What Does the Bible Say About Speaking in Tongues?

Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12–14 both describe tongues — but not obviously the same phenomenon, which is where most of the disagreement about this gift actually starts.

How to read the labels in this guide

Traditional teaching What a named tradition holds and teaches, presented as that tradition's position.
Contested Sincerely disputed between traditions or scholars — we set out the positions rather than settling it.

"Speaking in tongues" translates a Greek phrase, glossais lalein, that appears in several New Testament passages describing different scenes. The two most discussed are Acts 2, at Pentecost, and 1 Corinthians 12–14, where Paul addresses tongues as one gift operating within a Corinthian church service. Reading them side by side is the fastest way to understand why Christians disagree about what this gift actually is.

The core tension: Acts 2 describes something that sounds like real, identifiable human languages being spoken and understood by native speakers who happened to be present. 1 Corinthians 12–14 describes something used in private and corporate worship that, Paul says, ordinarily needs interpretation for the congregation to understand it — which sounds like a different kind of speech. Traditions disagree on whether these are the same gift experienced two different ways, or two related but distinct gifts.

Acts 2: tongues as known languages

At Pentecost, the text describes the gathered crowd — pilgrims in Jerusalem from across the Mediterranean, Mesopotamia and North Africa — each hearing the disciples "declaring the wonders of God" in their own native language. The text is explicit that the hearers recognized the languages as their own, and lists specific regions and peoples by name. This has led many interpreters, across traditions, to read Acts 2 as a miracle of genuine human languages, sometimes discussed under the term xenoglossy.

1 Corinthians 12–14: tongues as a worship gift needing interpretation

Paul's discussion in Corinth is different in character. He describes people speaking "mysteries" in the Spirit that others present do not understand without an accompanying gift of interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:2, 14:13–14), and he regulates the practice carefully — limiting how many people should speak in a given service, requiring an interpreter to be present, and stating plainly that unintelligible speech without interpretation is not edifying to the gathered church (1 Corinthians 14:27–28). He also describes praying "with my spirit" but with his "mind" being "unfruitful" (1 Corinthians 14:14), a phrase that has shaped much later teaching on tongues as a form of Spirit-led prayer that operates outside ordinary rational language.

How traditions read the relationship between the two

A genuinely disputed question among serious scholars and traditions

Some scholars and traditions argue Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians describe the same gift, with Acts 2 simply being the exceptional case where the "unknown" language happened to be intelligible to bystanders because of the specific, symbolically significant occasion — the reversal of the confusion of languages at Babel, on the day the church was founded. Other scholars and traditions argue they are meaningfully different — Acts 2 a miracle of communication across a language barrier for a specific evangelistic purpose, and 1 Corinthians a distinct, ongoing gift of prayer and worship not tied to any known human language at all.

Some links in this section are partner or affiliate links, and we may be paid a fee at no cost to you. It never changes what we recommend or the order anything appears in. Full disclosure · how we source this.

If you want to go deeper

Going further than one page can on what does the bible say about speaking in tongues

The main positions on the gifts, argued properly rather than assumed.

Explore the book: Spiritual gifts →

What Pentecostal and charismatic teaching generally holds

Classical Pentecostal and much charismatic teaching

Many Pentecostal denominations teach tongues as the expected initial physical evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit (see our guide on that topic), generally understood as a private prayer language rather than a known human language, distinct from the missionary-language experience at Pentecost. Charismatic Christians in other denominations often hold a similar view of tongues as a personal prayer gift without necessarily tying it to Spirit baptism as strictly.

What cessationist and non-charismatic traditions generally hold

Reformed, cessationist and many non-charismatic evangelical traditions

Traditions that hold tongues ceased with the apostolic era (see our cessationism guide) generally read both Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians as historical accounts describing a gift that served its founding purpose and is not expected to continue in the same form today, while not denying the Holy Spirit remains fully active in other ways.

What Paul himself actually says about how much to value it

Whatever position a tradition takes on whether tongues continues today, 1 Corinthians 13 — sitting directly between Paul's two chapters on spiritual gifts — is explicit that love matters more than any gift, including tongues: "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." That's worth remembering before this becomes a test of who's more spiritual.

Scripture quoted above follows the New International Version (NIV) unless otherwise noted; other translations render some of these passages, especially 1 Corinthians 14:14, with meaningfully different wording, and that difference has shaped how different traditions read the passage.

Continue exploring

More on this, from a different angle

Next guideWhat Is Baptism in the Holy Spirit? A Guide by Tradition →

CompareHow the traditions compare on the Holy Spirit →

Paul's actual instructions for using tongues in a service

It's worth reading how carefully Paul regulates this gift in 1 Corinthians 14, because the passage is often summarized as either wholly encouraging tongues or wholly restricting them, when it's actually neither. Paul says he is glad to speak in tongues privately more than anyone in the Corinthian church (14:18), which shows he isn't hostile to the practice itself. At the same time, he limits public use: no more than two or three should speak in any given gathering, one at a time, and only if someone is present to interpret — "if there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God" (14:27–28). He also states plainly that he would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue no one understands (14:19). The overall aim, stated explicitly at 14:26, is that "everything must be done so that the church may be built up" — which is the standard Paul applies throughout, not enthusiasm for its own sake.

Is tongues a "prayer language" distinct from a message to the church?

A distinction commonly made in Pentecostal and charismatic teaching

Many Pentecostal and charismatic teachers distinguish between tongues used privately in personal prayer — described as edifying the individual speaker (1 Corinthians 14:4) and not requiring interpretation since no one else is present to be built up by it — and tongues offered as a public message to a gathered congregation, which Paul says does require interpretation. This distinction isn't stated as sharply in the biblical text itself as it sometimes is in later teaching, but many pastors find it a useful way to explain why private tongues in personal devotion and public tongues in a service are treated somewhat differently in practice, even within traditions that affirm both.

Common concerns people raise about this gift

Is it real, or can people fake it?

This is a fair question raised across traditions, including by continuationists who take the gift seriously. Because tongues, as described in 1 Corinthians, is not necessarily an identifiable human language, there is no external, mechanical way to verify a given instance from the outside — which is exactly why Paul's instructions focus on regulating its use for the church's benefit rather than on verifying authenticity in the moment. Traditions that practice tongues generally emphasize character and fruit over time, rather than any single instance, as the more reliable indicator of a genuine gift being exercised well.

Should I seek to speak in tongues if my church doesn't practice it?

This depends entirely on what your own church or tradition teaches, and it's worth having that conversation directly with a pastor or leader there rather than deciding based on an article. Traditions differ on whether this is a gift every believer should actively seek, one that's given only to some, or one no longer given in this form at all — see our cessationism guide for how that underlying disagreement plays out.

What about "unknown tongues" outside a Christian context?

Ecstatic speech resembling glossolalia has been documented in some non-Christian religious contexts as well, which is sometimes raised as a challenge to the uniqueness of the Christian experience. Most Christian teachers across traditions respond that the presence of a superficially similar phenomenon elsewhere doesn't settle the theological question of what's happening within a specifically Christian context of prayer and worship, any more than the existence of non-Christian prayer practices in general would disprove the validity of Christian prayer.

General information for study and reflection, not a substitute for guidance from your own pastor, priest or church community — situations and traditions differ.