intelligible to the crowd (“we hear them in our own tongues”).
Purpose: the “wonderful works of God” are declared to a multi-lingual audience.
This is the only place where tongues are unambiguously identified as xenoglossy (miraculous foreign language ability).
Objective Notes
The text does not say all future tongues function this way.
The text does show that the Spirit can and has empowered miraculous cross-linguistic communication.
Acts 2 is a public sign, not a private prayer expression.
Pattern 2: Tongues Requiring Interpretation (1 Cor 12–14)
Category: Public
Function: Edification of the assembly
Textual Evidence: Clear
Characteristics:
Not understood by listeners (1 Cor 14:2, 14:9–11).
Must be interpreted to benefit the body (14:5, 27–28).
Interpretation is a separate gift given by the Spirit (12:10).
Without interpretation, Paul instructs silence in the assembly (14:28).
Objective Notes
These tongues are not said to be human languages.
Nor are they explicitly said to be non-human. — The text doesn’t say what kind of language it is. It only cares whether people can understand what’s being said.
Paul’s question “do all speak with tongues?” (12:30) most naturally applies to this public variety.
Pattern 3: Tongues as Personal Prayer (1 Cor 14:2, 14–18)
Category: Private
Function: Self-edification, prayer, praise
Textual Evidence: Strong
Key markers:
Addressed to God, not people (14:2).
Not understood by others (14:2).
Not understood fully by the speaker (14:14).
Edifies the individual (14:4).
Paul does this frequently (14:18).
Paul distinguishes between praying “with the spirit” and praying “with the understanding” (14:15).
Objective Notes
This category has the clearest textual grounding for what many call a private prayer language.
Paul neither commands it for all believers nor restricts it to a few; he simply describes its nature.
Scripture does not say this experience is normative or mandatory for all.
Scripture does not discourage it; Paul treats it as personally beneficial.
Pattern 4: Spirit-Led Intercession (Rom 8:26–27; Jude 20–21)
Category: Private (not public worship)
Function: Assistance in prayer / strengthening
Textual Evidence: Moderate
Romans 8:
The Spirit intercedes with “groanings too deep for words.”
The text does not explicitly call this tongues.
The lack of speech (“too deep for words”) suggests non-verbal prayer.
Jude 20–21: “Praying in the Holy Spirit” builds up the believer. — This is not defined as tongues.
It can include tongues; it may also refer broadly to Spirit-directed prayer.
Objective Notes
Neither text can be used as definitive proof of tongues.
Neither text contradicts tongues.
Both texts clearly describe Spirit-initiated prayer that surpasses normal human articulation.
The Function of Tongues as “Sign” (1 Cor 14:21–22)
Paul quotes Isaiah 28:
“With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people.”
He concludes:
“Therefore tongues are for a sign… to unbelievers.”
Crucial Objective Observations
Isaiah’s “sign” is a sign of judgment, not of evangelistic clarity.
Acts 2 is a positive sign, reversing Babel, declaring the gospel.
1 Corinthians 14:23 shows that uninterpreted tongues produce confusion among unbelievers, not clarity.
Therefore:
The New Testament contains both positive and negative “sign” functions.
Paul’s point in 1 Cor 14 is not “tongues convert unbelievers” but “without interpretation, tongues confuse outsiders.”
This reinforces the need for order and edification.
The Cessation Question: What Does the Text Actually Allow?
A cessationist reading relies heavily on two claims:
“Tongues will cease” means “tongues ceased in the first century.”
Paul links cessation to “the perfect,” defined by “face-to-face” knowledge (13:10–12).
As discussed earlier, this refers to eschatological completion, not the closing of the canon.
Therefore, 1 Cor 13 cannot be used as decisive evidence for first-century cessation.
Sign-gifts authenticated apostles.
While true in Acts, the text never states that sign-gifts exclusively authenticate apostles.
Many non-apostles exercise gifts in Acts (Stephen, Philip, Ananias, the disciples at Corinth, etc.).
Objective Conclusion
Scripture does not teach the cessation of tongues before the return of Christ.
Scripture does not guarantee their continuation in every era or community.
Scripture does not prescribe tongues as universal evidence of the Spirit.
Scripture does not discourage open receptivity to the Spirit’s ongoing work.
The text leaves room for continuationism, cautious continuationism, and skeptical openness. But not for dogmatic cessationism or forced universal tongues.
Public vs Private: The Core of Paul’s Regulation
Paul creates a clear, functional distinction:
Public Tongues
Require interpretation
Must edify others
Limited to two or three per gathering
Must be intelligible through interpretation
Are not performed simultaneously en masse
Are not mandatory for all believers
Private Tongues
Directed to God
Edify the individual
Can be exercised freely in private
Require self-restraint in public contexts
Are neither commanded nor forbidden for believers
Paul’s summary command:
“Let all things be done for edification.” (14:26)
This is the guiding principle for every category.
Summary of What the Text Establishes
1. “Tongues” in Scripture are not a single phenomenon.
Evidence:
Acts 2:4–11 describes tongues as recognizable human languages (“each in our own native language”), which fits xenoglossy.
1 Corinthians 14:2 describes a tongue spoken to God, unintelligible to humans (“no one understands him”), which fits a private prayer language.
1 Corinthians 14:27–28 describes a tongue spoken publicly that must be accompanied by interpretation, which is a third distinct function.
Reasoning:
Different contexts, audiences, and outcomes mean Paul isn’t describing a single activity with one purpose.
2. Not every believer receives every public gift.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 12:29–30 uses a series of rhetorical questions (“Are all apostles? … Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?”).
Greek grammar expects a “no” answer to each question.
Reasoning:
Tongues in this passage occur in a list of corporate, ministry-oriented gifts. The structure indicates that no public gift is universal.
3. Scripture does not state that all believers speak in private tongues.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 14:5: Paul says, “I wish you all spoke with tongues.” Wishes are not commands.
No passage states “all believers speak in tongues privately,” and no imperative commands believers to do so.
Reasoning:
We can’t universalize a gift based on an apostolic desire, especially when the same apostle explicitly states not all believers have all gifts.
4. Private tongues are permitted and practiced by Paul.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 14:18: “I thank God I speak in tongues more than all of you.”
1 Corinthians 14:2: A tongue spoken to God, not to men; this is private by definition.
1 Corinthians 14:14: “If I pray in a tongue…”
Reasoning:
Paul not only practices private tongues; he frames them as prayer directed toward God, not the congregation.
5. The church is explicitly told not to forbid tongues.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 14:39: “Do not forbid speaking in tongues.”
This is a direct command, not a suggestion.
Reasoning:
Regardless of one’s comfort level or tradition, the apostolic instruction prevents churches from banning the gift.
6. Corporate worship must prioritize clarity and intelligibility.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 14:9: “Unless you utter intelligible words… how will anyone know what is being said?”
14:12: Gifts must “excel in building up the church.”
14:27–28: Public tongues must be accompanied by interpretation; if not, “let each of them keep silent in church.”
Reasoning:
The gathered assembly requires intelligibility. Public tongues without interpretation violate that principle, so Paul restricts them.
7. Love governs the gifts and determines their value.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 13:1–3: Tongues, prophecy, knowledge, generosity; without love they are “nothing.”
Chapter 13 is placed intentionally between 12 (gifts) and 14 (order).
Reasoning:
Love is not optional. It governs how every gift is meant to function. Without it, tongues, prophecy, and every other gift lose their intended value and no longer reflect God’s character.
8. Paul does not teach cessationism, nor universal tongues.
Evidence:
1 Corinthians 13:8–12:
Gifts cease only “when the perfect comes.”
Defined as: seeing “face to face” and “knowing fully.”
Both correspond to eschatological completion, not the apostolic era or closed canon.
Cessation of gifts is never linked to the death of apostles or completion of Scripture.
Universal tongues is directly contradicted by 1 Cor 12:30 (“Do all speak with tongues?” — expected “no”).
Reasoning:
Paul’s horizon for the end of gifts is eschatological, not historical. Likewise, he simultaneously discourages cessationism and universal-tongue doctrines.
What We Cannot Say Without Leaving the Text
These statements lack textual support and therefore cannot be claimed objectively:
“Tongues are mandatory evidence of the Holy Spirit.”
“Tongues have ceased permanently.”
“Romans 8 groanings are definitely tongues.”
“Jude 20 refers exclusively to tongues.”
“All tongues are human languages.”
“All tongues are heavenly languages.”
“Public and private tongues are the same gift.”
“Paul teaches all believers will inevitably speak in tongues.”
“Paul teaches believers should avoid tongues altogether.”
None of these claims align with the textual complexity.
Final Objective Conclusion
The New Testament presents tongues as a real, diverse, and regulated work of the Spirit operating in both public and private contexts. Paul neither elevates them above other gifts nor marginalizes them. He neither universalizes nor eliminates them. His emphasis is:
Edification over display
Love over ability
Order over chaos
Understanding over confusion
Christ over experience
The most faithful posture to the text is:
Open to what God gives
Bound by what Scripture regulates
Cautious of extremes
Committed to clarity and love
Everything beyond that is tradition, speculation, or preference, not biblical mandate.
The challenge: don’t default to the view you inherited or the one that feels safest. Sit with the passage until you can say why you believe what you believe. If your conclusion can’t survive honest scrutiny, it’s time to revisit it.
Further Reading
1. On “the perfect” as eschaton (1 Cor 13:10–12):
Oropeza, B. J. (2018). When will the cessation of speaking in tongues and revelatory gifts take place? A reply to updated interpretations of 1 Corinthians 13:8–10. Pneuma, 40(4), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1163/15700747-04004003
2. On early church fathers and eschatological interpretation:
McDougall, D. G. (2003). Cessationism in 1 Corinthians 13:8–12. The Master’s Seminary Journal, 14(2), 263–284. https://tms.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tmsj14g.pdf
3. On rhetorical structure in 1 Corinthians 12:30 (“Do all speak in tongues?”):
Snoeberger, M. A. (2009). Tongues—Are they for today? Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 14, 47–74. https://ccggrockford.org/wp-content/uploads/Snoeberger%20-%20Tongues.pdf
4. On distinctions between tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians:
Nel, M. (2017). The Pentecostal movement’s view of the continuity of tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians. In die Skriflig, 51(1), a2198. https://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ids/v51n1/05.pdf
5. On ambiguity of Romans 8 and Jude 20 as tongues references:
Youvan, D. C. (2024). The need for interpretation: A biblical and theological critique of uninterpreted tongues in worship[White paper]. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383153602
6. On non-apostles exercising gifts in Acts:
Kersten, E. (2021). Luke’s perspective of tongues in comparison to cessationism [Doctoral dissertation, Concordia Theological Seminary]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://search.proquest.com/openview/dde132045078a7da25055792f1ddf382/1?pq-origsite=gscholar
Thanks for reading Berean Underground! Share this if it made you think, and subscribe for more reflections that refuse to settle for easy answers.
Disclaimer: This post was sharpened with the help of AI tools for clarity and flow.
Change Your Mind?
If you ever decide this content isn’t for you, you can unsubscribe with the link below at any time.