If you’ve never been around speaking in tongues, hearing it for the first time can be confusing. Someone begins praying or speaking in words you don’t recognize, and other people may respond as though something meaningful is happening. Depending on your background, you may wonder whether it’s a foreign language, an emotional reaction, or a genuine work of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in tongues is Spirit-enabled speech in a language the speaker hasn’t learned through ordinary study. In the New Testament, it appears in connection with receiving the Holy Spirit, praising God, personal prayer, and ministry within a congregation. I believe it remains a genuine gift today. Understanding its purpose, however, also requires understanding the distinctions and boundaries Scripture gives us.

What Happened at Pentecost?

Acts 2 describes believers being filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. People from different regions heard them declaring God’s mighty works in their own languages. The speakers weren’t demonstrating language skills acquired through education. The event drew the crowd’s attention and led into Peter’s explanation of the gospel.

In this account, the languages were recognizable to people who understood them. We shouldn’t overlook that detail or describe Pentecost as speech without meaning. The listeners’ recognition was part of what made the event remarkable. People were hearing worship expressed across language differences through the Spirit’s activity.

That doesn’t establish that every instance of tongues must be immediately understood by someone present. First Corinthians 14 addresses situations in which listeners don’t understand what is being said and interpretation is needed. We have to consider both accounts rather than making one setting explain every use of the gift. Pentecost and the Corinthian congregation present different circumstances.

Tongues Can Be Prayer Directed to God

First Corinthians 14:2 describes someone speaking in a tongue as speaking to God rather than to people who don’t understand. Later, Paul explains that when he prays in a tongue, his spirit prays while his understanding is unfruitful. He then affirms both praying with the spirit and praying with the understanding. His instruction doesn’t require choosing one and abandoning the other.

I understand this as support for prayer in tongues in which the speaker doesn’t ordinarily understand the words. That doesn’t mean the speech has no meaning. It means the person isn’t composing and comprehending it as they would a prayer in their familiar language. Interpretation can make the meaning understandable when the Spirit enables it.

Christians disagree about the nature of tongues in these passages. Some understand every genuine instance as an existing human language, while others allow for speech that isn’t identifiable as such. We shouldn’t claim more than the text establishes. Paul’s description of speaking “with the tongues of men and of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13:1 doesn’t, by itself, prove that a particular person is speaking an angelic language.

Personal Prayer and Public Ministry Have Different Purposes

Paul says that the person speaking in a tongue builds up themselves, while prophecy builds up the church. He isn’t necessarily condemning the personal benefit. The question in the surrounding discussion is how other people will benefit from something they can’t understand. A practice can be meaningful for the speaker without being appropriate as an uninterpreted address to the congregation.

Paul also says he speaks in tongues more than the Corinthians, yet prefers a few understandable words in church to thousands that listeners can’t understand. Those statements belong together. He values tongues while refusing to make public worship a setting in which everybody else is left guessing. His emphasis concerns the benefit of the gathered community.

This helps distinguish praying personally from taking the congregation’s attention to deliver a message. A believer can pray quietly to God without presenting the prayer as speech everyone else must receive. When someone publicly addresses the assembly in tongues, interpretation becomes necessary. The setting and purpose affect how the gift should be exercised.

Why Is Interpretation Necessary?

First Corinthians 14:27–28 gives practical instructions for public tongues: two or at most three speakers, one at a time, with interpretation. If there’s no interpreter, the person is to remain silent in that public role and speak to themselves and God. These instructions place responsibility on the people using the gift. Spiritual activity doesn’t remove the need for restraint.

Interpretation enables the congregation to understand and receive benefit. It shouldn’t be treated as an opportunity to attach whatever message someone wanted to deliver anyway. Like other claims about spiritual communication, its content deserves careful consideration. A dramatic delivery doesn’t make an interpretation automatically trustworthy.

Paul also considers the experience of visitors who encounter a congregation speaking without intelligible communication. He warns that they may conclude the people are out of their minds. That concern isn’t an embarrassment about the Spirit. It reflects a desire for worship that communicates meaningfully and helps people recognize God’s presence.

Does Everyone Have to Speak in Tongues?

First Corinthians 12:29–30 asks whether all believers share the same ministries and gifts, including tongues and interpretation. The expected answer is no. Classical Pentecostals commonly distinguish the public gift discussed there from tongues associated with initial Spirit baptism and personal prayer. Other Christians who affirm tongues don’t make that distinction in the same way.

Tongues appear alongside receiving the Spirit in Acts 2, 10, and 19, which explains their importance in Pentecostal teaching. But we should be clear about what conclusion we’re drawing from those accounts. The relationship between tongues, Spirit baptism, and differing gifts requires interpretation. It shouldn’t be presented as though Christians have never had a serious disagreement about it.

I don’t believe tongues are a requirement for salvation. A person’s relationship with Christ can’t be dismissed because they haven’t spoken in tongues. Nor should the gift become a way to rank believers by spiritual worth. People who speak in tongues still need to grow in love, wisdom, and obedience like everyone else.

The Gift Shouldn’t Be Manufactured

Acts describes people speaking as the Spirit enabled them. That leaves room for their participation without making the experience something a leader must produce through pressure. Encouraging someone to pray and remain open to God is different from requiring them to copy sounds until the leader is satisfied. We should preserve that difference.

Neither should we suggest that a genuine experience requires losing all control. Paul’s instructions assume speakers can take turns, remain silent, and consider whether interpretation is available. The Spirit’s work doesn’t excuse ignoring those responsibilities. A person can be sincerely moved by God and still exercise self-control.

Of course, not every claim to tongues is genuine, and an experience can be misunderstood or imitated. That possibility doesn’t establish that the biblical gift has disappeared. It gives us reason to practice discernment. We should neither authenticate every claim automatically nor reject all claims because some are questionable.

Love Governs the Use of Tongues

Paul places his teaching about spiritual gifts around the great discussion of love in 1 Corinthians 13. That placement matters because gifts can become a source of competition, display, or division when their purpose is forgotten. Speaking impressively doesn’t compensate for treating people badly. The people being served matter more than the attention a gift attracts.

At the end of 1 Corinthians 14, Paul tells believers not to forbid tongues and to conduct everything decently and in order. Both instructions deserve attention. A church shouldn’t suppress a genuine gift simply because it’s unfamiliar, and it shouldn’t ignore biblical order in the name of welcoming the Spirit. Responsible practice includes openness and restraint.

Tongues can be a meaningful expression of prayer, praise, and the Spirit’s empowering. They belong within a Christian life that also includes understandable prayer, biblical teaching, service, and growth in character. We can welcome the gift without making it the measure of everything else. Its proper use should deepen devotion to God and contribute to a church in which people are genuinely helped.