Only one time in my life have I understood a message in tongues without interpretation.

While visiting a church overseas, I heard a non-English speaker praying in English. It wasn’t contemporary English, but more like Middle English. Still, I followed enough to recognize the message as glorifying God.

On another occasion, a woman from Japan visiting my home church reported hearing a message in tongues in her native language. It was her first time attending a Pentecostal church, and she came desperate to hear from God.

The woman not only received the encouragement she needed, but she was also surprised to hear someone else translating the message into English.

When the service ended, she tried unsuccessfully to converse in Japanese with the two individuals who had delivered the message and interpretation. That was when she learned for the first time about speaking in tongues.

After that, the woman faithfully attended every service, hoping to hear another message in tongues for her.

Such stories have been told throughout the Pentecostal movement. They are far from the norm, however.

While tongues speech may sometimes be recognizable to listeners, it is usually unintelligible, especially to the speaker. In fact, Pentecostals can recognize tongues speech because of its unintelligibility.

For Pentecostals, speaking in tongues is communication first to God, who recognizes every kind of speech, and then to the community. Even if all it communicates is the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit, that is enough reason for Pentecostals to value tongues.

The only thing many people know about Pentecostals is that we speak in tongues. From the beginning, this practice has distinguished Pentecostalism, sometimes leading to scorn from outsiders.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of tongues to the Pentecostal movement. However, it is possible to make too much of tongues theologically, particularly when the practice becomes the main point rather than a form of communication pointing to something greater.

In Scripture

The practice of speaking in “other tongues” or “other languages” appears in three New Testament books: the Gospel of Mark, the Book of Acts, and 1 Corinthians.

In Mark 16:17, “speaking in tongues” is listed among the signs that accompany believers, along with exorcisms, healing, and picking up snakes. (As the longer ending of Mark, this is possibly a reference to Acts 28:3.)

A handful of verses in Acts 2, 10, and 19 mention speaking in tongues. Each reference is part of a narrative about the Holy Spirit’s outpouring on believers for empowerment (Acts 1:8).

In Acts 2:4, 120 followers are filled with the Spirit and begin speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enables them.

The crowd in Jerusalem marvels that they can hear the praise of God in their own languages (2:7–12). Onlookers ask the relevant question: “What does this mean?” (verse 12).

In every place where disciples speak in tongues, there is an answer to this question.

Peter tells the crowd on the Day of Pentecost, “This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel” (2:16). He connects the experience of speaking in tongues to the promise of the Spirit poured out on all flesh.

In Acts 10:46, Peter, along with other Jewish believers, recognizes that Cornelius and his household are praising God in tongues after hearing the gospel. What does this mean now that Gentiles speak in tongues?

Peter answers by welcoming Cornelius as a Spirit-filled brother in Christ. If Gentiles have received the Holy Spirit in the same way as the apostles, there is no question of receiving them, through water baptism, as full members of the church.

Finally, in Acts 19:6, a group of disciples in Ephesus speak in tongues and prophesy after Paul baptizes them in water. What does this mean?

The story has come full circle. The Spirit has been poured out on Jews in Acts 2, Samaritans in Acts 8, and Gentiles in Acts 10. Now 12 Ephesian disciples from the ministry of John the Baptist — who ministered at the beginning of every gospel — receive Spirit baptism.

With the Jews, Gentiles, and disciples of John, the appearance of “tongues” signifies to the reader that this is the same reception of the Spirit that occurred on the Day of Pentecost.

The same spiritual manifestation signifies the same gift of the same Spirit given to those who belong to the same family of God.

Luke’s use of speaking in tongues throughout Acts points to a special relationship with the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The first mention of speaking in tongues is on the Day of Pentecost. Every occurrence thereafter happens when someone is being filled with the Spirit.

While Luke does not mention speaking in tongues as accompanying the Spirit baptism of the Samaritans in Acts 8, something made the event obvious to everyone, including a former occultist.

For Pentecostals, speaking in tongues is communication first to God, who recognizes every kind of speech, and then to the community.

Although Luke does not specify the reason for that recognition, an established pattern in Acts suggests they spoke in tongues.

In Acts 9, Ananias prays for Paul to be baptized in the Spirit. The only sign mentioned for Paul is the loss of scales from his eyes — a healing necessitated by his experience of Jesus. However, Paul later testified of speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:18).

