Speaking with us about his book, The Language of Heaven, pastor-scholar Sam Storms discusses the gift of tongues and the blessing it is to individuals and the local church.

Pneuma Review: At this point in church history speaking in tongues is still a controversial subject. What would you say to someone who refers to speaking in tongues as gibberish?

Sam Storms: If a person believes that all tongues speech both in Scripture and today is a known human language spoken somewhere in the world but previously not known by the speaker, then yes, it will come across to them as “gibberish.” It may also sound that way simply because the hearer is not familiar with the linguistic form of the tongues speech. Quite honestly, Mandarin and Swahili both sound like gibberish to me. If I had not been told they were legitimate human languages, I would probably conclude that they were non-sense utterances.

I suspect that some consider tongues speech to be “gibberish” because they fail to recognize that, although unintelligible apart from interpretation, all legitimate tongues speech today carries and expresses genuine, cognitive information. Paul makes this clear in 1 Cor. 14:2, 16, and elsewhere. It may not sound as such, but that doesn’t mean it is lacking sense or fails to communicate meaningful content in some form or other. It may also be that they think it to be “gibberish” because of a long-standing prejudice against contemporary expressions of tongues. Since most evangelicals are persuaded that in order to be of any benefit to anyone all utterances must be intelligible, they will understandably form negative opinions of “speech” patterns that they cannot decipher.

Pneuma Review: According to the Bible, are tongues always known languages? 

Sam Storms: No. They certainly were known languages, spoken somewhere in the world, in Acts 2. But there is no reason to conclude that all other instances of tongues speech must adhere to the pattern described in Acts 2. In neither of the other two occurrences in Acts of tongues speech, Acts 10 and 19, were people of different linguistic backgrounds present to hear them. In other words, if all tongues are known human languages designed by God to evangelize people of a different linguistic experience (and this is what many, if not most, evangelicals believe), why were there only believers present in Acts 10 and 19 when people spoke in tongues?

“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19-20).

The cessationist insists that, according to the analogy Paul employs, apostles and prophets belong to the period of the foundation, not the superstructure. That is to say, these two groups and their respective gifts were designed by God to operate only during the early years of the church’s existence in order to lay the once-for-all foundation.

At the Strange Fire conference, in his session devoted to articulating arguments for cessationism, Tom Pennington stated that “once the apostles and prophets finished their role in laying the foundation of the church, their gifts were completed,” which is to say, they ceased to function and eventually ceased to exist altogether.

But several things must be noted.

Sam Storms

The cessationist argument fails to take note of vv. 21-22 where Paul refers to the superstructure of the church as under construction, so to speak, as he speaks/writes (note the consistent use of the present tenses in vv. 21-22). In other words, the apostles and prophets of v. 20, among whom was Paul, were also contributing to the superstructure, of which the Ephesians were a contemporary part, simultaneous with their laying the foundation on which it was being built. We must be careful not to push the metaphor beyond what Paul intended by it.

To use an analogy, once a man establishes a company, writes its by-laws, articulates its vision, hires employees, and does all the work essential in laying the foundation for its future work and productivity, he does not necessarily cease to exist or to serve the company in other capacities. As Jack Deere points out, “the founding director of a company or corporation will always be unique in the sense that he or she was the founder, but that does not mean the company would not have future directors or presidents” (Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, 248).

Furthermore, on the cessationist’s view, all NT prophets functioned foundationally. But there is nothing to suggest that “the prophets” in Ephesians 2:20 is an exhaustive reference to all possible prophets in the church. Why should we conclude that the only kind of prophetic activity is “foundational” in nature, especially in light of what the NT says about the extent and effect of prophetic ministry? It simply isn’t possible to believe that all prophetic utterances were part of the once-for-all foundation of the church. For one thing, the NT nowhere says they were. For another, it portrays prophetic ministry in an entirely different light from the one most cessationists attempt to deduce from Ephesians 2:20. Surely not everyone who ministered prophetically was apostolic. Therefore, the cessation of the latter is no argument for the cessation of the former.