A popular Christian practice, drawn mainly from 1 Corinthians 14 and a few other Scriptures, treats the gift commonly called “tongues” as a private prayer language. But the New Testament presentation of the gift — understood biblically as the supernatural ability to speak in previously unlearned languages — points primarily to two functions which seriously challenge that view.
First, the gift functioned as a supernatural sign connected with the outpouring of God’s spirit and the confirmation of the apostolic message. Hebrews 2:3–4 does not mention languages specifically, but places “signs, wonders, various miracles, and gifts of holy spirit” among God’s confirmations of the “great salvation” first announced by Jesus — the Gospel of the Kingdom (Mark 1:14–15) — and then proclaimed by those who heard him (cp. Acts 8:12).
At Pentecost, Jews and proselytes from many nations heard the disciples speaking in their “own languages” about “the mighty works of God” (Acts 2:4–11). This fulfilled, in part, Joel’s promise of the spirit being poured out in “the last days” (Acts 2:16–18; Joel 2:28–32).
The same miraculous sign later provided clear evidence that Gentiles had been accepted by God without first becoming circumcised in the flesh in order to keep the Law of Moses. When Cornelius and his household received the spirit, Jewish believers heard them “speaking in languages and magnifying God” (Acts 10:44–46). Peter later appealed to this event as evidence that God had given the Gentiles the same gift received “at the beginning” (Acts 11:15–18; cp. Acts 15:7–9).
Second, Paul’s overriding concern is that spiritual gifts build up the church. This controls 1 Corinthians 12–14. The manifestation of the spirit is given “for the benefit of all” (1 Cor. 12:7), and Paul repeatedly insists that speech in the church must become intelligible if it is to benefit others (14:5–12, 26). That is why translation is crucial. Without a translator, the speaker must remain silent in the church (v. 28).
This provides the proper setting for the strongest argument for private prayer, which comes from 1 Corinthians 14 itself.
The chapter plainly concerns the public Christian gathering: “in the church” (v. 19), “If the whole church is gathered…” (v. 23), and “When you come together…” (v. 26). Paul’s concern is whether what is spoken benefits those present. Thus, when verse 2 says that the person speaking in another language “speaks…to God” because no one understands, Paul does not proceed to establish a private prayer practice. Instead, he immediately contrasts that speech with prophecy, which builds up, encourages and consoles others (vv. 3–5). His solution is translation, “so that the church may be built up” (v. 5).
The same applies to verse 4. Paul acknowledges that “the one speaking in another language builds himself up,” but he does not make self-edification the governing purpose of the gift. His point is that prophecy is more useful in the church because it benefits everyone. That principle had already been stated in 1 Corinthians 12:7.
Some also appeal strongly to 1 Corinthians 14:14–15, which shows that the gift could be used in prayer. But that does not establish a separate private prayer language whose purpose is to bypass the understanding of the church. Notice how Paul immediately returns to the public benefit of “all,” not just the individual, in verses 16–17 and 19. That hardly supports the idea that unintelligibility itself is spiritually valuable. Paul wants what is spoken in the church to become understandable so that others can participate, learn, say “Amen,” and be built up.
Others argue from verse 18 that because Paul says, “I speak in languages more than all of you,” yet restricts their use in church, he must have used them primarily in private prayer. But the text never says that. Paul was a travelling apostle who moved through different regions and linguistic settings. We are simply not told where, when or how often he exercised the gift. To make verse 18 proof of a habitual private prayer practice goes beyond what Paul actually states.
Lastly, verse 28 is also frequently cited, but again Paul does not say, “Go home and pray privately in tongues.” His explicit instruction is that without translation the speaker must remain silent in the church. Thus, “speak to himself and to God” should not be made to say the gift was for private prayer.
The claim that every Christian can nevertheless possess a private form of the gift also has to contend with 1 Corinthians 12:30:
“Do all speak in languages? Do all translate?”
The expected answer is No.
Some say that Paul refers only to the public not private use of the gift, but Paul himself never makes that distinction. That view has to be read into the text as opposed to taken from what the text actually says.
Acts 2 also provides the clearest description of the gift: recognizable human languages (Acts 2:8, 11). Nothing in 1 Corinthians requires us to turn the Corinthian gift into meaningless speech. Paul himself 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).
Once again, the problem is not the meaning of the speech but lack of understanding. That is why the speaker should pray to translate (v. 13), or another person should provide the translation (vv. 27–28).
Paul also calls languages a “sign” in verses 21–22 and quotes Isaiah 28:11–12, where foreign speech forms part of God’s judgment upon unbelieving Israel. Whatever difficulties remain in Paul’s precise application, the passage again places the gift in the public sphere of meaningful foreign speech functioning as a supernatural sign.
Ephesians 6:18 and Jude 20 do not change the picture. Both speak of praying “in spirit,” but neither mentions languages. To make “praying in the spirit” a technical synonym for “praying privately in tongues” assumes the very point that still needs to be proved.
Romans 8:26 is even less decisive. “Groanings which cannot be expressed in words” are poor evidence for a particular form of spoken words. Paul describes God’s spirit helping believers in their weakness; he does not say that they therefore begin speaking in another language.
The biblical emphasis therefore runs largely in the opposite direction from the modern practice of a universal private prayer using the gift. Paul continually stresses understanding, translation, instruction, order and the edification of others.
None of this denies that the genuine gift existed, that it could be used in prayer, praise and thanksgiving, or that Paul himself exercised it. He explicitly says, “Do not prohibit speaking in languages” (1 Cor. 14:39). The issue is what Scripture actually establishes.
The book of Acts defines the gift as people supernaturally speaking meaningful languages they had not learned.
At Pentecost no translator was needed because members of the international audience already understood their own languages (Acts 2:6–11).
In Corinth, Paul demands translation is required because the church did not necessarily understand what was being spoken.
And 1 Corinthians 14 does not establish a separate, universal, unintelligible “private prayer language” available to every Christian. That interpretation goes beyond what the text plainly says.
No comments:
Post a Comment