The point is not that Luke mentions speaking in tongues in every occurrence of Spirit baptism in Acts (though no occurrence names other evidence without also naming tongues). Rather, every time Luke mentions speaking in tongues in Acts, someone is being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Paul does not bring up Spirit baptism in 1 Corinthians 12–14, which contains the greatest number of references to the practice of speaking in tongues. Paul is not writing about the recognition of the gift of the Spirit, but about the recognition of all spiritual gifts as having the same source in the Spirit of God.

In 1 Corinthians 12:10,28–30, Paul does not list every spiritual gift because his objective is to connect all kinds of spiritual gifts back to their source in the same Spirit.

No believer should expect to exercise every gift of the Spirit, but the Spirit gives gifts to every believer.

That is the point of Paul’s rhetorical question of whether everyone speaks in tongues (12:30). The implied answer is “no” because Paul is referring to the exercise of tongues during corporate worship, not speaking in tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism.

In 1 Corinthians 13:1–8, Paul emphasizes that no spiritual gift, including speaking in tongues, is meaningful apart from love. Believers will not need spiritual gifts in eternity, while love will remain.

Chapter 14 defends the practice of speaking in tongues for personal edification, but not in place of public edification. Paul expresses the desire that all would speak in tongues, though not to the detriment of the community.

The one who speaks in tongues directs these words to God, while prophesy is communication to others. The former edifies the individual praying, while the latter edifies the whole community.

Paul encourages the exercise of prophesy over speaking in tongues in corporate gatherings, except when there is an interpretation of tongues speech.

Further, Paul instructs the church to limit the number of messages in tongues during meetings. Paul does not restrict the use of tongues as personal prayer, but as an interrupting manifestation of the Spirit during gatherings.

Understanding the human tendency to turn specific instructions into broader principles, Paul warns the church not to prohibit people from speaking in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:39).

Again, Paul does not address the connection of speaking in tongues to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is concerned about usefulness of speaking in tongues in the corporate worship of an already Spirit-filled community.

The Gospel of Mark refers to speaking in tongues as one of the signs accompanying believers. The Book of Acts establishes that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of Spirit baptism.

In History

Mark, Acts, and 1 Corinthians suggest that speaking in tongues was a common practice in the New Testament Church. When did that practice disappear in Church history? What about other spiritual gifts, such as prophecy or healing?

There is evidence that the spiritual manifestations today’s Pentecostals embrace were common in the early centuries of Christianity as well.

During the second century, Christian authors wrote about spiritual gifts as an ongoing expectation of believers.

When a power struggle broke out between lay prophets and bishops, the response of church leaders was not to downplay the importance of spiritual gifts, but to highlight their own spiritual giftedness, especially in prophecy.

Over time, church leaders suppressed lay ministry. By the third century, leaders like Bishop Cyprian of Carthage claimed a monopoly on spiritual gifts, making parishioners dependent on clergy for direction. This limited the Church’s experience of the Spirit.

By the fourth century, church leaders wrote with an awareness that New Testament spiritual manifestations were no longer the common experience of Christians in their time. Augustine argued that speaking in tongues ceased to be a sign of the Spirit’s activity.

Within medieval Catholicism, there were times when certain individuals became known for exercising spiritual gifts, such as healing or prophecy, while some regions experienced charismatic revival.

Early Protestantism divided over the usefulness and expectation of charismatic gifts. Protestant charismatics such as Thomas Müntzer taught that Christians should experience the Holy Spirit as the apostles did, with a post-conversion Spirit baptism resulting in spiritual gifts.

Meanwhile, both Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the notion that speaking in tongues was available to believers of their time, even if it accompanied Spirit baptism in the New Testament.

By the 18th century, some Protestant groups — including the Lutheran Pietists and English Methodists — were nevertheless experiencing manifestations of the Spirit.

At the beginning of the 19th century, the Catholic Apostolic Church became known for speaking in tongues. The group’s founder, Presbyterian Edward Irving, used the language of “standing sign” to describe the special relationship of speaking in tongues to the baptism in the Holy Spirit. In fact, some of the earliest Pentecostals were called Irvingites.

As evidence, speaking
in tongues signifies baptism in the Spirit.
As a spiritual gift, it edifies believers.

Revivals from Wales to Russia during the latter part of the 19th century included speaking in tongues. Some in the United States also claimed the experience of Spirit baptism, accompanied by speaking in tongues, before 1900.

On New Year’s Day 1901, a revival broke out at a Bible school in Topeka, Kansas, with participants speaking in tongues.

The Topeka school’s founder, Charles Parham, had previously witnessed speaking in tongues at another Bible school in Maine. However, participants there didn’t make as much of it as Parham did.

