By Stephen Shew
Linguists who analyze glossolalia (speaking in tongues) generally conclude that in many cases it does not fully meet the characteristics of human language.[1] Critics sometimes use this finding to dismiss tongues completely. In contrast, an examination of what constitutes spiritual information can help us affirm tongues as Spirit-enabled communication.
Languages?
On the day of Pentecost, the message of speaking in tongues was clearly understood “because each [bystander] was hearing them speak in his own language” (Acts 2:6). Such an occurrence is known as xenollalia. For many, however, tongues does not come forth in a known human language.
When Paul teaches on speaking in “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14, English Bibles sometimes translate “tongues” as “languages.” Nevertheless, many Pentecostals pray in tongues in private and consider this a heavenly language, or “private prayer language,” that is distinct from human language and its characteristics. However, many are used to thinking about tongues in the framework of human languages.[2]
Non-Language Communication
Human language is only one way to convey information. In the theory of communications, information is encoded, transmitted, and then decoded.[3] Morse code is a well-known example of encoding.[4] Here a message, consisting of letters, digits, and other symbols, is encoded into dots and dashes. This code is not confined to messages in text and could be used to transmit other information such as telephone numbers or a sequence of digits representing a digital music file.
Viewing tongues as an encoding of spiritual information can free us from the constraints of human language (as in Acts 2). Tongues might be an encoding like Morse code, which is more basic than a human language. But, this does not limit the types of information it can be used to convey.
Spiritual Communication
The scope of spiritual communication includes non-language forms. God’s wordless communication to man includes Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2), which was a silent movie, and signs in the sky (Joel 2:30-31). When praying in tongues, communication with God is occurring, and thus there is transfer of information that could include a picture or emotions.
Practical Implications
In addition to side-stepping critics, viewing tongues as an encoding of information means that just a few syllables are all that’s needed. Repetitive sounds or phrases in tongues-speech are not abnormal. Further, regular grammatical form is not applicable for an encoding.
Expectations of starting to speak in a full-blown unknown language have caused much angst among some seeking Spirit baptism. Encouragement to speak a few syllables could overcome hesitancy to start speaking when receiving tongues.
Understanding tongues-speech as encoding of spiritual information brings freedom from the constraints of human language while providing a model that affirms many of the expressions of tongues that I’ve experienced and heard. As a Pentecostal, I hope this will encourage us to pray every day – in tongues!
Question: What do you think of this idea of tongues as encoded information? Leave a comment below by clicking here.
Stephen Shew works in telecommunications in the area of international standards. He studied computer science and he has twenty granted patents. Stephen has served on the General Executive of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada since 2012. He worships at Woodvale Pentecostal Church in Ottawa where he has been an active in various ministries for many years.You might also be interested in these posts:
- 3 Ways People Misunderstand Tongues as “Initial Evidence” of Spirit Baptism
- PAOC Clergy on Tongues and Spirit Baptism: Changing Views
- Is Speaking in Tongues Only for a Few? Only for the Gifted?
Endnotes
[1] David Hilborn, ‘Glossolalia as Communication, A Linguistic-Pragmatic Perspective’ in Mark J. Cartledge (ed.) Speaking in Tongues, Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 111-122.
[2] I use the term “human language” throughout as it refers to natural language. In mathematics, formal languages are used for computing and communications, and are more precise.
[3] This is from the field of Information Theory which was significantly launched with the publication of the paper by Claude E. Shannon ‘A Mathematical Theory of Communication’ in The Bell System Technical Journal, vol 27, no. 3, 1948.
[4] Versions of Morse code have been used since 1844 and the current version is Recommendation ITU-R M.1677-1 International Morse Code, October 2009.
One key sentence in this article is that “the expectations to speak a full blown unknown language have caused much angst amongst some seeking spirit baptism” and then an encouragement to utter a few syllables. Now why should a sign, or a desire for a sign, of spirit baptism cause angst? Unless there are potentially multiple initial signs of spirit baptism other than tongues? And uttering a few syllables sounds like the “fake it until you make it” approach which is not very authentic.
Hi Jon. Good question re angst. I don’t see how it is necessarily tied to their being other signs, however. Rather, the angst may be tied to the expectation that a sign is required to verify a particular experience, especially if that sign excludes one from some level of involvement in a faith community.
Agreed, Peter. And you worded your response better than I did!
