Written by Paul J Bucknell on May, 15, 2024

Acts 2 and Glossa Intrigue: What Does Tongues Mean in Acts?

Acts 2 does not support “speaking in tongues” as a sign or affirmation of belief or spirituality.

It’s odd how the most-used modern English translations of the New Testament (ASV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and NKJV) use ‘tongues’ to translate the word for ‘languages’. We can understand how the ancient 1611 King James Bible (KJV) used ‘tongues’ to translate the Greek word glossa, meaning language; this was one of its ancient meanings; tongue meant language way back then. But who would use the word ‘tongues’ to refer to languages or foreign languages today? It’s rare. For example, when you read the following translations, do you think of languages or tongues (ie., some form of ecstatic speech)?

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.(NASB)

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. (NIV)

And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (ESV)

Most readers read ‘tongues,’ thinking of vague, unintelligible words. Acts 2:4, however, clearly refers to foreign languages.   Reputable translations greatly confuse sound conclusions by translating glossa as ‘tongues.’ They have misdirected several generations of English speakers. 

I’ll first defend ‘language’ as a proper translation of glossa in Acts 2:4,11, then discuss similar uses elsewhere in Acts. After which, I’ll present the problems coming from this inaccurate translation.

Acts 2:3, 4,11 “Tongue” Translations

The original Greek uses two words for languages in Acts 2: (glossa and dialektos). Glossa has three meanings: (1) the tongue (in our mouths), (2) languages (Acts 2:3,4,11), and (3) strange utterances (glossolalia). Dialektos is a dialect, a local language; the NET2 Bible translates it “native language;” the NASB translates it “own language” (Acts 2:6,8).

³ And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. ⁴ And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. (Acts 2:3-4 NASB and elsewhere lest mentioned).

Admittedly,  the use of tongues in verse 3 is rather mysterious. Perhaps a tongue-shaped flame of fire over each head or the filling of the Spirit as it spread like fire, from one person to another (see footnote 3 on Acts 2:3: Net Bible). Verse 3 uses ‘tongues’ as the first suggested translation, the physical tongue.

The vague “tongues as of fire” in verse 3 does not mean language, although it is connected to speaking in foreign languages. The image of fire (i.e., tongue of fire) is related to the Holy Spirit’s presence. Jesus had just recently told the apostles that they would be “baptized with the Holy Spirit, not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). Jesus did not use the term ‘fire’ in verse 5, as John the Baptist does describing the Messiah’s new baptism, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Mat 3:11; Luke 3:16). The fire signals God’s new way of accompanying the disciples with the powerful Holy Spirit under the New Covenant. Jesus would ascend to the Father but send the Spirit to be with them (John 14-16). Though sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is a one-time event signaling the Spirit’s coming, it would begin a new era of the Holy Spirit’s work in Christ’s disciples. Some have called the Book of Acts, “The Acts of the Holy Spirit.” The use of foreign languages instantly broadens the Spirit’s new work, establishing His indisputable interest in working with other nations and communicating God’s Word to them, a Babel in reverse.

In verses 4 and 11, glossa should be translated as language or foreign language. Tongue conveys non-language utterances. Let me share the reasons for my conclusion.

(1) Acts 2:4 and 11 glossa only means language

In Acts 2:4 and 11, glossa can only mean language. The first step in proving that glossa only means language and cannot mean non-language utterance is to see how the other Greek word for language describes this glossa phenomenon.

This usage of dialect in verses 6 and 8 confirms glossa’s meaning of foreign language. 

⁶ And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. ⁷ They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? ⁸ And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? ⁹ Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, ¹⁰ Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, ¹¹ Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” (Acts 2:6-11)

Verses 6 and 8 use dialect, meaning own or native language. The context vividly proves this by listing at least fifteen people groups that heard them speak in their own languages. “And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?” (Act 2:8)

The fact that glossa refers to languages, not mere non-language utterances, is very convincing when we connect verses 6-10 with verse 11. In verse 11 “own tongues” (glossa) refers to the mentioned foreign languages, not mere utterances. Verse 4’s glossa introduces the speaking of different languages, and verse 11 conclusively finalizes this description. The Spirit powerfully enabled them to speak foreign languages.

In closing, those from distant nations, who would soon become believers, witnessed: “We hear them speaking in our own languages about the great deeds God has done” (Acts 2:11). In other words, it was not just ecstatic unintelligible non-language but genuine languages with convicting messages “about the great deeds God has done.” Peter’s following sermon undoubtedly ties together all of these events: the Spirit’s presence and the relevance to their lives in a Spirit-convicting message that led thousands to know Jesus as their Messiah.

Confusing Translation of glossa

Modern English speakers don’t use the word “tongues” for languages. Verse 3’s use of tongue makes sense since it’s a picture of a tongue of fire, a flame, over each head. However, the persistent way modern translations use tongues instead of languages in verses 4 and 11 has greatly confused the issue. The use of dialect and the list of languages proves language to be the proper translation for glossa.

