Preface: (I will be including this at the beginning of each of my posts on this topic.) I am writing these thoughts as a product of my own study of the issue of “tongues” and “private prayer languages.” Since these are subjects that are in the forefront of current Southern Baptist discussion, I felt that it was important for me (as a SB pastor) to clarify and express the views that I have held for some time. My analysis is not intended as an indictment or as a purposeful degrading of anyone else’s views. My views do not affect my ability to work alongside my brothers and sisters in Christ who hold pentecostal or charismatic views. I simply do not agree with them on the issue of ecstatic, unintelligible tongues. I pray that no one will be offended by my beliefs. I am certainly not offended by theirs.
Now, to my post …
1 Corinthians 14 – The Epicenter of our Interpretive Dilemma
Anyone who holds to a continualist view or defends the modern practice of ecstatic utterances as the biblical practice of “speaking in tongues” relies greatly upon Paul’s instruction to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14.
I realize that the subject of my study is supposed to be “personal prayer languages.” But I do not feel that we can separate the two issues. We must deal with the practice of “tongues,” or glossolalia, in general within the context of 1 Corinthians 14 before we can move on to the specific ways that it addresses any notion of a “private prayer language.”
Paul has already touched upon the subject of “tongues,” or “languages,” in his earlier discussion of spiritual gifts (chapters 11 and 12). But in chapter 14 he seems to dwell upon the issue of “tongues.” This indicates that there was a problem with the practices in Corinth. The context indicates that the Corinthian worship was in a state of confusion. Apparently, people were speaking in various “tongues” during worship. These “tongues” may have been ecstatic utterances, very similar to those utilized in the pagan worship rituals practiced in the various temples and worship centers in Corinth. But they also may have been other languages. The Greek word glossa can rightly be translated either way. I submit that what was going on might have been a combination of the two. Indeed, Paul may have used the same word for “known languages” and “unknown tongues” interchangeably throughout this chapter. We simply cannot tell.
But, whatever was going on, it was not good … and Paul did not like it. In this chapter he was attempting to “straighten them out,” to right their course so to speak. He did not in any way affirm anything that they were already practicing.
Of course, no on can dispute the fact that Paul encouraged the spiritual giftedness of the believers at Corinth, especially the gift of prophecy. Clear communication of the gospel was extremely important to Paul. In 1 Corinthians 14:1, he said:
1Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.
Many who claim the validity of a “private prayer language” or the ecstatic gift of “tongues” leap to verse 2, which says:
2For 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.
But I fear that, too often, supporters of glossalalia claim the first half of the verse and ignore the second. The overall message of this verse seems absolutely crystal clear to me. The fact that Paul says that “anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God” does not mean that Paul is pointing this out as a positive quality of their behavior. On the contrary. He completes his thought with, “no one understands him … he utters mysteries with his spirit.” Their communication was meaningless. We have a saying in English that communicates a similar meaning. Whenever someone speaks utter nonsense, leaving us to wonder what it was that they actually said, we often comment that “only God knows” what they said. I believe that is the essence of this statement. It is a common-sense reading of the verse.
Excursus: I want to say at this point that I personally do not agree with what John MacArthur does with his interpretation of this verse. Due to the anarthous construction of theos (no article used), he claims that we should insert the article “a” before God and thus translate this phrase, “…anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to a god.” He does so in making his case for rampant paganism in the Corinthian church. I personally think this is an interpretive stretch. And, after all, isn’t this the very error of translation that we indict the Jehovah’s Witnesses for in their New World Translation of John 1:1 as, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god?”
To continue…
Paul then offers a contrast for their behavior, a more desirable practice and outcome, in verse 3:
3But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort.
Clearly it is more desirable for us to prophesy … to clearly communicate the truths of God. That is what really matters. That is what is important. That is truly what builds up the church.
I commented on verse 4 at length in my last post. This verse points out the fact that unintelligible language within worship actually calls attention to the person speaking rather than to God. Again, that is not a desirable end in worship. Indeed, spiritual gifts are not given for the benefit of the recipient believer, but for the building up on the church. The verse reads:
4He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.
