Y Safle

It is a widely held belief amongst pentecostals and charismatics that one can receive the gift of tongues and a prophetic interpretation of those tongues.

Tongues are a contentious issue in the modern Church. Indeed they always have been. Our largest problem with modern day tongues speaking is that we cannot be absolutely certain how people spoke in tongues in the days of the apsotles. Thus we must be careful that we do not claim passages to support our practises that actually mean something slightly different.

I am of the view that tongues probably did sound much like the tongues we hear today, but we ascertain from scripture that the use of tongues was primarily as a prayer language (1 Cor 14:14). When someone speaks in a tongue they speak to God. They are praying. It is not God speaking to them but them speaking to Him.

We should not be surprised that prayer formed a part of corporate worship, but notice what was happening in Corinth. People were puffed up with pride in their spirituality. They came together and spoke in tongues together so that no one could say the “amen” to their prayers. They were showing off. This sinful and proud use of this gift was of no benefit to anyone. There was no one who understood the prayer and could say “amen” to it.

What does Paul say? That he would pray with his spirit and his mind also. He tells the congregation that any tongue must be interpreted before the congregation can move on. There is no point meeting together and all speaking in tongues so that no one can understand, because no one is edified. They might as well all sit in their own prayer closets and pray in private. Why did they meet together in this way at all? Won’t an unbeliever on seeing it say “they are all mad!”?

So tongues are prayers from the spirit of the man to God, enabled through the Holy Spirit. The interpretation is just a making known of the prayer, so that we can say “amen” to it.

The question is asked, why did Paul call this prophecy? The answer being that he did not. 1 Cor 14:5 simply says that prophecy is greater than tongues unless there is an interpretation. Paul never says that the interpretation makes the tongue prophecy. He merely says that the value of tongues is increased enormously by the interpretation, putting it on a par with prophecy.

I see no reason why heartfelt and Spirit inspired prayer to God should be thought to be less important than prophecy, and Paul seems to agree.

I have often been told by Pentecostals: “I believe that it is absolutely necessary for all to speak in tongues to God”. That is an exact quote from one such person.

My response is to ask: “Did Paul say that everyone must, as a part of the normal Christian experience, speak in tongues?”

Why is it necessary that I speak in tongues? Won’t prayer and praise to God do just the same, and yet with the engagement of my mind?

If it is necessary that we all speak in tongues, how did John Wesley survive as a preacher without doing so? How did George Whitefield so faithfully serve his God? How could Jonathan Edwards deliver his great sermon: “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God”, without speaking in tongues?

In fact, if tongues are “necessary” for all Christians, then how is it that there are so few “tongues-speakers” of stature in the Christian church?

There are of course notable exceptions: Stephen Jefferies for instance, who (according to D. Martyn Lloyd Jones) did more to spread the gospel in the 1930s then any other man in the church of that day. We might also look at Paul Y Cho, or David Wilkerson.

When one takes a balanced look at church history I think it is evident that tongues speaking neither adds to, nor detracts from the life and work of the saints. It is no more necessary then the ability to sing well, but both tongues and singing voices are gifts of God, and both are edifying and intensely spiritual experiences.

If God gives one the ability to speak in toungues, who am I to say that the experience is wrong, but who is he to say the experience is necessary?

I commented on MinTheGap’s blog yesterday in answer to the question of why did Paul say “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than any of you [Corinthians]“?

I repeat some of the answer here, but it leads to some questions in our own Church life unrelated to the gifts issue that we could perhaps explore.

I think Paul believed that tongues were a language of prayer, and that he who speaks in a tongue speaks only to God (prayer through the agency of the Holy Spirit). This is why he tells the Corinthians that prayer in tongues must be interpreted, so that others may say the amen and agree with that prayer. This is why he speaks of praying with his spirit and also praying with his mind.

If we accept this point, then Paul is actually saying “I thank God that I pray more than you do”!

But why would he say something like that?

It is clear that the Corinthian error was pride and arrogance. They were “puffed up”. They broke into parties, some following Paul, some following Apollos and others saying (perhaps), “we are above all this. We just follow Christ”. This pride led to dissension and disunity, and to puffed up boastful people doing unchristian things (be it approval of immorality, or shouting away in unknown tongues in a church service so that no one could understand what was going on, and probably could not hear - as they seemed to be doing so all at once).