1. Our translators have confused the meaning. Instead of insisting on languages, they use tongues that insinuate non-language utterances, creating all sorts of misleading understandings. 
2. As a result of this understanding, many insist that ‘tongues’—not necessarily languages, is a sign of salvation. They draw their support for this interpretation primarily from Acts 2. This interpretation is not wholly derived from this translation, but it fosters this interpretation. They assume those who believe receive the Holy Spirit (which is correct) and that they all receive the ability to speak in tongues (this is incorrect). The insistence of a ‘tongue’ sign to affirm one’s salvation confuses the nature of salvation. While it’s true it does not imply tongue-speaking is needed to bring salvation, it compels individuals to examine a person’s genuine salvation. They would not be so quick to affirm this if they had to speak in a foreign language, especially in an age where we, with our computers, can record and detect languages. These modern translations encourage this babbling confusion.

Other Usages of Glossa in Acts

Our understanding of Acts 2 greatly shapes our interpretations of related passages in Acts (8:14–17, 10:44–48, 11:15–17, 19:1–7). If they accept ecstatic utterances (i.e., glossolalia) in Acts 2, they use it to explain later passages. For this reason, we must insist on using the translation of ‘languages’ in Acts 2 to help us better analyze and understand the other related passages. This is important because the apostles recognized the Spirit’s new era of work through speaking in glossa in chapter 2.

The Book of Acts uses glossa two more times. We are not arguing whether glossa can ever be translated as ecstatic utterances (glossolalia), but here, we demonstrate how poor translations spawn unacceptable and unsubstantiated interpretations and theologies. 

Two Later Glossa Act Texts (Acts 10:46; 19:6)

• “For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered…” (Acts 10:46)
• “And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying” (Acts 19:6).

In Acts 10, God prompted Peter, through a vision, to openly share the Gospel with the Gentiles (other nationalities). The emphasis on spreading God’s Word to the nations is emphasized all throughout Acts, starting in 1:8. Then Peter answered in 10:47, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” In Acts 11, the circumcised brethren required an explanation for baptizing Gentiles. Peter said,

¹⁵ And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. ¹⁶ And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ ¹⁷ Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” (Acts 11:15-17)

Since they spoke in glossa like the apostles, God testified that the Spirit of God worked among the Gentiles like the Jews. Peter’s “same gift as He gave to us” undoubtedly points back to Acts 2. Our interpretation of tongues will be influenced by our understanding of Chapter 2. The same is true of Acts 19:6. We have Peter, being in both places, witnessing that the languages and prophetic content are similar, now convincing others that the Spirit of God is moving among the nations, too. I have elsewhere expanded on those Acts passages (Life in the Spirit!). 

Problems of a “Tongue” Translation

Acts’ usage of glossa refers only to languages. It’s proven in Acts 2. Translators and readers alike are constrained to use the same translation of glossa—language. Since they are people’s languages, they have full grammar and structure; the meaning can be understood by others. Whether glossa can mean glossolalia (“ecstatic mode of expression”) requires further studies.

An accurate translation would greatly aid in clearing out numerous problems!

1. The Acts ‘tongue’ translation can mar the work of the Holy Spirit’s work in this new era among global believers by sidestepping it or confusing it with salvation experiences. Nowhere in Acts 2 do the new believers speak in glossa.
2. Some still insist all genuine believers must experience glossolalia if truly saved. They question one’s salvation if he doesn’t subsequently speak in a ‘tongue.’ Christians can no longer substantiate this doctrine and practice from the Book of Acts without the proper translation.
3. It further inflames the ongoing popularity of associating ‘tongues’ with a sign of spiritual life.
4. The poor translation fosters the notion that a slew of spoken syllables can substitute for this sign of the Spirit’s work. They think of speaking ecstatically rather than speaking in foreign languages.

Summary

If we translated glossa as ‘languages’ instead of ‘tongues’ as below, we would get a clearer picture of what happened in Acts 2. The whole Pentecost scene would come to our mind, and we would remember they spoke various foreign languages, convincing thousands to believe in the Lord. But compromised translations have insistently used ‘tongues’ instead of ‘language,’ introducing confusion in the Christian church. 

Using tongues in Acts 2 encourages poor theology and Christian views on spiritual development. Not all stem from Acts 2, but if we don’t have a rigorous perspective of Acts 2, we will easily misinterpret latter Act verses.

Facts, including proper translations, precede reasonable interpretations. Numerous churches have divided themselves by their interpretations and ‘tongue’ experiences—for or against. This practice counters what the Holy Spirit did in the Book of Acts by uniting God’s people, Jews and Gentiles, to worship Him through Jesus. The problem can be solved by carefully examining the glossa (Greek: γλῶσσα) in Acts 2. Let the facts shape interpretation, not vice-versa.