The tongues of Corinth

“Pastor, our friends are speaking in tongues. Should we do it too?”

I once pastored a church where many teenagers attended a Pentecostal school. In Bible studies, our conversations often circled back to the topic of speaking in tongues. As I looked to deepen my understanding of this practice, I discovered Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination by Dr Philip Blosser (a Catholic philosopher) and Charles Sullivan (a Pentecostal linguist).¹

Unlike other authors, Blosser and Sullivan did not set out to prove that Catholics, Pentecostals or other religious groups had the “correct” understanding of speaking in tongues. Instead, their goal was to investigate how Christians have perceived and practised tongues throughout history.

In this article, I provide an overview of their discoveries and offer my own paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 14 based on their findings.

Two types of “speaking in tongues”

Christians often distinguish between two forms of speaking in tongues: xenolalia and glossolalia.²

Xenolalia is the miraculous ability to speak a real human language that the speaker has never learned. For example, an English speaker suddenly being able to speak French.³ The classic biblical example is Acts 2:6 where everyone in the crowd heard the disciples preaching in their own language.

In contrast, glossolalia is where people in heightened emotional states utter sounds or speech-like syllables in rapid, repetitive patterns.⁴ These vocalisations are said to be languages that are unknown to the person making them.⁵ These vocalisations are often called a “heavenly language”, the “language of angels” or a God-given personal prayer language.⁶ 1 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Corinthians 14 are often cited in support of this view.⁷  

Historical redefinition: 1st to 18th centuries

Some assume that the glossolalia model has always represented the Christian understanding of tongues. However, after investigating the first 1800 years of Christian history, Blosser and Sullivan concluded that:

We can say with certainty that the understanding and practice of “speaking in tongues” found in the Pentecostal-Charismatic tradition is based on a nineteenth-century theory of glossolalia and a twentieth-century redefinition of “tongues” that are complete historical novelties. Neither the Pentecostal-Charismatic idea of a “heavenly language” or “private language of prayer and praise”… find any credible support in the facts of Church history. The contemporary practice and understanding of “tongues” as a gift of personal prayer and praise, regardless of how spiritually uplifting they may be, are a historical novelty without precedent before the nineteenth century in Church history.⁸

According to Blosser and Sullivan, prior to the 18th century, neither Catholic nor Protestant theologians taught that the gift of tongues was glossolalia. Instead, they understood tongues to be xenolalia—the miraculous ability to speak a previously unlearned human language.

19th century origins

The first recorded practice of glossolalia occurred in 1830. Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Presbyterian pastor and theologian, recorded that he had found Christians in Scotland who were speaking in unintelligible languages during prayer.⁹ Irving decided to incorporate this behaviour into his ministry, which “awakened widespread popular interest [in speaking in tongues] and provoked intense scrutiny and critical analysis among religious scholars throughout Europe”.¹⁰

20th century expansion

At the turn of the 20th century, Pentecostal groups in the United States became interested in doing mission work in Asia. During their prayer meetings, some of these charismatic Christians began speaking unintelligible sounds.¹¹ They became convinced that these sounds were actually the Japanese, Indian and Chinese languages, and that the Holy Spirit had given them the gift of xenolalia to preach to these nations without having to learn their native languages.¹² These Christians travelled as missionaries to Asia; however, when they arrived, no one could understand them.¹³ Returning to the United States, the Pentecostals maintained their practice of ecstatic vocalisations and reinterpreted them as glossolalia—a God-given personal language of praise and prayer.¹⁴

Today, the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement has grown from less than one million people in 1900 to over 676 million people in 2026, and still teaches the concept of glossolalia from the 20th century.¹⁵ Their understanding of the gift of tongues has become highly influential around the world, including in Adventist churches I have pastored and attended. But if a Christian from the first century walked into a contemporary Pentecostal church, would they understand what was happening? To find out, we need to do a deep dive into history. 

Languages of the first century

The everyday language of the Jewish people from 1200-700 BC was Hebrew.¹⁶ After Assyria overran northern Israel in 750 BC, and after Babylon exiled Judah in 586 BC, Aramaic became the common language across the nations of the Near East.¹⁷

After the Babylonian exile, Ezra the Scribe led the revival of the Hebrew language, publicly reading the Hebrew Torah while interpreters translated it into the Aramaic language to ensure that people could understand its meaning.¹⁸

After Alexander the Great’s conquests (334-325 BC), Koiné Greek became the established language of commerce and culture, and Aramaic remained the language of the average person.¹⁹

Despite these changes in the dominant language, Hebrew endured as Judaism’s sacred liturgical language (i.e. the language for synagogue services).²⁰ This linguistic background helps us to understand the challenges faced by the early Corinthian church.