Suffice it to say that the goings-on in the Corinthian worship gatherings were out of control. Things were being said that no one could understand, except for God Himself. And that was not a good thing. In exercising what they thought was a gift of “tongues,” the Corinthian believers, instead of calling attention to the truths and message of God, were calling attention to themselves. That was definitely not a good thing.
Something had to change … but I have already gone too long for a single post. I’ll continue my thoughts and commentary on 1 Corinthian 14, the true and biblical gift of languages, and the issue of “private prayer languages” tomorrow.
December 27, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Geoff,
In this post, I believe you jump to several unwarranted conclusions.
You say: “These “tongues” may have been ecstatic utterances, very similar to those utilized in the pagan worship rituals practiced in the various temples and worship centers in Corinth. But they also may have been other languages. The Greek word glossa can rightly be translated either way. I submit that what was going on might have been a combination of the two. Indeed, Paul may have used the same word for “known languages” and “unknown tongues” interchangeably throughout this chapter. We simply cannot tell.”
I agree with you that “we simply cannot tell.” However, to me, it seems unlikely that Paul would jump back and forth between two different understandings of the same term, without a definite hermeneutical guideline for when he intended which meaning. As we have it now, this theory is mere conjecture. However, I see many people, including yourself, apparently, basing your entire interpretation of the gift of tongues in 1 Cor. 14 on this “conjecture.”
On another post, (if my memory doesn’t fail me) I once asked Brad Reynolds to go one by one through each use of the term “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12-14, and tell me each time what is the meaning intended, and the reason for choosing this meaning over another meaning. I don’t remember getting any clear answer. I realize this would be complicated to do. But I also believe the burden of proof regarding supposed alternating and conflicting understandings of the term “tongues” (or the concept) falls on those who claim this to be the case. The more natural reading is to assume that when Paul uses the word “glossa” or “glossalalia,” he is always referring to basically the same thing (whether practiced publicly or privately, or whether “tongues of men” or “tongues of angels”), the legitimate (though sometimes abused) Spirit-endowed gift of tongues.
You say: “But, whatever was going on, it was not good … and Paul did not like it…He did not in any way affirm anything that they were already practicing.” Once again, I maintain, Paul was correcting abuses. But to say the whole thing of “speaking in tongues,” as practiced in Corinth, was bad in and of itself is making a jump I honestly do not see warranted in the text. I believe Paul “affirms” the use of tongues on several occasions (v. 1, v. 5, v. 18, v. 39). I know you have different interpretations of each of these verses (which you mention in subsequent posts), but I maintain that your interpretation of each of these verses hinges upon the “conjecture” that Paul is alternating in between two different meanings of the term “tongues.”
In regard to v. 2, Spiros Zodhiates gives the following definitions for the term “musterion” (“mystery”): (1) Denotes in general something hidden or not fully manifest; (2) Some sacred thing hidden or secret which is naturally unknown to human reason and is only known by the revelation of God; (3) in the writing of Paul the word ‘musterion’ is sometimes applied in a peculiar sense to the calling of the Gentiles; and (4) it denotes a spiritual truth couched under an external representation or similitude, and concealed or hidden thereby unless some explanation be given.
I do not see here any hint of speaking “utter nonsense.” It is true that “no one understands.” Not even the one speaking (“for if I pray in a tongue, my mind is unfruitful” v. 14). But, nonetheless, in the “spirit” the one praying in a tongue is still speaking “musterion.” That, to me, is the “common-sense” reading of this verse.
I am glad, by the way, that you do not agree with MacArthur here (though, in general, I think MacArthur tends to be a fairly capable exegete).
I agree that it was not “a good thing” that the Corinthians were “speaking in tongues” that no one understood, without an interpreter, in public worship. That is the abuse that Paul was correcting. But doing the same thing privately in prayer to God does not seem to be a problem, according to Paul.