Looking to the Book of Acts, Parham defined the experience as the “Bible evidence” of the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

From that time, “evidence” became the most common way within Pentecostalism to describe the special relationship between Spirit baptism and speaking in tongues.

‘Initial Physical Evidence’

Early Pentecostals saw in the Book of Acts a model the Church should expect, experience, and replicate. Acts highlights a special relationship between speaking in tongues and the baptism in the Spirit. The question was how to define that relationship.

Parham’s “evidence” terminology did not come from Scripture, but from a post-Enlightenment culture with an interest in scientific language.

Some Pentecostals preferred the term “sign,” drawing from Mark 16:17. However, most embraced Parham’s term and accepted tongues as proof of Spirit baptism.

Article 8 in the Assemblies of God Statement of Fundamental Truths uses the language of both “evidence” and “sign,” the former in the title and the latter in the paragraph. By including both, “evidence” is treated as synonymous with “sign” in regard to describing that special relationship.

Looking to the Book of Acts, Pentecostals noted that speaking in tongues began on the Day of Pentecost, happened repeatedly during later Spirit baptisms, and demonstrated to the apostles that God was pouring out His Spirit on all kinds of people.

E.N. Bell, the first general superintendent of the Assemblies of God, wrote that if speaking in tongues convinced the apostles that Gentiles had received the Spirit baptism in Acts 10:46, it should “be so recognized by Christians” in modern times.

There could be many inward signs of the Spirit, but speaking in tongues was an outward experience others witnessed and confirmed. In that sense, it functioned communally.

For some Pentecostals, the physical nature of speaking in tongues made the reception of Spirit baptism a concrete experience that is more difficult to fake.

William Durham, a significant Pentecostal influence on the Assemblies of God, defended the need for physical evidence. Otherwise, Durham said, anyone might “kneel a few minutes and rise saying, ‘I have the Holy Spirit.’”

Aware of the potential for fraud or spiritual deception, early Pentecostals specified that they spoke in tongues “as the Spirit giveth utterance.” This made a distinction between genuine tongues speech and counterfeits, whether coming from the flesh or the devil.

Parham introduced the term “evidence,” but he further defined speaking in tongues as the “Bible evidence” of Spirit baptism.

That terminology was replaced by the phrase “outward evidence,” which gained popularity around the time of the Azusa Street Revival (though this language originated in Chicago rather than Los Angeles).

Outward evidence suggests there is internal change as well, including spiritual power for witnessing. Early Pentecostals did not want “Bible evidence” to be interpreted to mean “only outcome” for Spirit baptism.

Another phrase, “initial evidence,” highlighted speaking in tongues not as the purpose of Spirit baptism, but as the first outward sign of this inner change, with more to come.

The Statement of Fundamental Truths modified this to “initial physical evidence.” The adjective “physical,” like “outward,” allowed for the existence of inward or spiritual evidences of Spirit baptism. The term “initial” was used to signify that speaking in tongues was only a beginning within the Spirit-filled life, and should not be confused with the fullness of the gift of the Spirit. “Initial” meant not only first, but also that there were more works of the Spirit to come.

If Spirit-filled living produces greater love in a Christian’s life, for example, this is not an initial evidence. However, such spiritual fruit is a more substantial evidence of the Spirit’s ongoing work (Galatians 5:22–23).

During the 1920s, Harvey McAlister explained the difference in the Pentecostal Evangel:

It is right and proper to speak of this supernatural sign [speaking in tongues] as the initial, physical evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in fullness within the believer. I prefer this term rather than the term “Bible evidence.” What is the difference? If you believe that speaking with tongues supernaturally is the only evidence, then as soon as the Holy Spirit comes within and gives utterance, you will feel that you have reached a climax; but, if you believe that speaking with tongues supernaturally is simply the initial or the first physical evidence or result, you will not feel, upon bursting forth and speaking in the beautiful heavenly languages, that you have reached a climax. You will feel that you have just been ushered into the supernatural realm and will naturally continue to yield your whole life into the control of the blessed Holy Spirit and expect additional manifestations, graces, and gifts.

Initial physical evidence describes the special relationship between the practice of speaking in tongues and the experience of baptism in the Holy Spirit. This language is not used to put speaking in tongues on a pedestal, but to keep speaking in tongues in its place.

The ability to speak in tongues is not the reason for God’s gift of the Holy Spirit. Rather, Spirit baptism empowers believers to proclaim boldly the gospel of Jesus in our known languages.