Corinth: a multilingual city

The city of Corinth was a bustling, multilingual trading hub that drew speakers from across the Roman Empire, including Rome, Syria, Egypt, Italy, Illyria, Armenia, Arabia, Palestine, Ethiopia, Spain and Gaul.²¹ As a Roman colony located at the narrow strip of land connecting mainland Greece to the Peloponnese, it served as a vital port where East met West, fostering a rich mix of languages and cultures. Native Doric Greek (the rugged dialect of Corinth, Sparta, and much of the southern Peloponnese) clashed with Aeolic (spoken to the north in the Thebes region) and Attic (the prestigious Athenian dialect that developed into the widespread Koiné Greek).²²

This linguistic diversity fuelled disputes in the Corinthian assembly about whether Hebrew should be the main language for teaching during church services, and which Greek dialect interpreters should use for their translation – local Doric pride, Aeolic regionalism, or refined Attic prestige? As Blosser & Sullivan state:

There can be no doubt that Paul confronted a multicultural, multilingual problem in Corinth, not only in terms of conflict over the acceptance of Hebrew as the traditional Jewish sacred liturgical language of prayer, psalmody, and instruction but also in terms of the political minefield posed by the question concerning which Greek dialect would serve as the common language for interpretation and as the standard language for those parts of the liturgy that could be rendered in the vernacular. It is certainly possible that other minority language groups could have been represented in the congregation, even if the dominant quarrel was over which Greek dialect should prevail.²³

The apostle’s dilemma

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul entered this complex situation seeking unity through intelligibility. According to the fourth century church father Epiphanius, Paul was “dispatched” to Corinth to deal with “some who boast the ability to speak Attic, Aeolic, and… the language of the Dorics, of whom had caused the disturbances, and factions within the Corinthians… And he [Paul] agreed that it is a spiritual grace to proclaim and to teach the Law in the Hebrew words. Not only this but he had in this instance put those others of the boastful language of the Greeks into their place.”²⁴ Consequently, Paul’s mission was “to speak for the hearing and encouragement of the Church” and not act “as a guru that is building oneself up through an arrogance of Greek and indeed Hebrew” while failing to instruct the church in “a language in which it understands”.²⁵ Here we see Paul acting wisely and decisively as he insists on intelligibility and order.

Jewish liturgical practices

The apostle Paul founded the Corinthian church around AD 50-52. Evidence suggests that for several decades, Hebrew functioned as the primary language of instruction in the Corinthian church.²⁶ However, Hebrew had become a sacred liturgical language that most Jews could not comprehend (similar to the historical use of Latin in the Catholic Church).²⁷ So, this raises an important question: how was Hebrew used during their worship services and what did “speaking in tongues” actually look like in the Corinthian church?

First, a “reader” would read a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures in the Hebrew language.²⁸ Next, a “translator/interpreter” (meturgeman) who was standing next to the reader would listen and translate the Hebrew into a language the congregation understood, like Aramaic or Greek.²⁹ This translation was not a word-for-word translation but a thought-for-thought version to make the ideas in the Hebrew text clear to the listeners, often expanding with historical illustrations and contemporary references.³⁰ As stated in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The weekly lesson from the Pentateuch and the Prophets was read [in Hebrew] by a member of the congregation, and the meturgeman had to translate into the vernacular the Pentateuchal lesson verse by verse; from the Prophets he translated three verses at a time. While the reader of the Hebrew text was forbidden to recite by heart, the meturgeman was not permitted to read his translation from a book, or to look at the Hebrew text when translating, in order that the people should not think that the translation was contained in the text. The meturgeman was also forbidden to raise his voice higher than that of the reader of the text. He did not limit himself to a mere literal translation, but dilated upon the Biblical contents, bringing in haggadic elements [i.e. legends, parables, or anecdotes from rabbinic literature], illustrations from history, and references to topics of the day.³¹

Later sources critique the meturgemanin (plural for meturgeman) who turned the translation into an entertaining performance rather than a faithful exposition of Scripture.³² This contributed to the role’s decline around the 6th century and gives additional meaning to Paul’s concerns about edification instead of display.³³

1 Corinthians 14:1-27 – A pastoral paraphrase

Based on Epiphanius’ insights and Blosser and Sullivan’s research, I would like to act as a meturgeman and offer my own pastoral paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 14:1-27 in modern English:

1 Let love be your highest goal! But you should also desire the special abilities the Spirit gives, especially the ability to teach the message of salvation.

