Is Speaking In Tongues For Today?
The Simple Answer Hinges On One Phrase By the Apostle Paul

I recently got on the topic of “Is speaking in tongues for today?” when emailing back and forth with a reader. This reader is a very nice, Godly person as far as I can tell, and she sent me a PDF of a book called “Face to Face With Tongues” by Dr. Max D. Younce. Needless to say, the question “Is speaking in tongues for today?” is a very contentious one in Christianity today, so I read the book, looking to see if there was anything major I was missing in my understanding of this issue.

After reading Dr. Younce’s book, which is one of the best efforts to prove that tongues is not for today that I’ve read, I decided to write another article on the issue of “Is speaking in tongues for today?”, for two reasons: One, it’s an excellent issue to practice "rightly dividing the Word of God" and "testing everything" with.

Second, and more importantly, the simple answer to the tongues issue can only be found by understanding the #1 Rule of Biblical interpretation – a rule most Christians have never been taught. So I’m writing this article on tongues as an excuse to teach you this rule! Teaching you about tongues is like giving you a fish; but teaching you the #1 Rule of Biblical Interpretation is like teaching to fish for yourself.

I also want to say before I start that I have no trouble with people who disagree with me on the tongues issue – there are many wonderful, Godly people who disagree with me about a lot of things! And that’s ok. God is not sitting in heaven popping heavenly Tylenol about it, and neither am I. (See my E-Book Hell Is A Mistranslation to discover why God is not concerned about trying to get everybody to agree on everything in this age...yet it is very important for our development as individual believers to seek truth about everything.)

Dr. Younce is very good at explaining his points and I learned several things from him. Like most people who believe tongues is not for today, he also did a very good job of picking apart a lot of the excesses and problems of the modern charismatic movement (treating tongues as if it's a sign of spiritual maturity or as if it is the most important gift, insisting or implying that anyone who does not receive this gift is spiritually inferior, making people beg God for the Holy Spirit etc. etc.). He made an excellent point in that charismatics today make a lot of the same mistakes and have a lot of the same excesses as the Corinthians Paul was trying to correct in 1 Cor. 12-14!

I liked the fact that the author's strategy was to quote every single Bible verse on tongues & examine it. That is a great way to really get to the root of the issue, and to ensure that no Scripture on the subject is overlooked.

One quick thing I'll mention before I talk about Dr. Younce’s main point. He talked about Acts 2 and another instance in Acts where people spoke supernaturally in a known human language that could be understood by some of those present. When he talked about these instances of tongues, he seemed to claim that the only purpose of tongues is/was to speak in a known human language. He is correct in that this was the purpose of the tongues in the particular instances he's talking about in Acts. However Paul makes clear in 1 Cor. 14 that there is/was a second type of tongues, which is praying in a language that is a real language, but not known by any human present or by the speaker - thus requiring a supernaturally-given (God-given) interpretation if anyone at the meeting is going to be blessed by it. (Could be a human language no one present knows, or could be an angelic language too, as Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 13:1.)

To his credit, Dr. Younce acknowledged this when he examined 1 Cor. 14. It is impossible to miss this idea of 2 different types of tongues with 2 different purposes when reading 1 Cor. 14. In other words, the argument that "if it's not a human language someone else in the room can understand, it's just babble and not from God" is not a valid argument. Paul says clearly in 1 Cor. 14 that there is/was another type of speaking in tongues that requires/required a supernatural interpretation for anyone at a meeting to be blessed by it, and that this type of tongues and the interpretation of it is/was a valid gift from God.

(Maybe I'll add another short article on this point in the future; people who have never been around charismatics much and don't understand how they think, often misunderstand why they do what they do in their public meetings, and how it matches up with - or fails to match up with in some cases - Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14.)

Like I said, Dr. Younce acknowledged the two types of tongues Paul explains in 1 Cor. 14. Of course, like every author I’ve ever read who believes tongues are not for today, he said a lot of things to try to cast tongues in as negative a light as possible, downplaying its Scripturally stated benefits (whether one believes they were benefits for back then only, or for now too, the Bible makes it clear that there were/are benefits), and highlighting anything negative that could possibly be found about tongues.

Some Christians make a huge deal out of Paul's corrections to the Corinthians and ignore the fact that Paul didn't tell them not to speak in tongues, just to do it properly and in order. Dr. Younce made a big deal about Paul's corrections to the Corinthians and the problems tongues were causing (actually it was not the gift of tongues causing the problems, it was the Corinthians not understanding how to use it properly and in order), but he acknowledged that Paul did give the Corinthians instructions on how to practice speaking in tongues properly. In other words he did not deny that at the time the book of 1 Corinthians was written by by Paul, two different types of tongues were in operation in the church, and that this was proper and good at that time.

So at the end of the day – as I knew would be the case before I even started reading the book – Dr. Younce’s main argument against speaking in tongues today came down to the exact same argument that is always used to claim that tongues are not for today.

It is the same argument everyone with his viewpoint must hinge their entire anti-tongues argument on, because it is the only verse in the Bible that seems to possibly say (depending on how you interpret it) that tongues stopped when the Bible was done being written: 1 Corinthians 13:8.

1 Corinthians 13:8 says that TONGUES WILL STOP. Paul tells us clearly (speaking approximately 2,000 years ago) that there would come a point when tongues and the gifts of the Spirit would no longer be needed. The million-dollar question is, WHEN?

Verse 10 tells us: “When the perfect comes”. The only problem is, charismatics and non-charismatics disagree on what “the perfect” refers to!