Generations of Pentecostals have testified to the
beauty and blessing
of regularly praying
in tongues.

Article 8 further distinguishes speaking in tongues as evidence of Spirit baptism from the gift of tongues. While they are the same in essence — speaking or praying in a language the speaker does not know — they do not share the same purpose.

The Assemblies of God does not teach that speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of Spirit baptism has the same usefulness as tongues as a spiritual gift.

As evidence, speaking in tongues signifies baptism in the Spirit. As a spiritual gift, it edifies believers.

In 1 Corinthians 14, speaking in tongues edified individual believers who prayed to God in the Spirit (verses 2–4). When accompanied by interpretation within corporate worship, speaking in tongues edified the local church as people understood the message (verses 13–19).

Pastoral Practice

Pastors should approach speaking in tongues with a concern for balance.

Many Christian traditions have prohibited tongues in practice, even if not in doctrine.

Conversely, some congregations have emphasized speaking in tongues to the point of neglecting or even excluding other spiritual gifts.

We must be careful to avoid both extremes.

When accompanied by an interpretation, speaking in tongues can edify a local congregation. For that to happen, believers must be willing to speak, and the congregation ready to listen, at the appropriate time.

If messages in tongues become rare events within our worship, we should ask why. Does our community know how to speak and listen? Is our worship inviting full participation? Does our programming discourage unscripted moments?

At the same time, early Pentecostals left us warnings about speaking in tongues becoming the predominant spiritual gift in corporate worship. Only a full restoration of spiritual gifts is truly Pentecostal.

We should encourage the appropriate operation of speaking gifts from the pews, including tongues and interpretation. If we rely exclusively on the interpretation of tongues, however, those with a prophetic word will wait for a message in tongues before they feel they have permission to speak.

Prophecy does not require tongues. All gifts aimed at the edification of the congregation, however, require evaluation and discernment (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Speaking in tongues also edifies individual believers as a prayer language. Pastors should encourage this personal practice.

Generations of Pentecostals have testified to the beauty and blessing of regularly praying in tongues. Whether as worship (1 Corinthians 14:2) or prayer offered in place of the weakness of our own words, speaking in tongues is interaction with God, who is intimately involved in our prayer lives as both Intercessor and King.

We must also teach people that the act of praying in tongues is not outside of their control (1 Corinthians 14:32). Speaking in tongues within a corporate setting should not become a distraction that keeps other people from praying or worshipping.

A person who speaks in tongues during public worship is subject to correction from leaders.

Praying in tongues edifies believers but should not completely replace praying with our understanding. God wants to commune with both our spirits and our minds (1 Corinthians 14:14–15).

As Pentecostals, we also believe that speaking in tongues provides evidence of the reception of the baptism in the Holy Spirit. Christians who pray for Spirit Baptism should expect tongues.

Pastors can assure anxious congregants that there is no reason to fear this gift. Baptism in the Holy Spirit does not involve a loss of motor control. The Spirit provides the language, but the believer chooses to speak.

We must remind people that it is the Spirit they are seeking, not tongues. Because we believe that speaking in tongues always accompanies Spirit baptism, we don’t have to push people to speak in tongues. We can simply teach believers what will happen and lead them to pray expectantly for God’s Spirit.

Further, we must remember that the purpose of the baptism in the Holy Spirit is empowerment for witness (Acts 1:8). The Assemblies of God chose the language of “initial physical evidence” to describe speaking in tongues so that we would never confuse it with the gift of the Spirit.

If we ask people how they are living out the Spirit-filled life, we should be concerned with their witness in public, not just their private prayer habits.

Articles 7 (“The Baptism in the Holy Spirit”) and 8 are distinct fundamental truths, but not because they share the same theological weight. By separating the two, we avoid conflating them, as though speaking in tongues is all there is to Spirit baptism. Speaking in tongues is the sign of a greater work.

Pentecostal teacher Donald Gee cautioned Assemblies of God adherents on this point in a 1930 issue of the Pentecostal Evangel. Regarding speaking in tongues, Gee said “such a doctrine can only be described as ‘fundamental’ in a strictly relative sense.”

Gee described his view this way:

The value of the “initial evidence” exists only because the value of the experience of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is beyond calculation. A ticket for a long railway journey is valuable to the purchaser only because of the journey he desires to make. Who would buy a ticket for the ticket’s sake if they had no intention of traveling? So it is not the “tongues” themselves that are transcendently important; but it is the fact of the believer being filled with the Spirit of God.

This article appears in the Fall 2024 issue of Influence magazine.