Without putting too fine a point on things, cessationism is the idea that God allowed certain miraculous gifts to take place during biblical times, but these supernatural occurrences no longer take place in the modern church. In my experience, most cessationists do not believe that all miracles have ceased: if we pray for a sick loved one, for example, God could respond by supernaturally healing them of their disease. Cessationists generally agree, however, that prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the interpretation of tongues are three gifts which are no longer for the church today.

Continuationists, like myself, take the opposite view: if God gave a miraculous gift to the church, “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29 ESV). Consequently, any gift which the infant church experienced in the scripture, the modern church can expect to experience today. This includes prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the interpretation of tongues. I myself have spoken in tongues, and have witnessed the interpretation of tongues. But I am not a contiuationist because of my personal experience; I am convinced by scripture that continuationism is the correct position.

I believe that cessationists have good intentions and are motivated by a love for God and for his word: cessationists are sincere, but sincerely wrong. Sincerity aside, I have yet to see a compelling biblical argument for cessationism. Recently, I encountered a terrible argument for cessationism.

Below is a clip of Justin Peters (hereafter JP), a prominent speaker in Reformed circles and an ardent cessationist, taken from a January 2019 video.¹ In the past I have enjoyed listening to JP’s perspective on various subjects; but in this clip he makes an absolute hash of 1 Cor 14:1-5. Please listen to the clip before proceeding.

In what follows I will offer some response to JP’s (astoundingly bad) exegesis.

Tongue versus tongues

At the start of the clip, JP claims that Paul distinguishes between counterfeit tongue-talking and genuine tongue-talking in 1 Corinthians 12-14 by changing from singular tongue to plural tongues. By tongue, says JP, Paul meant “pagan gibberish;” whereas tongues refers to “the biblical gift of languages.” JP’s claims here are unfounded and turn Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 14:1-5 on their head.

Two comments on the paganism point. Firstly, if Paul were addressing pagan tongue-talking, he would not tell people to continue doing it privately and only refrain during gathered worship. In 1 Cor 14:27-28, Paul says “If someone speaks in a tongue [note the singular tongue and not the plural tongues], it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God” (NET).

Does Paul’s advice make any sense if a tongue (singular) refers to paganism or mindless babble? “Don’t practice pagan gibberish at church, but keep doing it for God at home.” Ridiculous! If Paul were describing a pagan practice, he would address it directly and command the Corinthians to stop—as indeed he does with idolatry in 1 Cor 10:14. “Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry” (KJV).

Secondly, it is true that other religions besides Christianity, including some ancient religions, practice tongue-talking. That said, Paul never mentions pagan analogues for any of the spiritual gifts in the context: Paul’s purpose is not to distinguish between a genuine gift and a pagan imitation, but to correct misuses of the genuine gift so that the whole church can be strengthened.

Paul only mentions pagan religion once in his discussion of spiritual gifts—namely, in 1 Cor 12:1-3. But Paul’s focus there is on the content of what is said, not the manner in which something is said. Obviously, someone cannot claim to be empowered by God’s Spirit while saying “Jesus is accursed.” But this has nothing to do with comparing pagan tongue-talking to Christian tongue-talking—a comparison Paul never makes. Simply put, pagan tongue-talking isn’t even under discussion here and it is eisegetical for JP to shoehorn it into this passage.

But let’s move on to consider JP’s contrast of the singular tongue versus plural tongues. When we read 1 Corinthians 12-14, we see that JP’s distinction— tongue = gibberish and tongues = genuine languages—does not match Paul’s usage. A couple comments about the Greek term γλῶσσα are in order here.

The Greek word γλῶσσα simply means “tongue” (as in the body-part) or “language.” The noun γλῶσσα is thus a perfectly ordinary word. In common usage, both in Greek and in English, these two meanings often overlap: when we say “a foreign tongue,” we mean “a foreign language.”² When we realize this, JP’s distinction between singular tongue and plural tongues is immediately nonsensical. Do we really think that when Paul said “Whoever speaks in a language” (14:2) he really meant “Whoever speaks gibberish;” but when Paul said “I want all of you to speak in languages” (v. 5), this means “I want you to speak genuine languages”? Obviously not. Shifting the word languages from plural to singular doesn’t suddenly make it mean “gibberish.” That’s nonsense.³

JP says that there is no plural of “gibberish-es.” Fair enough—in English, I guess. But this is entirely besides the point: γλῶσσα does not mean “gibberish,” and I have yet to see proof that it does. BDAG does say that γλῶσσα can sometimes mean “an utterance outside the normal patterns of intelligible speech and therefore requiring special interpretation, ecstatic language, ecstatic speech.” But just because the language is unintelligible to the hearer and supernaturally motivated, it does not therefore follow that it is not actually a language.

In 1 Cor 14:6-11 Paul compares untranslated tongue-talking to the language barrier between people of different nationalities: “Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me” (v. 11 KJV). But the foreigner isn’t speaking gibberish, just because the people listening can’t understand him: he is speaking an actual language. Unlike a genuine, if foreign, language, “gibberish” can’t be understood by anyone anywhere ever, because the sounds are meaningless. There is nothing to understand. If Paul is calling tongue-talking “gibberish,” then his analogy of the language barrier makes no sense.

The fact that Paul says “a tongue” can be interpreted proves that it is an actual language (1 Cor 14:13, 27).⁴ Paul lists “a tongue” as an edifying gift, right along with singing, doctrine, prophetic revelation, and interpretation (v. 26). Paul even commands the tongue-talker to continue speaking in tongues—though he should do so in private if there is no interpreter (v. 27-28).⁵ These facts prove, contra JP, that the singular tongue is an actual language, is a genuine gift of the Holy Ghost, and has nothing at all to do with paganism.

This section was a long-winded way of explaining what a cursory reading of 1 Corinthians 12-14 could have demonstrated: that there is no difference in Paul’s usage between tongue and tongues, other than the normal switches between singular and plural which happen in any discussion of this length. With JP’s faulty distinction between tongue and tongues out of the way, let’s move on to the next point.

the true god or a pagan god?

JP makes an astounding and wholly untenable claim when he says that 1 Cor 14:2 is translated wrongly, and ought to say “one who speaks in a tongue speaks…to a god”—as in a false god. Let me start by admitting that JP is not simply pulling his misinterpretation out of thin air. JP (or JMac, whom he cites) is seeing a real detail in the Greek text of 1 Cor 14:2, but he misunderstands what he sees. The Greek grammar at play here is somewhat tedious, so bear with me.

In the NA / UBS Greek NT, the definite article (the Greek equivalent for the English word “the”) is absent: the text says simply “G/god” (θεῷ) instead of “the G/god” (τῷ θεῷ). Because the word “the” / τῷ is absent from the Greek text,⁶ JP assumes that Paul is not talking about the God (i.e., the true God) but about a god (i.e., a false god). This assertion is wrong on several points.

For one thing, even if θεός has the definite article, this does not guarantee that we are talking about the true God. For example, when Paul calls Satan “the god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4), the definite article is present: ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. For another thing there are multiple times in the NT when θεός lacks the definite article but still refers to the true God (e.g., Rom 2:17, 15:8, 1 Cor 1:2-3, 2:7).

On this second point, the premiere example of θεός lacking the article is John 1:1c, where “the Word” is called “God”—the true God: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Interestingly, Arian / Unitarian interpreters frequently make the same mistake about John 1:1 that JP makes about 1 Cor 14:2. Because θεός lacks the definite article in John 1:1c, Arians / Unitarians assume that the Word must be someone other than the true God. The New World Translation even goes so far as to translate John 1:1c as “and the Word was a god.” By translating the anarthrous θεός as “a god” in 1 Cor 14:2, JP is reasoning like a JW!

One last thing on this particular assertion: I cannot find one English version which translates 1 Cor 14:2 as “Whoever speaks in a tongue speaks to a god.” Every English translation renders this phrase as “…speaks to God”—the true God.⁷ If JP is right, then every other English translation is wrong.

It is a common refrain in some cessationist circles that modern tongue-talking is a false sign and demonically motivated. I have heard multiple people make this claim. I hesitate to speculate on JP’s motives here, but from the outside looking in, it looks like JP is trying to find a way to make Paul say, “Speaking in tongues is demonic.” When JP approaches the text with this bias, the article-less θεός in v. 2 is reinterpreted as “a god” in order to sever the tongue-talker’s connection with the true God and to associate him with the satanic.

So far we have demonstrated that JP’s distinction between a tongue (singular) and tongues (plural) is faulty and does not match Paul’s usage: a tongue does not refer to gibberish, but instead refers to a genuine gift of the Spirit. We have further demonstrated that whoever speaks in a tongue is speaking to the true God, and not a false god. Now let’s address JP’s final claim, about the word “edify.”

Defining “Edify”

JP contends that the word edify (Greek οἰκοδομέω) can have either a positive or a negative connotation. When used negatively, says JP, “the word literally means to puff oneself up…becoming arrogant.” On these points JP is also wrong.