Everything hinges on the word "perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10 and what a person believes that word refers to. Dr. Younce explains the disagreement between the two camps perfectly in this paragraph (I quote):

Verse 10: The key word in this verse is "PERFECT". Those that endorse tongues today say it is referring to Christ's coming. If that were true, then knowledge, prophecy and tongues would be manifested until He comes. If, on the other hand, "perfect" is referring to the written Word of God; then, what they claim as tongues today must be the working of a counterfeit spirit, and not the Holy Spirit.

Dr. Younce then quotes several scholars with so many degrees they could change their name to "Farenheit", who say they believe the word "perfect" refers to "when the Bible is finished being written". I could quote just as many scholars with just as many degrees that will say they believe it refers to "when Jesus comes". Unfortunately, whoever can produce the most scholars with the most degrees does not win the "discover the truth" game! The only thing that matters is logic (testing to get rid of illogical arguments) which will lead to accurate interpretation (1 Thess. 5:21).

None of the scholars Dr. Younce quotes offered a shred of logical proof that "the perfect" refers to "when the Bible was written"; they offer various points and ideas, none of which actually prove that "the perfect" means "the Bible", and in the end they all just arbitrarily say, "I think it means that." (Feel free to find his book and see if you agree with me.)

I'm sure the scholars Dr. Younce quotes probably believe hell exists too; just as with the hell issue, it doesn't matter how much scholarly knowledge a person has, if they are set on believing something, they will believe it no matter what. Zillions of scholars believe in hell even though they should know better than anyone that the Hebrew/Greek words that get mistranslated as "hell" mean nothing of the sort and the words that get mistranslated as "eternal" etc. mean nothing of the sort.

So, the only thing that really matters when it comes to the tongues issue is, does the word "perfect" in 1 Cor. 13:10 refer to "when the Bible is finished being written" or does it mean "when Jesus comes and we see Him face to face"? When does tongues stop - did it already stop when the Bible was done being written, or will it only stop when Jesus comes and we see Him face to face?

Everything else in the Bible on the topic of tongues can easily be interpreted either way, so at the end of the day you either believe "All this tongues & gifts of the Spirit stuff was written about by Paul in 1 Cor. 12-14 but it's all done with now because of 1 Cor. 13:10" or "All this tongues & gifts of the Spirit stuff is still going until Jesus comes back because 1 Cor. 13:10 refers to the coming of Christ". There is no in between. 1 Cor. 13:10 is the pivotal verse, and "perfect" is the pivotal word. Every single argument I have ever heard or read on this subject boils down to this one verse and this one word.

Everyone on both sides of the fence also agrees that 1 Cor. 13:12 (the phrase "face to face") expounds on & explains 1 Cor. 13:10. How you interpret verse 12 will determine what you think "perfect" means in verse 10. So the real key verse on this whole issue is verse 12 and the phrase "then, face to face" which clearly refers to the time when tongues, prophecy, etc. will cease.

If you think the term "face to face" is an analogy or metaphor that refers to the Bible being completed, you will believe the gifts of the Spirit are no longer for today; but if you think the term "face to face" is a literal phrase that refers to seeing Jesus face to face when He returns, you will believe the gifts of the Spirit are still in operation today. Simple as that. So let’s answer the question:

What do the word "perfect" and the phrase "face to face" refer to? The Bible being completed, or Christ's coming?

You will have to decide what you think for yourself of course. For whatever it's worth, here's my take.

First let me quote 1 Cor. 13:12 - "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known."

Before I get to my main point about this verse and how to interpret it, let me quickly point out that if "face to face" refers to the point in time when the Bible was done being written (many hundreds of years ago), then logically, if you read the rest of the verse, every Christian since that day hundreds of years ago "knows fully" to the same extent that Christ knows us fully. You can decide for yourself whether you think that is the case. I certainly don't "know fully" "just as Christ knows me fully". That will only happen when I stand face to face with Christ...just as the verse plainly says.

OK, on to my main point.

The bottom line is that the two camps on this issue are divided over one simple thing: Is the phrase "face to face" literal or is it a metaphor that somehow refers to the Bible?

Those who say this phrase is referring to the Bible being completed can only do so by claiming that "face to face" is a metaphor, not a literal statement about standing face to face with Jesus. They are breaking the #1 Rule of Biblical interpretation, which is that the Bible - just like we do in everyday speech and writing - speaks literally unless otherwise made clear. If you or I were allowed to break this rule anytime we wanted to, nothing in the Bible could ever be proven to mean anything, and nothing any of us say to each other could ever be understood with any certainty!

In everyday communication, if you were allowed to interpret any plain literal statement I make however you want, making anything I say into an analogy or a metaphor or symbolism whenever you please, you would never understand anything I say! If I say, "This is going to happen when we're face to face", and you try to interpret that metaphorically as "This is going to happen when a message is finished being written by one party to the other", you are butchering my plain statement and twisting its meaning without cause. I have given you no valid reason to believe I'm speaking metaphorically. "Face to face" means "face to face", unless the speaker makes it very clear that this phrase should be taken some other way.

The bottom line is, in both everyday communication and in God's communication to us through the Bible, the listener must have a valid, logical reason to believe the speaker is not speaking literally before jumping to try to figure out what it might mean metaphorically. If you jump from literal to metaphor/analogy without a logical reason to do so, you will never be able to understand what the speaker intends because you have given yourself the job of deciding when to take a statement non-literally instead of leaving it to the speaker to make it clear that it should be taken that way.

This is the #1 Rule of all communication. All communication is literal unless made clear otherwise by the speaker.

So now let’s apply this rule to our key phrase, “face to face”, in 1 Cor. 13:12. In this verse and its context we have absolutely zero indication that the phrase "face to face" does not literally mean "face to face". (A strong desire for it to be a metaphor so as to avoid the implications of it being literal, does not count as a valid or logical reason to jump from literal to metaphor!)

In this passage and the surrounding context, the phrase “face to face” makes perfect sense on its own, taken literally (obviously, face to face with Christ). In everyday speech and writing, when we hear someone say something to us that makes perfect sense on its own, literally, we never even think to try to make it into a metaphor. We have no reason to. It never even crosses our minds to do that.

However, with this phrase “face to face”, even though it makes perfect sense on its own, there are many Christians who have a strong desire to make it into a metaphor. This is the only reason it crosses their mind to try to do so!

However, a strong desire to make something a metaphor because you don’t want to deal with the consequences if it’s literal, does not count as a valid reason to jump from literal to metaphor! If a child hears his Dad say, “Son, you’re getting a spanking after I get out of my work clothes”, the child’s strong desire for his dad’s plain statement to mean something else has no bearing whatsoever on what his dad actually meant – there is no reason to think that his dad means anything but what he plainly said!

Desire has nothing to do with it when it comes to understanding each other. Either there is a logical reason given by the speaker to give the listener/reader an indication that what is said is metaphorical/allegorical, or there is not.

Since so many Christians have such a strong desire for the phrase “face to face” to be a metaphor so that they do not have to believe that tongues and other supernatural manifestations of the Spirit are for today, let’s examine further whether there is a valid reason to think this phrase is a metaphor.

The previous phrase "in a mirror dimly" is obviously a metaphor, but the next phrase (“face to face”) and the phrase after that have absolutely zero indication in the text or anywhere else in the Bible that they should be taken as anything but literal, straightforward statements.

Some might argue that because the "mirror" phrase is a metaphor, the "face to face" phrase must be too. But this is an illogical argument; it does not hold true in everyday communication. For example, I could say, "This cell phone connection withe Joe is so bad, it's shaving while looking in a dim mirror, so I'm going to wait until we are face to face." The 1st phrase is a metaphor, the 2nd phrase is literal. You have every reason to believe the first phrase is a metaphor because shaving and a mirror have nothing to do with the topic at hand, the phrase makes no sense whatsoever and is off subject if taken literally as it stands, and the meaning of the metaphor is exceedingly obvious and requires no twisting or creative thinking whatsoever to figure out what it means. However, the 2nd phrase makes perfect sense as it stands, literally, and therefore there is no reason to try to twist it into a metaphor.

So you cannot argue that “face to face” is a metaphor just because the phrase before it is a metaphor. Phrases that are clearly metaphors sit right next to phrases that are clearly not metaphors; this occurs quite frequently in language and communication. Because of this, whether a phrase is close to another phrase that is a metaphor, or not, does not matter and proves nothing; each phrase must be examined on its own.

The bottom line is that those who try to make the phrase "face to face" into a metaphor have no logical reason given in the text to do so. The phrase makes perfect sense, literally, as it stands. One day we will literally stand face to face with Christ. No Christian would argue this point. And everything else in the passage makes perfect sense with this interpretation.

Now, the tricky thing is, as the “metaphor-believers/anti-tongues-for-today” people will quickly point out, some of the things in this passage could also make sense if “face to face” referred metaphorically to the Bible being completed. I see their point. But then how do you decide whether it's a metaphor or literal, if the literal interpretation definitely DOES make sense but at the same time the metaphorical intepretation COULD make sense? HERE IS THE KEY:

Our ONLY HOPE of truly knowing the meaning of the phrase “face to face” is to go back to the #1 Rule of Communication - if there is no valid logical reason given by the speaker to jump to metaphor, we must stay with the literal. If we do not apply this rule, the two opposing sides of this issue could argue to infinity, and never come to a conclusion! The tie-breaker, the only tie-breaker, the determining factor that tells us with absolute certainty whether to believe the literal meaning which definitely makes sense or the metaphorical meaning which might make sense, is THE #1 RULE OF COMMUNICATION THAT IS USED IN ALL COMMUNICATION AT ALL TIMES. According to the rules of communication that everyone (usually unconsciously) follows at all times in everyday life, "face to face" must be literal.

With this passage, the only reason a person would even begin making the effort to try to make the phrase “face to face” into a metaphor would be because they simply didn't want to accept that it is literal. There is no indication in the text itself that “face to face” is not literal. And when the speaker/writer gives no clear indication that something they say is not literal, and it makes perfect sense when taken literally, it must be taken literally. Simple as that.

What mention did Paul make of a book or of the written Word of God in the entire passage of 1 Cor. 13:8-12, or in the entire section of chapters 12 through 14? None whatsoever. So what gives the reader the right to declare that this is what Paul is talking about with the phrase "face to face"? The reader has no right to take a phrase ("face to face") that makes perfect sense on its own and change its meaning into a metaphor. The reader has no right to take a thought or idea that has not even been mentioned by the writer ("a book" or "the written collection of books that would later be known as the Bible"), and insert that thought or idea at will while throwing out the plain literal meaning of a straightforward phrase.

If we were allowed to do this to each other in everyday communication we could never understand each other. Anything I say could be twisted by you to mean whatever you want it to mean, and vice versa. If a literal statement that makes perfect sense on its own can have its plain meaning discarded and be twisted into a metaphor at will by the listener to make it mean whatever they want it to mean, all communication becomes impossible!

Again - I know I’m repeating this a lot, but I do it on purpose so you will remember it for the rest of your life - you cannot arbitrarily jump from literal to metaphor when someone is speaking to you, without having a good reason to do so. If you do, you cannot possibly understand anything anyone says to you! You are giving yourself the right to twist anything they say into a metaphor!

So the whole issue of “Is speaking in tongues for today?” boils down to: "Is the phrase 'face to face' in 1 Cor. 13:12 literal or a metaphor?" The tie-breaker on this is the most basic rule of communication in the Bible and in everyday life: "Communication must be taken as literal unless the speaker gives the listener a logical reason to believe it is not."

If this simple rule is broken at will, all communication breaks down. With 1 Cor. 13:12 we must not break this rule. If we do, then we give ourselves license to do so with any other phrase in the Bible whenever we want, and to do the same to anyone who tries to communicate with us - and suddenly nothing anyone says could be proven to mean anything. Anything, no matter how much sense it makes when taken literally, can be made into a metaphor. You see what a problem this would cause. You see how ridiculous it is to break the "literal unless the speaker makes it clear otherwise" rule, ever, at any time.

Once you break it one time, you give yourself license to do it at anytime. It is unfair to the speaker/writer to take something they say that makes perfect sense when taken literally, and arbitrarily decide to make it metaphorical. It is twisting their meaning. All good speakers/writers (especially the Perfect Speaker/Writer, God) know they MUST make it ULTRA CLEAR if they want something they say that makes perfect sense literally to be taken any other way. Everyone does this unconsciously when communicating, and everyone follows this rule unconsciously when listening too. But for some reason when it comes to the Bible, this basic rule of clear communication gets thrown out the window by the listeners (Bible readers) and we are tempted to twist plain literal statements into whatever meaning we want, when we HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN LICENSE TO DO SO BY THE SPEAKER/WRITER.

Mr. Younce goes to a great deal of effort trying to prove that the phrase “face to face” refers to “when the Bible comes”. However, all his work on this point is pointless because he assumes the phrase "face to face" to be a metaphor without basis in logic, fact or Biblical text - without any license being given to him to do this by the writer (Paul). Paul makes no mention of the written Word of God or the book that would later be known as the Bible, anywhere in the passage. Mr. Younce is freely inserting this idea out of his own brain into the passage. You cannot do that. That is unfair to the speaker/writer. You cannot freely insert ideas from your brain and superimpose them on top of something the speaker says, just because you want to. Especially when what the speaker says makes 100% perfect sense without any other idea inserted!

The phrase "face to face" makes perfect sense when taken literally. If you try to take it metaphorically without the speaker/writer giving you permission to do so through CLEAR INDICATIONS (I will tell you what the 2 clear indications are in a moment, which we always use in everyday communication), you are twisting the speaker's meaning.

Imagine me saying to two friends, “I’m going to get some milk”, and then the one friend spends the next half hour trying to prove to the other friend that what I meant by that was “Marc is going to find a white woman to marry”. Yes, milk is white. I can sort of see what he’s saying; but the whole thing is silly because there is no reason to believe I was speaking metaphorically – my phrase made perfect, logical sense as it stands, taken literally. Why jump to metaphor? There is no reason to! The speaker has not given permission to do so through clear indications!

A long argument about what I meant by the metaphor “going to get some milk” is a useless waste of time because there's no reason to believe it's a metaphor in the first place! This seems like a silly example because no one would ever think “going to get some milk” was a metaphor! Exactly my point! No one would ever think “face to face” was a metaphor either! UNLESS there was a strong desire on the part of the reader not to face the implications of it being literal.

Do you see my point? Just because you can use your imagination to make a statement or phrase into a metaphor if you want to, and even make the metaphor fit with some of the other surrounding statements, does NOT mean that’s a valid reason to jump to metaphor. That is NOT a valid reason to freely and arbitrarily insert an idea that the speaker/writer did not even mention in the discussion! If the statement makes sense literally there is NO REASON to jump to metaphor. We follow this rule constantly, without fail, in everyday communication. The fact that a statement by itself makes perfect sense is the only indication you need to understand what the person means – stay with literal.

This is how we communicate in everyday life; if listeners started jumping to metaphor anytime they want, life would get messy very fast because you could never communicate clearly to anyone, anyone could twist anything you say at any time without you giving them license to do so.

For example, my friend could say, “Yeah, I think when Marc said he was going to get some milk, he really meant he’s gonna go find a white woman to marry because he was talking about wanting to get married a few minutes ago!” Our imaginations can make almost any phrase or statement into a metaphor. We don't do this in real life because it is ridiculous. But we have been falsely trained by Bible teachers that it is ok to do this when we read the Bible! Don't like the literal meaning, even though it makes perfect sense taken literally? Change it! Maybe it's metaphorical! Maybe it's symbolic! It's a convenient trick to ignore literal statements at will just because they make us uncomfortable. If you give yourself permission to use that trick, you have just tricked yourself out of understanding the Bible at all, because you can change the meaning of any plain statement anytime you want, into whatever you want! You can insert any idea into any passage regardless of whether the writer has given you license to do so or not!

It is especially tempting to jump to metaphor with 1 Cor. 13:10 & 12 because some of the context surrounding these verses could conceivably fit into a metaphor where “perfect” and “face to face” might refer to the Bible being completed. (This is because Jesus is the Word, and the Bible is the Word, a revelation of Him, so you could actually make this metaphor with any reference to the Bible or Jesus Christ in the Bible!) Bible teachers have falsely and without cause inserted the "this passage is talking about the written Bible being completed" metaphor into people's minds concerning this passage, for so long, that many Christians think it is the right interpretation. It seems normal to them. The only problem is, Paul said ZERO, NOTHING, NADA, about the written Word of God being completed in this passage, and his phrase "face to face" (and everything else in the passage) make 100% perfect sense taken literally for what it plainly says. Paul has not given the reader permission to freely insert an idea Paul never even mentioned, into the passage!

Imagine you are trying to talk to me. If I did the same thing to you that many Bible readers & teachers to to Paul in this passage (freely insert an idea Paul never mentioned and throw out the literal meaning of a phrase that makes perfect sense when taken literally), you would get frustrated with me so fast that you would give up on trying to talk to me! Trying to talk to me would be an exercise in futility because I'm playing by different rules than you! You are trying to play by the "take me literally unless I give you cause and permission and license to do so through clear indicators" rule, and I am playing by a ridiculous rule I invented: "Change the speaker's meaning to whatever you want, whenever you want, even if what they say makes perfect sense when taken literally; do this whenever the literal meaning of what they say makes you uncomfortable."

Do you see how ridiculous it is to EVER allow yourself to break the #1 rule of communication when listening? It would result in total disconnect between the speaker and listener. Communication would be impossible because one party is giving himself permission to break the most basic rule of communication: "Literal unless the speaker makes clear otherwise."

I can see how it is tempting for Christians who are uncomfortable with the messy tongues and gifts of the Spirit stuff, to jump to metaphor with “face to face”. Many believers really, really, really want to make "face to face" into a metaphor & freely insert an idea Paul never mentioned in the passage, simply because they can’t stand the thought that all those crazy tongues talkers might be onto something!

However, just because our imaginations can make a phrase into a metaphor, or just because there seems to be some surrounding context that would fit if it was a metaphor, means nothing if the original phrase makes perfect sense when taken literally. In everyday communication, the hearer NEVER jumps to metaphor when the original phrase makes perfect sense literally!

If I'm trying to talk to you, and you make a mental exercise of taking what I say and thinking of metaphors I might be trying to communicate, when in reality what I'm saying makes perfect sense when taken literally, you are being unfair to me. You are misunderstanding me. I have not given you clear indications to take what I'm saying metaphorically. You are just using your imagination to make my statement metaphorical. Even if some of what I say might match up with other things I say in a metaphor you've made up in your mind, you still DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION to interpret what I'm saying as a metaphor until and unless I give you CLEAR INDICATIONS that my meaning is metaphorical. (In a moment I will tell you the two clear indications we always use with each other in everyday life.)

Obviously no one breaks the #1 Rule of communication in real life because it would cause a massive breakdown in communication. However, when modern Christians read the Bible, they do this quite often! Needless to say, breaking the #1 Rule of communication (take the speaker literally unless he tells you not to through clear indications) when reading the Bible will cause you to severely misinterpret it. You can actually make any passage mean anything you want when you ignore this rule! Literal statements are no longer sacred. They can be made to mean anything you please!

There MUST be a set of communication rules that tell us when the speaker wants us to take something they say non-literally (as a metaphor or analogy). Thankfully, there IS a set of rules that we use unconsciously ALL THE TIME in everyday communication. We just have to identify that set of rules (they are very simple, I am explaining them now and will give you two more keys to understanding them in a moment) and APPLY THEM WHEN READING THE BIBLE, which, as a clear communication from God, USES THE SAME STANDARD, UNCHANGING RULES OF COMMUNICATION WE USE TO COMMUNICATE TO EACH OTHER.

The first point I want you to get here is that if the speaker expects the listener to perceive that a phrase which makes perfect sense literally on its own is actually not literal, the speaker MUST make it EXCEEDINGLY clear through OBVIOUS indications either shortly before or shortly after the phrase, so as not to confuse the listener! We see no such thing in 1 Cor. 13:8-12. There is zero indication that the phrase "face to face" is anything but literal. The Bible (the written Word of God) is not mentioned anywhere in this passage. It is a great stretch to assume that the simple phrase "face to face", which makes perfect sense on its own literally referring to seeing Jesus face to face, would somehow be a metaphor that refers to having the written Bible available to us.

We would never, ever make such a huge stretch in everyday communication with each other. We are only tempted to do it with the Bible because we don't understand that the #1 Rule of communication that we use all the time with each other, always without fail, also applies when understanding the Bible. We have been trained by our careless Bible teachers to ignore the "literal unless made very clear by the speaker" rule when reading the Bible. Yet if we ignored this rule in everyday life, we could never understand each other!

So, yes, the Bible is perfect (in it’s original form, which we don’t have access to, we only have access to a bunch of non-original manuscripts that can be put together to a high level of accuracy; but that’s a subject for another time); I can sort of see what the “metaphor-believers/anti-tongues-for-today” people are saying when they equate the Bible to the word “perfect” in 1 Cor. 13:10. I have a bit of trouble seeing how the phrase “face to face” in verse 12 could refer to being able to read a book, but I can sort of see it…maybe…if you want it to mean that bad enough. It's a stretch. BUT, how accurate the metaphor is does not matter at all; there is no reason to even discuss it in this case! Why? Because there is no logical reason to even go there (to metaphor) in the first place! Why go there when the phrase “face to face” makes perfect sense as it stands, taken literally? Where do we get permission to insert the idea of the written Word of God as a metaphor when Paul has not mentioned that idea at all?

“Take the speaker literally unless he gives us a valid logical reason to take him metaphorically/allegorically/symbolically.” This is how we operate in order to understand each other in everyday life. Simple. But somehow this simple #1 Rule of Communication, that makes all communication possible in the first place, gets thrown out the window when people read the phrase “face to face” in 1 Cor. 13:12! Why? Some people just can’t handle the implications and consequences of it being literal!

Again, the #1 Rule of Communication is, the hearer NEVER jumps to metaphor when the phrase makes perfect sense literally.

The only possible exception to this would be if the speaker somehow said something else in the context that made it obvious to the hearer that the phrase should not be taken literally. For example, if somewhere in 1 Cor. 13 there was a statement that made it clear that “face to face” meant “when the Bible is finally done being written” - if Paul mentioned the idea of the written Word of God being completed anywhere in this passage - I would be happy to consider that maybe “face to face” should be taken metaphorically to mean that. The only problem is, there is nothing like that in 1 Cor. 13! Paul gives us ZERO indication or permission to twist his plain phrase "face to face", which makes perfect sense taken literally as is, into a metaphor.

Yes, there are phrases in the Bible about the Word showing us who we really are, etc. etc., and of course Jesus Himself is the Word and the Word is a revelation of Him, but there is nothing in this passage that gives a clear indication that “face to face” means anything but “face to face” in 1 Cor. 13:12. There cannot just be a "sort of", "might be if you stretch it a bit", "I can see what you mean if you take an idea out of your head and insert it" type of indication, there MUST be a SUPER-CLEAR indication GIVEN BY THE WRITER if we are not to take it literally, because of the very fact that it makes PERFECT SENSE when taken literally!

My simple question is, if Paul meant “when the Bible is done being written”, why didn’t he just say that instead of saying “when we see face to face”? It's an awfully clumsy analogy or metaphor to try to refer to reading a book. Why did Paul say “face to face”? I have to conclude that he said “face to face” because he meant face to face! Face to face means two faces, facing each other. It has a plain literal meaning that makes perfect sense in the passage. We will see Jesus face to face, and when we do, it is effortless to see how all the other things in the passage will occur. It all makes perfect sense when "face to face" is taken literally, and there is no indication not to take it literally! It makes perfect sense as is, so why would I think otherwise and begin inserting ideas and metaphors that Paul never mentions, when Paul gave me no clear indication to do so?

The #1 Rule of Communication is: “If it makes perfect sense literally, don’t jump to metaphor, because there is no reason to do so - that would only cause confusion. Only jump to metaphor when the speaker makes it very clear that you should." (In a moment I will list the 2 ways speakers make it clear that something they say should not be taken literally.)

But what happens with 1 Cor. 13:10-12 and the tongues issue is, Christians' emotions, background, and beliefs get in the way of obeying the #1 Rule that makes all communication possible. Some people want so badly not to believe that tongues & all that other messy supernatural stuff is still in operation today, that they confuse their emotion (their strong unconscious desire for "face to face" to be a metaphor) with a valid reason to jump from literal to metaphor. It is not a valid reason. Paul makes no clear indication anywhere in this passage that “face to face” is anything but literal.

Let me help explain this by looking at the “star” of Revelation 9 (a less emotional issue). The Bible uses the word “star” in that chapter, but at the end of the chapter it tells us plainly that this “star” is a fallen angel. There is a clear indication in the passage to not take the word “star” literally. However, when the Bible uses the word “star” in Revelation 8:10, there is no clear indication not to take it literally, so it must be taken literally. (Remember, John with his limited scientific vocabulary would have used the word “star” to describe any heavenly object he saw; and the phrase “fell on” in Greek denotes affecting the rivers, not necessarily literally falling on the rivers, which would obviously be impossible for the star to do.) Everything that happens from the 6th Seal to the 4th Trumpet would be explained perfectly and scientifically by a large heavenly object drawing close to earth. Thus there is every reason to take this “star” as a literal object in space drawing close to earth, and there is no reason not to take it literally.

You see, if you’re going to make a statement that makes perfect sense literally, and then expect your listener to understand that you meant it metaphorically, you’ve got to make that exceedingly clear, very soon before or very soon after your statement. In everyday communication, the listener's clue that a speaker is not being literal is either that what they say doesn’t make sense or seems very strange if taken literally (as in the mirror phrase of 1 Cor. 13:12) or the speaker tells us plainly or makes it exceedingly clear very soon before or after the phrase, that they are not speaking literally.

In Revelation 7, John uses the word "star" literally, giving no indication it should be understood otherwise. Then in chapter 9, he uses it symbolically; in this instance he MUST give us a CLEAR indication that he does not mean the word literally! If he does not do this, he is a bad communicator that is incapable of getting a clear message across. Of course, John DOES give us a CLEAR indicator in chapter 9 that his usage of the word "star" in that chapter is symbolic. (He tell us plainly a few verses later that the "star" is a fallen angel.)

Are you starting to get this? In short, if you don’t see one of the following two indicators, you MUST take the phrase you are trying to understand LITERALLY:

1) the phrase makes no sense or is very strange if it is taken literally

2) the speaker gives another clear indication, very soon before or after the phrase, that the phrase is not to be taken literally

We do this naturally and unconsciously when listening or reading in everyday communication, but when it comes to understanding the Bible, the average Christian has a problem: We have heard this simple, all-important rule of Biblical/communication interpretation BROKEN unashamedly, ignorantly, and casually so many times by our pastors and Bible teachers that we no longer even perceive that it is a rule that should be followed when reading the Bible!

I am trying to restore your ability to understand the Bible!

This #1 Rule of Communication is all-important when trying to determine if “face to face” should be taken literally or if it refers metaphorically to the Bible being completed. The #1 Rule of Communication is THE KEY TIE-BREAKER in this case. You will find many other passages in the Bible, particularly end times prophecy passages, where THE ONLY TIE-BREAKER or THE KEY TIE-BREAKER in whether to understand the passage literally or metaphorically/allegorically/symbolically is THIS OVER-ARCHING RULE OF COMMUNICATION.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND MANY PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE WITHOUT FAITHFULLY, BRUTALLY, CONSISTENTLY APPLYING THIS RULE.

Often, applying this rule is the ONLY THING that will ever let you know the true meaning of a passage - because nothing else in the passage will have any "grounding" or anything solid to attach itself to without knowing whether something is literal or metaphorical/symbolic.

You also need to understand that this "literal unless made very clear by the speaker" (through one or both of the two indicators I listed above) is not an arbitrary rule that I am making up. It is a rule that EVERY HUMAN BEING OPERATES BY, ALL THE TIME, IN EVERY CONVERSATION AND WITH EVERY WRITTEN COMMUNICATION. If God were to suddenly try to communicate with us through His Word by breaking this rule even some of the time, we could not possibly understand Him!

Why would God break a rule of communication that we always use and rely upon to understand each other, without even telling us, thus making it impossible for us to understand Him? He wouldn’t. Why would He ever break this rule, even once, in His communication to us? If He did that, we would never be able to tell what He meant with any certainty whatsoever.

Imagine if I secretly decided to say things when speaking to my wife that made perfect sense when taken literally, but in my mind begin to make up metaphorical or symbolic meanings for them, and then scold her when she doesn’t understand me? How could she ever have a relationship with me when I play tricks on her by breaking the #1 Rule of Communication that all humans use to understand each other at all times?

Just as I would never do this to my wife, God would never do it to us. His communication to us through the Bible can be understood clearly by using the same rules to interpret it as we do when we are interpreting what each other say in everyday life. The #1 Rule in this regard is: “Take it literally when it makes perfect sense literally, and only take it metaphorically/allegorically/symbolically if the speaker gives you a very good solid reason to do so.”

So bottom line, trying to show how 1 Cor. 13:8-12 would make sense if “face to face” was a metaphor that somehow means “when the Bible is done being written”, is a waste of time, because we have no indication that “face to face” is a metaphor in the first place! "Face to face" makes perfect sense taken literally and thus there is no reason to jump to a metaphorical interpretation at all. Trying to make it into a metaphor is just as silly and just as much a waste of time as trying to make “going to get some milk” into a metaphor.

In everyday communication we have no trouble with this because we realize that our desires have no bearing on what the speaker means. But with tongues, many Christians simply do not want to face the consequences of the phrase “face to face” being literal, so they use this strong desire to avoid such consequences as an excuse to switch to a metaphorical interpretation. As I said, desire is not a valid or logical reason to make that switch.

As I mentioned a moment ago, understanding the #1 Rule of Communication is especially important when it comes to the end times! With the end times it admittedly is more difficult sometimes because there is quite a lot of symbolism mixed in with a lot of literal statements and it can be hard work to carefully sort out what is literal and what is not according to the “literal unless made clear otherwise” rule of communication. (Also, some end time events will be so unprecedented in human history, such as earthquakes that shake the whole earth, etc., that it is hard to imagine that some of these things are literal; but we must still stick to our #1 Rule.)

As we’ve seen, careful application of our #1 Rule clears up many otherwise confusing passages in Revelation. When I used to read Revelation, the constant question in my mind was “Is this literal or symbolic? I DON’T KNOW HOW TO TELL! AAAAAH! THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING!” Now I know how to tell! It’s the exact same way I can tell when my wife talks to me! If it makes sense literally and there is no clear indication otherwise, don’t jump to metaphor/allegory/symbolism! There is no logical reason to!

In the same way, when it comes to tongues, a long argument about how “face to face” could possibly refer to the Bible being completed, is pointless because the phrase makes perfect sense as it stands, literally. Why would anyone ever suspect that I wasn’t speaking literally when I say, “Go get some milk”? Why would anyone ever try to make the phrase “get some milk” into a metaphor? No one ever would – because it makes perfect sense, as it stands, literally.

The reason Paul didn’t add any ultra-clear explanation to clarify exactly what he meant by “face to face” is that he was assuming his listeners/readers would operate by the #1 Rule of Communication to understand him! And the #1 Rule already makes his meaning ultra-clear! The problem is, modern Christians have been unconsciously trained by their leaders to ignore this rule when it comes to the Bible! When we go back to the #1 Rule that makes all communication possible, 1 Cor. 13:12 makes perfect sense, and we can see why Paul didn’t bother to put more explanation around the phrase “face to face”. It doesn’t need any more explanation, because it means exactly what it says.

When I say to my wife on the cell phone, “I’ve got something important to tell you, I’ll tell you face to face”, I don’t have to explain what I mean by “face to face”, because the phrase makes perfect sense on its own. No other explanation is needed. There is no confusion whatsoever when the #1 Rule of understanding each other is followed!

There is no reason to suspect that a phrase that makes perfect sense taken literally, would be a metaphor or an allegory or a symbol. That’s why we have no trouble understanding each other. If you jump to metaphor with statements that make perfect sense when taken literally, you make all communication into nonsense.

Imagine me telling my friends “I’m going to go get some milk” and then walking back in the door 10 minutes later with a gallon of milk, just to hear my friends arguing about what the metaphor “go get some milk” means. How silly would my friends seem to me? We don’t break the #1 Rule in everyday life because it’s silly to break it; it seems absurd; we simply never do it! But when it comes to the Bible we have been trained to throw this rule out the window, which is why we often have no idea what a passage means and why we argue so much about the Bible.

Christians would understand the Bible (especially issues like this and end times prophecy) so much better, more quickly, and more easily, if they could grasp this one simple rule of communication: “Literal unless made clear otherwise by the speaker.” There must be a solid, logical reason to jump from a literal interpretation to a metaphorical/allegorical/symbolic interpretation.

