In this post I propose to present my exegetical case for believing that the tongues referred to in 1 Corinthians 14 (and in Acts) are not necessarily known human languages used to proclaim the gospel to native speakers of that language, but may also be what has been labeled a private prayer language (though I believe the term personal prayer language is a more accurate description). I am not proposing an exhaustive treatment of this question here, but rather one which I believe will be sufficient to demonstrate the validity of my case. Neither am I presenting here a defense for the continuation of supernatural gifts in general, as I (and others) have already done this elsewhere. I will try to keep my presentation as simple as possible, building my argument on a series of logical steps.
1. Some people claim that Paul’s purpose in 1 Corinthians 14 was to correct the Corinthian believers for using a spurious gift of tongues, one which was not an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit. I believe this position is untenable for the following reason. If the tongues the Corinthians believers were practicing was not an authentic gift of the Holy Spirit, the logical response of Paul would almost certainly have been to directly inform them that this was the case, and to either command them to stop or discourage them from practicing this spurious gift of the Spirit. However, Paul nowhere says that the gift they were practicing was not an authentic gift of the Spirit and nowhere tells the Corinthian believers to quit practicing it altogether. Instead, he tells them:
a. “I want you all to speak in tongues” 1 Cor. 14:5
b. “One who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:13
c. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” 1 Cor. 14:18
d. “If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:27
e. “But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.” 1 Cor. 14:28
f. “Do not forbid speaking in tongues.” 1 Cor. 14:39
The logical conclusion is that the practice of the Corinthian believers was not invalid in and of itself, but was rather generally being used in the wrong context: in a public church meeting. There was one circumstance, though, in which the practice of tongues was permitted in a public church meeting: whenever there was someone present who was able to interpret what was being said.
*David Worley has suggested in a comment on another post that there may be some significance to the fact that, in 1 Cor. 14, Paul sometimes refers to “tongues” (plural) and “a tongue” (singular), and that it appears that he uses the term “tongues” when referring to the legitimate use of the spiritual gift and “a tongue” when referring to an invalid use of a spurious gift. A careful analysis of each of the uses of the terms “tongues” and “a tongue” in 1 Cor. 14 renders this hypothesis unsustainable, though, as there are occasions in which the term “tongues” is used to refer to something Paul discourages (e.g. 14:6, 23) and the term “a tongue” is used to refer to something Paul allows (e.g. 14:13), and even encourages (e.g. 14:26–27).
2. If we are in agreement that the tongues the Corinthians believers were practicing was not some spurious, invalid gift, then we are faced with another option. Were the Corinthian believers using their authentic gift of tongues to speak in known human languages (though not known to them by natural human means) in the church meetings in Corinth?
If this were the case, several things seem clear.
First of all, those practicing this gift did not understand what they were saying. This seems clear from 1 Cor. 14:2—“no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit”; 1 Cor. 14:9—“speech that is not intelligible”; 1 Cor. 14:11—“if I do not know the meaning of the language”; and 1 Cor. 14:14—“my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Also, if they did understand, there would be no need to pray that they might interpret (1 Cor. 14:13).
Secondly, it appears that no one in the congregation understood what they were saying either. The general argument of 1 Cor. 14 has to do with tongues speaking that is not understood by the congregation at large. But it also appears clear that, not only the congregation at large, but every single individual in the congregation, was unable to understand the tongues being referenced, because if someone did understand them, they would have been able to interpret for the rest.
This leads us to ask, if someone had the supernatural ability to speak in a known language, but no one—neither the speaker, nor the congregation—understood what was being said, what might possibly motivate the speaker to use his/her gift in public? If they knew that the purpose of tongues was for communicating the gospel to the unsaved, yet they knew, at the same time, there was no one there who would be able to understand their message in tongues, what possible motivation might they have for giving it anyway?
3. The only plausible answer I can think of to this question is that those who had the gift of tongues were accustomed to using their gift in their personal prayer life. It was a practice that edified them (1 Cor. 14:4) and helped them to express their thanks to God (1 Cor. 14:16–17), even though they did not understand the specific content of what they were saying. It seemed only natural to them to pray in the same way in public they sometimes did in private. What they were failing to take into account, though, was the fact that the practice of their gift of tongues in the church meetings was not edifying but was, rather, distracting to other people in the congregation. This is why Paul tells them that, unless there was someone present who was able to interpret, they should reserve the practice of their gift for their personal prayer life and not for displaying it in public.
