Speaking in Tongues - Part 2
Tongues is not a private prayer language because nowhere in the biblical canon does it provide a linguistic, contextual, consistent, or specific reference that justifies the claim. The idea has no theological basis, so why do we perpetrate a false teaching? Christian leaders have a responsibility to teach young Christians to think for themselves rather than vague subjective presumptions that undermine the biblical account, something I had to confront many years ago. We are better served by letting the Bible interpret itself.
First of all, scripture states that the use of tongues is a spiritual gift, and like any supernatural gift, it matures with time, but it cannot be learned like we might learn to paint or convey a sermon. Second, all the examples of tongues are spontaneous and instigated by the Holy Spirit. Thirdly, the use of this language expresses itself in public discourse, not in private, and sometimes in the context of a salvation experience. Fourth, the language is understood as a known linguistic language. And five, it expresses the wonders of God.
The Bible does not suggest that tongues can be spoken, by a decision of our will. On this point, I'm open to considering that a known linguistic language might be learned, through repetitive use and interpretation. This commentary will challenge the opinions held by many Christians today, and a common response might be, “The Bible doesn’t record everything, and it does say we will do greater things so tongues might be a prayer language”. Unfortunately, this type of response is an example of ill-conceived projection, not an example of best practice. When taken to its natural conclusion projection can be used to justify any view of scripture.
Do the narratives in Acts and Corinthians suggest multiple forms of the gift? One as an unknown personal prayer language, and the other as a known dialectic language? The short answer is no. Beginning from Mark 16:17 and Acts 2:4, the context of tongues is conveyed as a known dialectic language. The context of both is historical narrative, and the teaching focuses on facilitating those who speak foreign languages to be understood by those around them and for all to understand the wonders of God. Teaching is part of the orderly use of gifts in the Church.
Starting from Mark 16:17, I want to examine the text used to justify a spiritual prayer language. “And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name, they will drive out demons they will speak in new tongues”. This was the first mention in the NT, where Jesus prophesied that tongues would be a spiritual gift. Mark 16:15-20 was the great commission statement, where Jesus instructed the disciples to ”go into all the world”, and ended with, “then the disciples went out and preached everywhere”. This commission statement was followed up at Pentecost with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, and the Apostles went from there and preached to the world. Tongues would “follow those who believed”, and in this context is associated with an event that was yet to come, it was prophetic, and exactly what happened at Pentecost. The manifestation of tongues at Pentecost confirmed the prophetic statement in Mark and demonstrated the gift as a dialectic language. “When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard them speaking in his language” ( Acts 2:6). Mark 16:17 cannot be interpreted as a completely separate or private prayer language.
1Cor12. In this chapter, Paul defines his interpretation of a gift and establishes the framework for tongues within the context of the Church. Therefore, speaking a foreign language would be a gift to the Church, allowing foreign languages to be understood through interpretation and thus edifying the Church. Unbelievers can witness the power of God. Its purpose is for the common good (vs7), not for personal edification or private prayer! Its corporate value is no more or less than any other gift, and this can only happen if tongues are an actual language.
1Cor13:1 Paul opens the chapter with hyperbole (Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally). The context is to declare the authority of love over and above the vain imaginings of man. The reference to the “tongues of angels” is not saying that we will speak in the language of angels, and it’s certainly not suggesting the Angels have a language of their own, it’s the use of hyperbole to emphasise the inadequacy of our vain imaginings. The hyperbole conveys that if Angels indeed had a language, and even if we could speak this angelic language, the elevated position it might imply, still wouldn’t place them above the ideals of love. Love must prevail and undergird every gift we have. Claiming this narrative supports the idea of a private prayer language is a misrepresentation of Paul's teaching on love.
1Cor14:2 This is one of the main passages used to support a private prayer language. However, Paul is not teaching about foreign languages or prayer languages. He clarifies the importance of building up and enriching the Church through our speech. In this situation, prophecy is placed above those speaking a foreign language because prophecy is speaking in a known language that is understood and brings instant edification. Typically, prophecy would have no more prominence than other gifts if an interpreter of tongues were present. In this case, the speech of foreigners in their language might hold the same authority. Therefore, Paul suggests if an interpreter is not present, those who cannot speak the prevailing language of the Church should keep quiet. Vs13 “For this reason, anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says”. For this reason, a foreigner might even pray that they might be given the gift of interpretation to convey their words in the common language. If we separate these individual texts from Chapter 12, it’s easy to use them out of context, and this is what proponents of a private prayer language do.
1Cor14:2 “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit”. Used out of context this verse can easily be interpreted as a prayer language, just like speaking in the “tongues of Angels” does also. This might be like an Italian praising God in Italian, in an English-speaking Church. God would indeed be the only one who would understand him, and his praise would be nothing more than mysteries to others present. Further, the text does not suggest the Italian has the gift of languages either because, unlike Pentecost, no one understands what he says, he is simply speaking his language in a foreign church.
1Co 14:14 “For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful”. It’s important to note the link between the speaking of a tongue and its unfruitful value. Here the actual gift of speaking a foreign language is heard by God, but if there is no interpretation the speaker is not edified by their prayer, and the mind does not understand. Proponents of prayer languages will use this text to suggest a separation of mind and spirit, where the tongue is seen as a spiritual connection with God alone. However, the context does not adequately support this, unless the idea is projected into the interpretation. I want to emphasize that I’m not denying the gift of speaking a foreign language, unknown to the speaker. If someone has the gift of speaking a foreign language, then declaring the wonders of God without interpretation would be unfruitful to their mind, and the minds of others. The text is in perfect harmony with the narrative.
Some commentaries and studies utilize 1Cor14:26 to suggest that a reference to coming together with a tongue, translated as “unknown tongue” in the KJV, might be like the unknown tongues of the Priestesses, in the oracles of Delphi. It’s alarmingly curious that the demonic oracles in Corinth should be used as a comparison. However, the comparison is not consistent with the context of 1Cor14. Paul refers to Isaiah 28:11 which states, “Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues God will speak to this people”. Paul had previously said that he was fluent in several languages in vs18-19. Verse21 suggests a known dialectic language, which is quantified in vs7, as a rebuke, stating “Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions”. Simply put even Priests and Prophets were not listening, and we were going their own way, so God would convict them by speaking to them through the most unlikely source, the language of pagans and foreigners. Likewise, Paul's referral to Isaiah was to encourage the Corinthian believers to listen to what he was saying, and not to disregard his teaching, because, God will use others to speak if his people choose not to listen.
Some commentators suggest both the prayer language and linguistic language of “tongues” are demonstrated in the same gift. However, the evidence is derived from the same biblical texts and the same hermeneutic must be applied. The Acts and Corinthian narratives do not provide any evidence to support anything other than a dialectic language.
Corinth was a crossroad for travellers and traders, where many languages and cultures coincided. Paul’s letters were primarily comforting and correcting the many conflicts and issues of a young Church, including the difficulties created by many people seeking to worship there. Consequently, Paul was not talking about his faith issues, but helping the Church to function in an orderly fashion. Paul was clarifying how gifts were given for the benefit of the whole Church. The relevant passages have challenged commentators because denominational gerrymandering undermines its meaning. This goes some way in explaining the differing opinions across a range of theological commentaries. Often these differences are not important but if taught authoritatively, many Christians tend to go along with the dominant opinion, without studying the texts themselves. The word tongues is a good example of how the word can be misleading because Paul’s theology on tongues is entirely predicated on a dialectic language, as demonstrated by the disciples at Pentecost. Paul was teaching a dialectic language so that foreigners and Christians alike would be edified and declare the wonders of God.
To finish I want to suggest a simple solution for those who believe tongues are an unknown prayer language. Where it concerns the Church, if there is no interpreter, then refrain from using tongues, it’s as simple as that. Whatever individuals think about tongues is not the issue, the issue is the encouragement of the Church, and any foreign language is not recommended in the Church unless there is an interpretation.
Finally, it would be good for us to be brutally honest with ourselves and ask how we came to babble the sounds we might interpret as tongues. Did we learn this by doing what others told us to do? Was it a process of joining various sounds that we heard others making? And if we believe this to be a spiritual prayer language, how do we know it is? On what basis have we formed this belief? Have we ever been interpreted by someone who knows the language? Or have we settled for vague interpretations based on emotional feelings, and thus feelings make it true?