This reason must consist of something MORE THAN "such-and-such a metaphor might fit". That is NOT a good enough reason to jump from a literal to metaphorical interpretation of a phrase or passage! Imagine if we did that to each other in real life! It would be utter chaos. We would always be wondering, "Maybe he meant this...maybe he meant that, cuz this metaphor might fit." Ridiculous. In all communication, the SPEAKER/WRITER HIMSELF must give an ULTRA-CLEAR indication that what he is saying should be taken metaphorically - and this always takes the form of one or both of the two indicators I explained a moment ago. If at least one of those two indicators is not present, the communication MUST be taken literally. It is the burden of the speaker/writer to MAKE SURE one of those two indicators is present, otherwise the speaker/writer knows he will be taken literally.

This is doubly true if the statement already makes perfect sense when taken literally! If that is the case (as it is with "face to face" in 1 Cor. 13:12), the speaker/writer must take EXTRA CARE to GO OUT OF HIS WAY to make sure the listener/reader KNOWS that it is not to be taken literally.

Of course, there is nothing even remotely that clear in 1 Cor. 13:8-12. This is why I say we have zero indication in that passage or anywhere in the Bible that the phrase "face to face" in verse 12 should not be taken literally for what it plainly says. Neither of the two "Non-Literal Alert!!!" indicators are there. The phrase makes perfect sense literally as it stands, and Paul makes no effort to make us think otherwise.

The only way some modern believers can make this phrase into a metaphor is by breaking the simple, all-important #1 Rule of all communication, and arbitrarily saying, "The metaphor of the Bible being completed might fit, and I want it to fit, so I will take the liberty of artificially inserting this idea into the passage, and I will believe 'face to face' is a metaphor for the Bible being completed". If we did this to each other in real life, if we arbitrarily took phrases people say to us that make perfect sense when taken literally, and insisted on understanding them with a metaphorical meaning, on our whim, just because we wanted to, all communication would break down.

My friends, if we were allowed to throw out the #1 Rule of Understanding Each Other anytime we want, taking statements that make perfect sense when taken literally and turning them into metaphors in our minds just because "such-and-such a metaphor might fit", we could never understand anything anyone (including God and the Bible) says with any certainty at all.

If the #1 Rule ("literal unless the speaker makes clear otherwise") is EVER broken, ALL communication breaks down because nothing can EVER be understood with certainty unless this rule is in place at ALL times, in EVERY situation!

And since God, the perfect Speaker/Writer, will never make a mistake in communicating to us, we know for certain that "face to face" in 1 Cor. 13:12 must be literal. It makes perfect sense when taken literally and there is no indication in the passage or anywhere else in Scripture that it should not be taken literally. End of story. God will not break the #1 Rule when communicating to us, and we should not break it when trying to understand Him. The #1 Rule being followed at all times, by everyone, is what holds all communication together.

If Paul (or God who inspired his writing) wanted us not to take the phrase "face to face" literally, he could have easily given us a clear indication to not take it literally. This indication, according to the rules we use in everyday communication, would have to be something far beyond the "such-and-such a metaphor could fit!" so-called-"proof" that anti-tongues-for-today people try to use to avoid the fact that the phrase is literal. In order for this phrase not to be literal, there would have to be one of the two "Non-Literal Alert!" indicators we always use in everyday communication, somewhere in the passage. But there is no such alert or indicator in the passage regarding "face to face". End of story.

We know "face to face" is literally speaking of standing face to face with Christ because God will never break the #1 Rule of Communication when communicating to us, for the same reason we unconsciously strive to never break it when communicating with each other - if we break it, we lose all ability to be understood!

I contend that if Christians are allowed to make "face to face" into a metaphor, then nothing in the Bible can be understood with certainty, and no communication in the entire world can be understood with certainty. If we are allowed to make plain literal statements, that make perfect sense when understood literally, into metaphors whenever we want, that means we can arbitrarily change the meaning of anything we want at any time. Communication is no longer possible. Understanding each other is no longer possible.

The #1 Rule - "literal unless the speaker makes it very clear otherwise" - is what allows us all to understand each other. And it is the most basic foundational rule that allows us to understand God and His messages to us through the Bible.

That’s why I wrote this article about the tongues issue - to teach you the #1 Rule of Bible Interpretation. I really don’t care very much if you disagree with me about the tongues thing. I care much more if you grasp this one simple rule of Biblical interpretation (really it is a rule for interpreting any and all verbal or written communication).

I'll close by reiterating that this rule is especially important for interpreting end times prophecy. God purposefully mixed a lot of symbolism with a lot of literal statements in the Bible’s end time prophecies, in order to confuse the casual reader. If you don’t understand “the #1 rule for interpreting any verbal or written communication” that I’ve explained in this article, you have zero hope of understanding Biblical end times prophecy properly. (That’s why I made this rule my #1 Little-Known Key To Understanding the Book of Revelation in my book End Times Explained. I explain it more in that book.)

I challenge you to develop “radar” for whenever this simple rule for understanding any communication is broken by Bible teachers. Go listen to some end times teachers and practice! End times teachers are great practice for this because they tend to break this rule a lot, they love to make things symbolic just because it’s fun to think of what things might mean! Yet there’s still quite a bit of symbolism in the end times prophecies of the Bible, so it’s great practice for applying the "#1 Rule of Understanding Anyone Who Is Trying To Communicate With You" to Bible interpretation.

My friends, it will do you and your family little good to stand around speaking in tongues when the drastic and confusing events of the end times come. What you need is a key to interpret these prophecies properly now, so you know what is coming and what to do ahead of time – that’s why God put these prophecies in the Bible, to tell His servants what’s coming (Rev. 1:1)!

But you won’t be able to understand what’s coming if you don’t understand that the first rule of communication, which makes all communication understandable, not only applies to our everyday speaking and writing, but to the Bible too. “Literal unless the speaker makes it very clear that it is not literal.” Never forget it.

Thanks for reading,

Marc

Is Speaking In Tongues For Today? Copyright 2011 Marc Speed