The Greek verb οἰκοδομέω is primarily an architectural term: BDAG’s first definition is “to construct a building, build.”⁸ This verb can also have a metaphorical meaning—to “build up,” strengthen, benefit, or improve something. Christians are called to edify one another: to build one another up in the faith, to strengthen and help each other be better Christians.

I guess I can understand why “building yourself up” could sound proud or arrogant in English. And so, if someone reads 1 Cor 14:4 with that preconception already in their mind, “The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself” (ESV) could sound like the person is using tongues as a form of spiritual self-aggrandizement. But this is definitely not what the Greek word here means. As best I can tell, contra JP’s claim, οἰκοδομέω never has a negative connotation in and of itself.⁹

Jude uses a prefixed variation of this same verb when he tells his readers to abide in the love of God “by building yourselves up (ἐποικοδομοῦντες ἑαυτοὺς) in your most holy faith, by praying in the Holy Spirit” (v. 20 NET). Obviously growing stronger in our faith is never a bad thing, and entirely antithetical to arrogance; and this is exactly what Paul is saying here about speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues helps build the tongue-talker up. The reason the tongue-talker should be silent in church is not because self-edification is bad, but because public worship should prioritize building up each other rather than focusing on oneself.

At any rate, οἰκοδομέω certainly does not mean “to puff yourself up” or “to become arrogant.”¹⁰ We should know this intuitively: the second half of 1 Cor 14:4 says “he that prophesieth edifieth the church” (KJV). If speaking in tongues puffs up the tongue-talker with pride, does this mean that prophecy puffs up the whole church with pride? Obviously not. In fact, Paul directly contrasts “edify” / οἰκοδομέω with “puff up” in 1 Cor 8:1—”Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” Edify does not mean “puff up”—it means the exact opposite.

Conclusion

All three of JP’s major contentions in this clip are thus refuted. There is no difference in meaning between tongue (singular) and tongues (plural). Tongue certainly does not refer to “pagan gibberish,” but is a genuine gift of the Holy Ghost. The person who “speaks in a tongue” is not communicating with a pagan “little-g god,” but is speaking to the one true God. Speaking in tongues does not puff someone up with pride, but rather builds them up and draws them closer to God when used in private devotion.

I do not know JP personally, and I doubt he will ever read this article. But by way of conclusion, let me say that I have not written this article to attack him personally—merely to correct his errors. If I have occasionally seemed contentious, it is not because I bear him any malice but because I am “earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints.” We build ourselves up in this once-delivered faith by “praying in the Holy Ghost”—and that, at least part of the time, will involve “praying in a tongue.” It is my sincere hope that JP will recognize his error, repent for teaching these errors, and speak in tongues himself as he is baptized with God’s Spirit.

1. I was unable to find the original, full video of JP’s talk. My audio clip is taken from this youtube video taken from around the 1:57 mark. If someone knows where I can find JP’s original video, please email me at jack@lectionary.blog ↩︎
2. BDAG s.v. γλῶσσα, 201-202 ↩︎
3. Some modern Bible versions (e.g., CSB, CEV) translate γλῶσσα as “language” in 1 Cor 14 ↩︎
4. As I’ve already stated, if Paul were describing gibberish, there could of necessity be no interpretation, because gibberish is meaningless ↩︎
5. Note the imperative λαλείτω in v. 28. ↩︎
6. The definite article is present, however, in the TR and the majority of Greek mss ↩︎
7. Here is a link to Biblehub listing dozens of translations of 1 Cor 14:2. All of them translate θεῷ as “God.” ↩︎
8. BDAG s.v. οἰκοδομέω, 696 ↩︎
9. The one possible exception is Gal 2:18, where Paul describes a person departing from Christ to return to sin as “rebuilding (πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ) what [he] once destroyed.” But here, the problem is not building in itself, but what is being built. Obviously building up sin is sinful—but there is nothing wrong with building up oneself (i.e., strengthening oneself in the faith) ↩︎
10. If someone is aware of an example in Koine of οἰκοδομέω referring to pride, arrogance, or self-aggrandizement, please send it to me. I am unaware of any such example; on my reading, there is no such example in the NT. ↩︎

---

Knowing ancient Greek is an indispensable tool for defending God’s truth against false teaching and misunderstanding. After all, it is the language God chose to write the New Testament! If you’re ready gain this valuable skill, visit my website speakingothertongues.com to start learning ancient Greek!