Sorry to take so long to reply. Business travel, jet lag, and catching up with work has slowed me down. The context of the sentence you refer to is the mental barrier I’ve found when encouraging young adults in Spirit Baptism. There can be hesitation to speak and then doubt about what they hear when they first speak. I don’t think there is any faking going on as authenticity is cherished among millennials.
Thank you so much, for this informative article about speaking in tongues. I am so thankful to have known this beautiful Pentecostal experience since I was a small girl, I’m 70. My Mother knew it & her Mother before her. It brings such Peace, such Joy. It calms my mind & soothes my emotions. Thank God for The Precious Holy Ghost.
Thank you for this informative article, Stephen. I agree that tongues need not be a real human language to be real communication. I also wonder, hiwhowe, about the “angst” involved in having to demonstrate tongues. I’ve never heard of angst around that point, but only about voicing some sort of unknown utterance in order to be considered “Spirit baptized”. Pentecostals accept any tongues as verification of SB. But whether Acts supports this is another story, since the tongues there are clearly xenolalia, and a sign of the purpose of SB.
Peter I am working on a short paper right now related to this. Should the PAOC then consider looking outside the Luke-Acts context (to the Pauline?) for a stronger theological proof of Spirit Baptism and the initial sign of speaking in tongues?
Good question. Typically the PAOC and other classical Pentecostals have based their SB and IE doctrines on Luke-Acts. But based on experience, have needed to appeal to 1 Cor 13 & 14 to include non-human languages also as eligible to count as IE. So inevitably the PAOC must rely on Paul for IE but not SB. The question, since in practice there is a pragmatic appeal to Paul, is why not utilize him earlier when defining SB? And then what about the mention of SB in the other 3 gospel writers? The problem then is that we might miss what Pentecostals were trying to emphasize–an empowering missional experience with the Spirit. But if an appeal is made to 1 Cor to support IE, then why not open the door to Paul from the outset?
Stephen has done a great job of developing our understanding of Tongues. Thanks Stephen.
I Corinthians 13:1 came to mind. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,….. I think your article is well written and takes into account human languages and heavenly languages. We put God in a box if we say we can only speak in tongues in human languages. We need to consider both Acts and Pauls’s writings concerning speaking in tongues. There may be times when we speak in tongues in an earthly language, just like in the book of Acts, and someone standing by will hear and understand, while other times we may speak in a heavenly language. Both are used for God’s glory.
“viewing tongues as an encoding of information means that just a few syllables are all that’s needed. Repetitive sounds or phrases in tongues-speech are not abnormal.”
Prior to retirement, my profession was with information and communication technologies. There are issues in how you relate tongues to technology.
First, it is technically incorrect to say that you can transmit graphic files using Morse Code. Morse code uses “dashes and dots” to represent letters and numbers and simple punctuation. Morse code can be understood by the sender and receiver, a dot dash dash dot dot dot dot dash dash dot dot dot which always means a b a b. It is predictable.
Similarly in data communications the binary values of 01000001 01000010 01000001 01000010 however complexly encoded for transmission, the binary values will always represent a b a b. It is predictable.
Your reference to Claude Shannon is also about predictability. Communication mediums have theoretical limits and Shannon’s Law was a formula to determine the theoretical maximum possible data speed for a transmission medium. The Shannon-Hartley theorem attempts to identify the maximum possible rate that information can traverse reliably across a medium that is susceptible to errors.
Lossless compression is predictable. Lossless compression is used where information must never change, such as a banking transaction Lossy compression is used for video and graphics since the permanent loss of information is a trade off between volume of information and the perceptible loss of information, where too much loss would result in a grainy or distorted image.
Consider for a moment that when we pray in tongues, only God knows what we are actually saying. The message is not only unintelligible to ourselves, but also to the casual observer. Consider the hacker who is an uninvited 3rd party observer to the conversation. In the previous examples, the uninvited 3rd party eavesdropping the traversal of information will understand the information just as well and as intelligibly as the intended receiver.
What you seem to be equating tongues to a known technology would be encryption. The goal of encryption is to be unpredictable to any 3rd party observers (think hackers) at any time. When something is found to be predictable within an encryption method, it is deemed unacceptable and is retired. In practice, the values 01000001 01000010 01000001 01000010 will rarely if ever translate to a b a b even if the pattern is repeated two or more times in sequence. (This is related to the length of the crypto keys.)
To put it another way, if tongues were predictable, Shundula would universally equate to (lets say) “Our hearts cry out to you Lord with petitions of”. If tongues are unpredictable as in encryption, a speaker who uses the word “Shundula” three times in the same sentence, the word might mean “Humble me Lord”; then “I lift my brothers burden to you O Lord” and then “we praise your Holy Name” in that order.
You might say that God may have encoded us with our own unique encryption key, but only God has the decryption key if He were to require such a thing. That is, if tongues originate from somewhere within us.
I hope this helps in developing this thought.
Thank you for your thoughtful response Randy. It’s nice to know that someone else knows about communications. What I mean by transmitting a graphic file using Morse code is that you could take a .JPEG file, slice it into hex digits, and send each digit using Morse code. That is, you could perform an (ITU-T G.800) adaptation into a sequence of characters that could be sent by Morse code. You could also use the naval flag semaphore too but your arms would get tired!
I’m not sure what your point about predictability is. I think you mean “understandable” or from a known alphabet. Your point about encryption is consistent with the article. I think tongues (not xenolalia though) is decoded by God. Whether or not God reuses encryption keys with tongues speech, I do think that it’s miraculous.
I would just add that God does give a type of encryption decoding when we get(have) the interpretation of a tongue foreign into our earthly language.(1 Cor.14:27-28)
Interesting article Stephen. I am neither a communications expert nor a theologian, but I gravitate towards the “encryption” analogy based on personal experience. One example: Between the first and second Gulf Wars, I had to go on a business trip to Iraq. Saddam H was in power and Iraq was extremely isolated – no fly zone, no direct telecommunications, etc. This meant I would be out of contact for the duration of my trip. I was a bit nervous so on the Sunday before my departure I went forward for prayer at church. The young man who prayed with me didn’t really pray for my protection but rather that I would be filled with “a love that would dispel fear”. Subsequently in the service there was a message in tongues. To my skeptical mind it was an unimpressive sounding message…lots of repeated syllables, like gibberish really. I remember thinking “this cannot possibly be real words”. Then came the interpretation. It was almost verbatim what the young man had prayed for me earlier. The hairs stood up on the back of my neck as I realized that God was actually speaking to me…through the young man’s prayer and the message in tongues. This experience changed my perspective on tongues. They don’t have to be directly translatable words…what’s important is the message they carry to-from God. BTW, the trip to Iraq turned out to be an awesome experience.
Thank you for sharing your experience Brian! Very interesting story. If an encoding has a very rich set of symbols, then a short encoding might pack a lot of information. That is, a short message in tongues could have a longer (in duration) interpretation.
Having been attending a local Pentecostal church for about 6 years, a recent incident has caused me to examine my belief system–including the fact it sounds like gibberish. I’ll entertain the idea of tongues being “code” as I often look at all this through a scientific aspect. However, I’ve recently been viewing such people as Justin Peters who point out that tongues are often not carries out in the Biblical manner required in 1 Cor.. 14:28–requiring an interpreter when done in public. As far as the claim I heard elsewhere it is the language of angels and therefore using tongues prevents Satan from understanding, I remind Satan is a [fallen] angel, thus. would understand perfectly.
.
To your last point, I don’t see any biblical precedent for the teaching that Satan can’t understand speaking in tongues, so I agree with you there.
I don’t think all tongues needs to be interpreted though. Yes, if a person is giving a message in tongues loudly with the intent that the whole congregation hears them, it should be followed by an interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:27). But if a person is speaking in tongues simply as a way of personally praying to God or praising God (verse 28), then I think it is actually good discipleship to let others hear you…at least a bit.
The problem is, if people never hear others speaking in tongues in church, they will likely think that no one in the church speaks in tongues, and this might lead them to conclude that they shouldn’t speak in tongues either. The first-century believers obviously heard each other speak in tongues at times or we wouldn’t find reports of hearing speaking in tongues in the book of Acts—and without any interpretation at that.
Where is Christ, and the works of the Holy Spirit as the center message of the teaching. Dive deeper into tongues, the gift of tongues and the purpose of speaking in tongue.. as we pray with understanding and in the spirit… in your message do not oversimplify and minimize the spiritual implications of the gospel
I’d encourage you to take a look at the chapter on tongues in my book “Simply Spirit-Filled.” There I discuss the value of praying in tongues.
The blessing of the Beautiful Baptism of the Holy Spirit! The Spirit Baptism has drawn me closer me closer to Jesus. It has made the Bible easier to understand, also I’ts easier to feel conviction when you do something wrong. I’m quick to admit it, repent and go on. All around it helps you. Ty Jesus for the mighty Baptism of your Holy Spirit!