It is hard to imagine the disorder of the Corinthian church service, without having been there - but Paul felt the need to reign in this excess. He has had a report of what is going on, and he writes to the Corinthians. When he comes to this excess he writes (literally):

“Now concerning spirituals, I would not have you ignorant…”

I think Paul is saying “now concerning those of you who think yourself so spiritual, as you shout out in tongues in the Church service in your pride”. He goes on to speak of the gifts of the Spirit, but it is a valid interpretation to say that this is what Paul was saying in 1 Cor 12:1 (the NIV footnotes it for instance).

So Paul seems to be saying that you proud tongues prayers are disrupting the Church service, as you show off your spiritual gifts - but I thank God that I pray in tongues more than any of you. Paul is saying that they are not as spiritual as they think, and that boasting before men is disorderly, disruptive and not glorifying to God.

I trust that the Corinthians heard Paul’s message. Pride in our outward worship is still the very same error. When we sing loudly, pray long, dance or engage in any other demonstrable worship in our Church life, why do we do it? Are we as exuberant and devoted in our private moments? Do we dare pray for a full ten minutes in public, if we would not spend an hour in prayer beforehand?

How much of our church worship (with or without demonstrations of tongues and such like) is done for our own edification, rather than the glory of God? How much “spiritual experience” is nothing more than feeding our own pride and need for significance?

Why do so many people think that the loud churches are the spiritual ones?

Meg Logan has already replied to a post on MInTheGap’s blog regarding the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13:10, but as I had something half prepared, I thought I would add my perspective in this debate.

Let us look at 1 Corinthians 13:10 within context. This is the verse above all else which is used to argue for the cessation of the gifts of the Spirit. The passage (from verse 8 onwards) reads:

“Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Now, let me firstly say it is simply bad exegesis to interpret (as many people do) the ‘perfect’ to be the canon of scripture (the perfect revelation). It is bad exegesis because the Corinthians would not have understood the perfect to be the canon. They had no conception of a canon of scripture, and Paul’s words here would have made no sense to them if this is what he said.

The Corinthians would have understood the ‘perfect’ to refer to the perfect revelation of Christ that we have at his second coming. This is the meaning Paul was conveying to them. There is no deeper hidden meaning. Discussion of gender of “perfect” and such like is immaterial, as it is the perfect revelation in Christ of which Paul speaks, and not Christ himself.

But the belief that the ‘perfect’ is the canon of scripture is more problematic than it sounds, for if we hold to this ‘hidden’ meaning that the perfect is the canon, then what does this passage say?

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Says Paul in the following verse. It is argued that tongues and prophecy are childish things! These childish things will be put away when the canon of scripture is come. But wait, the Apostle continues:

“For now we see through a glass, darkly;” (Emphasis mine). The Apostle Paul includes himself in this statement. He and the Corinthians see through a glass darkly, “but then face to face:” When? when the canon of scripture is come? This is what is argued, but the verse goes on:

“now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

Now we see the absurdity of this position. We are told that Paul is saying “now I know in part; but when the canon of scripture is come then I shall know fully.”

Paul wrote much of the canon, and yet we are to believe that his knowledge is partial until he completes that work! We are further to believe that we now see Christ more clearly then the Apostle, for we have that canon of scripture! That, to me, is nonsense.

If you write to me about yourself I will gain an understanding of who you are, and what you look like. The more you write, the more I will understand.

If you ‘phone me up then I will know how you sound and I may begin to understand you better by the inflexions of your voice. Nevertheless, I will only have a partial revelation of who you are (and what you really believe and are trying to communicate) until that day when I meet you face to face.

I know you in part, but when I meet you then I will know you more fully, just as you will more fully know me.

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

How can Paul be talking about the completion of the canon of scripture here? How would the Corinthians have understood it this way?

Any man who comes to this scripture without prejudice must surely give short shrift to such an interpretation. Let us not allow our own prejudices to hide the true meaning of God’s word. Nowhere does God say in his word that his gifts were temporary, and if we try to impose such interpretations upon scripture we will inevitably become unstuck.

Much of the modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Movement in the church seems to assume that there are two kinds of speaking in tongues: that there is private speaking in tongues and public messages in tongues. Furthermore, they argue that public messages in tongues are like prophecies.

The argument is based on a reading of 1 Corinthians 14, but I do not see it myself. Now let us be clear on this, nowhere in 1 Corinthians 14 do we read that tongues is anything but a speaking to God enabled by the Holy Spirit. Thus all tongues must be prayer and praise.

How often in a Pentecostal church does someone stand up and deliver a “message” in tongues and someone else delivers an interpretation that goes on and on, and claims to be prophetic on the lines of “I am watching over you my children, do not worry, I will be with you and you will come to no harm”.

I note that these prophecies as given to us are so bland that I sometimes feel that I know why the sender wanted to give it away! They lack specifics, they fail to convict and sometimes cut right across what the preaching in the Church service was all about.

But could they be genuine?

I think they fail the scriptural test on several grounds. If unbelievers are not convicted by a message puportedly from God, then I have to doubt that it was from God that they came. But more specifically, I think such messages fail, because biblically tongues speaking is prayer and praise to God. The interpretation of that prayer and praise allows the congregation to say the ‘amen’ and join with the tongues speaker in that prayer and praise. That is why only interpreted tongues are allowed when we meet communally. Otherwise tongues simply excludes others, and the purpose of joining together is frustrated.

So in these same Pentecostal meetings, I suggest it is equally errant to all pray in tongues together (for what is the non tongues speaker to do?)

But someone might object:

1 Corinthians 14:21 states: ‘In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.’

Verse 21 is a quote from Isaiah, wherein we read a passage that speaks of judgement upon the Jews. It would seem then that Paul is saying that tongues are a sign of judgement.

Now consider Cornelius, who with his household did speak with tongues. We read of no interpretation here, and even if there had been I think the interpretation would have been praise of God, for these people had just received the baptism with the Spirit.

Nevertheless, the tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jews (especially Peter) that God’s grace was poured forth upon all men. We thus see that the quote from Isaiah is not specifically saying the words of the tongues are prophecy, but rather when people speak in tongues they fulfill prophecy and are a sign to the unbelievers amongst the Jews.

Our objector might then continue:

Paul appears to be talking about two different aspects of speaking tongues. The first being, as you stated, the individual’s spirit speaking to God. The other aspect being God speaking to the unbeliever through tongues as in Acts 2. Verses 22-25 would make me wonder if Paul didn’t get ‘tongue-tied’ himself.  He states that tongues is a sign for the unbeliever. Then in verses 24-25 proceeds to explain that it is prophecy that will convict the unbeliever.

Paul did perhaps cause some confusion here, but I think that the best interpretation for this verse is that where Paul says “tongues are a sign for unbelievers” he is referring to the unbelief of the Jews (cf. The above, especially the Isaiah quote), whereas when he talks just one sentence later of prophecy being for unbelievers and tongues for believers, he has switched context.

He is now saying that prophecy is a sign to a total stranger who enters the church and has the secrets of his heart laid bare (as true prophecy should do). It is obvious here that an unchurched, and non Jewish stranger who entered the assembly would be convicted by words of prophecy, whereas if we all spoke in tongues he would think “Hold on here, these people are not entirely sane!”

Our objector may have finished up:

My conclusion is that the gift of tongues is related both to personal prayer and to prophecy. I feel, and my experience is that, what is spoken in tongues is similar to the content of the psalms where we find petitions, lamentation, praise, proverbs, intercession, prophecy, etc.

I feel that this gift is related most strongly to personal prayer, but I do not think the above is wrong in its analogy to the psalms. If there were a prophetic element to an interpreted tongue which was essentially of praise, worship and prayer then I would have no argument against such an interpretation.

Nevertheless, I have never heard an interpretation to a tongue which really sounded remotely like a psalm! (And I ought to perhaps say that I have heard a lot of these so called interpretations). The question we are left with is where do these tongues come from? If they are from God then why are they not more powerful, or at least “psalmlike”?

My conclusion is that much modern tongues speaking owes more to psychology and the expectations of the Pentecostal community than to God. On the other hand, I see no reason to preclude the possibility that God could gift people with a spiritual gift of tongues - and indeed I believe he does so.

So we should take seriously Paul’s words: “Prove all things, hold fast to what is good.”