That, at least, is how I read it.
December 27, 2006 at 6:29 pm
David-
With regard to the interpretation of “glossa,” I do not believe that I am jumping to any conclusions at all. Indeed, the root meaning of the word is “language,” sometimes referred to in the vernacular as a “tongue.” It is my contention that Paul’s intended reference, both here and in his other references which have been translated as “tongues,” were, indeed, references to known, spoken languages.
I believe that the burden of proof falls upon those who would interpret a Greek word for “language” to mean “unintelligible utterance.” I think that ther may, indeed, be some instances in this passage where Paul refereed to what was going on in Corinth as “glossa,” but they were probably in the minority in this passage. But, after all, how else could he express what was going on?
Paul said clearly in v. 10, “Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning.” Again, this was part of the ongoing rebuke. I simply believe that Paul was addressing the errant behavior in Corinth by utilizing a common word in the Greek … the word, “language.” Clearly, Bible translators had incredible difficulty in dealing with this passage. 1 Corinthians 14 is ripe with footnotes (especially in the NIV) which point out that “tongues” does, indeed, mean “other languages.” I think that the abuse of “ecstatic utterance” at that church simply muddied the waters at the time that Paul was writing, and, interestingly, continue to do so today. I remain firm in my belief that the New Testament references to a gift of tongues are references to other known, spoken languages.
The people in Corinth were instructed, by Paul, to speak in languages (i.e. “tongues”) that COULD be interpreted by others.
I still do not (and doubt that I will ever) see the function, purpose, or Scriptural support for communicating with God “in private” in a manner in which the one doing the communicating does not have any idea of what he or she is saying. That is not communication at all. And that is definitely not how Jesus taught His disciples (and us) how to pray.
December 28, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Geoff,
I believe the word “glossa” means “language” and not “unintellible utterance.” It seems like it is you, rather, who are indiscriminately assigning the meaning of “unintelligible utterance” to the term “glossa” in some instances, and “language” in others. I think it always means “language.” However, I think that, just as Paul states in v. 10 “there are many KINDS of languages in the world” (note he does not say “many different languages” but rather “many KINDS of languages,” actually not “glossa” but rather “phonon” in this instance). This seems to fit right in with what he already said in 12.10 about “different kinds of tongues” and in 13.1 about “tongues of men” and “tongues of angels.”
You ask, how could Paul express what was going on at Corinth (assuming it was “ecstatic utterances” without resorting to the word “glossolalia.” I think the word you have referenced before, “battologeo,” would have served well, if indeed that is what he was trying to communicate.
You say: “The people in Corinth were instructed, by Paul, to speak in languages (i.e. “tongues”) that COULD be interpreted by others.” That is simply not the case. The people in Corinth were instructed, when they spoke in tongues, to “pray that they might interpret what was said.” The gift of interpretation was also a supernatural spiritual gift. The interpretation of known languages is not necessarily supernatural. It comes usually by way of diligent study, not by way of prayer. If there is no interpreter, the “tongues speaker” is instructed to “keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God” (i.e. PPL). I see nowhere in the text where Paul says that “speakers of ecstatic utterances” should rather speak in foreign languages that can be interpreted (without the need for someone with the gift of interpretation) by others.
Also, as I have mentioned on another comment, the “communication” that is going on during “PPL” is communication “in the spirit.” It seems perfectly plausible to me that there are different levels of communication, one “with the mind” and another “with the spirit.” Yes, Jesus taught his disciples, in the Lord’s prayer, to pray “with the mind.” Paul, in 1 Cor. 14, gives credence to praying “with the mind” as well. But he also gives credence to praying “with the spirit” (in direct counter-distinction to praying “with the mind.”) Both are viable forms of prayer, and do not conflict with one another.
December 28, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Again, the whole crux of the matter is our divergent definition of “tongues.” No, the speaking and interpreting of known languages does not ordinarily require supernatural intervention. But when it does, and God delivers, these are, I believe, the true gifts of tongues and interpretation … for clear communication.
Interesting points, but I still cannot comprehend the function or reason for mindless prayer. I guess, according to your assertion, that I and countless others like me have never prayed “in the spirit,” if it, indeed, is manifested in mindless, unknown language.
Since you appreciate the clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 14, what do you do do with verses 33-35, regarding women? Is this also clear, normative teaching for today’s church?
December 29, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Geoff,
As I understand “praying in the spirit,” tongues is just one manifestation of it. I’m not sure if I would choose the term “mindless” with its concomitant pejorative connotation to to describe PPL, either. Although it is very similar term, on the surface, to praying with the spirit, and not with the mind, I believe it conveys something a bit different to the average reader.
Regarding 1 Cor. 14.33-35, I understand this to refer to the weighing of prophecies mentioned in v. 29. Wayne Grudem, in his book “The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” gives a good rationale for this view. Understood this way, I do consider it to be normative teaching for today’s church.
I might should add that I do not necessarily consider 1 Corinthians 14 in its entirety to be simple to interpret, or immediately “clear” to the average reader. It is, admittedly, a complex passage. However, I do think that a “normal” careful reading of the text would more easily render the interpretation I favor than the one I have understood you to take in these posts.
December 29, 2006 at 4:00 pm
It seems clear that Paul, in 1 Cor 14:14-15, seems to point out some type of contrast. He makes it clear in v. 15 that one’s mind must, indeed, be involved in one’s prayer. At least that’s how I see it.
December 29, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Geoff,
It seems clear to me that, in the same context as vv. 14-15, Paul talks about the spirit praying (really praying, not babbling, as far as I can tell) while the mind remains “unfruitful” (v. 14), “praising God with your spirit” (really praising, not just senseless babbling), while others do not understand (v. 16), and “giving thanks well enough” (really giving thanks), while “the other man is not edified.”
What is the problem? The practice of tongues in public when there is no interpreter. The only inconsistency that Paul points out, and that he seem to “harp on” is the lack of understanding on the part of third parties: “how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say Amen to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?” (v. 16), “the other man is not edified” (v. 17).
If Paul had intended on communicating that Corinthian tongues was useless and to be avoided altogether, he sure missed a good opportunity here to come out clearly and say what he really meant.
Notice also the contrast in v. 18 & 19. “I thank God I speak in tongues more than all of you (evidently in private). But in the church (i.e. publicly), I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue.”
The clear implication was that when Paul spoke in tongues, as he claimed to do more than all of the Corinthian believers, he was not speaking “intelligible words.” Why in the world would he speak in tongues in other public settings without an interpreter, if he refused to do the same in a church? The tongues Paul practiced more than all the Corinthian believers were evidently not in public settings at all, but rather a private prayer language.
December 29, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I hear ya … but I still don’t see it that way.
December 30, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Geoff,
Could it be that you are using the popular English definition of “mystery” for your understanding of 1 Cor 14:2 instead of the meaning of the Greek word “musterion” as Paul uses it. See especially 1 Cor 2:1, 2:7, 4:1, 13:2, 15:51. A “mystery” is not “meaningless”. A “mystery” is a “reference to something previously unknown but now revealed”. That does not sound like “meaningless conversation”.
Again, context is important here.
-Alan
December 31, 2006 at 2:58 am
Alan that is a good point and I so agree. The Bible must be interpreted not from a modern view or definition but the Bible must be read as the it was written which was to the First Century Christians. To use modern definitions is to take away from the meaning as the writers originally intended for it to read.
December 31, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Debbie,
Correct, the Bible must not be read from our point of view. Debbie, I would go even a little further than your staement … is shouldn’t just be read from the viewpoint of first century Christians. It should be read through the eyes ane hearts of the people of the church at Corinth. After all, that was who it was written to.
I fear that often times, we as students of the Bible almost go too deep with our interpretations. The people who read this letter from Paul did not do so with their Koine Greek dictionary in hand. They simply read a correspondence from a respected leader.
Alan-
With regard to the interpretation of the (transliterated) “musterion,” I was not attempting to apply a modern definition. There is, of course, a use of this word in the rabbinic writings which refers to visions, dreams, or Old Testament sayings … but surely Paul was not using such meaning with a distinctively Gentile audience.
The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon indicates this word is used 27 times in the NT. Here are the meanings listed:
hidden thing, secret, mystery
1. generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals
2. a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding
3. a hidden purpose or counsel
1. secret will 1c
4. of men 1c
5. of God: the secret counsels which govern God in dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly
Clearly, thsi word can refer to (definition 2) something which has no obvious meaning. It is a “mystery,” much like we would describe today.
Yes, context is important. The context is a church that is making spurious use of spiritual gifts for themselves, causing confusion in worship, and creating an atmosphere that was not welcoming to non-believers. Paul was seeking an immediate change in behavior, not just a little “tweaking.” Anyhow, that’s how I see it.
September 11, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Hello Pastor Baggett,
I stumbled across this blog while looking for pictures of the baptism of one of your members, who is a friend of mine. I have attended your church in the past and moved to another church because of this very issue. I was saved and baptized in a baptist church at the age of 9. My Grandmother lived in Alabama and attended a pentecostal church. At the age of thirteen I was given the evidence of speaking in tongues after a couple of hours in prayer asking for it with my Grandmother at my side. I am now 38 years old and I must admit I have a much greater understanding of the gift then I had as a child. I know that it is a gift from God. Jesus is my Lord and Savior, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. These three are one. Just so you are aware that I am referring to the same God you are speaking of in your blog. As a child, this gift was given to me for self edification. I now realize that if I hadn’t been given the gift I probably would have never felt worthy enough to continue my walk with Christ. You see I was abused and abandoned by my earthly father and really had no idea what the love of a Father truly was. This gift that my heavenly Father gave me was never taken away, he was always there with me, no matter how I behaved or disappointed him. I had no idea at that point in my life that this gift was for the church as a whole. I only knew that it was mine and noone could take it away. Through the years I have attended several different churches. Mostly full gospel or pentecostal churches because I was accepted and my beliefs were validated. I have never really joined another church but I have built lasting relationships with certain members from each of them. I must agree with you to some degree that the gift of tongues is often abused and that a superior attitude accompanies alot of christians who have this gift. I’ve been guilty of this myself, unknowingly. However, I have grown and realize now that this gift is sacred and can be used for the growth of the church. Not just your church, or pastor so and so’s church but the CHURCH that Jesus refers to in the Bible when he speaks of his followers. Not everyone recieves this gift. God gives it to whom he chooses. I trust that when he gave me this gift he knew that I didn’t completely understand it but he also knew that one day I would. First of all I have never read about the “private prayer language” you speak of in the Bible. Maybe this is a new interpretation that I haven’t had the opportunity to read from yet, I’m not sure? I would like to share some revelation with you if I might. Tongues is the Holy spirit in me (dwelling in me) speaking to the Father in heaven. It is perfect prayer through faith. The Bible does say that we as fleshly humans do not know what is good. The Holy Spirit does know what is good. He knows what to pray for me to the Father. Although all believers may not understand this and certainly the unbeliever doesn’t understand, I am not prohibited to do so. Paul asked the church of Corinth to practice order but he did not tell them not to pray in tongues. I now know that it is best for the growth of a church to pray privately (even in English) but not everyone understands that. That is why Paul asked them to pray for understanding. God is in control. He knows exactly what he is doing. Not only are there believers and unbelievers who don’t understand what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father in this mode of prayer but the devil doesn’t understand it either. He is unable to interfere. Jesus said for us to come to him like a child, to trust him with all of our heart. As babies noone knew exactly what we were saying either but our needs were met. How much greater faith than to trust your life totally and completely to the utterances of the Holy Spirit. This gift is definitely needed in the church of today. Continue to respect this gift even if you don’t understand it. Continue to pray for understanding. God bless you and keep you.