2 If you read or instruct from the Hebrew Scriptures in a worship service but no one in the congregation understands the Hebrew language, then you are only speaking to God. What you are reading may be powerful, but it will not help anyone in the congregation.

3 But someone who preaches the message of salvation in a language that the congregation understands strengthens others, encourages them, and comforts them.

4 A person who reads or instructs from the Hebrew Scriptures in the Hebrew language strengthens their own faith. However, someone who translates the Hebrew Scriptures into a language that everyone can understand strengthens the entire church.

5 I wish that everyone in your local church could read and understand the Hebrew Scriptures, but even more I wish you could all translate the Hebrew Scriptures into different languages to build up the church.

6 Dear brothers and sisters, if I came to your local church and started speaking in Hebrew and no one in the congregation understood me, how would that help you? But if I bring you a revelation or special knowledge or prophecy or teaching in a language that you understand, that will be helpful.

7 Even lifeless instruments like the flute or the harp must play the notes clearly, or no one will recognise the melody.

8 And if the trumpeter does not sound a clear call, how will the soldiers know they are being called to battle?

9 It is the same for you. If you speak to people in languages that they do not understand, how will they know what you are saying? You might as well be talking into an empty room.

10 There are many different languages in the world, and every language has meaning.

11 But if I do not understand a language, I will not be able to communicate with someone who speaks it, and the one who speaks it will not be able to communicate with me.

12 And the same is true for you. Since you are so eager to have the special abilities the Spirit gives, seek those that will strengthen the whole church.

13 So anyone who reads an instruction from the Hebrew Scriptures in a church meeting should also pray for the ability to translate the Hebrew text into words, metaphors, and examples that can be understood by the congregation.

14 For if I repeat a Hebrew prayer word for word, it is true that I am still saying a prayer, but it is just simple repetition – it is not personal.

15 So what should I do? Well, instead, I should translate the Hebrew languages into a language that I understand so that the prayer has meaning for me. I will do the same thing with Hebrew songs, translating them into words that are meaningful for me.

16 Likewise, when you translate a blessing from Hebrew, how can the congregation know when to say “amen” if you are not speaking in a language that they can understand?

17 While you may be offering a beautiful blessing, it will not strengthen the people who hear you because they will not understand what you are saying.

18 I thank my God that I can speak in more languages than all of you.

19 But in a church meeting I would rather speak five words in a language that the congregation understands than ten thousand words in a language that they do not understand.

20 Dear brothers and sisters, do not be childish in your understanding of these things. Be innocent as babies when it comes to evil, but be mature in understanding matters of this kind.

21 It is written in the Scriptures: “I will speak to my own people in languages other than Hebrew and through the lips of people who are not Jewish. But even then, they will not listen to me,” says the Lord.

22 So you see, God has given people the ability to translate and preach the Hebrew Scriptures in different languages so that unbelievers will have the opportunity to hear the message of salvation. On the other hand, discussion groups are for the benefit of believers, not unbelievers.

23 Even so, if unbelievers or people who do not understand these things come into your church meeting and hear a multitude of people all translating the Hebrew text at the same time into different languages, they will think that you are crazy.

24 But if you are discussing the Gospel together in a common language, and unbelievers or people who do not understand these things come into your meeting, they will be convicted of sin and be judged by what you say.

25 As they listen, their secret thoughts will be exposed, and they will fall to their knees and worship God, declaring, “God is truly here among you.”

26 Well, my brothers and sisters, let us summarise. When you meet together, one will sing, another will teach, another will share a special message that God has given to them, one will read the Hebrew text, and another will translate what is being said. But everything that is done must strengthen all of you.

27 When someone reads the Hebrew text, they should only read two or three sentences at a time so that the translator can keep up. And of course, someone must translate what they are saying into a language that the congregation understands.

The apostle’s hope

Understanding history and culture transforms how we read 1 Corinthians 14. Paul is not teaching the Corinthian Christians to speak in heavenly languages, ecstatic vocalisations or a God-given personal prayer language. Instead, Paul is addressing a practical linguistic challenge in their multicultural, multilingual worship service and urging the Corinthians that the Hebrew Scriptures must be interpreted clearly into a language that everyone understands.

Ultimately, Paul’s goal was that everyone would be drawn closer to Jesus as they listened to an intelligible proclamation of Scripture and not miss the message of salvation due to language barriers or the performance of the translator. As Paul taught the Corinthian church—and as the Bible continues tjo teach us today—true spirituality grows through understanding, which opens the way for everyone to hear, believe and be transformed by the good news of Jesus.

---

Jared Martin is an ordained minister in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Australia. He holds an MA in Biblical and Theological Studies from Avondale University along with degrees in construction management, Adventist history and teaching.

1. Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues (2022). Volume 2: Tongues through Church History (2023). Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth (2026), Volume 4: Commentary on 1 Corinthians 14 (2026). ↩︎
2. The term xenolalia does not appear in any Greek manuscript of the Bible. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, its earliest recorded usage is attributed to David Christie-Murray in his 1978 book Voices from the Gods: Speaking with Tongues. See: “Xenolalia,” Oxford English Dictionary Online (Oxford University Press), accessed March 9, 2026. By contrast, the New Testament employs the terms dialektō (see Acts 2:6) meaning “language” and glōssais (see 1 Corinthians) meaning a literal “tongue”, or human languages. Likewise, the term glossolalia is absent from biblical Greek manuscripts; it was later coined in 1879 by the British cleric Frederic William Farrar. See: “A History of Glossolalia: Origins,” Charles A. Sullivan, accessed March 9, 2026. ↩︎
3. “Xenolalia,” Oxford University Press, accessed March 9, 2026 ↩︎
4. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 4: Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 2. (This is a prepublication copy sent from Sullivan to the author). ↩︎
5. “Glossolalia,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, accessed March 9, 2026 ↩︎
6. De Jager, E. (2019). An evaluation of speaking in tongues as angelic language from the Judaean and early Christian perspectives. Conspectus: The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary, 28, 35–48. ↩︎
7. Ibid. ↩︎
8. Philip E. Blosser, Charles A. Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues (Pickwick Publications, 2022) 113. ↩︎
9. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues, 52. ↩︎
10. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues, 54. ↩︎
11. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues, 55. ↩︎
12. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues, 56. ↩︎
13. Jack, W. Hayford and David S. Moore, The Charismatic Century (Hachette, 2006),42 as quoted in Philip E. Blosser, Charles A. Sullivan. Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues (Pickwick Publications, 2022), 56. ↩︎
14. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 1: The Modern Redefinition of Tongues, 57-58. ↩︎
15. Center for the Study of Global Christianity. (2026). Status of Global Christianity, 2026, in the context of 1900–2075. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. [Accessed 10 August 2026]. ↩︎
16. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 70. (This is a prepublication copy sent from Sullivan to the author). ↩︎
17. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 70-72. ↩︎
18. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 72-74. See also: Nehemiah 8:2-8. ↩︎
19. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 71. ↩︎
20. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 70-71, 75. ↩︎
21. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 83. See also: Ekaputra Tupamaha, Contesting Languages: Heteroglossia and the Politics of Language in the Early Church, (2022), Oxford University Press,60-84. ↩︎
22. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 82-83. ↩︎
23. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 83-84. ↩︎
24. “The Epiphanius Text on the Tongues of Corinth in English,” Charles A. Sullivan, accessed July 8, 2025. ↩︎
25. The Epiphanius Text on the Tongues of Corinth in English.” ↩︎
26. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 88. ↩︎
27. “The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church.” ↩︎
28. “The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church.” ↩︎
29. “The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church.” See also: “The Public Reader, the Synagogue, and Corinth,” Charles A. Sullivan, accessed June 8, 2025. ↩︎
30. “The Language of Instruction in the Corinthian Church”. ↩︎
31. “Meturgeman (“interpreter”),” Jewish Encyclopedia, accessed June 8, 2025. ↩︎
32. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 92. ↩︎
33. Blosser & Sullivan, Speaking in Tongues: A Critical Historical Examination: Volume 3: The Tongues of Corinth, 92. ↩︎