The case for the gift of so-called “tongues” as a private prayer practice comes almost entirely from 1 Corinthians 14. The argument is that this is what Paul means when he says one may pray “to God…in another language,” that he himself speaks in languages more than the Corinthians, and that untranslated speech may be directed to oneself “and to God.” But when those verses are read in context, the case should be dismissed.
First, Paul’s point in verse 2 is not to commend private prayer, but to show that the church is not being edified — that is, instructed and built up. That is why he immediately contrasts tongues with prophecy, which builds up, encourages and consoles others (vv. 3–5). The remedy is not, “Keep doing it privately.” The remedy is translation, so that the church can be built up.
The same applies to verse 4. Paul is not presenting self-edification as the goal. He is explaining why prophecy is more useful in the church. His controlling principle had already been stated in 1 Corinthians 12:7: “To each person is given the evidence of the spirit for the benefit of all.” The latter does not mean for your benefit alone!
The strongest appeal, however, comes from verses 14–15, where Paul clearly says that prayer can occur in a language. But that does not prove a separate private prayer language whose purpose is to bypass understanding. The following verses explain Paul’s concern:
“How can ungifted people say ‘Amen’…since they do not know what you said?” (v. 16).
“You may have thanked God well, but the other people have not been helped!” (v. 17).
Then Paul concludes:
“In the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding…than ten thousand words in another language” (v. 19).
That hardly supports the idea that using the gift without understanding is spiritually valuable.
Second, some argue from verse 18 that since Paul restricts tongues in the church, he must have been using them privately. But the text never says that. Paul was a travelling apostle who moved through different regions, cultures and linguistic settings. We are simply not told where or how often he used the gift. To say that verse 18 proves a private prayer practice still goes beyond the text.
Even verse 28 does not say, “Go home and pray privately in tongues.” Paul’s explicit command is that the person must not address the church without translation. Therefore, the phrase “speak to himself and to God” does not automatically mean “private prayer language.” At most, the verse may permit private speech by someone who genuinely possesses the gift. That is very different from establishing a universal doctrine of so-called “tongues” for private prayer.
The same problem appears when people try to separate Acts 2 from 1 Corinthians 14. Acts plainly describes real human languages:
“How is it that each one of us hears in our own native language?” (Acts 2:8).
“We hear them speaking in our own languages” (v. 11).
Nothing in 1 Corinthians requires a different phenomenon. A real foreign language is unintelligible to people who do not know it. That is exactly why Paul says:
“There are many different languages in this world, and none of them is without meaning. If I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker” (1 Cor. 14:10–11).
The problem is not meaningless speech. The problem is lack of understanding.
Paul also calls languages a “sign” and quotes Isaiah 28:11–12 (1 Cor. 14:21–22), again pointing to foreign speech.
The claim that there are two separate gifts — one public and one private — also struggles with 1 Corinthians 12:30: “Do all speak in languages? Do all translate?”
The expected answer is obviously, "No!"
Yet some reply that Paul means only the public gift, while private “tongues” are available to everyone. But Paul never makes that distinction. It has to be assumed in order to protect the gift as private prayer practice.
The same is true of Ephesians 6:18 and Jude 20. Both speak of praying “in spirit,” but neither mentions languages. Romans 8:26 speaks of “groanings which cannot be expressed in words,” which is poor evidence for a form of spoken words.
At most, these passages leave open the possibility that someone who genuinely possesses the gift could speak to God outside the public meeting. But they do not prove:
that the gift is normally used as a “private prayer language”;
that every Christian possesses it;
that unintelligibility is spiritually beneficial;
that the speaker should bypass understanding; or
that random syllables are evidence of holy spirit.
Paul’s emphasis remains clear:
understand;
translate;
instruct;
let others say “Amen”;
build up the church; and
do everything decently and in order.
God distributes the gifts “to each person individually just as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:11), not according to a universal formula. So the better conclusion is simple: 1 Corinthians 14 may leave open some private use by someone genuinely given the gift, but it does not establish the modern practice of a separate, universal, unintelligible private prayer language.
That practice is being read into the text rather than plainly read out of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment