The case for the gift of glossolalia as a private prayer practice comes almost entirely from 1 Corinthians 14. The argument is that Paul speaks of someone praying to God in another language (v. 2, 14), and apparently allows untranslated speech directed “to himself and to God” (v. 28). But Paul’s overriding concern is whether the church is being edified — that is, instructed, encouraged and built up. That is why he immediately contrasts the gift with prophecy, which far better accomplishes those things (1 Cor. 14:3–5). The solution to such use of the gift in the church is not, “Keep using the gift in private,” but translate it, so that the whole church can be built up.
The same applies to verse 4. Paul acknowledges that “the one speaking in another language builds himself up,” but he does not present this as a good thing. He is explaining why prophecy is more useful in the church. This 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.”
And by “all,” Paul plainly means the wider church body, not just yourself.
Others appeal strongly to verses 14–15, where Paul says:
“If I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding bears no fruit for other people.”
But that does not establish mean using the gift for private prayer whose purpose is to bypass the understanding of the church. Paul immediately returns to his main 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).
“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 privately, without translation, is itself spiritually valuable. Paul’s concern is that when the gift is exercised in the church, what is spoken should be understandable so that others can participate, say “Amen,” learn and be built up.
Still others argue from verse 18 that since Paul restricts the gift in the church, he must have been using it privately. But the text never says that. Paul was a travelling apostle who moved through different regions, cultures and linguistic settings. We are not told where, when or how frequently he exercised the gift. To claim that verse 18 proves a habitual private prayer practice goes beyond what Paul actually says.
Even verse 28 does not say, “Go home and use the gift to pray privately.” Paul’s explicit command is: “If there is no translator, those who speak in languages should keep silent in the church and speak to themselves and to God.”
The phrase “speak to himself and to God” does not automatically mean using the gift for “private prayer.” At the very least, the verse once again emphasizes that if there is no one to translate, the speaker must “keep silent in the church.” That is very different from establishing a universal doctrine of Christians using the gift for prayer at home or by themselves.
The claim that there are effectively two functions for the one gift — public use and private prayer — 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 supposedly available to every Christian. But Paul never makes that distinction. It has to be assumed in order to preserve the interpretation that the gift is for private prayer. In other words, the very category that needs to be demonstrated is first assumed and then used to explain away Paul’s statement that not everyone has this gift.
Paul’s emphasis throughout remains clear: the gift must become understandable through translation if it is to instruct and build up the church, not just the individual speaker. Others should be able to understand what is said and intelligently respond, “Amen.” And everything must be done “properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Cor. 14:40).
So the better conclusion is straightforward: 1 Corinthians 14 certainly shows that the gift of glossolalia could be used in prayer, praise and thanksgiving, while verse 28 once again warns against untranslated public use. But the chapter does not establish the gift as a universal practice of “private prayer.” In fact, Paul’s broader argument points in the opposite direction: Christians receive different gifts, distributed according to God’s will, so the idea that this one gift is available to every believer cannot be proven from scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment