Introduction
The modern charismatic and Pentecostal movements often teach that speaking in tongues includes a private, heavenly prayer language that believers use to communicate with God. This teaching is largely derived from a specific interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 and is often viewed as distinct from the account of tongues in Acts 2. While millions of Christians sincerely hold this belief, a close and contextual examination of Scripture shows significant differences between modern claims and biblical doctrine.
What follows is a series of carefully reasoned responses to claims held by mostly those who are of the Charismatic or Pentecostal persuasion. Points of discussion will address particular claims made in favor of the belief that tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is a different kind of phenomenon than the tongues described in Acts. Using thorough biblical exegesis, historical context, and a consistent interpretive framework, this discussion will seek to bring clarity to the nature and purpose of the biblical gift of tongues. The goal is not to attack, but to persuade fellow believers toward an understanding rooted in what the Bible actually teaches, rather than what has been inferred through personal experience or popular tradition.
Below are some examples of what tongues are claimed to be, and what the definition by some is believed to be interpreted in scripture. These claims will be addressed individually from a biblical analysis of the scripture.
- There are four different types of tongues in the New Testament – two public (for unbelievers and for interpretation) and two private (for intercession and for personal prayer).
- The tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 are a different kind than the tongues in Acts 2, suggesting 1 Corinthians speaks of heavenly or angelic languages rather than human ones.
- 1 Corinthians 14:2 teaches that tongues are a private prayer language in which a believer speaks mysteries to God.
- The term “unknown tongue” in 1 Corinthians 14 indicates a heavenly or angelic language that is not known or understandable on earth.
- Romans 8:26 supports the idea of praying in tongues, implying that the Spirit helps believers pray in an unknown spiritual language.
- Isaiah 28:11–12 teaches that tongues bring rest and refreshing, supporting the modern experience of spiritual rejuvenation through tongue-speaking.
- Paul’s statement that he spoke in tongues more than others (1 Cor. 14:18) proves he practiced it as a private prayer language for intimacy with God.
- Praying in tongues brings divine revelation, insight, and even practical guidance, such as business strategies, book ideas, and spiritual wisdom.
- If someone does not receive the gift of tongues, it is due to a lack of faith or unforgiveness in their heart.
- The Corinthian believers were exercising legitimate spiritual gifts—including a unique kind of tongues—and Paul was merely encouraging better order, not correcting error.
- Corinthians 14:4 says, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself,” proving that self-edification is a biblical goal of tongues.
Each of the above is addressed below, using thorough biblical exegesis and contextual reasoning.
I. Are There Four Different Types of Tongues in the New Testament?
Claim: There are four types of tongues in the New Testament—two public (for unbelievers and for interpretation) and two private (for intercession and for personal prayer).
Response:
Nowhere in Scripture does the Bible divide tongues into four distinct categories. This division is not found in the book of Acts, 1 Corinthians, or anywhere else in the New Testament. It is a theological construction based on human logic, not divine revelation.
The Greek word for tongues, glōssa (γλῶσσα), consistently refers to spoken human languages throughout Scripture. In Acts 2, the apostles spoke in recognizable dialects. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul treats tongues as needing interpretation, implying structured, meaningful content—something that can only apply to real languages.
Paul doesn’t mention different categories of tongues. Instead, he addresses different contexts (private vs. public) and whether or not there is interpretation, which determines their usefulness in edification (1 Cor. 14:5, 13).
To impose a framework of four types is to go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6) and create theological confusion.
II. Are the Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 Different from Acts 2?
Claim: Acts 2 tongues were human languages, but 1 Corinthians 14 tongues are a different, heavenly or unknown language.
Response:
This claim misunderstands both the language and context of Scripture. In both Acts and 1 Corinthians, the Greek word glōssa is used, which means human language or dialect. There is no change in the term used or in its application.
In Acts 2, those speaking in tongues were heard in known languages by Jews from different nations. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul discusses tongues in the context of the local church where the language spoken may not be known by the hearers and thus requires interpretation. This does not make it a different type of tongue; it simply reflects a different audience.
Paul further grounds tongues in real-world languages by saying: “There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification” (1 Cor. 14:10).
There is no biblical evidence for a shift from human languages in Acts to heavenly or angelic languages in 1 Corinthians. The burden of proof lies on those who make this distinction—but the Greek and context do not support it.
III. Does 1 Corinthians 14:2 Teach a Private Prayer Language?
Claim: 1 Corinthians 14:2 shows that tongues is a private prayer language where one speaks mysteries to God.
Response:
This interpretation misreads the verse. 1 Corinthians 14:2 (KJV) says: “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”
The key phrase “no man understandeth him” is explained by the surrounding verses—no man understands because it’s not being interpreted. The speaker doesn’t know what he’s saying either (v. 14). Therefore, the mystery is not a hidden heavenly language—it’s a language not understood by those present.
The “mystery” is the lack of understanding—not divine secrecy. Paul’s solution is not to promote it as a private practice, but to urge interpretation (v. 13), and he even prefers five intelligible words over 10,000 in a tongue (v. 19).
IV. Is “Unknown Tongue” a Heavenly Language?
Claim: The phrase “unknown tongue” in 1 Corinthians 14 means a heavenly language not known on earth.
Response:
In the KJV, the word “unknown” is italicized. This means it was added by the translators for clarity—it does not exist in the original Greek. The actual word used is simply glōssa, which means language.
“Unknown” simply means unknown to the hearers, not unknown to mankind or God. If the tongue were a heavenly language, it could not be interpreted. Yet Paul insists that if someone speaks in a tongue, they should pray that they may interpret (1 Cor. 14:13).
The concept of a private, heavenly prayer language is imported into the text; it is not derived from the text. Scripture calls for tongues to be understood and interpreted, not mysterious and private.
V. Does Romans 8:26 Support Praying in Tongues?
Claim: Romans 8:26 teaches that the Spirit prays through us in tongues when we don’t know what to pray.
Response:
Romans 8:26–27 says the Spirit makes intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered. This does not refer to speaking in tongues. It specifically says the groanings cannot be uttered—literally wordless groanings.
This is the Spirit’s intercession on our behalf, not a gift of prayer language through us. There is no reference to us speaking or uttering anything. The groaning is done by the Spirit, not by the believer.
This verse is often used out of context to justify tongues as intercessory prayer, but the grammar and subject clearly show it is the Spirit interceding, not the believer speaking.
VI. Does Isaiah 28:11–12 Teach That Tongues Bring Rest and Refreshing?
Claim: Isaiah 28 teaches that praying in tongues brings rest and refreshing.
Response:
Paul quotes Isaiah 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21 as a sign of judgment—not spiritual rest. In Isaiah, God is warning Israel that because they would not listen to clear instruction, He would speak to them through foreigners’ languages, which would signal coming judgment.
Paul uses this in 1 Corinthians 14 to show that tongues are a sign for unbelievers—not believers—and without interpretation, they become a sign of confusion or judgment (1 Cor. 14:22).
This verse is misapplied when used to promote personal peace through tongues. The biblical context is a prophetic warning, not a spiritual gift description.
VII. Did Paul Use Tongues Privately for Intimacy With God?
Claim: Paul said he spoke in tongues more than all, which means he had a private prayer life of tongues.
Response:
Paul does say, “I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all” (1 Cor. 14:18), but immediately clarifies: “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding…” (v. 19).
If Paul was using tongues privately, it was likely in evangelistic situations where languages were needed, not in a private mystical prayer language. There is no text that states or implies Paul used tongues for personal intimacy with God.
His emphasis is always on understanding and edification, not on private experience.
VIII. Does Tongues Bring Revelation, Business Ideas, or Personal Insight?
Claim: Praying in tongues leads to divine ideas and revelations—like business plans, books, and prophetic insight.
Response:
This teaching is experience-based, not Scripture-based. Nowhere in the Bible are tongues linked to receiving special knowledge, visions, or business inspiration.
Paul says tongues edify only if interpreted (1 Cor. 14:5). Revelation and counsel come from Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16–17), not tongues. To seek personal revelation through tongues opens the door to subjective mysticism and can lead to error.
The Holy Spirit leads us, yes—but not through unintelligible speech. He leads us through His Word.
IX. Is Failure to Receive Tongues Due to Lack of Faith or Unforgiveness?
Claim: If you haven’t received tongues, it’s because of unbelief or unforgiveness.
Response:
This is a dangerous and unbiblical accusation. It shifts blame to sincere believers and imposes guilt for something Scripture never promises to all.
1 Corinthians 12:30 – “Do all speak with tongues?” – clearly implies no.
Not everyone receives every gift. The Spirit gives as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11). The idea that everyone can or must speak in tongues undermines the diversity of the Spirit’s gifts and encourages spiritual elitism and pressure.
X. Was the Corinthian Church Misusing the Gift of Tongues?
Claim: The Corinthian believers were exercising legitimate spiritual gifts—including a unique kind of tongues—and Paul was merely encouraging better order, not correcting error.
Response:
The Corinthian church is well-known for its spiritual immaturity and misuse of the gifts of the Spirit. Paul’s letters repeatedly rebuke them for factions (1 Cor. 1:10–13), tolerating sin (1 Cor. 5), taking each other to court (1 Cor. 6), abusing the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11), and misusing spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12–14).
Regarding tongues specifically, Paul was not endorsing their behavior but correcting it. The very structure of 1 Corinthians 14 is regulatory—laying down rules for the proper use of tongues and prophecy in corporate worship.
- Paul urges the Corinthians to seek to excel in building up the church (v. 12).
- He commands that tongues must be interpreted, or the speaker must be silent (v. 27–28).
- He limits tongues speakers to two or three, and only in turn (v. 27).
- He clarifies that prophecy is preferable because it edifies the whole church (v. 3–5, 19).
Far from endorsing a unique version of tongues, Paul is reining in their misuse. The Corinthians had turned spiritual gifts into a source of pride and confusion. Paul reminds them that “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (v. 33).
Thus, rather than validating ecstatic or angelic prayer languages, 1 Corinthians 14 is a pastoral correction aimed at restoring order, clarity, and edification in worship. Any reading that ignores the corrective tone of this chapter risks repeating the very errors Paul was trying to address.
XI. Does the Bible Teach That We Are to Edify Ourselves?
Claim: 1 Corinthians 14:4 says, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself,” proving that self-edification is a biblical goal of tongues.
Response:
While it is true that 1 Corinthians 14:4 says, “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church,” this verse must be understood within its larger context. Paul is not praising self-edification—he is making a comparison to show why prophecy is superior in the assembly.
Throughout the chapter, Paul emphasizes the priority of corporate edification:
- “Let all things be done unto edifying” (1 Cor. 14:26).
- “Seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church” (1 Cor. 14:12).
- “Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken?” (1 Cor. 14:9).
The only mention of self-edification is in contrast to what ought to happen in the church. Paul is not promoting tongues as a private tool for self-edification; he is correcting their misuse. His repeated instruction is that tongues must be interpreted to edify others—otherwise, the speaker should remain silent (1 Cor. 14:28).
Nowhere else in Scripture are believers told to pursue self-edification. The goal of spiritual gifts is always the building up of others (1 Cor. 12:7, Eph. 4:11–12).
Therefore, the idea that we are biblically commanded to edify ourselves through tongues is a misreading of a comparative verse. Paul’s whole argument in 1 Corinthians 14 is that understanding and mutual edification are essential—and uninterpreted tongues fail to meet that standard.
Concluding Remarks
The analysis presented reveals a consistent pattern: the modern charismatic and Pentecostal interpretations of the gift of tongues, particularly as a heavenly prayer language, are not rooted in Scripture but are instead the result of theological assumptions, misread texts, and personal experiences elevated above biblical exegesis.
Nowhere in Scripture do we find support for multiple types of tongues, ecstatic speech as a private communication method with God, or tongues used to receive business revelations or subjective impressions. Every reference to the gift of tongues in the New Testament—whether in Acts or 1 Corinthians—uses the Greek word glōssa, which refers to known, spoken languages. The biblical practice was intelligible, interpretable, and always served the edification of the church, never merely the individual.
Furthermore, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is corrective. Paul confronts the Corinthians’ disorderly misuse of spiritual gifts, particularly tongues, urging that all things be done decently, in order, and with understanding. The aim of the Holy Spirit’s gifts is never confusion or self-exaltation, but the clear building up of Christ’s body through truth and love.
While believers today may sincerely desire spiritual intimacy with God—and that desire is commendable—it must be pursued through means that are biblically warranted. God has provided His Word as the complete, sufficient revelation of His will. The Spirit still speaks—but through Scripture, not through ecstatic speech. As Paul himself declared, “Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding… than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue” (1 Cor. 14:19).
Let us, therefore, pursue the more excellent way of love, the clear proclamation of the gospel, and the edification of the church through Spirit-empowered, Scripture-saturated truth.
Supplementary Reflection: How to Engage Groups That Hold to Rigid or Unbiblical Doctrines
In addressing individuals or churches that strongly hold to certain charismatic teachings—particularly those promoting ongoing gifts like tongues, prophecy, or a so-called heavenly prayer language—it’s important to recognize a central dynamic: the difficulty in having an open theological dialogue often stems from the perceived authority of the institution or tradition itself.
This issue is not about sincerity. Many believers in these settings deeply love the Lord. However, when someone’s beliefs are grounded in what their denomination or leadership affirms as divinely authoritative, there can be an inherent resistance to re-examining those beliefs—even in the light of Scripture.
By contrast, those who approach doctrine with the Bible as the sole authority are usually more open to reevaluating positions. A genuine theological discussion requires both sides to be willing to test all things against Scripture using consistent and sound hermeneutics.
For example, many in charismatic movements firmly hold that private tongues or heavenly languages are essential spiritual tools. But when asked to demonstrate this from Scripture—outside of interpretations filtered through church traditions—there is often little textual evidence. When Scripture is evaluated on its own terms, through historical context, original language, and literary structure, many of these charismatic practices simply don’t hold up.
In such conversations, it’s helpful to gently guide others not only to the specific doctrinal issue (like tongues) but also to question the source of that doctrine’s authority. If the church or movement teaches something that clearly deviates from Scripture, then perhaps that authority should itself be examined.
Moreover, critics of a Scripture-alone approach often cite denominational differences among Protestants as proof that personal interpretation is dangerous. But the vast majority of Christian denominations agree on the essentials: the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, the inspiration of Scripture, and the return of Christ. The disagreements that do exist often concern secondary issues, and many are due to different methods of interpretation rather than different foundations.
Those committed to Scripture above tradition are not bound to defend a denomination but are free to search the Word, reform, and grow in their understanding of truth. This allows for meaningful conversation and correction when Scripture sheds new light on a subject.
We should therefore approach these discussions with grace and humility, recognizing that for many, to question a single doctrine may feel like questioning their entire spiritual identity. But truth stands on its own. And the Spirit of God is faithful to lead His people into all truth—especially when we come to His Word willing to be taught.
Supplementary Reflection: Paul’s Corrections to the Corinthian Church
The Corinthian church, while rich in spiritual gifts, was also plagued with significant immaturity and confusion. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is filled with pastoral corrections that address their behavior, theology, and misuse of spiritual matters.
From the very beginning of the epistle, Paul exposes divisions (1 Cor. 1:10–13), immorality (1 Cor. 5), lawsuits among believers (1 Cor. 6), and abuses at the Lord’s Table (1 Cor. 11). When it comes to spiritual gifts in chapters 12–14, Paul again offers correction, not commendation.
In chapter 14, Paul addresses the chaotic and self-serving way the Corinthians practiced the gift of tongues. Instead of using their gifts for the edification of the body, they sought to showcase spiritual experiences, leading to confusion. Paul brings clarity by:
- Prioritizing prophecy over tongues unless tongues are interpreted (14:5).
- Emphasizing order—only two or three should speak, and one at a time (14:27).
- Requiring interpretation, or silence should be kept (14:28).
- Declaring that God is not the author of confusion but of peace (14:33).
The very need for these instructions proves that the Corinthians were misusing their spiritual gifts—including tongues. Paul’s purpose was not to introduce new categories of tongues, but to restore biblical order and spiritual maturity.
The church at Corinth serves as a powerful reminder that spiritual enthusiasm must always be governed by sound doctrine and disciplined practice. The true work of the Spirit never leads to disorder but produces clarity, peace, and mutual edification for the glory of Christ.
Supplementary Reflection: The Word “Though” in 1 Corinthians 13
In 1 Corinthians 13:1–3, Paul begins a powerful discourse on the supremacy of love over all spiritual gifts. He uses the word “though” repeatedly, which in Greek is the conditional term ean (ἐάν), often translated “if” or “even if.” This conditional construction is used rhetorically to set up hypothetical scenarios. Paul is not asserting that he actually performs these things—such as speaking in the tongues of angels or giving his body to be burned—but is stating that even if he did, without love, these actions would be meaningless.
For example:
- “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”
- “Though I have the gift of prophecy…”
- “Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor…”
Each statement is followed by a contrast: “and have not charity (love), I am nothing” or “it profiteth me nothing.” These exaggerations (hyperboles) serve to stress that love is superior to even the most extraordinary spiritual feats. Paul moves from actual gifts (tongues, prophecy, faith) to exaggerated versions of them (angelic tongues, all mysteries, total sacrifice), not to prove those extremes exist, but to show that without love, they are void.
This literary device is used elsewhere in the epistle. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 4:15, Paul says, “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers…” He doesn’t mean they literally have 10,000 instructors—it’s an exaggeration to make a point about relationship and authority.
Supplementary Reflection: Rhetorical Techniques in Paul’s Epistles
Paul’s letters are rich in rhetorical sophistication, reflecting both his Jewish rabbinical background and his familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetoric. These literary techniques not only demonstrate Paul’s intellect but also serve to clarify, persuade, and emphasize core doctrinal truths. Here are several key rhetorical strategies used in Paul’s epistles, supported by scholarly references:
- Hypophora – Paul poses a question and immediately answers it to guide his audience. For example, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.” (Romans 6:1–2). This anticipates objections and engages the audience in a dialogue.
- Source: George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (University of North Carolina Press, 1984), pp. 108–110.
- Diatribe Style – A common Greco-Roman method where Paul debates an imaginary opponent. Notable in Romans 2–3, Paul anticipates and rebuts objections from a fictional Jewish interlocutor.
- Source: Stanley E. Porter, Paul and Rhetoric (Eerdmans, 2016), pp. 36–40.
- Chiasmus – This mirrored structure (A-B-B-A) emphasizes key ideas through repetition. For instance: “Your abundance may supply their want, that their abundance also may supply your want” (2 Cor. 8:14).
- Source: Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC, Zondervan, 1994), pp. 250–252.
- Irony and Sarcasm – Paul uses irony to highlight spiritual pride and to correct behavior. Example: “Now ye are full, now ye are rich… we are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:8–10).
- Source: Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Eerdmans, 2001), pp. 75–78.
- Paradox – Paul employs seemingly contradictory statements to reveal deeper spiritual truth. “When I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor. 12:10).
- Source: Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth (Eerdmans, 1995), p. 375.
- Hyperbole – Intentional exaggeration for effect. In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul uses extreme scenarios to emphasize the supremacy of love: “though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels…”
- Source: Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Interpretation Series, Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), pp. 223–226.
Understanding these techniques helps readers better grasp Paul’s intention and theological emphasis. When interpreted carefully, it becomes clear that Paul’s statements—especially about tongues, prophecy, and spiritual gifts—are often framed rhetorically to instruct, correct, and refocus the church on Christ-centered priorities.
Therefore, isolating a rhetorical statement such as “tongues of angels” to establish a doctrine about a private heavenly prayer language is a misreading of Paul’s intent. Rather than creating new spiritual experiences, Paul consistently appeals to Scripture, clarity, love, and orderly edification as the true marks of Spirit-led worship.
Supplementary Reflection: Understanding the Word glōssa (γλῶσσα)
The Greek word glōssa (γλῶσσα), as used in the New Testament, is crucial to the discussion on the biblical gift of tongues. Strong’s Concordance defines glōssa as follows:
“Of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (especially, one naturally unacquired):—tongue.”
In layman’s terms, glōssa refers both to the physical tongue and, more importantly in this context, to a spoken language. When used in Scripture to describe the gift of tongues, it clearly denotes a known human language that the speaker did not previously acquire through natural learning. This miraculous ability enabled believers to speak in foreign languages they had never studied, as seen in Acts 2 when the disciples spoke and people from many nations heard them in their native languages (Acts 2:6–11).
The idea that glōssa could refer to a private or heavenly prayer language is not supported by the standard lexical meaning. Lexicons such as Thayer’s and BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich) define glōssa as “the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations.” There is no indication that this word ever meant ecstatic utterances or non-human speech.
Thus, when Paul uses the word glōssa in 1 Corinthians, he is referring to the same kind of human languages as seen in Acts. Any interpretation that assumes glōssa refers to a mystical or heavenly language must introduce that idea from outside the biblical text.
By understanding the term according to its historical and lexical usage, it becomes evident that the gift of tongues was a miraculous ability to speak known human languages—not a secret or angelic code used for personal spiritual edification.
Supplementary Reflection: True Prayer Requires Understanding — A Biblical Challenge to the Claim of Heavenly Gibberish
One of the most fundamental aspects of prayer is that it is a form of communication—between a believer and their God. Like any meaningful communication, it requires comprehension on the part of the speaker. When we pray, whether aloud or silently, our thoughts are formed in a language we understand. We deliberately shape words, petitions, praises, and confessions based on our intentions. This is how true relationship and communication take place.
Just as we wouldn’t write a letter in meaningless scribbles or speak to a friend in random syllables we don’t understand, it follows that we wouldn’t approach God in a way void of coherent thought. When we speak to the Lord, we are expressing something from our hearts and minds—in words we know.
But in the modern charismatic and Pentecostal context, many are taught to speak in an unknown or so-called “heavenly language”—a string of unintelligible syllables often without any cognitive understanding from the speaker. The defense often given is: “God understands, even if I don’t.”
This response raises serious concerns, both scripturally and logically.
Biblical Prayer Engages Both Spirit and Mind
In 1 Corinthians 14:14–15, Paul writes:
“For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also…”
Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of praying with both the spirit and the understanding. If one’s understanding is disengaged—if the mind is unfruitful—then the very purpose of prayer is compromised. Paul is not endorsing prayer that is devoid of mental engagement; rather, he insists that prayer must involve intentional, meaningful expression that the speaker himself understands.
“God Understands” Is Not a Justification for Nonsense
It is certainly true that God understands all things (Psalm 139:4; Matthew 6:8). But prayer is not primarily for God’s informational benefit—it is for our communion with Him. If we do not understand what we are saying, how is that a genuine offering of our heart?
The idea that we can speak nonsense syllables, call it “spirit-led,” and assume that God will decode it, undermines the biblical model of prayer. God invites us to reason with Him (Isaiah 1:18), to come boldly before the throne (Hebrews 4:16), and to make our requests known to Him (Philippians 4:6). These passages imply deliberate, thoughtful communication, not incoherent utterances.
The Disconnect Between Thought and Expression
As you rightly observed, when we write or speak, we do so in our known language—English, for instance—because that is the medium by which we form our thoughts and convey meaning. If someone claims to be praying in a heavenly or angelic language, but doesn’t know what they are saying, then what exactly are they praying?
Can they say it’s from their heart, if they don’t know what their heart is expressing? Can it be intercession, if they are unaware of the request? Can it be praise, if they do not comprehend what they are glorifying God for?
If the speaker, the congregation, and the interpreter (in many modern cases, there is none) don’t understand the content, then it is not prayer—it is noise.
A Dangerous Parallel to Pagan Practices
This kind of unintelligible “prayer” is not found in biblical Judaism or Christianity—but it is found in pagan religions. In ancient Corinth itself, ecstatic speech and gibberish were part of the mystery religions that glorified spiritual chaos and emotionalism over truth. Paul’s correction to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14 was not to promote these practices but to rebuke and correct them.
He ends the chapter by saying:
“Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:40)
That includes prayer and worship—both of which should be understandable, fruitful, and edifying.
Conclusion
True prayer is intentional, thoughtful, and meaningful. It comes from the heart through the mind, expressed in ways that can be understood—both by the speaker and, where applicable, by others. Claiming that gibberish or unintelligible syllables constitute a “heavenly language” not only lacks biblical support but also undermines the very nature of prayer as taught by Scripture.
The Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness (Romans 8:26), but He does not bypass our mind to turn us into incoherent vessels. Rather, He brings clarity, truth, and peace.
Let us then, as Paul exhorts, “pray with the spirit, and pray with the understanding also.”