That, in essence, is the substance of my argument. In what follows, I will seek to tie up a few loose ends.
- Does this mean their personal prayer language was a known human language, an angelic language, or an ecstatic utterance of some type of another?
I think the answer to this question is largely irrelevant, since whatever the answer to this question, no one understood what they were saying. Even if they were praying, for example, in Swahili, it amounted to the same thing as praying in an angelic language, or a supernaturally inspired “ecstatic utterance.” Either way, they were also edifying themselves (1 Cor. 14:4)—something, which, according to Jude 20, is not necessarily a negative thing—and they were giving thanks with their spirit (1 Cor. 14:16–17).
- Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 14:22 say that the purpose of tongues is not personal edification, but rather “as a sign to unbelievers”?
Actually, no, it does not say that this is the purpose of tongues. It does say that at least one of the functions of tongues is as a sign to unbelievers, but nowhere does it say that this is the purpose of tongues. Also, to understand 1 Cor. 14:22 in context, it is necessary to cross-reference the text Paul quotes in 1 Cor. 14:21: “In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”
The Old Testament source of this quote, with a little fuller context, is Isaiah 28:11–13: “For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people, to whom he has said, ‘This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose’; yet they would not hear. And the word of the Lord will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”
The clear implication is that the sign function of tongues was not as an aid to help people who spoke a foreign language to understand the proclamation of the gospel, but rather as a stumbling block, something that would cause them to “fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”
Exactly what this means in the New Testament context of tongues I am uncertain. I think a possible clue is found in Acts 2:12–13: “Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, ‘What does this mean?’ Some, however, made fun of them and said, ‘They have had too much wine.’” What is clear, however, is that the so-called purpose of tongues as a tool for proclaiming the gospel is almost certainly not what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 14:22.
- But wasn’t tongues used as a means to communicate the gospel to the lost whenever it was referred to in the book of Acts?
Once again, actually, no.
In Acts 2, it never says that those speaking in tongues used their gift of tongues in order to communicate the gospel to those who could not otherwise understand what was being said. Actually, it says the people heard the Jerusalem believers “declaring the wonders of God in [their] own tongues” (Acts 2:11). That sounds to me more like prayers of praise and worship than evangelistic proclamation. When it came time to actually clearly explain the gospel message, it was not the use of tongues that facilitated the task, but rather the preaching of Peter, who stood up, together with the other eleven apostles, and addressed the entire crowd in one language they apparently all understood: either Greek, or possibly Hebrew or Aramaic.
In Acts 10:44–48, the second reference to the practice of tongue in the book of Acts, it is not even the evangelizers who are speaking in tongues, but rather the new believers, and they are not preaching the gospel to others, but rather “extolling God.”
In Acts 19:1–7, the third and final instance of speaking in tongues in the book of Acts, once again, it is not Paul, the gospel proclaimer, who speaks in tongues, but rather the new believers, who, when Paul lays his hands on them, “began speaking in tongues and prophesying.”
In other words, the evidence from the book of Acts, just like the evidence in 1 Corinthians 14, seems to point more toward tongues as a personal prayer language than as a tool for proclaiming the gospel to those who otherwise could not understand.
David, With all due respect I cannot disagree more with you on your Acts 2 explanation. When you have preached or taught have you ever expounded upon the wonderful works of God? It is my goal to do that every week. As you know in that same chapter while addressing the crowd Peter tells them that what they had just witnessed was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2. And Peter quotes in Acts 2:18 “even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.” Prophesy is a… Read more »
John, If the only evidence we had was that on the day of Pentecost the believers “declared the wonderful works of God,” there may be more merit to your argument here. The phrase is somewhat ambiguous. And, in some senses, our prayers can have an evangelistic edge to them, and our evangelistic preaching can be done in a spirit and dynamic of prayer. But it still does not appear that tongues were necessary to help the believer to more clearly explain the gospel message. Also, in the passage from Joel that Peter quoted, it does indeed say “your sons and… Read more »
I think the second option is correct. That translated tongues just means languages. On the day of Pentecost when they spoke in tongues they spoke in known human languages. Also, it is clear in 1 Corinthians 14 that the problem was two fold: 1.) Too many people were trying to speak in tongues in the service so the number allowed had to be regulated and 2.) obviously people were trying to speak in tongues publicly without an interpreter so Paul told them to keep silent. Now concerning the Isaiah passage, if indeed tongues were for a sign to the Jews… Read more »
Probably the answer to why they were trying to speak without an interpreter is that they were trying to promote self. Anyone who has been in the ministry very long has witnessed this going on in the church. In Texas we call this showing out.
1 Corinthians 14:26 “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”
I can see how the Corinthian believers may have been motivated to “show out.” That is certainly implied in the context of verses such as 1 Cor. 12:12-26 and 13:1-7. What I don’t really understand is, if tongues was a known language, and was intended to help communicate the gospel to speakers of that language, or to serve as a sign to unbelieving Jews, why they would have randomly chosen practicing this gift as a way to “show out.” If that were the case, it seems to me it would have been obvious to all they were out of place,… Read more »
John, I don’t see how one function of tongues being as “a sign to the Jews of impending judgment to come” necessarily says one thing or another about the possibility of them being used as a personal prayer language. If being “a sign to the Jews” is not the sole purpose of tongues, then that leaves room for other purposes as well. Could it not be both/and rather than either/or? Indeed, if the only purpose is to serve as a sign for the Jews, then that eliminates the purpose of edifying the church. As I see it, there were various… Read more »
David,
As always I appreciate your very thought provoking response. But the very fact that tongues (languages) like all the other gifts were expressly for the edification of others is enough for me to exclude the thought of a personal or private prayer language. I personally cannot see what purpose would be served in praying in another language for the person praying especially if that person doesn’t understand what he is saying.
John,
And yet millions of people around the world testify that that experience has been a great blessing in their life, and that that blessing has been turned into blessing and edification for the churches of which they are a part, and to the Body of Christ at large. Always a lot of bathwater with the baby, though.
David, there are several points where I would disagree with you, but I think you bring out something important that many of us have missed concerning the gift of tongues — it was not a tool or gift for proclaiming the gospel to those who otherwise could not understand. I wrote on Tongues — an evangelistic tool? back in 2007 when this was a hot topic. In the 3 historical cases in the book of Acts, the preachers were able to communicate with the hearers in a common language and did not need the gift of tongues to do so.… Read more »
Tongues as a personal prayer language being a component of Christian faith and practice is not a trivial thing. If prayer is such an indispensable part of a believer’s life, a personal prayer language would necessarily be such as well and the lack thereof would naturally be seen as a significant deficiency. So, is this matter not addressed in letters to the Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Romans; in the pastoral epistles, the letters of Peter, James, John, and Jude? Is this a legitimate and valuable Christian practice that disappeared only to be rediscovered and activated recently, or is there… Read more »
William, You say, “If prayer is such an indispensable part of a believer’s life, a personal prayer language would necessarily be such as well and the lack thereof would naturally be seen as a significant deficiency.” I don’t see why this needs to be the case. Paul goes to pains to say that tongues is the least of the gifts and that not everyone is gifted to speak in tongues. Could you not turn it around and say that, if tongues is meant to be an aid for communicating the gospel, and “if evangelism is such an indispensable part of… Read more »
Your use of Paul’s exclamation “I would like every one of you to speak in tongues” seems to argue against you here. I take some of Paul’s statements in this passage to be rhetorical, as do many interpreters.
Sorry…in a rush. I do appreciate your thoughtful posts.
David, I see no case being made for a private prayer language in 1st Cor. 14. Rather, you posted these quotes: Paul nowhere says that the gift they were practicing was not an authentic gift of the Spirit and nowhere tells the Corinthian believers to quit practicing it altogether. Instead, he tells them: a. “I want you all to speak in tongues” 1 Cor. 14:5 b. “One who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.” 1 Cor. 14:13 c. “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” 1 Cor. 14:18 d. “If… Read more »
Parsonmike, I’m trying to understand the main thrust of what you are saying. Are you agreeing with part of my argument, or disagreeing with all of it? It seems you may be saying there is nothing in 1 Cor. 14 to indicate anything to do with a personal prayer language. But perhaps that is not the point you are making. In any case, here are the places where I see a reference to a personal prayer language in 1 Cor. 14: 1. v. 2. “one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God.” Speaking to God… Read more »
David I think you are spot on! The reason Paul gives rules of tongues in worship (1Cor 14) is they were using them there. Not because that is where it was always supposed to happen. Plus, it is clear that when one speaks in a tongue they speak to God. (1Cor 14:2) But here’s the deal, after much consideration on this matter: God has spoken in these last times thru His Son (Heb 1), His Son ascended to Heaven and He sent the Spirit. His Son continued to speak thru His Apostles. His Apostles died out. Now the Spirit speaks… Read more »
Clark,
Thanks for the comment. Yes, continuationism and cessationism is a separate (but related) topic. We can discuss that on Dave Miller’s post, which is about that.
And I agree with you that “Never met a tongue talker who was holier for it that I could tell.” It is a spiritual gift, and it is God who sovereignly distributes the gifts as He chooses. Those with one gift are not necessarily more spiritual than those with other gifts.
Personally, I believe that the gift of unknown tongues is exactly what we see in Acts 2. Declaring the wonderful works of God.
Praise, if you will.
And Acts 2 is the only episode of the manifestation of that gift, in the Bible, in which we’re told what the substance of the speech was. Praise, or worship.
I also maintain that tongues are not known languages. If they were, then you’d just need to find someone who knew that language. That wouldn’t necessitate a Spiritual gift.
Just a word of caution Bob C.
You said,
“I also maintain that tongues are not known languages. If they were, then you’d just need to find someone who knew that language. That wouldn’t necessitate a Spiritual gift.”
If you take that attitude then you’re diminishing the Holy Spirit’s empowering of all other gifts that are “normal” like giving, helping, and administrating.
This is the biggest problem I see with tongues – it begins to be idolized as “miraculous” when in actuality ALL empowerment of the Spirit IS MIRACULOUS.
-Bob B.
Not at all. A Spiritual Gift is a manifestation of God’s grace in the life of a believer, enabling the believer to join God in the Kingdom work God has in mind for him. I maintain the bush pilot’s ability to put a plane on a 900′ grass strip in the jungles, so the missionary can do a work there, is as much a gift as that of the missionary himself.
It’s the use of the gift that makes it Spiritual, not just the nature of the gift itself.
Idolized? What gift hasn’t somebody idolized?
I like the formulation you offer, Bob. Not the least because of the neat echo of the Greek “karis” (or charis) that shows up in both “grace” and in “gifts”. And lest we forget: that’s one of the words for “love” as echoed in the KJV use of the term “charity” to translate “agape”. And of these three–pistis, elpsis, agape–the greatest of these is agape.
Bob C.,
Excellent illustration. Thanks for the clarification. Figured we were on the same page but I find it’s always better to flesh it out for greater clarity.
Blessings brother,
-Bob B.
Bob C.
With all due respect there is only one thing that I can see that is wrong with your analysis, namely, the fact that the tongues spoken at Pentecost were unequivocally known languages. Act 2:7-8 “And they were astounded and astonished, saying, “Behold, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how do we hear, each one of us, in [our own native language]?” (LEB)
John, There were either 12, or 100 or so in the room, speaking in tongues. There seem to be 15 or so languages listed in the passage, which leads me to believe it was probably more than 12 people speaking them. But we still have the problem of the verse which states each (singular) heard them (plural) speak in his own language. Dialect, even, which could vary within a given nationality. If there were 100+ in the room, one standing outside would hardly say “I hear them speaking my language”, any more than you could understand what everyone was yelling… Read more »
Bob C.,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but did you just say that people that had to ask about how to be saved were being given the gift of interpretation???
I’m pretty sure you did – though I’m not sure you meant to.
Kind of getting the cart before the horse aren’t you? 😉
-Bob B.
John: actually, that’s not a fact. We know that the listeners could verify that each person hearing could hear something in their own language. That doesn’t exclude the possibility that some of the tongues-speakers were speaking in angelic languages, which of course the listeners couldn’t have identified. We’re not told that each speaker was speaking a known tongue, only that each language represented among the listeners had someone speaking t.
Bob C. and Ben C.,
With all due respect the only languages that the text explicitly says that they in fact spoke in were all known languages. While there may be room for your hypothesis, what we do know is that Galileans spoke in the known tongues of the dispersion.
John, With all due respect, the only thing we know for sure from the text of Acts 2 is that the hearers heard the believers speaking in their own languages. Some have posited the possibility that the miracle that occurred at Pentecost was a gift of hearing. In other words, what was coming out of the mouths of the believers were angelic languages or ecstatic utterances or something of the sort, and what the people in the crowd heard was their own native languages. I am not saying I necessarily agree with that. I think it is unlikely. But it… Read more »
John, given the text, you *can’t* assert that only known tongues were spoken. Scripture records that the listeners testified that all of the languages represented among them were ‘covered’. By the nature of things, they *can’t* testify whether or not unknown languages were being spoken – how would they distinguish them from a known language they didn’t know? At best you can say that it is unknown whether unknown languages were spoken, but it is a mistake to assume that what is provably unknown can just be ignored.
But Ben the only thing we can know for sure is that known languages were spoken on Pentecost. Anything else would at best be speculative and making an addition to the text.
Seeing how that known languages are the only ones mentioned I feel pretty comfortable with that position. Didn’t we have an article on this blog that went in detail about an argument from silence?
Now what is the purpose of the gifts? We read from chapter 12: 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same… Read more »
Mike,
Which one of my three options do you think is the best explanation of 1 Cor. 14? Or do you feel there is a fourth option?
David,
1 Cor 14 is Paul telling them how to properly use the gift of tongues in their worship together. From the way he writes to them, it seems that he is correcting them which means they were mis-using the gift, maybe as many do today.
Is there any place in the Scriptures that tells you that tongues is to be spoken privately? If not, then it is unScriptural to do so.
Mike,
Do you think they were misusing a gift they authentically had from God, then? So, you are advocating for option #2? What motive may might they have had for doing so?
RE: “Is there any place in the Scriptures that tells you that tongues is to be spoken privately? If not, then it is unScriptural to do so.”
So do you believe in musical instruments in public worship?
And, yes, I believe that 1 Cor. 14:28 says that tongues are to be used privately, and 1 Cor. 14:18–19 infers that Paul did so himself.
Paul says that he himself speaks in tongues more than all of the Corinthians put together (proof Paul was a southerner – he says “I thank God I speak in tongues more than you-all”). If, in church, Paul prefers speaking with his mind, then where in the world is he doing all of that tongues-speaking?
Ben, that is a very good observation, the bad Southern joke, notwithstanding.
If 1 Corinthians 14 speaks of prophetic messages in an unknown tongue, it does not make sense to tell them to stop after two and then prophecy in plain English thereafter. If, however, the speaking in tongues were only what it was specified to be in Acts 2 … declaring the wonders of God .. then it would make sense to tell them to limit that so they could get on to prophecy, which they needed at that time (not having the Bible as we do).
“””The gift of tongues is not for personal good but for common good”””
If a person spends several hours a day praying in tongues for the church family, friends, and lost people, is that not a “common good?”
To answer no would suggest that “prayer is not a real” thing, like preaching.
Do you want to imply that?
Frank,
How does one pray for family, friends , and lost people if he has no idea of what he is praying?
I had a perfect idea of what I was praying about.
But, you dodged the question.
David, I really appreciate your taking this task on here. Though I’m not persuaded by your points, I think you’ve done a good job of helping move the discussion along. To chime in with parsonsmike and John Wylie above, I don’t see where your assumptions that this is a PPL are the best solution. You’re not exactly making an argument from silence, but you don’t have a clear-cut verse that tells us that we should have PPL’s. Instead, in the midst of Paul’s discussion of why prophecy is better than tongues and why there should be order in worship services,… Read more »
Bob, Thanks for your comment. There is much I agree with in what you say. I do not think Paul had any agenda to push, mandate, or encourage tongues, either privately or publicly. Though he does make a point in v. 39 that we should not forbid speaking in tongues. His main agenda, though, is to correct abuses. The lessons we must learn about what tongues were are mostly be inference and from reading between the lines. Once again, though, I don’t think the deductive evidence, in this regard, is scant. It seems to me, with regard to what was… Read more »
For now I would say I’d probably fall in a combination of options 1 and 2. I think there could have been false abuses of the gift because of the “miraculous” nature of it and fleshly idolizing of those that had the genuine gift. If this happened it would have compounded the problem by making people compete with one another within the worship service. I realize that’s more of a hypothesis on my part but I think that might be a fourth option which is a blend of 1 and 2.
Wow, a three-peat!
My upcoming post is going to be like being the PETA representative to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
Bart,
Did you mean to post this on the ‘bison’ thread?
🙂
It takes three of us to combat your brilliance?
I didn’t plan on doing a post on this, but, as I was trying to make these points in the comment stream, decided I could make them better in a whole separate post.
David,
And you have said a “mind-full”. It is going to take me some time to weigh it and see what you are getting at, and what the implications may be. Thanks for taking the time.
It appears to me that you are actually not on a “side”, but seeking to look at the issue in a fresh way. That
That approach takes me by surprise on Voices. Again, thanks.
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. Tongues, a praising of God. 13 Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. If one prays silently… Read more »
Mike, Once again, I am not sure I understand exactly what you are getting at. It seems to me you are contradicting yourself. You are saying, if I understand you, that in 1 Cor. 14, Paul advocates praying silently in tongues in church, and that in Acts tongues is always out loud? As I read 1 Cor. 14, Paul is saying that the tongues speakers should be silent in church, and should practice their gift (out loud) outside of church. As to the occurrences in Acts all being out loud and public, that is one reason I do not prefer… Read more »
That should be “personal prayer language,” not “public prayer language.”
David, Outside? The church is not a building. It is a gathering of two or more of the body. In Acts it was only spoken out loud among others which always included brothers. In 1st Cor. 14, Paul is telling them how to properly speak in tongues. But if there is no interpreter, to not speak in tongues but to pray quietly to themselves. Nothing in Acts contradicts what Paul said in 1st Corinthians. Acts is more an historical account where all the details are not given. Corinthians is a letter with specific instructions. David, dear brother, where is the… Read more »
Mike,
The mandate in 1 Corinthians is to use those gifts God has given you for the glory of God and for the edification of the body.
I don’t think Paul bothers describing precisely what tongues was, because the people he was writing to were already well aware of that.
I do think there is good deductive evidence for figuring out what it was, though, as I have indicated above.
As far as the rest of your previous comment, I don’t disagree with anything in it, but I don’t see how any of it goes against what I am trying to say.
David, your point 3 above: . The only plausible answer I can think of to this question is that those who had the gift of tongues were accustomed to using their gift in their personal prayer life. It was a practice that edified them (1 Cor. 14:4) and helped them to express their thanks to God (1 Cor. 14:16–17), even though they did not understand the specific content of what they were saying – What you are doing here, so it seems to me, is simply assuming the conclusion you wish to prove and then fitting some thoughts from the… Read more »
Mike,
I am not ignoring your comment. I have been mulling over how best to respond for a while now, but am having trouble wrapping my mind around everything you are saying. In part, it seems we may just be rehashing the same things we have already said. If there is a particular point you would really like me to respond to and you feel I have not yet responded adequately, let me know, and I will give it my best try.
David, If we are rehashing, maybe it is me not getting the right thoughts on paper. It seems that you think there is evidence presented by you to prove that there is a private prayer language of the gift of tongues. I disputed that and I am waiting for >real< evidence that there is a private prayer language. But to try to make the issue clear, let me point out these things: 1.] The gifts of the Spirit, according to Paul in 1st Corinthians 12 are for the common good. And according to 1st Peter 4:10 we are told: As… Read more »
Mike, Regarding your point #1. I have heard this argument made numerous times. And I do not believe it is entirely without merit. But I think we are reading something more than is intended into Paul’s mind when we take what he says about the manifestation of the Spirit in the life of each member of the Body being for “the common good,” and turning that into a litmus test for the legitimacy of spiritual gifts. I don’t see how that is the argument he is trying to make. The argument is rather that we all have different gifts, but… Read more »
I laugh at my typo’s sometimes. That should be “Paul’s discussion in 1 Cor. 14,” not “the Paul’s discussion of 1 Cor 14.”
Parsonmike, you said, “””Tongues are for a sign to unbelievers. Thus not for private alone edification. if there is no interpreter, one is to be silent” I think this is a smokescreen. I don’t think most “sort of cessationists” really believe this. For example: how often have you heard someone give a message in tongues with an interpreter in a Southern Baptist church? My experience: once. Your verse also only applies to “one kind of tongue.” An ecstatic utterance in Acts was specifically said to be a witness that the Holy Spirit had come upon the Gentiles. No interpretation. Again,… Read more »
I appreciate, Mike, that you raised biblical and exegetical points.
Frank, Well I have taken no position on whether tongues have ceased, so it is hardly right to lump me in with the cessationists. Divers tongues could mean different-known-by-someone languages as opposed to unknown-by-any-human language or angel speak or whatever. Acts doesn’t give us every detail of every event. Thus you assume there was no interpreter and/or you assume that the tongue used was unknown. But here is part of Peter’s retelling of the event: Acts 15: 6 The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up… Read more »
Good answer, David.
David Rogers…Adrian’s Son,
I love ya, Brother. I respect you. But again, I totally disagree with you on this subject. All the fellas in this comment thread, who’ve disagreed with you, have already expressed all the reasons that I would disagree with you…and expressed them far better than I ever could….I’ve never claimed to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier. So, I disagree with you, and Dwight, and Dave, and Alan, and some others on this subject….but, I still love yall in the Lord.
David
Thanks, David. I love you and am glad to count you as my brother as well.
I use the word speak with this understanding:
speak (spk)
v. spoke (spk), spo·ken (spkn), speak·ing, speaks
v.intr.
1. To utter words or articulate sounds with ordinary speech modulation; talk.
Okay. And…?
David, you’ve asked folks a couple of times which of the three options they believed or if there was a fourth. For my own understanding I’m trying to distill the three options down to basic statements, and I’ve come up with the following. 1. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were spurious, not actually a gift from the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2, 10 and 19. 2. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were a gift to preach/speak in a known human language, but no one could understand them. 3. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were a personal… Read more »
Robert,
Yes, that correctly covers the gist of it.
Thanks Robert for summing that up. Very helpful.
Hopefully if anyone does a follow-up post they will reference those as a starting point.
Like I said though in a reply above, I think a fourth option might be a blended version of 1 and 2, but I think those do pretty well capture the perspectives represented here.
Thanks, David. I’ll quickly reference these three and may have opportunity to add more detail later. 1. The tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were spurious, not actually a gift from the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2, 10 and 19. I have rejected this option, though this was a common view I heard taught my of my earlier life. I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that some people might have faked something just “to get in on the action” — as some of the talking we might hear today that sounds like “hominy, hominy, hominy.” But Paul’s argument does not directly… Read more »
Robert,
I really appreciate you serious wrestling with what the text actually says.
Regarding #3, do you not think it is possible Paul is advocating both/and, not necessarily either/or? In other words, in church, it is best to pray with both the spirit and with understanding. And, outside church, there may be a time and place to pray with the spirit, even though it may not always be accompanied by understanding. That’s how I read it, though I admit v. 15 is a bit ambiguous.
David, I need to think about your both/and question, but initially I’d say that it doesn’t seem to me that Paul’s advocacy of praying with the spirit and with understanding is a situation-based or location-based admonition. I have wrestled with these scriptures off and on for years. One reason is that I struggle to put the total of Paul’s instruction in a complete and consistent whole that seems to fit everything he is saying there and what we know about tongues from the book of Acts. I hope you won’t think me to presumptuous to link to a series of… Read more »
Jerry Corbaley, If you are still lurking, this post is the rehashing of what I was trying to communicate in the other comment stream, but, admittedly, didn’t do a very good job of. Hopefully this post communicates more clearly what I was trying to say. I’d love to hear your response, especially which of the three scenarios (or a fourth one) seems more plausible to you. Actually, this post (as well as Dwight’s post) root back, as I understand it, to the challenge/request you threw out back a number of months ago on another post for someone to come up… Read more »
David, My schedule just allowed me time to read your post and the comment thread. You articulate this subject matter with the clarity, depth of understanding, biblical accuracy, quality if life, and even the printed eloquence, that is reminiscent of your father. The only thing missing here is the alliteration of which your father did so well. I am having my assistant to print your posts and when we have people in our congregation who want a better understanding of the discussion at hand; I will instruct my assistant to give them a copy of your posts to at least… Read more »
Dwight,
You are very kind. I never envisioned my first book being about spiritual gifts, but that would be interesting. Let’s stay in touch regarding this.
Dwight, I’m still bugging him to write a book about city-church ecclesiology, so your book will have to be his second book.
Yep.
David, It appears that the SBC has no unity on issues like soteriolgy or pneumatology(spiritual gifts). Why then do you think we could appreciate or be unified around the concept of a “city church,” although as I understand it, I believe that that concept is thoroughly biblical. The various comments on these “three peat” posts leads me to believe that a book on this issue that reflects the clear, biblical, balanced, and within the framework of the BFM–as articulated by the likes of Alan & David R. is most desperately needed. I can’t recall a fairly recent or current book… Read more »
Just to throw more gas on the fire, I’ll offer a different twist.
1. I’m with Mike and say there is no such thing as a PPL taught or mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
2. Paul was not rebuking a misuse of the gift of tongues. I believe it is impossible to misuse any spiritual gift.
3. A tongue speaker always knows what he is saying.
4. Th problem in Corinth was not the gift of tongues but the misuse of languages in the church by carnal christians.
Uh-oh… Don J. just said “carnal Christian”!!!
Are we about to have to start discussing Lordship salvation? 😉
Don, A tongue speaker always knows what he is saying? How does that square with the following verses? 1 Cor. 14:9-12. “So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.” 1 Cor. 14:13-14. “Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue… Read more »
Tongues = human language Spiritual gifts are not for self but for service to others in the Body of Christ. Compare Praying in the Spirit (Jude) to Walking in the Spirit (Galatians) To being controlled by the Spirit (Eph. 5:18). To do any of these one must know and obey the Word of God – saturated with the Word (Colossians 3:15). There is nothing taught in Scriptures concerning a “prayer language” and little to explain the use and benefit of an unlearned language. An assumption would be that not everyone could understand Greek or Latin in the Roman world being… Read more »
“””An assumption would be that not everyone could understand Greek or Latin in the Roman world being that most Christians were the uneducated poor and/or slaves”””
It seems that no assumption is necessary. The Roman Empire encompassed many different cultures, languages, and dialects as Acts 2 points out specifically.
What about 1Cor. 13:1. Seems pretty clear that there is are “angelic glossais.”
By the way, I’m only adding to the mix and I’m not trying to change your mind.
What does “tongues of angels” mean? Is Paul being “sarcastic” here? Is he talking about an “eloquence” of speech?
I am reminded that the Corinthian church was an immature and sinful church. Paul is not being gentle with them. They had many abuses happening in the church and the misuse of spiritual gifts was just one of the abuses.
I am also reminded of Paul’s commendation that they had “all” the gifts but that they were still so immature and sinful.
Exercising Spiritual gifts are not a reliable indicator of spiritual maturity.
David, Let’s suppose you speak Russian and I do not. You could speak as much Russian as you want, but to me you would simply be “speaking into the air.” Because you are speaking Russian to me you are a barbarian and I to you. Please note Paul said he did not know the language. He did not say the speaker did not know it. “My spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Again the text does not say the mind does not understand. It says it is unfruitful. What makes a person’s mind friutful is how it helps others.… Read more »
Don,
Creative, though remotely possible, interpretations of these verses.
If the tongues speaker already understood what he/she was saying, why would they need to pray for the gift of interpretation, though?
David,
So the church may receive edifying (1 Cor 14:5). He already knows what he said, but the church does not. Also if the church is not edified because it does not understand what is said but at the same time the speaker is edified, it must mean the speaker understands what he said.
Why waste time and bring attention to oneself if one already knows what the Spirit is saying?
The gift of Languages we are discussing today is so subjective I don’t think there is anyway we could all agree on its meaning and use in the early Church, let alone today.
Maybe that is why it was not a point of discussion or general practice for almost 2000 years.
Back in1976, the silvery anniversary of the seminary and the 200th year of the nation, when I received my doctor of ministry, a fellow student who received his before me (alphabetical order) was noted by the other students for having the gift of prayer languages. he was a missionary to Israel. I never had the opportunity to speak with him about the matter, because I had lost interest in it years before. When I first started out in the Christian way, I looked at everything. As time passed and I grew more knowledgeable of Scripture and as usage and experience… Read more »